Linking Language, Trade and Migration: Economic Partnership Agreements as Language Policy in Japan 3031332334, 9783031332333

Table of contents :
Series Editor Foreword
Language Policy Book Series: Our Aims and Approach
Preface
Contents
Abbreviations
List of Figures
List of Tables
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Why Trade Policy?
1.1.2 Why Language in Trade Policy?
1.1.3 Why the Economic Partnership Agreement?
1.1.4 Structure of the Book
References
Chapter 2: Trade Policy as a Language Policy
2.1 The Economic Partnership Agreement
2.2 Historical Background
2.3 Eligibility
2.4 Quotas
2.5 Recruitment, Screening and Matching
2.6 Pre-Employment Training
2.7 On-the-Job Training
2.8 Exam Preparation
2.9 Educational and Financial Assistance
2.10 The National Licensure Examinations
2.11 Summary
References
Chapter 3: Policy Discourses in the EPA Programme
3.1 Introduction
3.2 General Trend of the EPA Research
3.3 Language Ideologies in the Existing EPA Research
3.3.1 The Undue Focus on Language Acquisition
3.3.2 The Dominance of Standard Japanese
3.3.3 The Uncritical Reference to JLPT
3.4 Language Policy and Planning for the EPA Programme
3.5 Policy Texts
3.6 Summary
References
Chapter 4: Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Roles, Participation, and Relationships
4.2.1 Governmental Agencies: Visible Policy Actors
4.2.2 Training Providers: Invisible Yet Influential Policy Actors
4.2.3 Vocal Sectoral Organisations
4.2.4 Inconspicuous Japanese Language Educators
4.2.5 Agentive Host Institutions
4.2.6 Deprived Participation: Candidates as Objects and Commodity
4.3 Goals
4.3.1 The EPA Programme as a Workforce Recruitment Policy
4.3.2 The EPA Programme as an Internationalisation Policy
4.3.3 The EPA Programme as a Humanitarian Foreign-Aid Policy
4.3.4 The EPA Programme as a Cultural/Linguistic Outreach Policy
4.4 Summary
References
Chapter 5: Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation and Appropriation
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Triviality of Language
5.3 Double Monolingualism
5.4 Ignorance of Local Varieties
5.5 The Monopoly of Standard Japanese in the Training Context
5.5.1 The Making of Good Learners
5.5.2 Ideology of Maximum Exposure
5.5.3 Native-Speaker Ideologies and/or Shifting Responsibility?
5.5.4 Candidates’ Japanese Language Ability Under Fire
5.6 Summary
References
Chapter 6: (Re) Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process
6.1 The Examinations under Investigation
6.2 JLPT as Jack-of-All-Trades
6.3 The Exam Advisory Panels: Overview
6.3.1 Structural Features: Sequence, Discussant, and Scheduling
6.3.2 Fair Examination for Whom?
6.3.3 Examination as a Sacred Cow
6.3.4 Exam Reforms as a Threat to Japan’s Fame and Healthcare Quality
6.4 Dismissing the Progressive Reform Idea
6.4.1 (Not) Translating National Licensure Examinations
6.4.2 Discrediting the Use of a Communication Skills Test: Two Discursive Moves
Ignoring and Undermining the Potential of Communication Skills Tests
Drawing a Boundary Between Professional Communication and General Communication
6.5 We Don’t Accommodate you
6.6 The Examination Reforms Thereafter
6.7 Summary
References
Chapter 7: Challenges and Prospects for the EPA Programme: Implications for Japan’s Language Policy and the Discipline of Language Policy and Planning
7.1 Introduction
7.2 A Stream of Change: Carework and Japan’s Labour Migration
7.3 The EPA Effect?: Language Research and Testing
7.4 The Future of the EPA Programme
7.5 The Future of Language Policy Studies: Tie-in Language Policy and Language Policy Arbiter
7.6 Conclusion
References

Citation preview

Language Policy

Ruriko Otomo

Linking Language, Trade and Migration Economic Partnership Agreements as Language Policy in Japan

Language Policy Volume 33

Series Editors Joseph Lo Bianco , University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Terrence G. Wiley, Professor Emeritus, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA Editorial Board Members Claire Kramsch, University of California, Berkeley, USA Georges Lüdi, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland Normand Labrie, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Anne Pakir, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore Guadalupe Valdes, Stanford University, California, USA

The last half century has witnessed an explosive shift in language diversity involving a rapid spread of global languages and an associated threat to small languages. The diffusion of global languages, the stampede towards English, the counter-pressures in the form of ethnic efforts to reverse or slow the process, the continued determination of nation-states to assert national identity through language, and, in an opposite direction, the greater tolerance shown to multilingualism and the increasing concern for language rights, all these are working to make the study of the nature and possibilities of language policy and planning a field of swift growth. The series will publish empirical studies of general language policy or of language education policy, or monographs dealing with the theory and general nature of the field. We welcome detailed accounts of language policy-making - who is involved, what is done, how it develops, why it is attempted. We will publish research dealing with the development of policy under different conditions and the effect of implementation. We will be interested in accounts of policy development by governments and governmental agencies, by large international companies, foundations, and organizations, as well as the efforts of groups attempting to resist or modify governmental policies. We will also consider empirical studies that are relevant to policy of a general nature, e.g. the local effects of the developing European policy of starting language teaching earlier, the numbers of hours of instruction needed to achieve competence, selection and training of language teachers, the language effects of the Internet. Other possible topics include the legal basis for language policy, the role of social identity in policy development, the influence of political ideology on language policy, the role of economic factors, policy as a reflection of social change. The series is intended for scholars in the field of language policy and others interested in the topic, including sociolinguists, educational and applied linguists, language planners, language educators, sociologists, political scientists, and comparative educationalists. Book proposals for this series may be submitted to the Publishing Editor: Marianna Georgouli, Publishing Editor, Springer, Van Godewijckstraat 30, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands Email: [email protected] All proposals and manuscripts submitted to the Series will undergo at least two rounds of external peer review. This series is indexed in Scopus.

Ruriko Otomo

Linking Language, Trade and Migration Economic Partnership Agreements as Language Policy in Japan

Ruriko Otomo Research Faculty of Media and Communication Hokkaido University Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan

ISSN 1571-5361     ISSN 2452-1027 (electronic) Language Policy ISBN 978-3-031-33233-3    ISBN 978-3-031-33234-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33234-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Series Editor Foreword

Language Policy Book Series: Our Aims and Approach Recent decades have witnessed a rapid expansion of interest in language policy studies as transcultural connections deepen and expand all across the globe. Whether it is to facilitate more democratic forms of participation, or to respond to demands for increased educational opportunity from marginalised communities, or to better understand the technologisation of communication, language policy and planning has come to the fore as a practice and a field of study. In all parts of the world, the push for language policy is a reflection of such rapid and deep globalisation, undertaken by governments to facilitate or diversify trade, to design and deliver multilingual public services, to teach less-commonly taught languages and to revitalise endangered languages. There is also interest in forms of language policy to bolster new and more inclusive kinds of language-based and literate citizenship. Real-world language developments have pushed scholars to generate new theory on language policy and to explore new empirical accounts of language policy processes. At the heart of these endeavours is the search for the resolution of communication problems between ethnic groups, nations, individuals, authorities and citizens, educators and learners. Key research concerns have been the rapid spread of global languages, especially English and more recently Chinese, and the economic, social and identity repercussions that follow, linked to concerns about the accelerating threat to the vitality of small languages across the world. Other topics that have attracted research attention have been persisting communication inequalities, the changing language situation in different parts of the world, and how language and literacy abilities affect social opportunity, employment and identity. In the very recent past, language diversity itself has been a popular field of study, to explore particular ways to classify and understand multilingualism, the fate of particular groups of languages or individual languages, and questions of literacy, script and orthography. In this complex landscape of language change, v

vi

Series Editor Foreword

efforts of sub-national groups and national to reverse or slow language shift have dominated concerns of policy makers as well as scholars. While there is a discernible trend towards greater openness to multilingualism and increasing concern for language rights, we can also note the continued determination of nation-states to assert a singular identity through language, sometimes through repressive measures. For all these reasons systematic, careful and critical study of the nature and possibilities of language policy and planning is a topic of growing global significance. In response to this dynamic environment of change and complexity, this series publishes empirical research of general language policy in diverse domains, such as education, or monographs dealing with the theory and general nature of the field. We welcome detailed accounts of language policy-making which explore the key actors, their modes of conceiving their activity and the perspective of scholars reflecting on the processes and outcomes of policy. Our series aims to understand how language policy develops, why it is attempted, how it is critiqued, defended and elaborated or changed. We are interested in publishing research dealing with the development of policy under different conditions and the effect of its implementation. We are interested in accounts of policy undertaken by governments but also by non- governmental bodies, by international corporations, foundations and the like, as well as the efforts of groups attempting to resist or modify governmental policies. We will also consider empirical studies that are relevant to policy of a general nature, e.g. the local effects of transnational policy influence, such as the United Nations, the European Union or regional bodies in Africa, Asia and the Americas. We encourage proposals dealing with practical questions of when to commence language teaching, the numbers of hours of instruction needed to achieve set levels of competence, selection and training of language teachers, the language effects of the Internet, issues of program design and innovation. Other possible topics include non-education domains such as legal and health interpreting, community- and family-based language planning and language policy from bottom-up advocacy, and language change that arises from traditional forms of power alongside influence and modelling of alternatives to established forms of communication. Contemporary language policy studies can examine the legal basis for language policy, the role of social identity in policy development, the influence of political ideology on language policy formulation, the role of economic factors in success or failure of language plans or studies of policy as a reflection of social change. We do not wish to limit or define the limits of what language policy research can encompass, and our primary interest is to solicit serious book length examinations, whether the format is for a single authored or multi-authored volume or a coherent edited work with multiple contributors. The series is intended for scholars in the field of language policy and others interested in the topic, including sociolinguists, educational and applied linguists, language planners, language educators, sociologists, political scientists and

Series Editor Foreword

vii

comparative educationalists. We welcome your submissions or an enquiry from you about ideas for work in our series that opens new directions for the field of language policy. University of Melbourne Parkville, VIC, Australia

Joseph Lo Bianco

Arizona State University Tempe, AZ, USA

Terrence G. Wiley

Preface

It took almost ten years to complete this book project. The initial idea – to consider the Economic Partnership Agreements as a form of language policy – was the motivation for me to pursue a PhD programme at the University of Hong Kong, beginning in 2013 and ending in 2017. While the last chapter was the completely new addition, which was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 20K13021, the basic concept and argument of this book and the content presented in this book are generally based on my PhD dissertation. Therefore, I am indebted to many people who supported me throughout my PhD journey. First and foremost, I express my sincere gratitude to my PhD supervisor, Professor James W. Tollefson. He is truly a generous and considerable person. He has never said “no” or negatively responded to whatever I presented to him. He unobtrusively listens to me with open mind. In fact, we have never discussed ideas underlying this book project. At the right timing, he reached out a helping hand and offered all that he can do to me. He is incredibly perceptive in his observation about me and my research project. There are just too many things that I would not have been able to achieve without him. Pursuing this book project is one of such. He keeps encouraging me to venture into writing a monograph and pinning hopes on me. I do hope that the book project answers or even exceeds his expectations. I would also like to thank Professor Andy Gao and Dr. Miguel Pérez-Milans who stimulated my passion for the research project and challenged me to go beyond my conceptual barrier and be critical of my own thinking and perspective during the PhD programme. Thanks to them, I was able to dig deeper into the big picture behind the puzzling free-trade policy. I am also grateful for Professor Patrick Heinrich for his mentorship over the years especially since I have landed in Hokkaido University in 2017. Although physically and institutionally separated, he stays as an inspiring mentor and a senior colleague who continuously provides invaluable and insightful feedback and initiates thought-­ provoking discussions deeper into the world of sociolinguistics. Thanks to our extended academic engagement, I was able to take a concrete step to write this monograph.

ix

x

Preface

Dr. Farrah Ching deserves my heartfelt thanks as an irreplaceable colleague, a well-informed big sister, a sharp and discerning LPP scholar, a proof-reading master as well as a hidden but encouraging editor behind this book project. Having professionally involved in this project, her friendly but constructive advice and illuminating words have enriched the whole process of book writing. She has also provided the best friendship since we met for the first time in a super-air-­conditioned classroom at the University of Hong Kong in steamy autumn 2013. Let me also use this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude and love to my family and friends here and there. Special thanks go to mum and dad, Takashi and Sae, for your understanding and tolerance throughout the course of my academic studies and my book writing and to Dr. Jing Zhang for providing me a cheerful and lively company through congenial chats and outings, and numerous academic discussions even after the completion of the PhD programme. Last but not least, I am deeply grateful for my research assistants, Rie Watanabe and Mihoko Maruyama, who kindly offered their time and energy to get the up-to-­ date information for the book project and to perform lots of tiny little tasks to complete the manuscript, for anonymous reviewers of the book proposal and the original manuscript, and finally for Natalie Rieborn, Helen van der Stelt and Aarthi Padmanaban with Springer Nature for bearing with me in every aspect of the publication process of this book. Research Faculty of Media and Communication Hokkaido University Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan

Ruriko Otomo

Contents

1

Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.1.1 Why Trade Policy?����������������������������������������������������������������    3 1.1.2 Why Language in Trade Policy?������������������������������������������    6 1.1.3 Why the Economic Partnership Agreement?������������������������    9 1.1.4 Structure of the Book������������������������������������������������������������   11 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   12

2

 rade Policy as a Language Policy ��������������������������������������������������������   17 T 2.1 The Economic Partnership Agreement ��������������������������������������������   17 2.2 Historical Background����������������������������������������������������������������������   18 2.3 Eligibility������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   21 2.4 Quotas ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   23 2.5 Recruitment, Screening and Matching����������������������������������������������   24 2.6 Pre-Employment Training����������������������������������������������������������������   29 2.7 On-the-Job Training��������������������������������������������������������������������������   31 2.8 Exam Preparation������������������������������������������������������������������������������   35 2.9 Educational and Financial Assistance����������������������������������������������   39 2.10 The National Licensure Examinations����������������������������������������������   41 2.11 Summary ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   44 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   44

3

 olicy Discourses in the EPA Programme ��������������������������������������������   55 P 3.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   55 3.2 General Trend of the EPA Research ������������������������������������������������   56 3.3 Language Ideologies in the Existing EPA Research������������������������   57 3.3.1 The Undue Focus on Language Acquisition������������������������   59 3.3.2 The Dominance of Standard Japanese����������������������������������   61 3.3.3 The Uncritical Reference to JLPT����������������������������������������   62 3.4 Language Policy and Planning for the EPA Programme������������������   63

xi

xii

Contents

3.5 Policy Texts��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   68 3.6 Summary ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   73 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   74 4

 olicy Actors and Goals in Negotiation��������������������������������������������������   81 P 4.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   81 4.2 Roles, Participation, and Relationships��������������������������������������������   82 4.2.1 Governmental Agencies: Visible Policy Actors��������������������   82 4.2.2 Training Providers: Invisible Yet Influential Policy Actors������������������������������������������������������������������������   84 4.2.3 Vocal Sectoral Organisations������������������������������������������������   85 4.2.4 Inconspicuous Japanese Language Educators����������������������   90 4.2.5 Agentive Host Institutions����������������������������������������������������   94 4.2.6 Deprived Participation: Candidates as Objects and Commodity ��������������������������������������������������������������������������   97 4.3 Goals ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  102 4.3.1 The EPA Programme as a Workforce Recruitment Policy����������������������������������������������������������������  104 4.3.2 The EPA Programme as an Internationalisation Policy��������  107 4.3.3 The EPA Programme as a Humanitarian Foreign-Aid Policy����������������������������������������������������������������  108 4.3.4 The EPA Programme as a Cultural/Linguistic Outreach Policy��������������������������������������������������������������������  111 4.4 Summary ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  113 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  114

5

Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation and Appropriation����������������������������������������������������������  121 5.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  121 5.2 Triviality of Language����������������������������������������������������������������������  122 5.3 Double Monolingualism ������������������������������������������������������������������  123 5.4 Ignorance of Local Varieties ������������������������������������������������������������  125 5.5 The Monopoly of Standard Japanese in the Training Context����������  126 5.5.1 The Making of Good Learners����������������������������������������������  128 5.5.2 Ideology of Maximum Exposure������������������������������������������  129 5.5.3 Native-Speaker Ideologies and/or Shifting Responsibility?����������������������������������������������������������������������  131 5.5.4 Candidates’ Japanese Language Ability Under Fire������������  135 5.6 Summary ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  142 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  142

6

( Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process��������������  149 6.1 The Examinations under Investigation����������������������������������������������  149 6.2 JLPT as Jack-of-All-Trades��������������������������������������������������������������  150 6.3 The Exam Advisory Panels: Overview ��������������������������������������������  152 6.3.1 Structural Features: Sequence, Discussant, and Scheduling����������������������������������������������������������������������  155

Contents

xiii

6.3.2 Fair Examination for Whom? ����������������������������������������������  160 6.3.3 Examination as a Sacred Cow����������������������������������������������  166 6.3.4 Exam Reforms as a Threat to Japan’s Fame and Healthcare Quality ��������������������������������������������������������  168 6.4 Dismissing the Progressive Reform Idea������������������������������������������  171 6.4.1 (Not) Translating National Licensure Examinations������������  171 6.4.2 Discrediting the Use of a Communication Skills Test: Two Discursive Moves ������������������������������������������������  174 6.5 We Don’t Accommodate you������������������������������������������������������������  181 6.6 The Examination Reforms Thereafter����������������������������������������������  183 6.7 Summary ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  184 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  186 7

Challenges and Prospects for the EPA Programme: Implications for Japan’s Language Policy and the Discipline of Language Policy and Planning ����������������������������������������������������������  193 7.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  193 7.2 A Stream of Change: Carework and Japan’s Labour Migration������  195 7.3 The EPA Effect?: Language Research and Testing��������������������������  198 7.4 The Future of the EPA Programme��������������������������������������������������  201 7.5 The Future of Language Policy Studies: Tie-in Language Policy and Language Policy Arbiter ������������������������������������������������  204 7.6 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  210 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  212

Abbreviations

AOTS

Association for Overseas Technical Cooperation and Sustainable Partnerships ASEAN Association of South-East Asian Nations BIMACONC Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers CSE Centre of Social Welfare Promotion and National Examination EPA Economic Partnership Agreement GATS General Agreement on Trade in Service HIDA Overseas Human Resources and Industry Development Association IJY International Exchange & Japanese Language Assistance Y JACCW Japan Association of Certified Care Workers JBF Japan Business Federation JCSCWS Japanese Council of Senior Citizens Welfare Services JICWELS Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services JLPT Japanese Language Proficiency Test JMA Japan Medical Association JNA Japan Nursing Association JP-EPA Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement LPP Language Policy and Planning METI Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry MHLW Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare MIAC Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication MOFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs MOJ Ministry of Justice NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement NINJAL National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics POEA Philippine Overseas Employment Administration SLP Standard Learning Plan TESDA Technical Education and Skills Development Authority WNCJE Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education

xv

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Process of the EPA Programme for Indonesian and Filipino Candidates������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   26 Fig. 2.2 Process of the EPA Programme for Vietnamese Candidates��������������   27 Fig. 5.1 Effectiveness of the Pre-Employment Training����������������������������������   130 Fig. 6.1 Overview of the Exam Advisory Panels��������������������������������������������   153

xvii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Quota for JP-EPA Nurse Candidates and the Actual Numbers of the Candidates and Host Hospitals ����������������������������   24 Table 2.2 Quota for JP-EPA Caregiver Candidates and the Actual Numbers of the Candidates and Host Caregiving Facilities����������   25 Table 2.3 Category of the Ability Screening and its Administrative Change: Aptitude Test��������������������������������������������������������������������   28 Table 2.4 Category of the Ability Screening and its Administrative Change: Japanese Language Quiz��������������������������������������������������   28 Table 2.5 Category of the Ability Screening and its Administrative Change: Language Aptitude Test����������������������������������������������������   28 Table 2.6 Number of Nursing Exam Passers (Total Number of Test-takers) and Passing Rate����������������������������������������������������������������������������   37 Table 2.7 Number of Caregiving Exam Passers (Total Number of Test-takers) and Passing Rate����������������������������������������������������������������������������   38 Table 3.1 Key policy texts for document analysis������������������������������������������   69 Table 4.1 Governmental Agencies’ Participation in Language Policy Process��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   83 Table 4.2 Training Providers’ Participation in Language Policy Process��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   86 Table 4.3 Medical/Nursing Sector’s Participation in Language Policy Process��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   87 Table 4.4 Caregiving Sector’s Participation in Language Policy Process������   89 Table 4.5 Other Sector’s Participation in Language Policy Process��������������   91 Table 4.6 Japanese Language Educators’ Participation in Language Policy Process��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   92

xix

xx

List of Tables

Table 5.1 Governmental Learning Support for Nurse Candidates (2010–2021) ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  136 Table 5.2 Governmental Learning Support for Caregiver Candidates (2011–2021) ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  137 Table 6.1 Comparison of three exam advisory panels������������������������������������  156

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract Chapter 1 begins with a brief overview of the field of language policy and planning (LPP) research in Japan and beyond and introduces the recent disciplinary focus and developments. The latter half of this chapter pieces together three keywords of this book project – language, trade and migration – to explore why each of them matters to the LPP scholarship and to argue that the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) illustrates the criticality of the triadic relationship.

1.1 Introduction This book is about language policy in Japan. Many contributions in the field of language policy and planning (LPP) have addressed issues of language and its sociopolitical role in Japan. Several LPP issues have been identified in specific contexts by using approaches and research methods ranging from statistical analysis (Terasawa, 2019) to policy discourse analysis (Hashimoto, 2000, 2009) and ethnography (Kanno, 2008), while some have addressed the role of the nation-state as a primary policy actor (e.g., Carroll, 2001; Gottlieb, 2008, 2011). These diversified attempts have squarely addressed the social inequality and structural problems inherent in and underlying language-in-education policies in Japan. While similarly acknowledging the importance of language policy that has impacted everyday lives in varying ways, this book takes a different approach to language policies: it distinguishes itself by focusing on an oft-neglected LPP analysis area: trade policy and its link with migration. In the context of Japan, one can conclude that LPP contributions have generally reflected disciplinary developments in the LPP field. The nation-state has long been identified as the policy actor in Japan and elsewhere. It has been the initiator of major language planning projects, often calling in expert linguists and/or establishing specialised institutions to solve national language problems related to nation-­ building, economic development, and political and sociocultural integration (e.g., Fishman et  al., 1968; Jernudd, 1993; in the context of Japan, see Shioda, 1973; Toyoda, 1968). Because of the heavy and continuous involvement of formal state © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. Otomo, Linking Language, Trade and Migration, Language Policy 33, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33234-0_1

1

2

1 Introduction

authorities in many LPP affairs, the nation-state has served as a frame of reference or organising principle for the LPP discipline. It is not uncommon for LPP research collections to be organised according to national boundaries (e.g., Kaplan & Baldauf, 2003; Kirkpatrick & Liddicoat, 2019; and to a certain extent, May & Hornberger, 2008; in the context of Japan, see Kawahara, 2002, for example). In these contributions, language policy researchers monitor and evaluate the formal authorities’ political visions and decision-making regarding the status of language at the level of constitution and laws, the use of language in governance, and their intervention in and control over social and educational domains. However, in recent decades, the de facto positioning of the nation-state has been questioned and revisited in the field. It has observed the emergence and growing prominence of equally or more powerful institutions, such as supranational/international organisations, local municipalities and communities, educational institutions, corporations, NGOs, and families in which individual language arbiters (Johnson & Johnson, 2015) can be identified. In this picture, the nation-state exerts a much weaker influence than traditionally thought or expected, as if they take a step backwards in their control of citizens’ public, socioeconomic, and language lives. Taking a different perspective, researchers such as Codó (2019) and Pujolar (2019) have pointed out that the nation-state has not retreated but has transformed its modes of intervention, at times teaming up with private organisations and at other times acting as a regent of governance. While the changing role of the nation-state will continue to be the locus of LPP research, the consensus is that the nation-state is no longer identified as the sole actor unilaterally determining the LPP direction and attempting to control its citizens’ linguistic behaviours and language varieties in an overtly coercive manner according to its national agenda. Another notable trend seen in the dynamics of the LPP discipline is the extensive focus on language-in-education policies. This is not only due to the remarkable addition of acquisition planning into classic LPP theorisation (Cooper, 1989), but also the role of education as one of the main vehicles for the reproduction of social, political, and economic inequalities associated with language (e.g., Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). In Japan and elsewhere, there has been a steady increase in the number of contributions and publications that fall under the category of language-­ in-­education policies. For instance, from 2005 to 2010, more than half of the published articles in the Journal of Japan Association for Language Policy (26 out of 47) dealt with language education (Japan Association for Language Policy, n.d.). Indeed, language-in-education policy is one of the most active and prolific areas in the field, and one in which innovative breakthroughs in methodological application and theorisation are observed (e.g., Johnson, 2009; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996; Tollefson, 1991). As these important developments are expected to spread throughout the LPP discipline, LPP investigations should not be limited to policy-in-texts officially declared by traditional authorities and formally structured agencies or policies with an extensive focus on language acquisition. Indeed, several contributions to the well-received Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning (Tollefson & Pérez-Milans, 2019) have inquired into emerging forms of language policy, such as

1.1 Introduction

3

public signage (Hult, 2019) and text-based art (Jaworski, 2019). Other researchers have scrutinised policies issued by various institutions, such as corporations (e.g., Del Percio, 2019), supranational organisations (e.g., Wodak & Savski, 2019), and public administration, such as media and broadcasting services (e.g., Kelly-Holmes et al., 2009) and housing estate planning (e.g., Chew, 2009). Similarly, but more relevant to this book, the seminal thematic issue “Language Policies and Health” in Language Policy has successfully shown a wide range of possibilities in which public policies with less obvious links to language can get languaged assuming the character of language policy (see Ramanathan, 2010, for an introduction). This book resonates with these forward-looking calls and visions burgeoning in the field, with which “researchers begin to discover a broader range of consequences of LPP” (Tollefson & Pérez-Milans, 2019, p. 12). It focuses on a bilateral free-trade policy that was not the subject of a traditional language policy investigation. However, as shown in this book, a free-trade policy gives a glimpse of a language-­ in-­education policy in which LPP issues such as language testing, workplace communication, and language ideologies are surfaced in the multiple layers of official declarations and documents and operational practice. The free-trade policy in question also demonstrates the complexity of agency, characterised by the involvement of and resultant struggles and conflicts among signatory countries, multiple ministries, sectoral organisations, participating institutions, and individuals, each with different interests and obligations.

1.1.1 Why Trade Policy? Since the 1770s, multinational/international/regional free trade has surfaced as a serious issue, firstly in Britain and then spreading through continental Europe to the world (Bannerman & Schonhardt-Bailey, 2008). Trade and tariff policies are key aspects of domestic/regional/supranational economic strategies. Two recent examples are the heated economic warfare over tariffs between China and the United States, as well as the growing number of trade agreements signed worldwide. According to the World Trade Organization (2022), there are currently 354 regional trade agreements in force, 200 of which were signed in the last quarter of the 21st century. In his summary of the historical development of trade policies, Duckenfield (2008b) emphasised that (free) trade policies are not solely poised to liberalise the economy but are often interwoven with other sociopolitical and economic discourses and agendas, including national security, national revenue and economic composition, political alliances, and ideology. For example, the British doctrine of free trade was once firmly associated with the theological agenda of spreading Christianity through international trade (Duckenfield, 2008b). In the United States, the North American Free Trade Agreement (hereafter NAFTA), signed with Canada and Mexico in 1992, was seen by many to reduce illegal migration from Mexico to the US (Duckenfield, 2008a).

4

1 Introduction

As Duckenfield (2008b) argued, recent (free) trade policies not only respond to nation-states’ immediate economic interests, but also manifest coping strategies and measures to break away from sociopolitical and economic struggles or avoid undesirable future scenarios. This is readily observable in the changing nature of trade items. Historically, free-trade policies concerned tangible goods, such as agricultural and industrial products, that generated immediate economic profits for the signatory countries. This trend continues today. However, in the wake of the growing service economy, the share of services in total trade export has steadily increased, rising from 17% in 1979 to 24% in 2017 (Ortiz-Ospina & Beltekian, 2018). Modern free-trade policies and treaties have increasingly included services, including education and healthcare. In this way, services – and the human beings who provide them – have become tradable articles. The General Agreement on Trade in Service (GATS) is one prominent example, encompassing a set of regulations regarding trade in services. Mode Four of the GATS is designed to facilitate individuals’ cross-border travel from their home country to provide services in other countries. Yet, many countries adopt a conservative definition of these individuals. The following three categories of individuals are considered only tradable under the movement of natural persons measure of Mode Four: short-term business visitors, intra-company transferees, and professionals such as engineers and medical professionals (Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry, 2020; World Trade Organization, 2017). While the GATS enables both sending and receiving countries to negotiate service providers’ mobility, it is not (yet) a readily available immigration package in its own right. Since GATS cannot immediately grant individual migrant workers the right to move freely across national borders, nation-states often resort to more manageable arrangements, such as bilateral labour or free-trade agreements that specify the terms and conditions for migrant workers’ length of stay, qualifications, and relevant requirements (Hoekman & Özden, 2010; Meier, 2019; Wickramasekara, 2015). The Australia-Thailand free-trade agreement, for example, covers the following categories of natural persons, all of which are covered under Australia’s commitment to GATS Mode Four (World Trade Organization, 1995): (1) intra-­ corporate transferees (executives and senior managers) with an initial length of four years, (2) independent business persons with an initial length of two years, (3) service suppliers with an initial length of six months (updatable to up to 12 months), and (4) professionals with an initial length of two  years (updatable to up to four years, subject to passing labour market tests). However, the Australia-Thailand free-trade agreement includes an additional and specific commitment that Australia granted Thai professional chefs who met national technical qualification standards temporary entry and a stay up to four years (World Bank, n.d.). Despite the presence of arrangements in which professionals must obtain a specific work permit and meet a specific level of competency or skill in the host country’s relevant professional realm, the number of trade policies containing a human migration component is still limited (Kategekwa, 2008; Ruhs, 2013). The amount of services traded through Mode Four remains small, only accounting for between one and two percent of all trade in services (World Trade Organization, 2005), partly

1.1 Introduction

5

because many challenges and issues remain, such as how to deal with host countries’ professional service standards and relevant licensing requirements (World Trade Organization, 2017). The number of free-trade treaties providing workforce mobility is not significant. However, their existence highlights pressing domestic issues and challenges, such as workforce shortages in specific service sectors and, more importantly, has tremendous global implications. First, they have created ideological justifications for and conditions under which human resources are converted into tradable economic resources, then mobilised through borderless economic networks like conventional trade items, such as bottled wines produced and packaged in one country to be shipped to another. Free-trade policies with provisions for human migration can also highlight oft-­ neglected factors in popular migration theories. Researchers in migration studies have conceptualised transnational labour mobility, firstly by applying a multitude of push-pull factors (Ravenstein, 1885), such as the difference between sending and receiving countries’ political and environmental situations, economic performance, pay standards, and availability of work. These days, however, scholars have begun to argue that push-pull factors are not enough to explain why people move (e.g., Chilton & Posner, 2018), or that migration is a social process involving a complex set of factors, such as: …state to state relations (trade and financial flows, immigration and emigration policies, complementary of labor supply and demand); family and personal networks (remittance flows, family obligations, community solidarity, information); migrant agency activities (job recruitment, regulations governing the migration process, contracts with migrant workers); and mass culture connections (international media dissemination, social acceptance of migrants, cultural similarity, assimilation). (Cuamea Velázquez, 2000, pp. 155–156)

Similar to this line of conceptual pursuit, Xiang and Lindquist (2014) have called for scholastic attention to “migration infrastructure,” which is an aggregate of “the systematically interlinked technologies, institutions, and actors that facilitate and condition mobility” (p. 124). With a specific focus on healthcare workers as well as their migratory corridors, patterns, and geographical distributions, scholars have concertedly argued that migration of healthcare labour is a feminised, ethnicised, and class-structured movement that perpetuates and is sustained by unequal restructuring of reproductive and care labour on a global scale (Hochschild, 2000; Parrenas, 2000; Sassen, 2004; Walton-Roberts, 2015). Free-trade treaties can be conceptualised as constituents of a “migration infrastructure” that shapes and even justifies a particular logic of labour migration entangled in a multitude of contributing factors. Besides “trade”, another keyword, “bilateral”, is crucial here because provisions for human migration is more feasible when built in bilateral labour and free-trade agreements, which allow states to take more regulatory control of and exercise more discretion over cross-border mobility than other agreements (Meier, 2019; Wickramasekara, 2015; Yeates & Pillinger, 2018). From an economic perspective, bilateral trade agreements have become popular and highly regarded, especially since the World Trade Organization’s facilitation of multilateral trade negotiations proceeded slowly and suffered setbacks due to conflicts of interest between

6

1 Introduction

developed and emerging countries. Because the request-offer system can cover a potentially unlimited range of tradable items, bilateral trade agreements appeared more viable and less challenging alternatives for expanding trade opportunities and boosting economic growth (e.g., Medalla et  al., 2010). Although the voices of labour-­receiving industries and such issues as brain drain and its repercussions are often underrepresented, if not ignored, in these policymaking processes (see Jarman, 2017; Kidgell et al., 2020 for a discussion of the international migration of nurses), a bilateral trade agreement appears an appealing first step to tap into other countries’ labour markets and gain other economic benefits such as trade and investment. Against these backgrounds, this book focuses on a bilateral free-trade agreement called the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA). The EPA is an economic-­ oriented agreement intended to accelerate trade and investment between the signatory countries and tighten economic relations in a broad range of economic activities. Japan has signed EPAs with many countries globally and usually sets out such commitments as eliminating/reducing tariffs on exports and imports, regulating service sectors, improving investment environments, and protecting intellectual property. However, the EPAs signed between Japan and the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam (the focus of this book) are well beyond the general scope of GATS Mode Four, actualising the movement of healthcare workers for the first time in Japan’s immigration policy history.

1.1.2 Why Language in Trade Policy? Although the transborder flow of human beings means the relocation of language speakers from one country to another, language has not gained appropriate and/or sufficient attention in most major research arenas. Relevant language issues have been a minor focus in trade policy research, perhaps because the larger part of free-­ trade policy typically involves tariff cuts and quantitative restrictions on tangible goods, such as foodstuffs and raw materials, instead of labour movement (e.g., Duckenfield, 2008a). The EPAs between Japan and the three countries mentioned above are no exception. In the overall picture, workforce migration within the EPAs occupies a low-key position in a numerical sense (Economic Affairs Bureau EPA Negotiating Team, 2007), and is considered, at best, a bonus or bargaining chip to balance out countries’ total economic benefits1 (see also Sect. 7.5 on this issue).  The inclusion of healthcare workforce migration in the Japan-Philippines EPA (JP-EPA) was in dispute at the planning stage, because the JP-EPA without this provision might have been too advantageous for Japan, due to differences in export/import volume between Japan and the partner countries and in the economic values of these trade items. For example, Japan was interested in cutting tariffs on high-value-added products such as automobiles through the JP-EPA, while the Filipino side showed reluctance to this idea, instead favouring the liberalisation of workforce mobility (Kaku et al., 2010). Although the healthcare workforce mobility clause was added to the EPAs with Indonesia and Vietnam based on the JP-EPA precedent, there appeared to be an imbalance in terms of the economic benefits gained through pure trade between Japan and the two 1

1.1 Introduction

7

Although the human mobility clause and its related language issues are less represented in the entire free-trade pact, its ramifications are far-reaching. Language differences between sending and receiving countries are one of the largest obstacles to implementing the workforce mobility programme. In hopes of facilitating trade in services, the ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) set up a sector-­ specific migration framework under which healthcare workers registered in one ASEAN member country could find employment and practice in other member countries, through the mutual recognition of each party’s authorisation and licensing of professions, such as nurses (established in 2006), doctors, and dentists (both established in 2009) (World Health Organization, 2019). However, very few of these professionals have moved under this framework2 because it “cannot guarantee free and unrestricted mobility of health professionals” (Te et  al., 2018, p.  960), mainly due to poorly prepared immigration regulations, unstandardised educational training, individual requirements (e.g., language skills) healthcare workers must meet to move from one country to another. Even though English is the working language of ASEAN, local languages are still required in some countries’ professional practice and licensing requirements (Gough, 2013; Mendoza & Sugiyarto, 2017; World Health Organization, 2019). As a result, this region-wide immigration framework is nowhere near fully implemented. It seems straightforward to provide migrant workers with language education, because acquiring the language(s) spoken in the receiving country is believed to increase migrant workers’ chances of gaining employment (e.g., Cohen-Goldner & Eckstein, 2008) and to resolve various kinds of problems that migrant workforces are faced with or bring to host societies (Chiswick & Miller, 1995, 2003; Dustmann & Fabbri, 2003; Dustmann & van Soest, 2001). However, language study researchers are beginning to question the widespread discourse of language of/for inclusion (Flubacher, 2016), presenting strong evidence that language education is not an easy solution (see also Callahan & Gándara, 2014). In fact, there are many workplaces such as cleaning and factory work that do not require or even limit workers’ language acquisition (Goldstin, 1997; Gonçalves & Schluter, 2017; Piller & Lising, 2014; Sandwall, 2010; Strömmer, 2016). In other contexts, however, some migrant workers are hindered from increasing their employability or chance for upward mobility in the labour market, even though they are provided with a formal language countries. For instance, under the Japan-Indonesia EPA, the percentage of all items exported from Japan to Indonesia that were duty-free rose from 34% to over 90%, while the percentage of duty-­ free exported items from Indonesia to Japan was even higher (93%), showing a jump from 71%. However, the Indonesian side seemingly received fewer economic benefits from the EPA, because their percentage was originally higher than Japan’s (71% vs 34%) before the signing (Ministry of Finance, 2008). A similar explanation can be made for Japan-Vietnam EPA (Ministry of Finance, 2009). 2  The World Health Organization (2019) points out the absence of centralised authority in ASEAN to accurately tally the numbers of healthcare workers, shortage and distribution within and across the member states. However, Te et al. (2018) maintained that no doctors or dentists have moved to another ASEAN country to work under this framework in 2017, while Fukunaga (2015) reported that only 55 nurses utilised this framework to be registered in other ASEAN member states.

8

1 Introduction

learning opportunity. Allan (2013) showed that a language learning programme offered for immigrant workers might assume or even establish a hierarchy between migrants and local workers, thus worsening employment opportunity inequalities instead of facilitating access to local labour markets (cf. Duchêne, 2018). Despite differences in emphasis, angles and approaches, these researchers have provided a counterevidence to the oft-expressed connection between language (­skills/education) and possibility of employment and provoked questions of inequality that is being (re)produced behind the scenes (see also Erling et al., 2019). As Canagarajah (2017, p. 3) stated that “while language is important for mobility, mobility has also changed our understanding of language”, the fields of sociolinguistics and applied linguistics have offered a renewed understanding of language in the era of transnational migration and illustrated a complicated picture of the interrelationship between language and human/labour mobility. They have paid closer attention to the mechanism under which the frequently alleged promise of or reward for learning a dominant/privileged language in the host society’s labour market is made and sustained. In so doing, they highlight that language issues surface in parallel to other sociopolitical, economic, and labour issues, such as the rise of multinational corporations (Piller & Lising, 2014), the overwhelming presence of intermediary ranging from private recruitment agencies (Lorente, 2018) to the governmental agency (Duchêne, 2018), and logic of labour management and immigration control in various institutions (Codó, 2008; Del Percio & Van Hoof, 2017; Duchêne et al., 2013; Lønsmann & Kraft, 2018; Otomo, 2020). To my knowledge, however, trade policies have received almost no attention in the broader field of language studies, even though they set out a unique condition under which migrant workers are commodified and their language skills are used to certify their quality (cf. Heller, 2010). They also exemplify contemporary “migration infrastructure” (Xiang & Lindquist, 2014) that could give a particular meaning and role to language. Therefore, the focus on trade policies requires undivided attention, rigorous observation, and further analysis in a broader field of research, and such a focus offers a new perspective for language scholars. To this end, the EPAs signed between Japan and three Southeast Asian countries provide a unique and illustrative case. Unlike the region-wide recognition of healthcare qualification in ASEAN or similar schemes piloted in Europe (Hooper, 2019; Meier, 2019), the EPAs have materialised a labour immigration scheme in full play, determining admission criteria, length of stay, eligibility, quotas, and which kinds of institutions are eligible to accept migrant workers (henceforth the EPA programme). It allows migrant workers’ (although not significant in numbers) entry into Japan and employment in its understaffed healthcare sector, where verbal communication is often considered a vital and high-stakes attribute. Unlike NAFTA, which provides Mexican nurses with a legal pathway to migrate for work but offers no language education support (Squires, 2011), language education is built into the EPA programme. It has been designed (and periodically revised) to attend to language education, language choice, and language usage, taking on the characteristics of a formally structured language education policy. In this sense, the EPA programme is understood as a form of language policy.

1.1 Introduction

9

1.1.3 Why the Economic Partnership Agreement? This book shows that free-trade policies can manifest themselves and represent a contemporary language policy. I argue that free-trade policies are an under-­ investigated area where important national directions about languages are created in the face of other pressing agendas, and that its negotiation process and forseen consequences have been often backgrounded, trivialised, and less agitated (Lo Bianco, 2001). The EPA will demonstrate this point. For instance, at the domestic negotiation table in Japan, an intense battle among concerned parties regarding the EPA’s signing generated discussions about language requirements for migrant healthcare workers. At one end of the policy spectrum, the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (MHLW) was concerned about the possible erosion of healthcare quality and standards due to an influx of migrant healthcare workers through the EPA programme. At the other end, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) saw the great benefits to be gained from international partnerships with Southeast Asian countries in the EPA. To deal with the varying interests of the concerned parties and make individual migrant workers tradable goods under the EPA, the Japanese government developed the following terms and conditions. First, the EPA programme does not recognise migrant workers’ professional certificates or prior working experience, because there exists no mutual recognition on standards for healthcare professionals between the signatory countries. While the EPA programme only recruits highly educated migrant workers (holding at least a higher education degree and sometimes a professional certificate and relevant working experiences; see Sect. 2.3 for detail), these workers do not fall into the highly skilled workers category; rather, they are treated as nurses-to-be or caregivers-to-be in the Japanese system.3 This condition requires migrant healthcare workers to (1) undergo pre-employment training, including Japanese language and on-the-job training, and (2) take Japan’s national licensure examination in the medium of the Japanese language. In the establishment of these requirements for migrant workers, one can observe the nature of the economic exchange inherent in the EPA. In short, the EPA treats people as a trade-off for other trade items that have equal exchange value (e.g., cars, bananas, marine products) and must meet specific conditions for their tradability. Based on the principle of economic exchange, migrants’ language ability becomes a prominently featured characteristic of a tradable (human) resource. In a neoliberal labour market economy, this means language is counted as a measurable skill, and language tests gauge the calibre of an individual migrant’s quality as a tradable

 Migrant workers must apply for a Designated Activities visa, holders of which are permitted to stay for a period not exceeding five years to undertake specific activities designated by the Minister of Justice (MOJ), instead of a Highly Skilled Professional visa, which is granted to foreign nationals with advanced abilities and skills (Immigration Services Agency of Japan, 2017). 3

10

1 Introduction

product (see also De Costa et al., 2016; Kubota, 2011; Urciuoli, 2008; Urciuoli & LaDousa, 2013). The series of language requirements integrated into the EPA programme must also be understood in the broader context of Japan’s demographic change. Japan, like many countries, is faced with pronounced social aging – indeed, it is a perfect example of a super-aging society. According to the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research (2021), the number of people aged 65 or over reached 35.8 million in 2019, accounting for 28.4% of the population; at the same time, the country’s total fertility rate fell to 1.36. Both features have appalling implications for modern Japan – a shrinking workforce and an aging population in need of care. Indeed, social aging is the very background against which the recruitment of foreign healthcare workers under the EPA programme has often been implicated or directly discussed. Although official statements by the Japanese government deny any linkage between its aging society and recruitment of foreign labour (e.g., Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2016), the healthcare sector, particularly the caregiving sector, welcomes their arrival because it is becoming far more difficult to secure enough caregiving personnel to provide care services for those in need. Unlike North America and Western Europe, which welcome migrant workers as a healthcare labour force for their elderly populations (Aiken et al., 2004; Yeates, 2012), Japan mainly relies on the Japanese workforce. The nursing sector strives to attract nurses-to-be and nursing licence holders not currently working in that profession, and the caregiving sector is barely able to stay afloat by relying on inexperienced and often part-time (primarily female) workers who are not necessarily certified caregivers and thus poorly remunerated. The number of migrants granted entry to Japan under the medical services visa category is extremely low compared with the number of other skilled migrants (Immigration Service Agency of Japan, 2021). According to the MHLW (2019), an estimated 2.4 million caregiving personnel will be required by 2025. The country faces rough times because it will require more than 740,000 caregivers to reach this goal (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2019), due partly to Japan’s failing birthrate, increasingly aged population, families’ decreasing capacity to provide care, a shrinking workforce, and chronic turnover in the caregiving sector (Tsukada, 2010). Therefore, the caregiving sector has been explicitly pleading for more and larger foreign healthcare workforce recruitment channels, including the EPA programme. Although the EPA programme was a diplomatic initiative rather than the result of a well-planed national strategy to ease the domestic healthcare workforce shortage, it has, somewhat unexpectedly, pried open Japan’ strict immigration door to migrant healthcare workers. Although aging is a major indicator of language change (Sankoff, 2006), the ramifications of aging societies for language policies have not yet been comprehensively addressed in the literature. The accelerated demographic shift and pressing need for migrant workers involve two intricate, contradictory LPP issues. Immigration challenges Japan’s present language ecology and language policy profile, in which the Japanese language has long enjoyed dominance and authority due to national standards and monolingual ideologies (e.g., Heinrich, 2012). The

1.1 Introduction

11

Japanese language’s status as a de facto national language could be at stake in various domains of everyday life, as the notable presence of non-native speakers and languages other than Japanese increases along with the arrival of migrant workers. The opposite scenario is also possible because social aging and (workforce) migration may not necessarily jeopardise these inherent ideologies associated with language. Unlike other immigration schemes available in Japan, Japanese language education is officially provided through the EPA programme. This embedded language policy may or may not help narrow the gap between the country’s normalised monoglot ideology (Silverstein, 1996) and its multilingual reality, depending on how the EPA programme, as language policy, is designed and operated. In this regard, the EPA programme presents itself as an importantly paradoxical LPP event, providing opportunity to renew or reinforce competing ideologies. Thus, I propose to view the signing of EPAs with Southeast Asian countries and their language policing components against the background of Japan’s struggle for its sustainability and survival as a nation-state. Through the analysis in this book, I highlight the conflicting picture in which the EPA programme brings little change to the overarching Japan’s language policy, even though it affords an abundance of opportunities for policy implementation and reviews, ideological transformation and multilingual human interactions.

1.1.4 Structure of the Book The remainder of this book is structured as follows. Chapter 2 outlines the EPA programme, focusing on its historical background and regulatory mechanisms, ranging from recruitment to national nursing/caregiving examinations. The chapter also overviews several programmatic problems and subsequent reforms taken thus far. Against the backdrop of a synthesised review of the existing literature on the EPA programme, Chap. 3 clarifies this book’s conceptual orientation and summarises its data collection and analysis methodologies. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 present the findings of policy document analysis, focusing on agents and goals (Chap. 4), the textual representation of language, language education, learners  and  teachers (Chap. 5), and the national licensure examination as an implementation/appropriation process (Chap. 6). Finally, Chap. 7 explores and underscores this project’s implications for language policy in Japan and language policy studies in general. Although the present analysis is based on specific policy documents and a specific locality, human mobility injected in free-trade agreements is relevant wherever migration has made its mark. By comprehensively examining, for the first time, one of Japan’s most important contemporary language policy initiatives, this book will offer a unique perspective to the exiting (sociolinguistic) literature that have examined the interplay between language and human/labour mobility, by and large, within the context of countries with a great deal of immigration experience. Therefore, it will appeal to not only those interested in LPP and Japanese studies, but also to researchers in a wide range of other disciplines (sociolinguistics,

12

1 Introduction

anthropology, migration studies, sociology, economics, education, etc.). Its findings and arguments also carry implications for policymakers who are keen on understanding labour migration and language issues in the development and analysis of public policies.

References Aiken, L. H., Buchan, J., Sochaiski, J., Nichols, B., & Powell, M. (2004). Trends in international nurse migration. Health Affairs, 23(3), 69–77. Allan, K. (2013). Skilling the self: The communicability of immigrants as flexible labour. In A. Duchêne, M. Moyer, & C. Roberts (Eds.), Language, migration and social inequalities: A critical sociolinguistic perspective on institutions and work (pp. 56–80). Multilingual Matters. Bannerman, G., & Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (Eds.). (2008). Battles over free trade: The advent of free trade, 1776–1846 (Vol. 1). Pickering & Chatto. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage. Callahan, R. M., & Gándara, P. C. (Eds.). (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy and the US labor market. Multilingual Matters. Canagarajah, S. (Ed.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of migration and language. Routledge. Carroll, T. (2001). Language planning and language change in Japan. Curzon. Chew, P. G.-L. (2009). Emergent lingua francas and world orders. Routledge. Chilton, A. S., & Posner, E. A. (2018). Why countries sign bilateral labor agreements? The Journal of Legal Studies, 47(S1), S45–S88. Chiswick, B. R., & Miller, P. W. (1995). The endogeneity between languages and earnings. Journal of Labour Economics, 13(2), 246–288. Chiswick, B. R., & Miller, P. W. (2003). The complementarity of language and other human capital: Immigrant earnings in Canada. Economics of Education Review, 22(5), 469–480. Codó, E. (2008). Immigration and bureacratic control: Language practices in public administration. Mouton de Gruyter. Codó, E. (2019). Language policy and planning, institutions, and neoliberalisation. In J. W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-Milans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 467–484). Oxford University Press. Cohen-Goldner, S., & Eckstein, Z. (2008). Labor mobility of immigrants: Training, experience, language and opportunities. International Economic Review, 49(3), 837–872. Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge University Press. Cuamea Velázquez, F. (2000). Approaches to the study of international migration: A review. Estudios fronterizos, 1(1), 137–168. https://doi.org/10.21670/ref.2000.01.a04 De Costa, P., Park, J., & Wee, L. (2016). Language learning as linguistic entrepreneurship: Implications for language education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(5–6), 695–702. Del Percio, A. (2019). Turning language and communication into productive resources: Language policy and planning and multinational corporations. In J.  W. Tollefson & M.  Pérez-Milans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp.  526–543). Oxford University Press. Del Percio, A., & Van Hoof, S. (2017). Enterprising migrants: Language and the shifting politics of activation. In M.-C. Flubacher & A. Del Percio (Eds.), Language, education and neoliberalism: Critical studies in sociolinguistics (pp. 140–162). Multilingual Matters. Duchêne, A. (2018). Language investment and political economy. Langage et Societe, 157, 73–96. (Original work published 2016). Duchêne, A., Moyer, M., & Roberts, C. (Eds.). (2013). Language, migration and social (in)equality: A critical sociolinguistic perspective on institutions and work. Multilingual Matters.

References

13

Duckenfield, M. (Ed.). (2008a). Battles over free trade: The emergence of multilateral trade, 1940–2006 (Vol. 4). Pickering & Chatto. Duckenfield, M. (2008b). General introduction. In G. Bannerman & C. Schonhardt-Bailey (Eds.), Battles over free trade: The advent of free trade, 1776–1846 (Vol. 1, pp. xi–xxi). Pickering & Chatto. Dustmann, C., & Fabbri, F. (2003). Language proficiency and labour market performance of immigrants in the UK. Economic Journal, 113, 695–717. Dustmann, C., & van Soest, A. (2001). Language fluency and earnings: Estimation with misclassified language indicators. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 663–674. Economic Affairs Bureau EPA Negotiating Team (Ed.). (2007). 解説 FTA･EPA交渉 [Description: Negotiation for FTAs and EPAs]. Nihon Keizai Hyōronsha. Erling, E., Chowdhury, Q., Solly, M., & Seargeant, P. (2019). “Successful” migration, (English) language skills and global inequality: The case of Bangladeshi migrants to the Middle East. Multilingua, 38(3), 253–281. Fishman, J.  A., Ferguson, C.  A., & Das Gupta, J. (1968). Language problems of developing nations. Wiley. Flubacher, M. (2016). On “promoting and demanding” integration: A discursive case study of immigrant language policy in Basel. In E. Barakos & J. W. Unger (Eds.), Discursive approaches to language policy (pp. 231–252). Palgrave Macmillan. Fukunaga, Y. (2015). Assessing the progress of ASEAN MRAs on professional services [ERIA Discussion Paper Series]. https://www.eria.org/ERIA-­DP-­2015-­21.pdf Goldstin, T. (1997). Two languages at work: Bilingual life on the production floor. Mouton de Gruyter. Gonçalves, K., & Schluter, A. (2017). “Please do not leave any notes for the cleaning lady, as many do not speak English fluently”: Policy, power, and language brokering in a multilingual workplace. Language Policy, 16(3), 241–265. Gottlieb, N. (2008). Japan: Language policy and planning in transition. Current Issues in Language Planning, 9(1), 1–68. Gottlieb, N. (2011). Language policy in Japan: The challenge of change. Cambridge University Press. Gough, I. (2013). Surgical competence and mutual recognition in ASEAN countries. ANZ Journal Surgery, 83(3), 99. Hashimoto, K. (2000). Internationalisation’ is ‘Japanisation’: Japan’s foreign language education and national identity. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 21(1), 39–51. Hashimoto, K. (2009). Cultivating “Japanese who can use English”: Problems and contradictions in government policy. Asian Studies Review, 33, 21–42. Heinrich, P. (2012). The making of monolingual Japan. Multilingual Matters. Heller, M. (2010). The commodification of language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 101–114. Hochschild, A.  R. (2000). Global care chains and emotional surplus value. In W.  Hutton & A. Giddens (Eds.), On the edge: Living with global capitalism (pp. 130–146). Jonathan Cape. Hoekman, B., & Özden, Ç. (2010). The Euro-Mediterranean partnership: Trade in services as an alternative to migration? Journal of Common Market Studies, 48, 835–857. Hooper, K. (2019). Revised. Exploring new legal migration pathway: Lessons from pilot projects [Transatlantic council on migration report]. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/exploring-­new-­legal-­migration-­pathways-­lessons-­pilot-­projects Hult, F. M. (2019). Language policy and planning and linguistic landscapes. In J. W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-Milans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 333–351). Oxford University Press. Immigration Service Agency of Japan. (2021). 2021 Immigration control and residency management. Retrieved 24 Dec 2021, from https://www.moj.go.jp/isa/content/001361699.pdf Immigration Services Agency of Japan. (2017). Points-based preferential immigration treatment for highly skilled professionals. Retrieved 24 Dec 2022, from https://www.isa.go.jp/common/ uploads/pub-­291_01.pdf

14

1 Introduction

Japan Association for Language Policy. (n.d.). 学会誌 言語政策 [Journal of Japan Association for Language Policy]. Retrieved 19 Aug 2022, from http://jalp.jp/wp/?page_id=168 Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2016). 平成29年度版 EPAに基づく外国人 看護師･介護福祉士受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2017 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurses and caregiverrs under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https:// jicwels.or.jp/files/EPA_H29_pamph.pdf Jarman, H. (2017). Trade policy governance: What health policymakers and advocates need to know. Health Policy, 121, 1105–1112. Jaworski, A. (2019). Language ideologies in the text-based art of Xu Bing: Implications for language policy and planning. In J. W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-Milans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 677–703). Oxford University Press. Jernudd, B. H. (1993). Language planning from a management perspective: An interpretation of findings. In E. H. Jahr (Ed.), Language conflict and language planning (pp. 133–142). Mouton de Gruyter. Johnson, D. C. (2009). Ethnography of language policy. Language Policy, 8(2), 139–159. Johnson, D.  C., & Johnson, E.  J. (2015). Power and agency in language policy appropriation. Language Policy, 14(3), 221–243. Kaku, K., Igarashi, T., Shibuya, S., Hamada, M., & Horibe, M. (2010). 日本･フィリピンEPAの改 善: 1万人のフィリピン人介護福祉士受け入れ政策 [Improvements of Japan-­Philippines EPA: Policy of accepting 10 thousands of Filipino caregivers] ISFJ 政策フォーラム2010 [ISFJ Policy Forum 2010]. Kanno, Y. (2008). Language and education in Japan: Unequal access to bilingualism. Palgrave Macmillan. Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2003). Language and language-in-education planning in the Pacific Basin. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kategekwa, J. (2008, September 22). Economic implications of mode 4 trade [Lecture notes]. Mode 4 of the GATS: Taking stock and moving forward. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ serv_e/mouvement_persons_e/sym_sept08_e/sym_sept08_e.htm Kawahara, T. (Ed.). (2002). 世界の言語政策: 多言語社会と日本 [Language policy of the world: Multilingual society and Japan]. Kuroshio Shuppan. Kelly-Holmes, H., Moriarty, M., & Pietikäinen, S. (2009). Convergence and divergence in Basque, Irish and Sámi media language policing. Language Policy, 8, 227–242. Kidgell, D., Hills, D., Griffiths, D., & Endacott, R. (2020). Trade agreements and the risks for the nursing workforce, nursing practice and public health: A scoping review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 109, 103676. Kirkpatrick, A., & Liddicoat, A. J. (Eds.). (2019). The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia. Routledge. Kubota, R. (2011). Questioning linguistic instrumentalism: English, neoliberalism, and language tests in Japan. Linguistics and Education, 22(3), 248–260. Lo Bianco, J. (2001). Policy literacy. Language and Education, 15(2–3), 212–227. Lønsmann, D., & Kraft, K. (2018). Language policy and practice in multilingual production workplaces. Multilingua, 37(4), 403–427. Lorente, B. P. (2018). Scripts of servitude: Language, labor migration and transnational domestic work. Multilingual Matters. May, S., & Hornberger, N. (Eds.). (2008). Language policy and political issues in education (Vol. 1). Springer. Medalla, E. M., Balboa, J. D. A., & Vidar-Vale, C. (2010). Japan-Philippines Economic partnership agreement (JPEPA): Toward a framework for regional economic integration [Discussion Papers]. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. https://eaber.org/wp-­content/ uploads/2011/05/PIDS_Medalla_2010_1.pdf Meier, S. (2019). Language education and the global care work economy: Mapping structural inequalities in Philippine nurse migration to Germany [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Basel].

References

15

Mendoza, D. R., & Sugiyarto, G. (2017). The long road ahead: Status report on the implementation of the ASEAN mutual recognition arrangements on professional services [Asian Development Bank Report]. Asian Development Bank. https://doi.org/10.22617/RPT178637-­2 Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry. (2020). 2019 Report on compliance by major trading partners with trade agreements: WTO, EPA/FTA and IIA. Retrieved 10 Dec 2021 from https:// www.meti.go.jp/english/report/data/2019WTO/gct19_1coe.html Ministry of Finance. (2008). 日･インドネシア経済連携協定について [Japan-Indonesia EPA]. Retrieved 19 Aug 2022, from https://www.customs.go.jp/kyotsu/kokusai/gaiyou/indonesia/setsumeikai_gaiyou.pdf Ministry of Finance. (2009). 日ベトナム経済連携協定 [Japan-Vietnam EPA]. Retrieved 19 Aug 2022, from https://www.customs.go.jp/kyotsu/kokusai/gaiyou/vietnam/shiryou_zentai.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2019). 福祉･介護人材確保対策について [Measures to secure human resources for welfare and nursing care]. Retrieved 24 Dec 2021, from https:// www.mhlw.go.jp/content/12000000/000549665.pdf National Institute of Population and Social Security Research. (2021). 人口統計資料集 [Demographic data book]. Retrieved 19 Aug 2022, from https://www.ipss.go.jp/syoushika/ tohkei/Popular/Popular2021.asp?chap=0 Ortiz-Ospina, E., & Beltekian, D. (2018). Trade and globalization. Our World in Data. Retrieved 10 Dec 2021, from https://ourworldindata.org/trade-­and-­globalization Otomo, R. (2020). Healthcare, language and a free-trade agreement: Institutional logics of on-the-­ job Japanese language training for migrant healthcare workers. Multilingua, 39(3), 343–367. Parrenas, R. S. (2000). Migrant filipina domestic workers and the international division of reproductive labor. Gender & Society, 14(4), 560–580. Piller, I., & Lising, L. (2014). Language, employment, and settlement: Temporary meat workers in Australia. Multilingua, 33(1–2), 35–59. Pujolar, J. (2019). Post-nationalism and language commodification. In J. W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-­ Milans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 485–504). Oxford University Press. Ramanathan, V. (2010). Introduction to thematic issue: Language policies and health. Language Policy, 9, 1–7. Ravenstein, E. G. (1885). The law of migration. Journal of Royal Statistical Society of London, 48(2), 167–235. Ricento, T., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427. Ruhs, M. (2013). The price of rights: Regulating international labor migration. Princeton University Press. Sandwall, K. (2010). “I learn more at school”: A critical perspective on workplace-related second language learning in and out of school. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 542–574. Sankoff, G. (2006). Age: Apparent time and real time. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 110–116). Elsevier. Sassen, S. (2004). Global cities and survival circuits. In B. Ehrenreich & A. R. Hochschild (Eds.), Global woman (pp. 254–274). Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt and Company. Shioda, N. (1973). 日本の言語政策の研究 [A study on language policies of Japan]. Kuroshio Shuppan. Silverstein, M. (1996). Monoglot “standard” in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In D. Brenneis & R. Macaulay (Eds.), The matrix of language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology (pp. 284–306). Westview Press. Squires, A. (2011). The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Mexican nursing. Health Policy and Planning, 26(2), 124–132. Strömmer, M. (2016). Affordances and constraints: Second language learning in cleaning work. Multilingua, 35(6), 697–721.

16

1 Introduction

Te, V., Griffiths, R., Law, K., & Hill, P. S. (2018). The impact of ASEAN economic integration on health worker mobility: A scoping review of the literature. Health Policy and Planning, 33(8), 957–965. Terasawa, T. (2019). Evidence based language policy: Theoretical and methodological examination based on existing studies. Current Issues in Language Planning, 20(3), 245–265. Tollefson, J.  W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. Longman. Tollefson, J. W., & Pérez-Milans, M. (Eds.). (2019). The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning. Oxford University Press. Toyoda, K. (1968). 言語政策の研究 [A study on language policies]. Ninseisha. Tsukada, N. (2010). 介護現場の外国人労働者: 日本のケア現場はどう変わるのか [Foreign workers in the caregiving sector: How will Japanese carework change?]. Akashi Shoten. Urciuoli, B. (2008). Skills and selves in the new workplace. American Ethnologist, 35, 211–228. Urciuoli, B., & LaDousa, C. (2013). Language management/labor. The Annual Review of Anthropology, 42, 175–190. Walton-Roberts, M. (2015). International migration of health professionals and the marketization and privatization of health education in India: From push-pull to global political economy. Social Science & Medicine, 124, 374–382. Wickramasekara, P. (2015). Bilateral agreements and memoranda of understanding on migration of low skilled workers: A review [International Labour Office report]. https://doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.2636289. Wodak, R., & Savski, K. (2019). Critical discourse-ethnographic approaches to language policy. In J. W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-Milans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 93–112). Oxford University Press. World Bank. (n.d.). Annex 8 schedules of commitments on services and investment. Retrieved 19 Aug 2022, from https://wits.worldbank.org/GPTAD/PDF/annexes/Australia-­Thailand_ Annexes.pdf World Health Organization. (2019). ASEAN mutual recognition arrangements for doctors, dentists and nurses. Retrieved 17 Dec 2021, from https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/han dle/10665/327146/9789290227267-­eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y World Trade Organization. (1995). Australia: Schedule of specific commitments supplement 1. Retrieved 10 Dec 2021, from https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc. aspx?filename=Q:/SCHD/GATS-­SC/SC6S1.pdf&Open=True World Trade Organization. (2005). International trade statistics 2005. Retrieved 19 Aug 2022, from https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2005_e/its2005_e.pdf World Trade Organization. (2017). Movement of natural persons. Retrieved 10 Dec 2021, from https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min96_e/natpers.htm World Trade Organization. (2022). Regional trade agreements database. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx Xiang, B., & Lindquist, J. (2014). Migration infrastructure. International Migration Review, 48(1), 122–148. Yeates, N. (2012). Global care chains: A state-of-the-art review and future directions in care transnationalization research. Global Networks, 12(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.21670/ ref.2000.01.a04 Yeates, N., & Pillinger, J. (2018). International healthcare worker migration in Asia Pacific: International policy responses. Asia Pacific View Point, 59, 92–106.

Chapter 2

Trade Policy as a Language Policy

Abstract Chapter 2 provides the contextual background of the language policy under investigation. It discusses a developmental path of the EPAs and focuses on the mechanism of the EPA programme – a focus of my analysis – to characterise the programme as a language policy.

2.1 The Economic Partnership Agreement The EPA is a bilateral agreement which aims to strengthen economic relations between signatory countries and maximise economic benefits for them. Therefore, the EPA consists of various types of agreements, depending on what each country wants for its own economic growth and what it can do for its partner country’s development. The EPA ranges from agreements regarding elimination of tariffs or lifting/introducing other regulations of international trade in goods and services to ones about the movement of individuals. Japan signed the EPA with the Philippines in 2006, with Indonesia in 2007 and with Vietnam in 2008. All of them include agreements on the movement of individuals under which Japan accepts Filipino, Indonesian and Vietnamese healthcare workers. Japan and each partner country created a programme to determine the eligibility and obligations of applicants and host institutions, and the length of stay (hereafter the EPA programme). This programme came into force with the Philippines in 2008, Indonesia in 2009 and Vietnam in 2014. This chapter details the history behind the development of the EPA programme as well as the mechanisms of the programme that concern eligibility, quotas, and application procedures and testing requirements. I also include some discussion of programmatic problems and subsequent reform measures taken in the programme. I explain the programme details with a focus on Japan’s agreement with the Philippines (henceforth the JP-EPA programme), since the JP-EPA programme functions as a model for the subsequent EPA programs with Indonesia and Vietnam (Kawauchi, 2012). I refer to the other two EPA programs for comparative purposes

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. Otomo, Linking Language, Trade and Migration, Language Policy 33, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33234-0_2

17

18

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

and use the comprehensive term “the EPA programme” when referring to the common features shared among them. In a similar manner, I would like to clarify some of the specific terms to be used in this book. Under Japanese law, a nurse and a certified caregiver1 are defined respectively as “a person under licensure from the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare to provide medical treatment or assist in medical care for injured and ill persons or puerperal women, as a profession” (Japanese Law Translation Database System, 1943) and “a person with expert skills and knowledge who has received the registration … and uses the appellation certified care worker to engage in the business of providing care for a person with physical disabilities or mental disorder and intellectual disabilities that make it difficult to lead a normal life and providing instructions on caregiving to the person and the person’s caregiver” (Japanese Law Translation Database System, 1987, emphasis original). While the terms “caregiving” and “careworking”, and “caregiver” and “careworker” are often interchangeably used, I use the terms “caregiving” and “caregiver” in the rest of this book, except where the original source of texts and information uses “careworking” and “careworker”. Hereafter, I also use the term “candidates” to refer to migrant healthcare workers under the EPA programme. As they are officially called “candidates” for their respective professions, this term has been widely used in the documents published by the supervisory authorities of the EPA programme.

2.2 Historical Background The outset of the JP-EPA can be traced back to January 2002, when the then Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi proposed the signing of the EPA with ASEAN countries. In May 2002, at the summit talk with Koizumi, the then President of the Philippines Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo expressed her strong desire to form a task force in order to actualise the JP-EPA.  After many task force meetings and summit talks in which the content of the JP-EPA had been thoroughly discussed and negotiated, the JP-EPA was signed by the heads of both Japan and the Philippines in 2006. The finalised JP-EPA resulted in a large-scale international commitment, consisting of 933 pages in English and 721 pages in Japanese. Its content encompasses a wide range of legal regulations on trade import and export (e.g., elimination of tariffs over industrial, farm and marine exports), establishment of investment

 In Japan, there are three types of certifications along one’s career progress as a caregiver in Japan: Kaigoshokuin Shoninsha Kenshū (Completion of beginner caregiver training), Kaigoshokuin Jitsumusha Kenshū (Completion of intermediate caregiver training), and Kaigo Fukushishi (Certified caregiver). Kaigo Fukushishi is considered as the most difficult to obtain compared with other two certificates. As advanced career options for a certified caregiver, there are other two certificates: Kea Manējā (Care manager), certified by the local government (prefecture) and a private qualification: Nintei Kaigo Fukushishi (Specifically Certified Caregiver). Among the five certificates presented above, certified caregiver is the only nationally recognised certificate. 1

2.2  Historical Background

19

rules, liberalisation of service sectors, collaboration over the protection of intellectual property, and moderation on entry permits for specific categories of migrants. The large scope of the agreement reflects the fact that each country anticipated different benefits in the JP-EPA. While the Philippines signalled its major interest in the movement of natural persons, in particular healthcare workers, Japan’s interest focused on trade and business to enhance Japanese companies’ business with and within the Philippines (Economic Affairs Bureau EPA Negotiating Team, 2007; see also Urata, 2005). Such difference in interest and motivations is vividly observed in the policy framing of the EPA programme. Though receiving little attention from researchers, the EPA programme is, in effect, reciprocal. One of the EPA’s adjunct documents, titled “Annex 8 Referred to in Chapter 9 Specific Commitments for the Movement of Natural Persons”, where details of the JP-EPA programme are included, officially states that the Philippines allows entry and stay for Japanese healthcare workers to undergo language training and to acquire learning experience for the purposes of taking the Philippines’ nursing board examination. However, little has been discussed to actualise human mobility in this direction, and no Japanese healthcare workers were found to have moved to the Philippines under this framework. Therefore, the indicated flow of human resources from Japan to the Philippines is simply perfunctory, exhibiting different priorities and degree of expectations for the provision of movement of healthcare workers. The official description of the EPA programme by the Japanese government may also highlight this motivational gap. The EPA programme is almost always described with the term “ukeire” (受け入れ, literally acceptance), instead of other terms such as employment or recruitment that have more demand-driven connotation. This particular expression automatically positions Japan as a receiving side and Southeast Asian countries as the other end, while possibly showing Japan’s reluctance and its unenterprising attitude toward facilitating (labour) migration. Although the JP-EPA was agreed in 2006, it was in 2008 that both governments ratified the JP-EPA. This delay of two years was due to the fact that severe opposition arose in the Philippines against sending Filipino healthcare workers to Japan, among other concerns.2 Apart from the long-debated topic of worsening healthcare services and quality within the Philippines as a result of sending healthcare professionals abroad (Cheng, 2009), the Filipino government expressed discontent toward two requests from Japan: Japan would treat Filipino nurses and caregivers as candidates for such professions until they pass the national licensure examinations (Idei, 2009), and Japan would only accept 200 candidates in total (“Labor issues to delay Japan-Philippines FTA,” 2005). The Japanese government never loosened the tight leash on the first request and only agreed to accept 400 nurse and 600 caregiver  The Philippine was particularly apprehensive about possible environmental violation brought about by the JP-EPA which would allow the free entry of hazardous waste products from Japan to the Philippines (Economic Affairs Bureau EPA Negotiating Team, 2007). In order to deal with such public criticism and fears, both parties issued a joint statement to protect the environment and included safeguard measures in the JP-EPA such as prohibiting to immoderately relax environmental measures to prioritise investment (Medalla et al., 2010). 2

20

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

candidates for a two-year period, despite the Philippines’ eagerness to send more healthcare professionals. The movement of Filipino healthcare workers was controversial in Japan, too. Because the EPA concerns Japan’s various pressing issues  – economic stability, aging population, declining working population, the pronounced workforce shortage in the healthcare sector, and immigration  – different attitudes and stances appeared among the concerned government organisations and powerful interest groups. For example, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), in consort with the Japan Business Federation (JBF), strongly supported the EPA due to the direct economic advantages gained through the EPA (Vogt, 2007) as well as its potential to promote economic partnership and cooperation (Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry, 2010). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) was also in favour of signing the EPA, as they wished to strengthen international relations (Vogt, 2007). Besides the economic and diplomatic benefits that the EPA offers, these pro-EPA government organisations saw the EPA as a means of easing the shortage of the workforce in the healthcare sector (Oh, 2013; Vogt, 2007). The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) stood somewhat in the middle of the political spectrum. Taking charge of Japan’s strict migratory regulations, border control and national security, MOJ was not supportive of the entry of foreign nationals considered semi or unskilled workers (Vogt, 2007). However, MOJ did not oppose the participation into the EPA programme, as long as the programme operates within Japan’s immigration control system (Asato, 2016). Powerful opponents of the EPA programme were the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) and concerned sectoral organisations, namely the Japan Nursing Association (JNA) and the Japan Association of Certified Care Workers (JACCW). They resisted the idea of reducing the healthcare labour shortage with EPA candidates,3 as they were concerned about a possible decrease in service quality and the consequences for Japanese healthcare workers, such as lowering the pay standard (Japan Association of Certified Care Workers, 2000; Japan Nursing Association, 2008). Eventually, JNA strongly lobbied for four conditions: (1) EPA nurse candidates must pass the national licensure examination in Japanese; (2) they must acquire a good level of Japanese language ability to ensure the quality of healthcare service in Japan; (3) they must be employed under the same conditions as their Japanese counterparts; and (4) mutual recognition of nurse qualification between Japan and the partnership country would not be approved. A similar

 Although MOJ and MHLW reacted from different standpoints, they similarly argued that shortages of human resources can be alleviated by other means. MHLW argued the shortages can be eased by mobilising latent and on-leave nurses and caregivers, and respective license holders by means of raising the pay standard and improving working conditions (Asato, 2012). Similarly, Vogt and Holdgrün (2012) reported that the then Senior Vice Minister of Justice (as of 2006) stated in an interview to utilise the unemployed female workforce and so-called “NEET” (Not in Employment, Education, or Training) population for the workforce shortage. Such an optimistic view was criticised as ignoring the severely compromised labour market of nurses and caregivers (Asato, 2010; Idei, 2009). 3

2.3 Eligibility

21

position statement for caregiver candidates was tabled by JACCW, in particular on the requirements pertaining to language and general employment conditions. Eventually, the negotiation process swung in favour of pro-EPA organisations, with one compromise. The actual EPA programme echoed the four conditions proposed by JNA and JACCW, which reflected the shared concerns among the contested sectors whose interests and positions widely differed on the entry and employment of foreign healthcare workers (Ohno et al., 2016).

2.3 Eligibility The current channel to accept nurse and caregiver candidates under the JP-EPA programme is the national examination course, the stipulated goal of which is to obtain a nurse/caregiver qualification. Eligibility for the national examination course is stringent. Nurse candidates must be qualified nurses under Filipino law and have at least three years of working experience as a certified nurse. The application criteria for caregiver candidates are two-fold: to have graduated from nursing school in the Philippines, or to have a bachelor’s degree and the national caregiver certificate accredited by the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority4 (TESDA) in the Philippines. The eligibility requirements project an image of well-educated healthcare workers. In fact, JP-EPA caregiver candidates are generally overqualified, because landing a caregiving job in Japan does not necessarily require a degree in higher education, nor caregiver qualification.5 R. Ogawa (2009) suggests that the reason for this criterion is differences in the educational systems between Japan and the Philippines. The standard length of education from primary school to high school is 12  years in Japan but ten  years in the Philippines. The JP-EPA programme thus requires a degree in higher education to bridge the two-year gap and to equalise employees’ age and duration of education rather than their education level or credential. In contrast to the aforementioned de jure eligibility for EPA candidates, being a female seems to be a de facto criterion. Since nursing is still widely considered to  Under the supervision of the Filipino Department of Labor and Employment in the Philippines, TESDA plays a major role in managing and supervising vocational and technical training and skill acquisition. In order to undergo a skill test and obtain the national caregiver certificate, one must either have at least one year of caregiving experience within the last five years or complete the 786-h caregiver course in a TESDA-accredited caregiving school where students take lectures and practical training, focusing on providing care and support to children, older adults and people with special needs (Technical Education and Skills Development Authority, 2020b). It costs PHP350 (approximately USD7) (Technical Education and Skills Development Authority, 2020a). 5  According to Care Work Foundation (2019), approximately half of employees engaged in carework at caregiving facilities are either junior or high school graduates. The same survey also reported that 13% of employees engaged in carework at caregiving facilities have no healthcare-­ related credential at all, while the majority do have at least one such credential. 4

22

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

be a female job in Japan and elsewhere, there was discrimination against male candidates during the matching process (T.  Ogawa, 2009). Consequently, Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services (JICWELS), a quasi-governmental organisation for the EPA programme on the Japanese side, called for equal and fair recruitment regardless of gender and physical features. While male nurse candidates may face gender bias, some caregiving facilities may welcome male caregiver candidates, as physical strength is considered necessary for carework (Hirano et  al., 2012). However, the actual number of female candidates seemingly outweigh that of male candidates, comprising more than 70% of the demographic (Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers, 2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2013d, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d, 2016, 2017, 2018). Eligibility for host institutions concerns their size and scale of operation in the first place. Hospitals entitled to accept nurse candidates must accept the national health insurance with capacities for clinical training equivalent to nursing educational institutions (e.g., university, junior college, vocational nursing school). In order to host caregiver candidates, on the other hand, a caregiving facility must cater for more than 30 elderly or disabled people approved by the Japanese laws,6 or other types of caregiving facilities which are run and managed on the same premise with the first type of facility. The host institutions must meet more specific conditions, such as the provision of trainers, their professional qualifications, standard distribution of personnel and certain proportion of certified nurses/caregivers among all staff (applicable only for caregiving facilities). Although caregiving facilities for both elderly and disabled people are eligible for the EPA programme, most of the host institutions in the programme specialise in elderly care (Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers, 2020). Prospective healthcare facilities must also be financially sound enough to cover all the expenses of accepting EPA candidates. They are responsible for securing accommodation (e.g., staff dormitory, rented housing), paying the candidates salary equal to or greater than the amount paid for Japanese assistant nurses/caregivers,7 and providing return airfare. On top of that, in order to accept one JP-EPA candidate, each facility must pay the registration fee (JPY30,000/approximately USD280 or JPY20,000/approximately USD187 per application8), Japanese language training fee (JPY360,000/approximately USD3,370 per candidate), and annual administrative fee (JPY20,000/approximately USD187 or JPY10,000/approximately USD93

 If caregiving facilities fall in the category of designated medical long-term care sanatorium, they must have 30 beds which are covered by Japan’s long-term care insurance. 7  Although the equal amount of salary to Japanese counterparts is guaranteed in compliance with the Labor Standard Act and Minimum Wage Law in Japan, the EPA programme is generally silent about who exactly the Japanese counterparts are with what kind of working experiences and credentials. Thus, the actual salary paid to EPA candidates depends on how their host institutions define the Japanese counterparts. 8  Caregiving facilities applying for the EPA programme for the first time must pay JPY30,000, while those which have applied before pay JPY20,000. 6

2.4 Quotas

23

per candidate9) for JICWELS, commission charges for both JICWELS (JPY131,400/ approximately USD1230 per candidate) and the partner organisation on the side of the Philippines, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) (JPY4,800/approximately USD450 per candidate) (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021a). In addition to these payments, host institutions have been charged for the medical check fee for EPA candidates since 2016.10

2.4 Quotas Since anti-EPA ministries and interest groups in Japan showed concern over the impact of the EPA programme on the domestic labour market, the quota has been set small. Four hundred nurse candidates and 600 caregiver candidates were the quota for the first two years (2009–2010) in the JP-EPA programme. Since then, the maximum number of candidates has been capped annually (200 nurse and 300 caregiver candidates per year). While the recruitment of JP-EPA caregiver candidates has been stable, the actual number of nurse candidates has fallen below the fixed quota every year11 (see Tables 2.1 and 2.2). In contrast to the quota for candidates, there is no fixed quota for Japanese healthcare facilities. However, the downward trend can be seen in the number of host hospitals to date (see Tables 2.1 and 2.2). This trend poses a serious risk to the continuation of the EPA programme, because the number of shortlisted candidates who can proceed to the matching stage appears to be about two-to-three times the number of recruits being sought by applicant facilities12 (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2014c).

 If a host institution makes a labour contract with a candidate, they must pay JPY20,000 for JICWELS. However, if they hire a former EPA candidate who has passed the examination, they are required to pay JPY10,000. 10  Host institutions are charged for the medical check-up fee, only if they accept Filipino candidates. Because the number of medical check-up for Filipino candidates was increased from once to twice in 2016, the host institutions are now required to shoulder the additional expenses. The amount varies year by year, ranging from JPY6700/PHP3000  in 2019 (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2018a, p. 53) to JPY8500/PHP3600 in 2020 (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021f, p. 56), probably because designated institutions in charge of medical check-up are changeable. 11  At the early stage of implementation, the quota was not met because the announcement and call for application lasted only a few weeks (Haruhara, 2009). 12  The current ratio is unknown, as JICWELS discontinued to publicise it in 2016. On a similar note, host institutions must recruit at least one candidate and are encouraged to accept no fewer than two, and no more than five candidates from the same country per year. 9

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

24

Table 2.1  Quota for JP-EPA Nurse Candidates and the Actual Numbers of the Candidates and Host Hospitals Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

Quota 400 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 2600

Number of nurse candidates 93 46 70 28 64 36 75 60 34 40 42 55 14a 657

Number of host hospitals 45 27 36 16 31 19 30 28 17 18 18 Not yet determined 248 (except 2020, 2021)

Figures from 2009 to 2019 were retrieved from JICWELS (2021a, p. 45); Figures from 2020 to 2021 were retrieved from JICWELS (2021b, pp. 24–25) a JICWELS (2021b, p.  25) explained that this markedly small number was due to the Covid-19 pandemic, impacting the number of applicants as well as that of host institutions

2.5 Recruitment, Screening and Matching POEA and JICWELS take a major administrative role in the recruitment, screening, and matching processes. POEA is a Filipino government institution under the supervision of the Department of Labour and Employment. The Japanese counterpart is JICWELS, a quasi-government organisation with support from MHLW. Although the application process can vary depending on which EPA, the process of the JP-EPA programme begins with recruitment on the websites of JICWELS and POEA respectively. Prospective healthcare facilities are obliged to submit a set of application forms including detailed description of the facility, contract documents, trainers’ employment history records and their professional certificates (nurse or certified caregiver), and a training plan for EPA candidates (see Chap. 5). According to POEA (2019), prospective candidates are required to present a worker registration form, a resume with the previous job description, photograph, passport, police clearance, college diploma, transcript of academic records, completion certificate of pre-employment seminar organised by POEA, in addition to job-specific documents such as TESDA caregiver qualification, nursing identification card, and nursing board examination certificate and score. They can also enclose other training/skills certificate(s) (e.g., Japanese language proficiency certificate) if relevant. After submission, every prospective facility and candidate undergoes scrutiny against the eligibility criteria detailed above. The process after the initial screening varies depending on which EPA programme candidates are enrolled in (see Figs. 2.1 and 2.2). Those who passed the initial screening process proceed to briefing, information exchange, interviews and

2.5  Recruitment, Screening and Matching

25

Table 2.2  Quota for JP-EPA Caregiver Candidates and the Actual Numbers of the Candidates and Host Caregiving Facilities

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

Quota 600 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 3900

Number of host caregiving Number of caregiver candidates facilities National examination course Caregiving facility Total (Vocational school coursea) Total (Vocational school) 217 190(27) 98 92(6) 82 72(10) 40 34(6) 61 61 33 33 73 73 35 35 87 87 38 38 147 147 64 64 218 218 89 89 276 276 116 116 276 276 141 141 282 282 149 149 285 285 177 177 300 306 240 240 300 242 136 136 2552 2515(37) 1356 1344(12)

Figures from 2009 to 2019 were retrieved from JICWELS (2021a, p. 45); Figures from 2020 to 2021 were retrieved by calculating JICWELS’s data (2021b, pp. 26–27) 2.5 Recruitment, Screening and Matching a Originally, there was a vocational school course offered for Filipino caregiver candidates in which they were required to enrol in a granted vocational school and would be certified caregivers after graduation without taking the national examination. However, this course was discontinued in 2014 as a response to the request of the Filipino government, reflecting the domestic caregiver certification system reform in Japan (Daily Manila Shimbun, August 20, 2011 as cited in Ohno, 2012, p. 545, for the recent reform on caregiving certification, see also Chap. 7)

ability screening, all of which take place in either the Philippines or Indonesia.13 On the other hand, shortlisted Vietnamese candidates immediately start taking a 12-month training course in Vietnam, because the Japan-Vietnam EPA programme takes quite a different shape in terms of its recruitment, screening and matching stage as well as pre-employment training.14 In order to join the subsequent sessions

 During the Covid-19 pandemic, these sessions were cancelled. Thus, when nominating potential employers/candidates, alternative information was provided for prospective employers and candidates in the forms of self-introduction videos of candidates and information brochures of host institutions (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021e, 2021f). 14  Kawauchi (2012) noted that the precedent nurse education and recruitment programme jointly created between Japan and Vietnam planted the seeds of Japan-Vietnam EPA programme. In this joint programme run by AHP Networks, a Japan-based NPO, Vietnamese nurses receive 16-months Japanese language training in Hanoi and then study nursing in Japanese universities or vocational school to take the national licensure examination. Once they graduate and pass the examination, they practise as registered nurses in Japan. This programme generated around 60 registered Vietnamese nurses between the period of 1994 and 2008 (AHP Networks, n.d.). 13

26

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

Application

First screening by eligibility criteria

Second screening by interview & language aptitude test

Six-month preemployment training in the Philippines/ Indonesia

Third screening by language achievement test (analogous to JLPT N4/N5)

Six-month preemployment training in Japan

On-the-job training and studying in the host institution (three years for nurses and four years for caregiver candidates)

The licensure examinations

Pass = a renewable working visa for the respective profession Failure = one chance for candidature extention, or return home

Fig. 2.1  Process of the EPA Programme for Indonesian and Filipino Candidates

(briefing, information exchange and interviews), Vietnamese candidates must pass the third grade of the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) after completing the training. In the briefing session, prospective Filipino or Indonesian candidates are informed of the purposes of the EPA programme and general information about Japan, such as weather and commodity prices. After the briefing session, candidates can attend an information exchange session organised by host institutions while waiting for their interviews. The session usually includes short presentation about the facility and informal interviews with the prospective employers.15 Since information exchange sessions are organised on a voluntary basis by those institutions which can afford sending representatives overseas, only a few institutions make such direct contact with prospective candidates (Idei, 2009). In these sessions, JICWELS conducts interviews. Part of the interview is video-­ recorded by permission of each candidate and becomes available online for the host institutions if candidates nominate them as potential employers. During the interview, JICWELS rates each candidate on a three-point scale (A, B, and C being the lowest16) regarding the candidate’s understanding of the EPA programme and motivation for the JP-EPA programme (Japan International Corporation of Welfare  Personal communication with the director of a caregiving facility. During the information exchange session in 2014 in which he participated, some facilities directly approached candidates and asked them to rank the facility in first place, while others simply asked candidates to fill in a self-produced resume. 16  The assessment is relative evaluation. A means being ranked in top 10% of all, while C means bottom 15% of all and B consists of the rest in the middle (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2013). 15

2.5  Recruitment, Screening and Matching

27

Application

First screening by eligibility criteria

One-year preemployment language training in Vietnam

Second screening by JLPT N3

Third screening by interview

Two-and-a-half months pre-employment training in Japan

On-the-job training and studying in the host institution (three years for nurses and four years for caregiver candidates)

The licensure examinations

Pass = a renewable working visa for the respective profession Failure = one chance for candidature extention, or return home

Fig. 2.2  Process of the EPA Programme for Vietnamese Candidates

Services, 2016e). Although one cannot know how exactly JICWELS assesses the two given aspects, Okushima (2010) warns that JICWELS may intentionally select patient, obedient and loyal candidates favoured by Japanese employers. In fact, Muschtar (2009, as cited in Okushima, 2010, p. 317) reported that the Indonesian counterpart of the POEA emphasised in the briefing session that desirable attributes of the Japan-Indonesia EPA candidates are diligence, sincerity, patience and discipline. It is not known, however, whether this kind of briefing session is being conducted for the JP-EPA candidates or the Japan-Vietnam EPA candidates. The ability screening, held together with interviews, has shown a whirlwind of change over the years (see Table 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5). The JP-EPA programme is simpler than the EPA programmes with Indonesia and Vietnam, as Filipino applicants faced no ability assessment until a language aptitude test was introduced both for Filipino and Indonesian applicants in 2021. With the exception of the year 2020 when no ability screening was administered for applicants, Indonesian applicants had been continuously assessed by an aptitude test (during the period of 2012–2019) and by Japanese language quiz (during the period of 2012–2017), whereas the aptitude test was administered for Vietnamese applicants (during the period of 2014–2019). Asato (2012) noted that the introduction of the Japanese language quiz was rejected by the Filipino government. However, there has been no official explanation with regard to this important difference among the three EPA programmes and the purpose and actual content of the assessments.17  According to JICWELS, an aptitude test assesses ten items such as test-takers’ service mind and cooperativeness (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2018a), while a language aptitude test examines test-takers’ general aptitude for language acquisition (Japan International 17

28

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

Table 2.3  Category of the Ability Screening and its Administrative Change: Aptitude Test

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

JP-EPA programme N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Japan-Indonesia EPA programme

Japan-Vietnam EPA programme (began in 2014)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ N/A

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ N/A

Table 2.4 Category of the Ability Screening and its Administrative Change: Japanese Language Quiz

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

JP-EPA programme N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Japan-Indonesia EPA programme

Japan-Vietnam EPA programme (began in 2014)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Table 2.5 Category of the Ability Screening and its Administrative Change: Language Aptitude Test JP-EPA programme Japan-Indonesia EPA programme Japan-Vietnam EPA programme 2021 ✓ N/A ✓ 2022 ✓ N/A ✓

After the interviews, candidates and healthcare facilities enter the matching stage, firstly by obtaining information about each other. In past years, the information given to both parties was criticised for being insufficient (Idei, 2009) and inconsistent (Ballescas, 2010). However, host institutions can now obtain access to such details as the candidate’s name, gender, age, home location, academic background, Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021f). No official explanation was offered for the Japanese language quiz.

2.6  Pre-Employment Training

29

Japanese language learning experience, overseas work experience, previous work experience, family and marital status, and presence of family and relatives in Japan, preferred type/location/area of host institutions, estimated duration of stay after acquiring the professional certificate, special considerations, in addition to interview results, the interview video clip and a photograph. Likewise, JP-EPA candidates can receive a detailed description of the facility, its training plan, regional average price index and information about accommodation (e.g., amount of rental deposit and monthly rent). By utilising such resources, both sides then nominate potential employees/employers in the first round18 in rank order on a score sheet (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2016e). JICWELS collects these score sheets and then provides each candidate and facility with a list which contains information about which facilities/candidates show interest in recruiting or being employed.19 Based on this list, each party is required to finalise the selection and finally JICWELS processes these final nominations for mechanical matching through computers.

2.6 Pre-Employment Training The successfully matched JP-EPA candidates and host institutions sign a standard Japanese labour contract20 and then a designated categories visa will be issued for the candidates. Designation here means that candidates are granted entry to and stay in Japan only for pursuing the designated activities, including pre-employment training and in-facility training in order to obtain a certification of a nurse or caregiver. JP-EPA candidates then proceed to pre-employment training about the Japanese language, culture and healthcare system and practice. The initial length of the training was six months after arrival in Japan. Even though officials of the Association for Overseas Technical Scholarship (one of the training organisers) optimistically estimated that candidates could reach semi-second grade of JLPT after the six-­ month training (Setyowati et  al., 2012), the training was criticised for being too short and experimental and unrealistically ambitious to cultivate human resources capable of working in the healthcare facilities even by the training directors and  The second round of the matching process is conducted for candidates who are not matched in the first round and healthcare facilities which were not matched or have not yet recruited the proposed number of candidates on the first round. 19  According to JICWELS (2021f), the degree of interest from each party is indicated in rank order (e.g., candidates/facilities will know which facility/candidate ranked them as the first, second, third, fourth or fifth and so forth). 20  The labour contract includes contract period, labour location, job description, regular pay, overtime pay, working hours, holiday allowance, and other benefits. With respect to the EPA programme, it stipulates regulations that the host institutions must pay candidates’ travel expenses, have them covered by labour and social insurances and prohibit imposing trial periods on the candidates (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021f). 18

30

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

instructors (e.g., Noborizato et al., 2010). In fact, the then training director of the Association for Overseas Technical Scholarship admitted that six months was insufficient and further stated that the goal of the training was then limited to “providing a soft-landing method for EPA candidates to begin working in the host institutions” (Haruhara, 2009, p. 57). As a result, the training duration has extended year after year. At present, JP-EPA candidates are required to undergo 12 months of language training in total. Apart from the training duration, language training has come under widespread criticisms. Idei (2009) pinpointed the patronage-driven system in which training organisers, the Japan Foundation and the Association for Overseas Technical Scholarship, profiteer by running the training, as private institutions can provide teaching materials and human resources at a lower price. Although the Japanese government invites bidders to submit proposals for conducting the training, it is usually the Japan Foundation and the Association for Overseas Technical Scholarship, with close connections with MOFA and METI respectively, that the government selects and commissions for the training. Under the current programme, the first six months of training for JP-EPA candidates is held in the Philippines and organised by the Japan Foundation. This training acts as a preparatory session to assist mastery of pre-intermediate Japanese proficiency for daily life and job training (784  h) and to cultivate social and cultural understanding (e.g., people, geography, lifestyles, customs, work-specific practice and ethics, transportation, etc.) (66 h) (Japan Foundation, n.d.). After the completion of this training, JP-EPA candidates take a medical examination as well as pre-­ departure and post-departure briefing sessions organised by POEA and JICWELS respectively. The second half of language training is currently administered by the Association for Overseas Technical Cooperation and Sustainable Partnerships (AOTS), the successor of the Association for Overseas Technical Scholarship.21 The training consists of 675 h with a focus on Japanese in real-life and real-work situations and in nursing or carework; 50 h for cultural and social understanding; and 90 h for nursing/caregiving specific systems and workplace rules in Japan that are learned through lectures, practical exercises and facility tours (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2016d, 2016f). During the training, candidates are also required to sit three exams (at the beginning of arrival, in the middle of the training, and at the end), results of which are sent to host institutions. In parallel with the training, JICWELS conducts pre-service job-specific guidance and employment guidance for candidates and a briefing session for host facilities. According to JICWELS (2016e), the job-specific guidance lasts about ten days and provides lectures and practical exercises, focusing on the acquisition of nursing

 In March 2012, the Association for Overseas Technical Scholarship (previous training provider of the JP-EPA programme) and the Japan Overseas Development Corporation merged into the Overseas Human Resources and Industry Development Association (HIDA). In 2017, HIDA was renamed as the Association for Overseas Technical Cooperation and Sustainable Partnership (AOTS). 21

2.7  On-the-Job Training

31

or caregiving knowledge and skills which are considered the introductory level of preparation for the national licensure exams. Nurse candidates learn current conditions about nursing professionals in Japan, basic concepts and programmes of social welfare, medical insurance and long-term care insurance, and the introductory part of home-based care and mental care. The following contents are taught to caregiver candidates: the basic principles of caregiving in Japan, overview of Japan’s long-­ term care insurance, understanding of dementia and terminal care, and techniques of livelihood support. In addition, the employment guidance covers the purpose of the EPA programme, candidates’ legal rights and responsibilities in relation to the Labour Standard Act and the Immigration Control Act, social welfare and labour insurance and tax system, and rules for deportation, and a variety of supports that they are able to receive during their stay in Japan. In the briefing session for the host institutions, training supervisors of each institution are re-informed about requirements of the EPA programme and administrative procedures after the pre-­ employment training. On this occasion, the supervisors can also meet and talk to their candidates, although the briefing session requires voluntary participation.

2.7 On-the-Job Training After completing all the training and guidance, EPA candidates are dispatched to the host institutions. At this stage, the institutions play a supervisory role in on-the-job training as well as exam preparation including Japanese language education based on the training plan that they have submitted upon application. On the other hand, JICWELS plays a monitoring role in requiring the facilities to report on the candidates, such as their progress in on-the-job training and exam preparation on a regular and as-needed basis as well as in performing annual compliance auditing, and on-site progress checks of candidates’ study and training. Work-related duties that EPA candidates perform in each facility are considered as on-the-job training. Although each facility and training plan is different, JICWELS’s survey data (2011a, 2011b, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b, 2015a, 2015b, 2016b, 2016c, 2017a, 2017b, 2018b, 2018c, 2019a, 2019b, 2020a, 2020b, 2021c, 2021d) gives a brief sketch of their work routine. Caregiver candidates conduct a broad range of tasks: observation, environmental maintenance, record keeping, job handovers/bedside report, creating care plans, supporting transportation and rehabilitation, and organising recreational activities. They also give everyday living support (e.g., oral care, bathing, toilet care, feeding, dressing, dispensing of drugs) and attend conferences. Since carework in Japan does not necessarily require a caregiver certification or prior experience, they can fully perform their work duties without any qualification obstacles.22  Unlike registered nurses, the qualification of certified caregivers is not regulated under the occupational licensing system which only allows credential holders to perform the specified occupation. Although this means carework is technically open to everybody, the qualification of certified 22

32

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

In contrast, nurse candidates cannot engage in medical practice unless they pass the national nursing examinations and thus they work as assistant nurses, who do not need a national qualification or any professional background and knowledge. They assist patients according to their physical conditions and needs (e.g., bathing, toilet care, feeding) and environment (e.g., patient transfer, maintenance of patients’ rooms, wheelchairs and stretchers). They also perform general duties such as transporting specimen and laboratory test results, reception of drugs, hygiene maintenance, guiding in- and outpatients, and preparing operation rooms, managing hospital equipment and instruments. In sum, both nurse and caregiver candidates are likely to conduct similar tasks, although facility users in a hospital and in a caregiving facility have different medical, physical and mental conditions that range from specific diseases, dementia, to loss of different body functions. JP-EPA candidates perform the aforementioned tasks with some confidence from their nursing experience, TESDA caregiver qualification and job-specific guidance during the post-departure training. Over 90% of caregiving facilities and hospitals have had no medical accident or incident caused by EPA candidates (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2011a, 2011b, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a). Also, a track record of JICWELS’s surveys (2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b, 2015a, 2015b, 2016b, 2016c, 2017a, 2017b, 2018b, 2018c, 2019a, 2019b, 2020a, 2020b, 2021c, 2021d) has constantly showed that nearly 99% of caregiving facilities and hospitals were satisfied with EPA candidates’ caregiving/nursing services. Other reports provided by private organisations demonstrated analogous results. According to Mizuho Information & Research Institute (2013a, 2013b), 90% of caregiving facilities reported that no accidents have been caused by EPA candidates and about 75% of caregiving facility users have given them high marks for their caregiving services. Mitsubishi UFJ Research and Consulting (2019) and Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Worker (2011) have reached a very similar conclusion that around 80% of caregiving facilities received no or few complaints from facility users and their families. Despite these positive data, according to the latest JICWELS’s report (2021c, 2021d), around 30% of caregiver and 60% of nurse candidates were not fully confident about undertaking job tasks independently. While this percentage has improved for the caregiver candidates, from 66% in 2010 (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2011a) to 32% in 2020 (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021c), the percentage for nurse candidates has stayed at 60–70%, indicating the necessity of improving the existing pre- and in-service training. Successful on-the-job training depends not only on the acquisition of professional skills and knowledge but also on the degree of EPA candidates’ integration into the workplace. Difference in culture and values is one of the concerns among healthcare facilities, as EPA candidates are expected to face a different work culture such as the seniority system, punctuality, rules against small talk and sitting down

caregivers can increase one’s wages and often considered as a necessary credential for those who wish one’s career advancement in the carework industry.

2.7  On-the-Job Training

33

during working hours, and anticipating the next task even when approaching the end of one’s working hours (Alam & Wulansari, 2010; Ballescas, 2010). To cope with this issue, some facilities made initial efforts by giving an orientation for staff and patients about their cultural backgrounds (Hirano et al., 2010; Katsui & Yamana, 2011). Over time, they have built partnerships and rapport and even made several favourable changes in work conduct, such as accurate information exchange, polite language use among staff and a positive atmosphere (Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Worker, 2011). In fact, most host institutions have continued to regard highly the contribution of EPA candidates, responding that they accommodate themselves well to work rules, ethics and customs and cooperate well with Japanese staff (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b, 2015a, 2015b, 2016a, 2016b, 2017a, 2017b, 2018b, 2018c, 2019a, 2019b, 2020a, 2020b, 2021b, 2021c). As well, the number of healthcare facilities which negatively evaluated candidates’ nursing/caregiving service for patients/facility users has been decreasing. According to earlier JICWELS’s reports (2011a, 2011b), about eight percent of hospitals and six percent of caregiving facilities were dissatisfied with the service provided by EPA candidates. About ten years later, however, there were almost no such comments in the same series of reports (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021c, 2021d). Communication is another key, as it serves as a basis to develop professional knowledge and skill as well as mutual understanding and interpersonal relationships. Since most EPA candidates have no prior Japanese language learning experience, one can imagine how communication easily surfaces as a major problem in the workplace. In fact, JICWELS’s survey data (2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b, 2015a, 2015b, 2016a, 2016b, 2017a, 2017b, 2018b, 2018c, 2019a, 2019b, 2020a, 2020b, 2021b, 2021c) demonstrated that the first-year EPA candidates with at least 18 months’ Japanese-language learning experience (12-months in the language training and six-months in the facility) encounter more communication issues than the final-year EPA candidates. However, the same series of JICWEL’s surveys also showed the stable trend that 70–90% of hospitals and caregiving facilities observe no problems in oral workplace communication if Japanese staff speak plain language slowly. The simplistic analysis of these two findings from the surveys would suggest that EPA candidates become well-accustomed to workplace communication, improving their oral communication skills (e.g., verbal day-­ to-­day communication with facility users and colleagues, their understanding of instructions made by colleagues) as more time passes. Yet, workplace communication is never so simple. Some candidates are confused about the use of honorifics (Ueno, 2012), while others are trapped between different modality and register (e.g., speaking vs. writing, professional/technical vs. lay) that exist in Japanese (Setyowati et al., 2010), which could be related to their lack of knowledge in technical terminology and understanding of local Japanese varieties (Setyowati et  al., 2012). In addition, JICWELS’s reports (2013a, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b, 2015a, 2015b, 2016a, 2016b, 2017a, 2017b, 2018b, 2018c, 2019a, 2019b, 2020a, 2020b, 2021b, 2021c) continuously showed that the positive effect on their written communication skill is less visible than their oral communication skill and

34

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

that host institutions steadily give candidates’ written Japanese communication skills lower evaluation than their oral communication skills (see also Kusunoki, 2018 for a similar result). In this context, Kanji23 is often identified as a considerable barrier for EPA candidates. In the actual workplaces, candidates need to read simple written documents such as handwritten memos, equipment lists in storage rooms, and lists of facility users/patients, all of which can be full of Kanji. The on-the-job training may require candidates to perform tasks at higher levels, such as record-­ keeping (Ogawa et  al., 2010) where literacy is crucial for the job. Alam and Wulansari (2010) optimistically conclude that candidates can overcome such linguistic barriers by increasing physical contact with patients and empathy for them. Since such strategies do not remove underlying communication issues, sufficient learning support during and after the 12-months’ training has been proposed as the prime solution among many researchers, such as Ballescas (2010) and Noborizato et al. (2010), to name a few. Irrespective of whether on-the-job training goes successful or meaningful for the professional development of candidates as well as the achievement of the EPA’s officially stated goal, concerns over their treatment in the workplace are continuously expressed. Indeed, the Philippines Nurses Association (Maeda, 2013) and some researchers (Ballescas, 2010; Vilog et al., 2020) stress that nurses qualified in the Philippines are being/will be deskilled through the JP-EPA programme. Especially among the early batches of the EPA candidates, many came with high expectations of learning advanced healthcare knowledge and skills in Japan (Adachi et  al., 2010) but received little instruction about the difference between Japan’s nursing scope and practice and the Philippines’ (Hirano 2009a as cited in Hirano, 2016, p. 40), resulting in frustration and dissatisfaction with their actual work duties (Ballescas, 2010). Researchers also argue that EPA candidates bear the consequence of deskilling once they choose to leave Japan or are made to return home. The candidature period is unlikely to be counted as professional working experience, because, for the nurse candidates, they worked as nurses’ aides and for the caregiver candidates, this profession is hardly recognised in their home countries where different certification, concepts and practice of caregiving apply and less demand for eldercare exists (Kurniati et al., 2017; Ogawa, 2012). Training capacity of host institutions is another important issue here to discuss the treatment of EPA candidates. Healthcare institutions in Japan do not normally carry the same function of training facilities as nursing schools or caregiver vocational schools; the latter provide students with professional knowledge and skills and prepare them for the national licensure examinations through classroom lectures and skill practices. While healthcare institutions provide internships, clinical experiences and hands-on learning opportunities, in principle, they are workplaces rather than training institutions. As Asato (2012) pointed out, most hospitals in Japan have no experience in training nurses partly because Japanese nurses do not

 Kanji is one of the three scripts in the Japanese language, which is almost analogous to Chinese characters. 23

2.8  Exam Preparation

35

need to renew their licences.24 Even with some financial and educational support from MHLW and JICWELS, the debate around the deskilling of qualified nurses will continue until the EPA programme is reformed or the training capacities of healthcare facilities are sufficiently developed in the midst of a workforce crisis. While there should be no time wasted in initiating such reforms to settle issues of deskilling, it is worthy of note that some qualified nurses choose the caregiver course on their own. According to Sawa (2018), some Indonesian nurses apply for the caregiver course instead of the nurse course, because they tend to think only those with high academic achievement and work career are shortlisted for the latter. Likewise, some Philippines-qualified nurses with less than three years of working experience have deliberately applied for the caregiver course, even though they know they cannot work in the nursing profession.25

2.8 Exam Preparation Japanese language learning during the candidature is important not only to ease communication issues at work but also to better prepare for the national licensure examination, for candidates are expected to pass the national nursing/caregiving examination at the end of their candidature.26 Nurse candidates can take the exam three times during their three-year limit of stay. Caregiver candidates have only one chance during their four years of stay, since a prerequisite for sitting the caregiving exam is to have more than three years of carework experience. Host institutions are obliged to assist candidates in passing the examinations. However, how this obligation is understood and performed varies depending on host institutions. In other words, overall preparation plan, methods and materials for exam preparation are at the discretion of each facility, resulting in a diverse form of study support. According to JICWELS’s latest survey data (2021c, 2021d), the top three types of educational assistance provided for nursing and caregiver candidates alike are: instruction by facility staff, instruction by Japanese-language instructors, and learning courses and materials organised or published by JICWELS. However, the differences between hospitals and caregiving facilities are striking. In the multiple-­choice question on this issue, around 60% of trainers in host hospitals  The licensure renewal system has not been introduced for caregivers certificates, too.  Personal communication with two JP-EPA caregiver candidates. POEA takes measures for rejecting nursing license holders on the application for the caregiver course. However, the candidates I spoke to applied for the caregiver course without disclosing the fact that they indeed have a nursing license at the application stage. See also Ogawa (2012) and Itoh (2014). 26  Unlike the nursing examination, the caregiving national examination is two-fold. Applicants must take an accompanying skill test beside the written licensure exam. However, they are excused from taking the skill set if they complete a fee-based 32-h long intensive course. As JICWELS encourages host institutions to use the subsidies for the course fee (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021a), it is likely that the only hurdle for most EPA candidates is the caregiving licensure examination. 24 25

36

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

responded that their hospital staff and/or Japanese language instructors have provided educational assistance for nurse candidates and 20–40% of them have utilised JICWELS-developed e-learning materials and individual tutorial sessions. On the contrary, the highest percentage found in the responses from trainers at host caregiving facilities was significantly lower. The most popular educational assistance for caregiver candidates was to utilise JICWELS-developed correspondence courses. Yet, only 21% of trainers have selected this option, followed by the option of attendance at JICWELS-organised face-to-face learning courses (17%) and instruction by facility staff (17%). As the provided options for caregiving facilities is more diverse than that for hospitals, this difference may mean that caregiving facilities have relied on multiple forms of educational assistance rather than focusing on one or two specific and fixed means. However, caregiving facilities are found to rely more on JICWELS’s educational assistance than direct instruction by facility staff or by Japanese-language instructors which requires physical presence and the availability of experienced facility staff or additional funding to hire the instructors. Not only methods and materials but also time allocation is another essential aspect of exam preparation. The ideal situation is to give as much time as possible for exam preparation. However, a bipolarised trend was found in the allotted time for exam preparation among the host institutions because no regulation exists in the EPA programme that designates the balance between work hours and study hours. According to Asato (2012), an approximately equal number of facilities allocate about 20-to-25 h per week on the one hand or about zero-to-five h per week on the other. Similarly, the latest JICWELS’s survey data (2021c, 2021d) reflects this trend in that average study time allotted for nurse candidates within their work hours is 13.3 h per week, while the average caregiver candidates study 11.9 h a week at host institutions.27 The perceived difficulty in examinations may explain the difference between study time spent by caregiver candidates and nurse candidates. JICWELS’s latest survey data (2021c, 2021d) illustrated that nurse candidates usually devote more time for exam preparation than caregiver candidates, given that the past passing rate on the national examination for the nurse candidates has been far lower than that for the caregiver candidates (see Tables 2.6 and 2.7 below). However, allotted study time for EPA candidates is found to be beyond their control and the gap between haves and have-nots is more appropriately framed as an issue of finance and human resources in the host institutions. Saitoh and Miyazawa (2020) found that relatively large-scale hospitals and major hospital groups can afford to tap into an ample pool of professionals within the institutions who can instruct EPA candidates or to create a group-wide support system, resulting in producing more exam passers than small-scale or public hospitals. Similarly, Hirano and Tsubota (2016) demonstrated that hospitals spend longer time supporting EPA candidates than caregiving facilities, due to the different scale and scope in

27  It is noteworthy that only 11.2 h out of the total study hours (11.9 h) are counted as work duties while caregiver candidates study for 0.7 h on average after/before work or during recess.

2.8  Exam Preparation

37

Table 2.6  Number of Nursing Exam Passers (Total Number of Test-takers) and Passing Rate Year of exam 2009

Filipino N/A N/A

2010

1 (59)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total

1.7%

Indonesian 0 (82) 0%

Vietnamese N/A N/A

EPA total 0 (82)

0%

3 (254)

1.2%

16 (398) N/A N/A 47 (415) N/A N/A 30 (311) N/A N/A 32 (301) 1 (20) 5.0% 26 (357) 14 41.2% 47 (34) (429) 15 40.5% 65 (37) (447) 18 45.0% 78(441) (40) 23 47.9% 69 (48) (423) 18 28.1% 46 (64) (413) 28 33.3% 70 (84) (335) 24 25.8% 44 (93) (370) 141 33.6% 573 (420) (4976)

4.0%

2 (195)

1.0% N/A

N/A

1 (113)

0.9% 15(285)

5.3% N/A

N/A

13 (158) 10 (138) 16 (150) 14 (163) 22 (192) 29 (192) 31 (185) 31 (175) 16 (153) 25 (111) 11 (135) 220 (1924)

8.2% 7.2% 10.7% 8.6% 11.5% 15.1% 16.8% 17.7% 10.5% 22.5% 8.1%

34 (257) 20 (173) 16 (151) 11 (174) 11 (203) 21 (218) 29 (216) 15 (200) 12 (196) 17 (140) 9 (142)

11.4% 212 (2632)

13.2% 11.6% 10.6% 6.3% 5.4% 9.6% 13.4% 7.5% 6.1% 12.1% 6.3% 8.1%

11.3% 9.6% 10.6% 7.3% 11.0% 14.5% 17.7% 16.3% 11.1% 20.9% 11.9% 11.5%

All test-takers 45,784 89.9% (50,906) 47,340 89.5% (52,883) 49,688 91.8% (54,138) 48,400 90.1% (53,702) 50,232 88.8% (56,546) 53,495 89.6% (59,725) 54,871 90.0% (60,947) 55,585 89.4% (62,154) 55,367 88.5% (62,534) 58,682 91.0% (64,488) 56,767 89.3% (63,603) 58,514 89.2% (65,569) 59,769 90.4% (66,124) 59,344 91.3% (65,025) 753,838 89.9% (838,344)

Reorganised based on MHLW (2021a)

financial management. As the long-term care insurance system introduced in 2000 has fuelled the marketisation of eldercare and enabled many private cooperatives and non-profit organisations to start caregiving business, caregiving facilities are more likely to face competition in terms of cost reduction as well as staff recruitment (Nishimura, 2000). The perceived difference between nursing and caregiving professions may be another factor in the differing number of study hours given for nurse candidates and caregiver candidates. In general, hospitals and caregiving facilities hold different views toward the professional licence. Many caregiving facilities believed that Japan should accept foreign caregivers without requiring them to pass the national examination, whereas hospitals tend to maintain the necessity of foreign nurses

Filipino 1 (1) 42 (138) 32 (108) 31 (89) 34 (79) 36 (100) 62 (164) 95 (236) 92 (313) 130 (375) 96 (380) 651 (1983)

100% 30.4% 29.6% 34.8% 43.0% 36.0% 37.8% 40.3% 29.4% 34.7% 25.3% 32.8%

Indonesian 35 (94) 86 (184) 46 (107) 47 (85) 48 (82) 68 (109) 62 (161) 78 (236) 107 (293) 146 (400) 122 (448) 845 (2199) 37.2% 46.7% 43.0% 55.3% 58.5% 62.4% 38.5% 33.1% 36.5% 36.5% 27.2% 38.4%

Vietnamese N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 89 (95) 93 (106) 138 (152) 164 (178) 156 (186) 640 (717)

Retrieved from MHLW (2014, 2015, 2016b, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021b)

Year of exam 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 93.7% 87.7% 90.8% 92.1% 83.9% 89.3%

EPA total 36 (95) 128 (322) 78 (215) 78 (174) 82 (161) 104 (209) 213 (420) 266 (578) 337 (758) 440 (953) 374 (1014) 2136 (4899)

Table 2.7  Number of Caregiving Exam Passers (Total Number of Test-takers) and Passing Rate

37.9% 39.8% 36.3% 44.8% 50.9% 49.8% 50.7% 46.0% 44.5% 46.2% 36.9% 43.6%

All test-takers 88,190 (137,961) 87,797 (136,375) 99,689 (154,390) 93,760 (153,808) 88,300 (152,573) 55,031 (76,323) 65,574 (92,654) 69,736 (94,610) 58,745 (84,032) 59,975 (84,483) 60,099 (83,082) 826,896 (1,250,291)

63.9% 64.4% 64.6% 61.0% 57.9% 72.1% 70.8% 73.7% 69.9% 71.0% 72.3% 66.1%

38 2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

2.9  Educational and Financial Assistance

39

passing the national examination (Ogawa et al., 2010). Given that caregiver candidates can exercise their professional capacities in their work duties in a fuller manner than nurse candidates, some facilities join the EPA programme to solve workforce shortages (Ogawa et al., 2010) resulting in little study time for caregiver candidates. Hospitals with adequate funding and resourceful management may not necessarily share such an immediate economic-oriented agenda. They may, however, appreciate other potential benefits in the EPA programme, such as the internationalisation of the workplace and future participation in the medical tourism industry, where foreign-born nurses could cater for foreign patients (Hirano & Tsubota, 2016). To actualise these possible scenarios, a firm commitment to educating nurse candidates is a necessary investment: this includes offering them sufficient study time and helping them towards passing the licensure examination.

2.9 Educational and Financial Assistance Initially, all the educational and financial assistance to enhance on-the-job training and exam preparation was entirely entrusted to host institutions. This took a toll on them, adding to the large amount of money that they already paid in order to accept the candidates (Akaba et al., 2013). In 2010, MHLW started assisting host institutions financially. According to JICWELS (2021a), they provide each host institution with up to JPY117,000 per nurse candidate and up to JPY235,000 per caregiver candidate per year for their language learning and exam preparation.28 For the further enhancement of on-the-job training, each hospital gains a maximum of JPY461,000 per year, while each caregiving facility receives up to JPY80,000 at maximum per year to pay an allowance for training supporter(s). Like MHLW, JICWELS’s support was largely limited to subsidies in the past. However, they have shown a remarkable change in their support for host institution and candidates from 2011 onward. First, JICWELS begun organising information sharing sessions in 2011  in which training supervisors of host institutions share their experiences and build connections with each other. Although this event became unavailable for caregiving facilities in 2017, JICWELS actively offers information about the best practices of exam passers to both targeted caregiving institutions (begun in 2017) and hospitals (begun in 2019). In 2018, JICWELS started conducting training sessions for the training supervisors of each host hospital and provides a specialised booklet for them to create a learning programme for their own candidates and manage their exam preparation. Second, together with Japanese-language professionals, JICWELS conducts hearings and face-to-face consultation sessions with training supervisors, training supporters and candidates during their annual facility visit. Third, JICWELS offers multilingual telephone consultation service for  Having completed a training about sucking and removing sputum has become part of the prerequisite for taking the national caregiving examination. Thus the training fee (up to JPY95,000) is also covered by MHLW (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021a). 28

40

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

the facilities and the candidates so that they can make inquiries and enlist professional guidance regarding on-the-job training, examination preparation, mental health, and employment and visa management. The popularity has been attested by the expansion of this service. In 2018, this service was made available also to EPA nurses and caregivers who have passed the examinations and the operating hours increased from two days a week for about six hours and a half to five days a week for 7 h and a half. In 2021, the consultation service has begun offering a toll-free number. Lastly, JICWELS provides various kinds of learning materials and tools to support Japanese language learning and professional knowledge building. For example, both nurse and caregiver candidates are encouraged to participate in joint seminars including mock exam sessions to be held regularly throughout their candidature. Over the past few years, JICWELS has geared toward developing e-learning tools by which candidates take exam preparatory courses, online mock exams and Kanji tests, and online learning consultation (see Sect. 5.5.3). Yet, a wide range of educational aids do not guarantee a high degree of usefulness or quality. In effect, JICWELS is found to poorly execute some of the services. More than half of the healthcare facilities reported that they did not receive any annual visit and the JICWELS textbooks and some of the e-learning supports are also underused due to inadequate and insufficient publicity (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2013). Therefore, many host institutions are still overstretched in shouldering most of the educational and financial costs (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2013), implying that they are not necessarily thankful for JICWELS’s support. In addition, the seemingly satisfactory governmental support does not necessarily fill the gap between resourceful and resourceless institutions, because those located in the metropolitan area could draw easily on location-specific resources such as assistance initiated by nearby educational organisations and a high possibility of securing external language or professional instructors in the urban areas (Saitoh & Miyazawa, 2020). In summary, while MHLW and JICWELS provide equal amount of support to each healthcare facility, on-the-job training and exam preparation takes a range of shapes according to many variables, such as the type of facility, its financial and staffing situation, and the availability and capability of supporting staff. Even the physical environment becomes crucial, as it is hard to enlist external support in the rural areas of Japan, where language schools and nursing/caregiving vocational schools do not exist within a reasonable distance. The pre-employment training is well-conceived in the sense that its emphasis on self-learning is designed to prepare candidates for situations where little external and/or internal support is anticipated (Noborizato et al., 2010, for discussion on self-learing, see also Chap. 5).

2.10  The National Licensure Examinations

41

2.10 The National Licensure Examinations Generating a consistent number of exam passers is crucial to pay off the efforts which the candidates and the facilities have made and to sustain a political relationship between Japan and the partner countries. Up until 2020, 106 nurse and 176 caregiver JP-EPA candidates have passed the examinations (see Tables 2.6 and 2.7). These numbers have been small: the passing rate of nurse candidates is 9.1% and that of caregiver candidate is 34.2% on average, whereas that of all test-takers is 89.7% and 63.2% respectively. This trend has also been seen among Indonesian and Vietnamese candidates (see Tables 2.6 and 2.7). Low achievement of the candidates is not surprising as researchers have already pointed out some fundamental issues. The Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education (WNCJE) (2011) noted that Japanese language in the caregiving examination is far above the Japanese proficiency level required for reading Japanese newspapers or auditing university lectures in Japanese. Tajiri (2010) also pinpointed that the Japanese language used in the examinations differs from that in JLPT in that the examinations include longer sentences with many technical terms and mostly written in Kanji. More specifically, Okuda (2011) found that the national nursing examinations used a limited number of target words of JLPT at a high frequency, highlighting the significant difference between the two tests. Several attempts to close the gap between the Japanese language in general use and in the examinations have been taken by three advisory panels under the jurisdiction of MHLW.  Although the first few nursing examinations were given without modification, the first change was reflected in the nursing examination administered in 2011, following suggestions made by the Advisory Panel Regarding Technical Terms in the National Nursing Examination (hereafter the Nursing Exam Panel 1) in 2010. This reform includes the use of reading aids, Furigana,29 for difficult Kanji, the supplementary use of English equivalent words for disease names, changes in punctuation, paraphrasing into plain words, avoidance of subject-omitted sentence, clear expressions and affirmative sentences. In the following year, the Advisory Panel Regarding the Use of Mother Tongue and English in the National Nursing Examination and Supplementary Use of Communication Skills Test (hereafter the Nursing Exam Panel 2) was inaugurated. This panel investigated the possibility of conducting the national nursing examination in English and Indonesian with the supplementary use of a communication skills test. However, the final report of the panel rejected such a possibility but instead proposed to add Furigana for all Kanji and extend the testing time. The caregiving examination has generally reflected the reform made in the national nursing examination, following the recommendations put forth by the  Furigana is often used as a reading aid and printed above or next to Kanji to indicate the pronunciation. In principle, it consists of Hiragana (a syllabic orthography which is considered to have its origins in Japan). 29

42

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

Nursing Exam Panel 1. Later, the Advisory Panel Regarding the Special Treatment for EPA Caregiver Candidates on the National Caregiving Examination (hereafter the Caregiving Exam Panel) was set up in 2012 to discuss the improvement of Japanese written expression as well as the possible use of the translated caregiving examination along with a Japanese communication skills test. Eventually, this panel rejected the combined use of translated examination and a communication skills test, while proposing to review the writing of Japanese in general, enlarge the use of English and Furigana and extend the testing time, all of which were implemented in the examination in 2013 and onward. In sum, MHLW has not yet made any bold language-related modifications with regard to the choice of the medium of the examination. Instead, three relief measures; (1) the extension of testing time (1.5 times longer than the usual), (2) the addition of Furigana for all Kanji and English for disease names, and (3) minor editorial modification have been in place since 2013 and remain intact for both examinations today. However, there had been no significant upward trend in the passing rate of Filipino and Indonesian candidates after the modifications were introduced (Tables 2.6 and 2.7). As a result, three broad measures to modify the EPA programme per se were undertaken, though in an ad hoc and unsystematic manner. Firstly, Japan has set the linguistic benchmark for all EPA candidates. This initiative can be partly attributed to the strict linguistic benchmark set out for Vietnamese applicants, which is believed to have led to the success of Vietnamese candidates whose exam passing rate records are much higher than those of Indonesian and Filipino candidates (Tables 2.6 and 2.7). In order to become EPA candidates, Vietnamese applicants must attain the third level (N3) on the JLPT after 12-months of homeland language training. On the other hand, Filipino and Indonesian candidates faced no (linguistic) screening after they survived the initial screening, interviews and the ability screening, and during/after the pre-­employment training. It was 2013 and 2015 respectively for Japan-Indonesia EPA programme and JP-EPA programme to require candidates to attain the level equivalent to the fifth grade of JLPT (N5) as a prerequisite for entering Japan and receiving the post-­ departure training. A few years later, the bar was further raised to the fourth grade (N4) for JP-EPA candidates (in 2019) and for Japan-Indonesian EPA candidates (in 2020). Secondly, MHLW has created a special treatment for EPA candidates who have failed the examinations by the end of their stay in Japan. If they have achieved half of the passing points on the national examination in the final year of their stay and the host institutions also meets administrative requirements,30 MHLW grants them one extra year to take one more exam, i.e., one more chance. This treatment was initially given only to Indonesian candidates among 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 arrivals and Filipino candidates among 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 arrivals, because they received less than 12-months’ language training (Ministry of Health Labour  For example, host institutions are required to improve the training plan and the training itself in accordance with personality and characteristics of candidates who are going to extend one more year (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2011). 30

2.10  The National Licensure Examinations

43

and Welfare, 2011). However, it has become a permanent treatment, probably reflecting Japan’s diplomatic gesture toward the signatory countries. Thirdly, JICWELS started a support project for the EPA returnees who have failed the examinations and returned home. They provide learning consulting, correspondence learning support, a mock examination session in their home country (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021b), in addition to holding Japan-affiliated job fairs at diplomatic establishments in those countries (Pikiran Rakyat, 2011, as cited in Anwar, 2019; Sekiguchi, 2012a). The exact number of EPA returnees who have retried the examinations is not officially disclosed. Yet, a small number is expected, since candidates must pay a short visit to Japan and take the examination in Japan at their own expense. A few NPOs and foundations have started to support their travel fee, accommodation, and extra exam preparation training (Asato Salvador Cultural Harmonization Center, n.d.; Japan Asia Medical Nurse Association, 2021; Sekiguchi, 2012a, 2012b). On the other hand, some EPA returnees have utilised their linguistic and social capital gained through the EPA programme to work as trainers for home-grown caregivers in Indonesia (Agustin et al., 2019), interpreters or healthcare professionals in assisted living facilities for older adults jointly established by Indonesian and Japanese corporations (Kage & Maeyama, 2018; Sasaki, 2016) and clinics catering to Japanese patients in Indonesia (Idei, 2014; Kage & Maeyama, 2018). While the majority of candidates failed the exams, there are EPA candidates who succeeded in the examinations. Although some exam passers were found to return home,31 more than half of the exam passers have been working as certified healthcare professionals in Japan (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2016a). While the reform of the EPA programme generally taps into the national examinations, there has been little discussion with regard to workplace safety, wellbeing, job retention and professional development for the EPA nurses and caregivers. For example, regulatory constraints are still evident in the EPA programme, automatically shutting down some of their this career paths in the future. Under the current programme, EPA candidates are not allowed to perform in-home nursing/ caregiving service (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2008), even though they are fully accredited professionals.32 Also, the stated goal of the EPA programme is for candidates to obtain the nurse/caregiver certificate in Japan and not to support their long-term employment. In theory, EPA nurses and caregivers can work in Japan on a long-term basis and bring their families to Japan, too. However, a spouse of an EPA nurse/caregiver is allowed to work only up to 28  h a week (Japan

 The Japanese government does not publish a track record of returnees, including those who have passed the examinations. However, according to Matsukawa and Morimoto (2016), more than 30% of the candidates who passed the exams have left, as of 2016. The latest data provided by JICWELS demonstrated that 468 candidates and 105 exam passers left Japan as of 2016 (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2016a). 32  This restriction may not apply to those EPA nurses/caregivers who have changed their status of residence (i.e., visa category) from “Designated Activities” to “Medical Services” or “Nursing Care” after they have passed the respective licensure examinations. 31

44

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2022). In addition, the average pay for certified caregivers in Japan is generally not enough to support the entire family (Mori, 2009). As well, little consideration given to long-term settlement and integration of EPA nurses and caregivers and their family into Japanese society with respect to their livelihood, work-related and educational support poses a fundamental question about the ultimate goal of the programme (see Takahata, 2014 for discussion).

2.11 Summary This chapter has set the background of this book project, covering the historical timeline and mechanisms of the EPA programme. I have highlighted that the EPA programme requires coordination (1) with the partner country, (2) with the institutional and legal systems in the two countries, (3) among different policy actors with conflicting interests within Japan. This complexity is illuminated by compromises and barters, and twists and turns in the negotiation, creation, implementation and subsequent reforms. Since the EPA programme comprises part of an economic-­ oriented agreement which emphasises economic benefits for the two signatory countries, the state institutions pose strict conditions, requirements and obligations, as if migrant healthcare workers are interchangeable and mechanically manageable goods. Such stringent regulations, together with apparent optimism and ill-­ preparedness in terms of facilitating workforce migration, have resulted in consequences that were examined in this chapter, including implementational confusion and concern among local policy actors and modifications of the EPA programme per se. These whack-a-mole measures reflect the government’s lack of long-term vision not only with regard to the EPA programme but also with relevant issues such as social aging, labour shortage and immigration. As a result, extensive scholarly analysis has taken place, particularly in the areas of healthcare, Japanese language education and policy studies. In the next chapter, I examine the EPA literature in these disciplines and introduce the conceptual orientation for this research project.

References Adachi, K., Ohno, S., Hirano, Y. O., Ogawa, R., & Kreasita. (2010). 来日インドネシア人,フィ リピン人介護福祉士候補者の実像 [Real images and realities of Indonesian and Filipino certified caregiver candidates under the EPA program]. 九州大学アジア総合政策センター 紀要 [Bulletin of Kyushu University Asia Center], 5, 163–174. Agustin, D., Nugraha, S., Suratmi, T., Susanti, F., Wimardhani, Y., & Rahardjo, T. B. W. (2019). Basic long-term care training for informal caregivers by the EPA returnees and local trainers in Depok City, West Java, Indonesia. Journal of International Dental and Medical Research, 12(4), 1676–1680. AHP Networks. (n.d.). AHP ネットワーク [AHP Networks]. Retrieved 1 Feb 2022, from http:// ahp-­net.org/information.html

References

45

Akaba, K., Takao, K., & Satoh, K. (2013). EPA介護福祉士候補者の受入れ態勢の現状と課題: 受入れ施設への質問紙調査を中心として [The present conditions and problems of acceptance of candidates for EPA care workers: Based on the investigation of key question papers to acceptance institutions]. 聖徳大学研究紀要 [Bulletin of Seitoku University], 24, 25–32. Alam, B., & Wulansari, S. A. (2010). Creative friction: Some preliminary considerations on the socio-cultural issues encountered by Indonesian nurses in Japan. 九州大学アジア総合政策 センター紀要 [Bulletin of Kyushu University Asia Center], 5, 183–192. Anwar, R. P. (2019). Expanding skilled-worker mobility: Comparing the migration of Indonesian careworkers to Taipei, China and Indonesian nurses and careworkers to Japan. In E. Gentile (Ed.), Skilled labor mobility and migration: Challenges and opportunities for the ASEAN economic community (pp. 209–240). Edward Elgar Publishing. Asato, W. (2010). 少子高齢化社会における移民政策と日本語教育 [Immigration policies and Japanese language education in aging society with fewer children]. In E.  Tajiri & Y.  Ohtsu (Eds.), 言語政策を問う! [Inquiring about language policy] (pp. 199–210). Hitsuji Shobō. Asato, W. (2012). Nurses from abroad and the formation of a dual labor market in Japan. Southeast Asian Studies, 49(4), 652–669. Asato, W. (2016). 経済連携協定を通じた海外人材の受け入れの可能性 [Possibility of accepting foreign human resources through the Economic partnership agreements]. 日本政策金融公 庫論集 [Journal of Japan Finance Corporation], 30, 35–62. Asato Salvador Cultural Harmonization Center. (n.d.). Asato Salvador Cultural Harmonization Center. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from https://sites.google.com/site/asatosalvador/ Ballescas, M. R. P. (2010). Sharing care: Economic partnership agreement and beyond. 九州大 学アジア総合政策センター紀要 [Bulletin of Kyushu University Asia Center], 5, 209–222. Care Work Foundation. (2019). 令和元年度介護労働実態調査結果 [The fiscal year 2019 fact-­ finding survey of eldercare work]. Retrieved 12 Aug, 2022, from http://www.kaigo-­center.or.jp/ report/pdf/2020r02_chousa_jigyousho_chousahyou.pdf Cheng, M. H. (2009). The Philippine’s health worker exodus. The Lancet, 383(9658), 111–112. Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Worker. (2011). 第3回EPA受入施設及び看護師･ 介護福祉士候補者調査 [The third survey for host institutions and nurse/caregiver candidates under the EPA program]. Retrieved 10 Oct 2014, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/jittaichosa_2011_sisetsushukei.html Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2012). 第4回EPA受入施設,看護師,介護 福祉士実態調査 [The fourth survey about the EPA host institutions and nurse and caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 10 Dec 2014, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/jittaichosa_2012_sisetsushukei2.html Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2013a). 第5回EPA受入施設,看護師,介 護福祉士実態調査候補者の回答(介護福祉士) [The fifith survey for host institutions and nurse/caregiver candidates under EPA program: Caregiver candidates’ answers]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/jittaichosa_2013_kaitou_kaigoshi.pdf Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2013b). 第5回EPA受入施設,看護師,介護 福祉士実態調査候補者の回答(看護師) [The fifth survey for host institutions and nurse/caregiver candidates under EPA program: Nurse candidates’ answers]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/jittaichosa_2013_kaitou_kangoshi.pdf Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2013c). 第5回EPA受入施設,看護師,介護 福祉士実態調査候補者の回答(合格者介護福祉士) [The fifith survey for host institutions and nurse/caregiver candidates under EPA program: Exam passers’ answers (caregiver candidate)]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022 from http://www.bimaconc.jp/jittaichosa_2013_kaitou_kaigoshi_gokaku.pdf Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2013d). 第5回EPA受入施設,看護師,介護 福祉士実態調査候補者の回答(合格者看護師) [The fifth survey for host institutions and nurse/caregiver candidates under EPA program: Exam passers’ answers (nurse candidate)]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/jittaichosa_2013_kaitou_kangoshi_ gokaku.pdf

46

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2014a). 第6回EPA受入施設,看護師,介 護福祉士実態調査候補者の回答(介護福祉士) [The sixth survey for host institutions and nurse/caregiver candidates under EPA program: Caregiver candidates’ answers]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/jittaichosa_2014_kaitou_kaigoshi.pdf Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2014b). 第6回EPA受入施設,看護師,介護 福祉士実態調査候補者の回答(看護師) [The sixth survey for host institutions and nurse/ caregiver candidates under EPA program: Nurse candidates’ answers]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022 from http://www.bimaconc.jp/jittaichosa_2014_kaitou_kangoshi.pdf Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2014c). 第6回EPA受入施設,看護師,介護福 祉士実態調査候補者の回答(合格者介護福祉士) [The sixth survey for host institutions and nurse/caregiver candidates under EPA program: Caregiver candidates’ answers]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/jittaichosa_2014_kaitou_kaigoshi_gokaku.pdf Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2014d). 第6回EPA受入施設,看護師,介護 福祉士実態調査候補者の回答(合格者看護師) [The sixth survey for host institutions and nurse/caregiver candidates under EPA program: Exam passers’ answers (caregiver candidate)]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022 from http://www.bimaconc.jp/jittaichosa_2014_kaitou_kangoshi_gokaku.pdf Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2015a). 第7回EPA受入施設,看護師,介護 福祉士実態調査候補者の回答(介護福祉士) [The seventh survey for host institutions and nurse/caregiver candidates under EPA program: Caregiver candidates’ answers]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022 from http://www.bimaconc.jp/jittaichosa_2015_kaitou_kaigoshi.pdf Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2015b). 第7回EPA受入施設,看護師,介護 福祉士実態調査候補者の回答(看護師) [The seventh survey for host institutions and nurse/ caregiver candidates under EPA program: Nurse candidates’ answers]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/jittaichosa_2015_kaitou_kangoshi.pdf Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2015c). 第7回EPA受入施設,看護師,介護 福祉士実態調査候補者の回答(合格者介護福祉士) [The seventh survey for host institutions and nurse/caregiver candidates under EPA program: Exam passers’ answers (caregiver candidate)]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/jittaichosa_2015_kaitou_kaigoshi_gokaku.pdf Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2015d). 第7回EPA受入施設,看護師,介護 福祉士実態調査候補者の回答(合格者看護師) [The seventh survey for host institutions and nurse/caregiver candidates under EPA program: Exam passers’ answers (nurse candidate)]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/jittaichosa_2015_kaitou_kangoshi_ gokaku.pdf Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2016). 第8回EPA受入施設,看護師,介護福 祉士実態調査 [The eighth survey for host institutions and nurse/caregiver candidates under EPA program]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/%E7%AC%AC8%E5% 9B%9E%E3%80%80%E5%AE%9F%E6%85%8B%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F%BB0112.pdf Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2017). 第9回EPA受入施設,看護師,介護福 祉士実態調査 [The nineth survey for host institutions and nurse/caregiver candidates under EPA program]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/%E7%AC%AC9%E5% 9B%9E%E3%80%80%E5%AE%9F%E6%85%8B%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F%BB180315.pdf Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2018). 第10回EPA受入施設,看護師,介 護福祉士実態調査 [The tenth survey for host institutions and nurse/caregiver candidates under EPA program]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/%E7%AC% AC10%E5%9B%9E%E3%80%80%E5%AE%9F%E6%85%8B%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F %BB190918.pdf Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2020). 第12回EPA受入施設,看護師,介 護福祉士実態調査 [The 12th survey for host institutions and nurse/caregiver candidates under EPA program]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/%E7%AC% AC12%E5%9B%9E%E3%80%80%E5%AE%9F%E6%85%8B%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F %BB211216.pdf

References

47

Economic Affairs Bureau EPA Negotiating Team (Ed.). (2007). 解説 FTA･EPA交渉 [Description: Negotiation for FTAs and EPAs]. Nihon Keizai Hyōronsha. Haruhara, K. (2009). インドネシアインドネシアEPA看護師･介護福祉士候補者受入研修 のコンセプトと実際 [Concepts and reality of Indonesian EPA nurse and caregiver candidates’ pre-employment training] [Symposium Report](国際ワークショップ報告書: 始動す る外国人材による看護･介護-受け入れ国と送り出し国の対話 [International workshop report: Nursing and caregiving by foreign human resources  – A dialogue between host and receiving countries], Issue. Sasakawa Peace Foundation. https://www.spf.org/publication/ upload/4789184c86d.pdf Hirano, Y.  O. (2016). “Double standard employment” under JPEPA: The bilateral agreement and its implications for Filipino nurse migration to Japan. Asian Studies: Journal of Critical Perspectives on Asia, 52(2), 33–54. Hirano, Y. O., & Tsubota, K. (2016). The economic and psychological burden to hospitals and care facilities of accepting EPA candidates in Japan. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 25, 40–53. Hirano, Y. O., Ogawa, R., & Ohno, S. (2010). How do Japan’s hospitals evaluate the Economic partnership agreement scheme?: A comparative survey between hospitals accepting the first batch of foreign nurses and those accepting the second batch. 九州大学アジア総合政策セン ター紀要 [Bulletin of Kyushu University Asia Center], 5, 127–139. Hirano, Y.  O., Ogawa, R., & Ohno, S. (2012). A comparative study of Filipino and Indonesian candidates for registered nurse and certified care worker coming to Japan under the Economic partnership agreements: An analysis of the results of questionnaire surveys on the socioeconomic attribution of the respondents and their motivation to work in Japan. Southeast Asian Studies, 49(4), 594–610. Idei, Y. (2009). 長寿大国の虚構: 外国人介護士の現場を追う [Fiction of the country with the longest life expectancy: Following the caregiving front and foreign caregivers]. Shinchōsha. Idei, Y. (2014, September 10). ｢人手不足｣と外国人(1)｢介護士･看護師受け入れ｣はなぜ失敗 したのか [Workforce shortage and foreigner (1): Why did the acceptance of nurses and caregivers fail?]. Huffing Post in Association with the Asahi Shimbun. http://www.huffingtonpost. jp/foresight/foreigner-­nurse_b_5795004.html Itoh, M. (2014). 外国人介護福祉士候補者等の受入れに関する諸問題:フィリピン,イン ドネシア,日本でのアンケート調査結果からの報告 [Issues concerning the acceptance of foreign care workers and nurses: A study using the results of a questionnaire conducted in the Republic of the Philippines, Republic of Indonesia and Japan]. 岡山大学大学院社会 文化科学研究科紀要 [Okayama University’s Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences], 38, 95–114. Japan Asia Medical Nurse Association. (2021). 看護師国家試験再受験支援プログラム2021 [The 2021 retry program for the national nursing examination]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from http://jamna.jp/info/2021/05101700.html Japan Association of Certified Care Workers. (2000). 外国人介護労働者の受け入れに関する 要望書 [A petition for accepting foreign caregivers]. Retrieved 12 Sept 2014, from http:// www.jaccw.or.jp/pdf/yoboshoteigensho/20001213gaikoku_yobosyo.pdf Japan Foundation. (n.d.). Japanese-language pre-training program for Indonesian and Filipino candidates for nurses and care workers under Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA). Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from https://www.jpf.go.jp/e/project/japanese/education/training/epa/ Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2011a). 平成 22年度介護福祉士候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2010 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E5B9B3E68890EFBC92EFBC92E5B9B4E5BAA6E5A496E59BBDE4_2.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2011b). 平成 22年度看護師候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2010 visit: Survey results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E5B9B3E68890EFBC92EFBC92E5B9B4E5BAA6E5A496E59BBDE4.pdf

48

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2012a). 平成 23年度介護福祉士候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2011 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E5B9B3E6889023E5B9B4E5BAA6E5B7A1E59B9EE8A8AAE5958F.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2012b). 平成 23年度看護師候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2011 visit: Survey results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E5B9B3E6889023E5B9B4E5BAA6E5B7A1E59B9EE8A8AAE5958F_2.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2013a). 平成 24年度介護福祉士候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2012 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidatess]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E5B9B3E6889024E5B9B4E5BAA6E4BB8BE8ADB7E7A68FE7A589_2.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2013b). 平成 24年度看護師候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2012 visit: Survey results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E5B9B3E6889024E5B9B4E5BAA6E79C8BE8ADB7E5B8ABE58099.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2014a). 平成 25年度介護福祉士候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2013 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E585ACE8A1A8E78988E5B9B3E6889025E5B9B4E5BAA6E4BB8B.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2014b). 平成 25年度看護師候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2013 visit: Survey results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E585ACE8A1A8E78988E5B9B3E6889025E5B9B4E5BAA6E79C8B.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2014c). 平成27年度版 EPAに基づく外国人 看護師･介護福祉士受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2015 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurses and caregivers under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://www. jicwels.or.jp/files/H26E5B9B4E5BAA6E78988E38391E383B3E38395E383ACE3838.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2015a). 平成 26年度介護福祉士候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2014 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E5B9B3E6889026E5B9B4E5BAA6E4BB8BE8ADB7E7A68FE7A589.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2015b). 平成 26年度看護師候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2014 visit: Survey results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E5B9B3E6889026E5B9B4E5BAA6E79C8BE8ADB7E5B8ABE58099.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2016a). EPAによる外国人介護福祉士候 補者等受入れのさらなる活用策 [Measures for further utilization of the acceptance of foreign caregiver candidates through the EPA program]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from http:// www.mhlw.go.jp/file/05-­Shingikai-­12201000-­Shakaiengokyokushougaihokenfukushibu-­ Kikakuka/shiryou1.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2016b). 平成27年度介護福祉士候補者巡 回訪問実施結果について [The 2015 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/junkai-­report_C-­H27.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2016c). 平成27年度看護師候補者巡回訪 問実施結果について [The 2015 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/junkai-­report_N-­H27.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2016d). 平成29年度版 EPAに基づく介護 福祉士候補者受け入れの手引き [The fiscal year 2017 handbook about accepting caregiver candidates under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/ EPA_H29_C.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2016e). 平成29年度版 EPAに基づく外 国人看護師･介護福祉士受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2017 pamphlet about

References

49

accepting foreign nurses and caregiverrs under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/EPA_H29_pamph.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2016f). 平成29年度版 EPAに基づく看護 師候補者受け入れの手引き [The fiscal year 2017 handbook about accepting nurse candidates under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/EPA_ H29_N.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2017a). 平成28年度介護福祉士候補者巡 回訪問実施結果について [The 2016 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/junkai-­report_C-­H28.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2017b). 平成28年度看護師候補者巡回訪 問実施結果について [The 2016 visit: Survey results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/junkai-­report_N-­H28.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2018a). 2019年度受け入れ版 EPAに基づ く看護師候補者受け入れの手引き [The fiscal year 2019 handbook about accepting nurse candidates under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/ EPA_2019_Nr.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2018b). 平成29年度介護福祉士候補者巡 回訪問実施結果について [The 2017 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/junkai-­report_C-­H29.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2018c). 平成29年度看護師候補者巡回訪 問実施結果について [The 2017 visit: Survey results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/junkai-­report_N-­H29.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2019a). 平成30年度介護福祉士候補者巡 回訪問実施結果について [The 2018 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/junkai-­report_C-­H30.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2019b). 平成30年度看護師候補者巡回訪 問実施結果について [The 2018 visit: Survey results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/junkai-­report_N-­H30.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2020a). 令和元年度介護福祉士候補者巡 回訪問実施結果について [The 2019 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/junkai-­report_C-­R01.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2020b). 令和元年度看護師候補者巡回訪 問実施結果について [The 2019 visit: Survey results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/junkai-­report_N-­R01.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2021a). 2022年度受入版EPAに基づく外 国人看護師･介護福祉士候補者受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2022 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurse and caregiver candidates under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/wp-­content/uploads/2021/03/20210325-­%E5%8F% 97%E5%85%A5%E3%82%8C%E3%83%91%E3%83%B3%E3%83%95%E3%83%AC%E 3%83%83%E3%83%88.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2021b). EPAに基づく外国人看護師･介 護福祉士候補者受入れの状況･支援等について [Support projects and current situation regarding the acceptacne of foreign nurse and caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/wp-­content/uploads/2021/03/2022%E5%B9%B4%E5%BA%A6%E 5%8F%97%E5%85%A5%E3%82%8C%E8%AA%AC%E6%98%8E%E4%BC%9A%E7% AC%AC2%E9%83%A8%E3%80%80%E8%AA%AC%E6%98%8E%E8%B3%87%E6%9 6%99%EF%BC%88%E5%9B%BD%E9%9A%9B%E5%8E%9A%E7%94%9F%E4%BA%8 B%E6%A5%AD%E5%9B%A3%EF%BC%89.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2021c). 令和2年度介護福祉士候補者巡 回訪問実施結果について [The 2020 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/wp-­content/uploads/2021/05/%E4%BB%A4%E5%9 2%8C2%E5%B9%B4%E5%BA%A6%E3%80%80%E4%BB%8B%E8%AD%B7%E7%A 6%8F%E7%A5%89%E5%A3%AB%E5%80%99%E8%A3%9C%E8%80%85%E5%8F%9

50

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

7%E5%85%A5%E3%82%8C%E6%96%BD%E8%A8%AD%E5%B7%A1%E5%9B%9E% E8%A8%AA%E5%95%8F%E7%B5%90%E6%9E%9C%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8A%E6% 9B%B8.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2021d). 令和2年度看護師候補者巡回 訪問実施結果について [The 2020 visit: Survey results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/wp-­content/uploads/2021/05/%E4%BB%A4%E5%92% 8C2%E5%B9%B4%E5%BA%A6%E3%80%80%E7%9C%8B%E8%AD%B7%E5%B8%A B%E5%80%99%E8%A3%9C%E8%80%85%E5%8F%97%E5%85%A5%E3%82%8C%E6%96%BD%E8%A8%AD%E5%B7%A1%E5%9B%9E%E8%A8%AA%E5%95%8F%E7% B5%90%E6%9E%9C%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8A%E6%9B%B8.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2021e). 令和3年度(2022年受入) EPAに基 づく介護福祉士候補者受け入れの手引き [The fiscal year 2022 handbook about accepting caregiver candidates under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels. or.jp/wp-­content/uploads/2021/03/20210325-­%E4%BB%8B%E8%AD%B7%E5%8F%97%E 5%85%A5%E3%82%8C%E6%89%8B%E5%BC%95%E3%81%8D.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2021f). 令和3年度(2022年受入)EPAに 基づく看護師候補者受け入れの手引き [The fiscal year 2022 handbook about accepting nurse candidates under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/ wp-­content/uploads/2021/03/20210325-­%E7%9C%8B%E8%AD%B7%E5%8F%97%E5%8 5%A5%E3%82%8C%E6%89%8B%E5%BC%95%E3%81%8D.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2022). 在留資格｢特定活動(EPA介護福祉 士)｣から在留資格｢介護｣への変更について [Change of residential status from “Specially Designated Activities (EPA caregiver)” to “Carework”]. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from https:// jicwels.or.jp/?p=49275 Japan Nursing Association. (2008, June 17). インドネシア人看護師候補者受け入れにあた っての日本看護協会の見解 [JNA’s view on acceptance of Indonesian nurse candidates]. Retrieved 18 Sept 2014, from http://www.nurse.or.jp/home/opinion/press/2008pdf/0617-­4.pdf Japanese Law Translation Database System. (1943). Act on public health nurses, midwives and nurses,. Ministry of Justice. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from https://www.japaneselawtranslation. go.jp/en/laws/view/3993 Japanese Law Translation Database System. (1987). Certified social workers and certified care workers act. Ministry of Justice. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/2693 Kage, R., & Maeyama, Y. (2018). 日本における外国人ケア労働者の受け入れと育成をめぐ る現状と課題: ジェンダーの視点からの分析 [Current status and issues concerning the acceptance and training of foreign care workers in Japan: An analysis from a gender perspective] [Kitakyushu Forum on Asian Women Research Paper]. Kitakyushu Forum on Asian Women. http://www.kfaw.or.jp/wp-­content/uploads/2018/06/KFAW_workingpaper_2017_2_ Kage_report.pdf Katsui, N., & Yamana, K. (2011). 奈良医大における外国人看護師候補者受入れ努力と課題 [Efforts and challenges for accepting foreign nurse candidates at Nara Medical University]. 奈良県立医科大学医学部看護学科紀要 [Bulletin of Nara Medical University School of Nursing], 6, 51–60. Kawauchi, Y. (2012). 日本EPAのアジア展開と看護･介護労働の国際化(1) [The development of Japan’s Economic Partnership Agreements in Asia and the internationalization of nursing/caregiving work (1)]. 共立国際研究 [The Kyoritsu Journal of International Studies], 29, 1, –31. Kurniati, A., Chen, C.-M., Efendi, F., & Ogawa, R. (2017). A deskilling and challenging journey: The lived experience of Indonesian nurse returnees. International Nursing Review, 64(4), 1–8. Kusunoki, R. (2018). Japanese co-workers’ view of their communication with EPA foreign nurse trainees [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Queensland]. Labor issues to delay Japan-Philippines FTA. (2005, July 1). Asia Times Online. http://www. atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GG01Ae02.html

References

51

Maeda, M. (2013). 経済連携協定に基づくフィリピン人看護師候補者受け入れ政策: 日本 看護協会とフィリピン人看護師協会の発表の分析 [The acceptance of Filipino nurse candidate based on the EPA: An analysis on the press release of Japanese Nursing Association and the Philippine Nurses Association]. In I. Isozaki (Ed.), 経済連携協定に基づくフィリピン人 看護師候補者受入れ政策 [The acceptance of Filipino nurse candidates based on the EPA] (Vol. 256, pp. 3–46). Chiba University Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences. Matsukawa, N., & Morimoto, M. (2016, September 18). 医療･介護の外国人: 難しい定着 [Foreigners in medical and nursing fields: Difficult settlement]. Asahi Shimbun, 2. Medalla, E.  M., Balboa, J.  D. A., & Vidar-Vale, C. (2010). Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA): Toward a framework for regional economic integration [Discussion Papers]. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. https://eaber.org/wp-­ content/uploads/2011/05/PIDS_Medalla_2010_1.pdf Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry. (2010). Report on compliance by major trading partners with trade agreements: WTO, FTA/EPAs, BITs. Retrieved 23 Dec 2020, from http://www.meti. go.jp/english/report/data/gCT10_1coe.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2008). 経済上の連携に関する日本国とフィリピ ン共和国との間の協定に基づく看護及び介護分野におけるフィリピン人看護師等 の受入れの実施に関する指針 [Implementation guideline regarding the Filipino nurses and caregivers under the agreement between Japan and the Republic of the Philippines for an economic partnership]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/11650000/000595235.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2011). 特例フィリピン人看護師候補者及び特例 フィリピン人介護福祉士候補者の雇用管理･研修の実施等に関する指針 [Guideline regarding emploment management and training operation of exceptional Filipino nurse and caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 1 Dec 2021, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-­ Seisakujouhou-­11650000-­Shokugyouanteikyokuhakenyukiroudoutaisakubu/phili_tokurei_ shishin_280330.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2014). 第26回介護福祉士国家試験の内訳･入国年 度別候補者の累積合格率 [A breakdown result list of the 26th national caregiver examination: The total pass rate of caregiver candidates by arrival year]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/04-­Houdouhappyou-­12004000-­Shakaiengokyoku-­Shakai-­ Fukushikibanka/0000041987.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2015). 第27回介護福祉士国家試験の内訳･入国年度 別候補者の累積合格率 [A breakdown result list of the 27th national caregiving examination: The total pass rate of caregiver candidates by arrival year]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/04-­Houdouhappyou-­12004000-­Shakaiengokyoku-­Shakai-­ Fukushikibanka/0000079107.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2016a). 第11回外国人介護人材受入れの在り方に関 する検討会参考資料3 [The 11th advisory panel on the acceptance of foreign care workers, reference material 3]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/05-­ Shingikai-­12201000-­Shakaiengokyokushougaihokenfukushibu-­Kikakuka/0000135078.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2016b). 第28回介護福祉士国家試験の内訳･入国年 度別候補者の累積合格率 [A breakdown result list of the 28th national caregiving examination: The total pass rate of caregiver candidates by arrival year]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/04-­Houdouhappyou-­12004000-­Shakaiengokyoku-­Shakai-­ Fukushikibanka/0000117732.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2017). 第29回介護福祉士国家試験の内訳･入国年度 別候補者の累積合格率 [A breakdown result list of the 29th national caregiving examination: The total pass rate of caregiver candidates by arrival year]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/04-­Houdouhappyou-­12004000-­Shakaiengokyoku-­Shakai-­ Fukushikibanka/0000157129.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2018). 第30回介護福祉士国家試験の内訳･入国年 度別候補者の累積合格率 [A breakdown result list of the 30th national caregiver examina-

52

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

tion: The total pass rate of caregiver candidates by arrival year]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/04-­Houdouhappyou-­12004000-­Shakaiengokyoku-­Shakai-­ Fukushikibanka/0000199738.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2019). 第31回介護福祉士国家試験の内訳･入国年度 別候補者の累積合格率 [A breakdown result list of the 31st national caregiver examination: The total pass rate of caregiver candidates by arrival year]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/12004000/000493552.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2020). 第32回介護福祉士国家試験の内訳･入国年度 別候補者の累積合格率 [A breakdown result list of the 32nd national caregiver examination: The total pass rate of caregiver candidates by arrival year]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/12004000/000612619.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2021a). 経済連携協定に基づく外国人看護師候補者 の看護師国家試験の結果(過去13年間) [The EPA nurse candidates’ results on the national nursing examination s (over the past 13 years)]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www. mhlw.go.jp/content/10805000/000760338.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2021b). 第33回介護福祉士国家試験の内訳･入国年 度別候補者の累積合格率 [A breakdown result list of the 33rd national caregiver examination: The total pass rate of caregiver candidates by arrival year]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/12004000/000759777.pdf Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. (2013). 外国人の受け入れ対策に関する行政 評価･監視-技能実習制度等を中心として: 結果報告書 [A debrief report on public sector evaluation and supervision: Centering on the technical intern-training program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000219634.pdf Mitsubishi UFJ Research and Consulting. (2019). 外国人介護人材の受入環境の整備に向け た調査研究事業報告書 [Research report on work environment maintenance for accepting foreign caregivers] [Research Report]. Mitsubishi UFJ Research and Consulting. https://www. murc.jp/sp/1509/houkatsu/houkatsu_07/houkatsu_07_5_5.pdf Mizuho Information and Research Institute. (2013a). 経済連携協定に基づく介護福祉士候補 者受入れ施設の配置基準に関する調査･研究報告書: EPA介護福祉士候補者の受入実 態に関するアンケート調査 [Study report about staffing standard of host caregiving facilities under the EPA program: Survey regarding the acceptance of EPA caregiver candidates] [Research Report]. Mizuho Information and Research Institute. https://www.mizuho-­rt.co.jp/ case/research/pdf/epa2013_01.pdf Mizuho Information and Research Institute. (2013b). 経済連携協定に基づく介護福祉士候補 者受入れ施設の配置基準に関する調査･研究報告書: 施設のサービスに関する利用 者アンケート調査 [Study report about staffing standard of host caregiving facilities under the EPA program: Facility user survey regarding caregiving service] [Research Report]. Mizuho Information and Research Institute. https://www.mizuho-­rt.co.jp/case/research/pdf/ epa2013_02.pdf Mori, K. (2009). 介護分野への外国人労働者の受入れについての検討 [Foreign migrant workers in Japan: The acceptance of nursing-caregivers for the elderly]. 人間科学研究 [Bulletin of Human Science, Bunkyo University], 30, 21–29. Nishimura, K. (2000). 介護施設の最新経営・労務管理のすべて [All about eldercare facilities’ operation and workforce management]. Nihon Hōrei. Noborizato, T., Ishii, Y., Imai, H., & Kurihara, Y. (2010). インドネシア人介護福祉士候補者 を対象とする日本語研修のコースデザイン: 医療･看護･介護分野の専門日本語教育と 関西国際センターの教育理念との関係において [Designing a Japanese-language program for care giver candidates from Indonesia: Connections between specialized Japanese language education for medical, nursing and care giving fields and the Japanese language education policy of the Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Institute, Kansai]. 国際交流基金日本語 教育紀要 [The Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Education Bulletin], 6, 41–56. Ogawa, T. (2009). 外国人介護福祉士導入をめぐる論点: 誤解から理解へ [The points of discussions over accepting foreign caregivers in Japan: From misunderstanding to understand-

References

53

ing]. 九州大学アジア総合政策センター紀要 [Bulletin of Kyushu University Asia Centre], 3, 67–76. Ogawa, R. (2012). Conceptualizing transnational migration of care workers: Between “skilled” and “unskilled”. The German Journal on Contemporary Asia, 124, 95–114. Ogawa, R., Hirano, Y. O., Kawaguchi, Y., & Ohno, S. (2010). 来日第1陣のインドネシア人看 護師･介護福祉士候補者を受け入れた全国の病院･介護施設に対する追跡調査(第1報): 受け入れの現状と課題を中心に [A follow-up survey on hospitals and long-term care facilities accepting the first batch of Indonesian nurse/certified care worker candidates (the first report): Analysis on the current status and challenges]. 九州大学アジア総合政策センター 紀要 [Bulletin of Kyushu University Asia Center], 5, 85–98. Oh, S. (2013). Kokusaika and EPA: Japan’s migration policies in the era of globalization [Unpublished master thesis, Roskilde University]. Ohno, S. (2012). Southeast Asian nurses and caregiving workers transcending the national boundaries: An overview of Indonesian and Filipino workers in Japan and abroad. Southeast Asian Studies, 49(4), 541–569. Ohno, S., Yoneno-Reyes, M., & Hirano, Y. O. (2016). Chronic first aid: The scheme for the movement of Filipino nurses under the Japan-Philippines Economic partnership agreement (JPEPA), 2009–2016. Asian Studies: Journal of Critical Perspectives on Asia, 52(2), 1–32. Okuda, N. (2011). 看護国家試験の語彙の様相: 日本語能力試験出題基準語彙表との比 較から [The vocabulary of the national nurses’ examination: A comparison with test content specification of the Japanese Language Proficiency Test]. 国際協力研究誌 [Journal of International Development and Cooperation], 17(2), 129–143. Okushima, M. (2010). インドネシア人看護師･介護福祉候補生の学習実態: 背景と課 題 [Indonesian nurse/caregiver candidates in Japan preparing for the national examination: Background and problems]. 国際社会研究: 神田外語大学国際社会研究所 [The Kanda Journal of Global and Area Studies], 1, 295–342. Philippines Overseas Employment Administration. (2019). News advisory: Japan needs nurses, caregivers. Retrieved 1 Feb 2022, from https://poea.gov.ph/news/2019/NR_March%202019_ Japan%20PJEPA%20Nurses.pdf Saitoh, M., & Miyazawa, H. (2020). 経済連携協定に基づく外国人看護師候補者の受け入れ に見られる大都市集中傾向 [Concentration of EPA nurse candidates in major cities]. 季刊 地理学 [Quarterly Journal of Geography], 72, 143–161. Sasaki, A. (2016). Career plan of Indonesian EPA care workers in Japan. ASEAN Social Work Journal, 1–19. Sawa, S. (2018). インドネシアEPAケアワーカーの地域社会定着への展望: 看護師介護 福祉士候補者受入れの｢アジア健康構想｣からの考察 [Toward permanent settlement of EPA Indonesian careworkers in Japan: From the perspective of “Asia Health and Wellbeing Initiative”]. 広島経済大学研究論集 [HUE Journal of Humanities, Social and Natural Sciences], 41(1), 47–66. Sekiguchi, J. (2012a, November 9). Many EPA returnees: “I’ll be a nurse in Japan”: Tokyo Metropolitan University supporting students in Bandung [帰国者続出のEPA派遣 ｢日本で 看護師になる｣東京都･首都大 バンドンの学生支援]. The Daily Jakarta Shimbun. http:// www.jakartashimbun.com/free/detail/7571.html Sekiguchi, J. (2012b, November 22). Retry examination passer, Ms. Uidy, start working next month; Supplementing the underdeveloped project with the public and private; “Don’t make the ‘bridge’ feel sad” [帰国後再挑戦で初合格 ウィディさん来月就労開始 EPA看護師 受け入れ事業 未整備な制度,官民で補う｢‘懸け橋’悲しませない｣]. The Daily Jakarta Shimbun. http://www.jakartashimbun.com/free/detail/7709.html Setyowati, Susanti, H., Yetti, K., Hirano, Y.  O., & Kawaguchi, Y. (2010). The experiences of Indonesian nurses in Japan who face the job and cultural stress in their work: A qualitative study. 九州大学アジア総合政策センター紀要 [Bulletin of Kyushu University Asia Center], 5, 175–181.

54

2  Trade Policy as a Language Policy

Setyowati, Ohno, S., Hirano, Y. O., & Yetti, K. (2012). Indonesian nurses’ challenges for passing the national board examination for registered nurse in Japanese: Suggestions for solutions. Southeast Asian Studies, 49(4), 629–642. Tajiri, E. (2010). 日本語教育政策機関の事業仕分け [Japanese government’s screening process of Japanese educational policies and organizations]. In E. Tajiri & Y. Ohtsu (Eds.), 言語政策 を問う! [Inquiring about language policy] (pp. 51–102). Hitsuji Shobō. Takahata, S. (2014). 過疎地･地方都市で働く外国人介護者: 経済連携協定によるフィリピ ン人介護福祉士候補者49人の追跡調査から [Foreign care workers in underpopulated areas and local cities: Follow-up research on 49 certified Filipino care worker candidates under the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement]. 日本都市社会学会年報 [The Annals of Japan Association for Urban Sociology], 32, 133–148. Technical Education and Skills Development Authority. (2020a). Promulgated assessment fees as of 31 January 2021. Retrieved 28 Jan 2022, from https://www.tesda.gov.ph/Uploads/File/ AssessmentFees/Promulgated%20Assessment%20Fees_31Jan2021.pdf Technical Education and Skills Development Authority. (2020b). Training regulation caregiving(elderly) NC2. Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from https://tesda.gov.ph/Downloadables/ FINAL%20TR%20Caregiving%20(Elderly)%20NC%20II_For%20Uploading.pdf Ueno, M. (2012). EPAによるインドネシア人介護福祉士候補者の受け入れ現場の現状 と求められる日本語教育支援: 候補者と日本語教師への支援を目指して [The practical issues and necessary support in teaching Japanese to Indonesian care worker candidates under the EPA scheme in a Japanese care facility: Aiming to support to the candidates and Japanese language teachers]. 国際協力研究誌 [Journal of International Development and Cooperation], 18(3), 123–136. Urata, S. (2005). Free trade agreements: A catalyst for Japan’s economic revitalization. In T. Ito, H. Patrick, & D. E. Weinstein (Eds.), Reviving Japan’s economy (pp. 377–410). MIT Press. Vilog, R. B. T., Arroyo, K., & Raquinio, T. G. G. (2020). Empowerment issues in Japan’s care industry: Narratives of Filipino nurses and care workers under the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) labour scheme. International Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 16(1), 39–69. Vogt, G. (2007). Closed doors, open doors, doors wide shut? Migration politics in Japan. Japan Akutnell, 5, 3–30. Vogt, G., & Holdgrün, P. (2012). Gender and ethnicity in Japan’s health-care labor market. The German Journal on Contemporary Asia, 124, 69–94. Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education. (2011). 介護福祉士国 家試験問題の日本語の難しさについて考えるための基礎資料 [Basic references in order to consider the difficulty of the Japanese language in the national caregiving examination]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.nkg.or.jp/kangokaigo/images/kisoshiryou-­v2.pdf

Chapter 3

Policy Discourses in the EPA Programme

Abstract Chapter 3 proffers the conceptual underpinnings of the book, together with the data collection and analytical method. In addition to a critical review of the existing literature pertaining to the EPA programme, this chapter centres on the sweeping paradigmatic changes in the field of LPP, including critical language policy, the concept of language policy as a dynamic, multi-layered process, and discursive approaches to (language) policy, all of which inform the centrality of policy discourse in the analysis.

3.1 Introduction The EPA programme is multidisciplinary in nature, involving not only immigration and labour issues but also intra- and inter-national relations and politics, aging society, and language. Its multifacetedness has prompted many scholars in several research areas, largely in healthcare, social/public policy and Japanese language education, to examine the EPA programme. This chapter begins with a brief survey of the literature to illuminate the multidisciplinarity inherent in the EPA programme (Sect. 3.2). It then moves on to adopting a critical approach to the past research. To argue how the present research project offers a new perspective, Sect. 3.3 critically revisits the existing literature to tease out the underlying assumptions about and orientation toward language issues within the EPA programme. The latter half of the chapter offers a conceptual and methodological underpinning of the book. Section 3.4 addresses the value of employing an LPP perspective by presenting a brief survey of LPP as an academic field as well as conceptual tools found useful for this particular study. In Sect. 3.5, I present the methodological discussions, ranging from the text selection criteria, collecting methods and analytic strategies. Section 3.6 offers a summary of this chapter.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. Otomo, Linking Language, Trade and Migration, Language Policy 33, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33234-0_3

55

56

3  Policy Discourses in the EPA Programme

3.2 General Trend of the EPA Research Both before and after the ratification of the EPAs with the Philippines and Indonesia, scholars in the research fields of Japanese language education, healthcare and policy studies have devoted much attention to the EPA programme. Japanese language educators and researchers strive to provide better language education for EPA candidates. The effectiveness of the pre-employment language training (e.g., Hazawa et al., 2009; Noborizato et al., 2010; Noborizato et al., 2014), its systematic transition and connection (e.g., Kamiyoshi et  al., 2009; Nomura, 2013) and language learning and everyday communication in the workplace (e.g., Kusunoki, 2018; Shima, 2014; Ueno, 2012) have been the focus of much research. Since Japanese language literacy, such as Kanji and technical terms, is considered a major obstacle for EPA candidates, language use in the national licensure examinations has also been vigorously studied, often with the goal of enhancing candidates’ exam preparation and eventually improving their passing rates (Maruyama & Mitsuhashi, 2011; Nakagawa, 2012; Nakagawa et  al., 2012; Nakamura et  al., 2010; Nomura & Kawamura, 2009; Okuda, 2011a, 2011b). Many scholars in the terrain of healthcare are found to promote the maintenance of nursing/caregiving quality and wellbeing of healthcare workers through their research. Hence, they problematise the candidates’ underdeveloped Japanese proficiency, and lack of governmental initiative and resources that support in-facility training for EPA candidates and improve working condition of all healthcare workers (Akaba et al., 2013; Kitamura, 2011; Nakamura et al., 2013) while calling for the improvement of candidates’ professional knowledge and skills (Kawaguchi et al., 2012). Others have drawn attention to the mental-health problems faced by EPA candidates (Nugraha et al., 2017; Sato et al., 2016) and provided suggestions regarding workplace communication, job duties, and accommodation to Japanese workplace values, as well as renewed understanding of nursing/caregiving practices (Alam & Wulansari, 2010; Nagae et al., 2013; Ono & Yamamoto, 2011). Though small in number, researchers in this field have broadened their scope to shed light on the underlying issues of the EPA programme. For instance, Asakura et al. (2009) pointed out the political and ethical issues inherent in the programme, which accelerate the movement of foreign healthcare professionals from one often poor and underdeveloped country to another affluent and developed country. More recent studies done by Sumiya et al. (2018) and Minoda et al. (2020) attempted to investigate, through the lenses of healthcare professionals, why EPA candidates fail to choose the right answers in the national licensure examination. By analysing the question format of the exam, both groups argued that the candidates had difficulty answering the so-called “situation-setting questions”. Unlike other question formats, situation-setting questions carry higher points (two points per question). A situation-setting question begins with a discription of a typical situation on the nursing front, which is explained in long and complex sentences, and is  followed by questions asked from various angles. Thus, being able to read such texts accurately, and collect and analyse the information provided (e.g., laboratory test results, vital

3.3  Language Ideologies in the Existing EPA Research

57

signs, patient signs and medical conditions, and history of illness) as quickly as possible are key to success in the exam. As one can easily imagine, understanding these challenging texts requires strong reading comprehension skills in the Japanese language. In any case, these studies add an important layer to the research on the national licensure examinations, as this area of investigation has been largely dominated by the terrain of Japanese language education. Policy studies, be they social, public health, labour or migration, have been generally directed toward the programmatic characteristics of the EPA programme, some of which are often out of tune with Japan’s healthcare and immigration system and practice. Thus, the researchers have pointed out the resultant difficulties for candidates and host institutions and evaluated the diverse and sometimes competing stances of Japan and signatory countries, relevant ministries and mediating organisations toward the international trade, immigration, demographic change, and workforce outsourcing associated with the EPA programme (Ford & Karashima, 2013, 2016; Hosono, 2011b; Ohno, 2012; Yagi et al., 2014). The prime argument of these lines of research is that the EPA is a failed case (see Sect. 7.4 for an emerging positive evaluation) and that divergent positions of the major actors have complicated the decision-making and implementation processes, and outcomes. Based on their evaluation, scholars such as Yagi et  al. (2014) have made suggestions on a number of issues, e.g., the improvement of Japanese language training and the introduction of linguistic screening. In a different light, Oh (2013) and Vogt (2018) have argued that the EPA is planned to be an ambivalent policy by which Japan pursues its own interests, welcoming migrant workers on the one hand and yet manipulating their inflow by setting a small quota, requiring success in the national examinations, and balking at any concrete measure to improve EPA candidates’ integration into Japanese society. The national licensure examinations have also drawn much attention in the field of policy studies, because they function as a gate keeper for immigrants (Oh, 2013) and the passing rate is considered as one of the major indicators in policy evaluation (e.g., Hosono, 2011a). The three disciplines mentioned above are not mutually exclusive. Many researchers have taken an interdisciplinary view of the EPA programme and incorporated different approaches into their analysis and arguments. Some also drew on the fields of psychology (Saitoh, 2007), international law (Taihei, 2008), intercultural communication (Hatanaka & Tanaka, 2012, 2014; Takamoto, 2011, 2014), and human geography (Saitoh & Miyazawa, 2020; Sawa, 2018) to address relevant issues inherent in the EPA programme.

3.3 Language Ideologies in the Existing EPA Research Despite some attention to language in the body of the EPA literature, existing approaches are found wanting in their recognition and treatment of language. In some studies, language is marginalised, for example, it is regarded merely as one of the many variables that identify EPA candidates’ linguistic/educational background.

58

3  Policy Discourses in the EPA Programme

In this kind of inquiry, language issues are set in stone and not seen as a potential arena for change and transformation. Other research, on the other hand, treats language restrictively and sometimes monolithically, attending to language only through the lens of EPA candidates’ (standard) Japanese language acquisition and exam preparation, be it learning practice or a requirement set in the policy. I call these kinds of treatment and vision of language, language use, language learning and language speakers as language ideologies, meaning “the situated, partial, and interested character of conceptions and uses of language” (Errington, 2001, p. 110). Language ideology has been discussed in such fields as linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics. While its definition varies among researchers across the field (Errington, 2001; Kroskrity, 2004; van Dijk, 2006; Wollard & Schieffelin, 1994), it has been employed as an explanatory tool as well as an organizing framework that helps researchers to address how power shapes communicative/social practices and how language performs social work such as producing inequality. Thus far, major language ideologies have been under much scrutiny such as standard language (Lippi-Green, 2012), monolingualism (Silverstein, 1996; Wiley & Lukes, 1996), and language of variation (Cameron, 1995). Subsequently, researchers have shown the varying configurations of these ideologies in different sociocultural contexts, which have further attested the contested and fractured nature of language ideologies (Rampton & Holmes, 2019). In recent years, researchers have called for and been oriented in new directions that investigate how these long-standing language ideologies are changing in changing sociopolitical circumstances (Piller, 2015) and intertwined with other ideological beliefs/foundations (Blommaert, 2005; see also Cavanaugh, 2020) as well as how individuals, communities, nation-states make sense/use of such a transformation (Flores & Rosa, 2015; Martín-Rojo, 2018). In the field of LPP, many researchers have acknowledged the prominent importance of language ideologies because language policy, practice and language ideology mutually affect each other (e.g., Spolsky, 2004). As such, this book addresses language ideologies in order to understand the very working of the EPA programme as a language policy. To do so, I refer to Tollefson’s (2011) organizing principle that is useful to categorise different understandings to ideology: institutional and cognitive. The institutional approach focuses on the role and function of institutions in producing, changing and circulating ideologies of socially and politically powerful groups. Therefore, ideologies are constitutive of institutional logics (e.g., rules, organisational structures, criteria for assessment) that are naturalised and subsumed into everyday institutional practices. In this approach, researchers see language ideologies intertwined with such institutional logics and regulations, and consider how language ideologies are used to sustain the institutional advantages and mechanisms of inequality and dominance. In this book, an institutional approach helps me to stay focused on language ideologies implicit in the policy texts of the EPA programme. Relevant ministries, JICWELS, POEA and sectoral organisations may circulate particular language ideologies in order to legitimatise their claims and to serve their own interests. Given the authoritative power of these interest groups over the creation, management and future amendment of the EPA programme, I also examine

3.3  Language Ideologies in the Existing EPA Research

59

how language ideologies are promoted, reproduced and reinforced at the disposal of those in power. In a cognitive approach, ideologies are viewed as assumptions, beliefs and knowledge that shape and are shaped by individual/collective experience and are shared and maintained within groups. Thus, language ideologies are derived from individual or collective perceptions about and attitudes toward languages, their speakers, their backgrounds (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, social class) and language-­ related activities and products (e.g., language education, language tests). A cognitive approach guides this project in ways to examine language ideologies that arise from social knowledge of individual (e.g., individual policy actors’ personal experiences and beliefs) as well as from their common-sense knowledge (van Dijk, 2006) shared within social groups (e.g., group of Japanese language educators). The investigation of such language ideologies is crucial because individuals and groups can directly inform and impact policy (Johnson & Johnson, 2015; Weinberg, 2021). Below, I review dominant language ideologies that undergird the existing EPA research primarily because research has a potentially large impact on how language-­ related issues are discussed and how relevant agendas and priorities are set in the policymaking table. Taking a cognitive approach, three language ideologies are found in the existing scholarly work on the EPA programme.

3.3.1 The Undue Focus on Language Acquisition The first ideology identified is the belief that teaching EPA candidates Japanese effectively and efficiently is the key to making the EPA programme a success. This belief is significant in three ways. Firstly, it tends to characterise problems as matters of individuals, often those of the EPA candidates in the workplace. In the studies, EPA candidates are usually positioned as learners subordinate to other facility staff, who are likely to be constructed as teachers. This hierarchical relationship between non-native Japanese speakers who are positioned to work hard to communicate and native Japanese speakers who do not need to make any special efforts remains untouched and unquestioned. Take, for example, an interview excerpt from Nagae et  al. (2013) in which one of the candidates said, “The reason why my Japanese does not improve is not the problem of others but of my own. Faced with that, I get a little frustrated” (p. 107, own translation). The comment was taken at face value and interpreted as “when realising that it is her own problem and feeling that she has to face the problem herself, her anxiety has grown” (p. 107, own translation). Her Japanese colleagues’ comments were also provided to illustrate that Japanese language proficiency is crucial for the candidates’ adaptability in the workplace: “[The candidate’s] Japanese is so broken and they do not understand what their colleagues are really saying” and “We cannot communicate with each other unless the candidates master Japanese” (p. 110, own translation). These comments were used to highlight the vital importance of Japanese language proficiency as a solution to the linguistic problems faced by the EPA candidates and host

60

3  Policy Discourses in the EPA Programme

institutions, rather than to problematise the linguistic hierarchies between natives and non-natives. Accordingly, Nagae et al. (2013) did not address the need to investigate the Japanese staff’s language use in workplaces, nor did they critically examine the root cause of the alleged communication breakdowns. There were exceptions, though. A few researchers attempted to fill this research gap. For instance,  Noborizato and Nagai (2011) emphasised the need to share discourse strategy in order to mitigate the communication difficulties between EPA candidates and Japanese staff. Pointing out the power differential between Japanese staff and EPA candidates, Mori and Shima (2020) problematised how the heavy reliance on written varieties complicated and hindered workplace communication (see also Nagai (2007) and Mori et al. (2017) for informing verbal interactional patterns of Japanese nurses during shift changes). With the exceptions  a few studies, EPA research generally contributes to naturalising the power relationship between the social actors by ignoring the communicative practices of the Japanese staff, patients/ facility users, and others in the host institutions that may have multiple effects on the EPA candidates’ language learning and language use. Secondly, the undue focus on teaching and learning Japanese plays down other equally important factors, such as the professional knowledge and skills of candidates (Kawaguchi et al., 2012) and learning strategy (Iwata & Iori, 2012; Nakagawa, 2012), all of which have been found to affect performance in the national examinations (see also Kawauchi (2007, 2013) for analysis of contexts other than Japan). However, this tendency can delude us into thinking that Japanese language education is the solution to successful in-facility training and exam preparation. Only in recent years have some scholars provided insights for rethinking this delusion. For example, Takeuchi (2017) identified that Japanese caregivers consciously avoid communication with EPA candidates due to their preconception about difficulty in interacting with foreigners, indicating that one’s psychological barrier could block meaningful communication to start with. In the follow-up study, Takeuchi (2018) reported that communication breakdown can be traced back to two factors: the EPA candidates’ perception that the Japanese colleagues are responsive only when the candidates speak proper Japanese; and the candidates’ reluctance to speak Japanese for fear of being corrected by their Japanese colleagues. Similarly, Otomo (2021) warns that language acquisition (e.g., acquisition of grammar and vocabulary) and simplistic concepts of linguistic competence (e.g., listening, speaking) cannot capture the complexity of workplace communication where non-linguistic means and lived knowledge (such as close observation and knowledge of the facility users’ daily habits and medical history) can help facilitate communication. None of these studies are suggesting that the candidates’ Japanese language ability is unimportant, but a holistic approach is necessary to avoid pointing the finger at the candidates’ lack of standard Japanese language competence and to understand what and how various factors contribute to shaping workplace communication. The third way that an exclusive focus on teaching Japanese affects EPA scholarship is that it hides the fact that local policy actors pursue different goals of the EPA programme. In other words, many researchers do not take issue with the EPA programme’s original, optimistic scenario where both the facilities and the candidates

3.3  Language Ideologies in the Existing EPA Research

61

make efforts to enable success in the examinations. In reality, other scenarios are possible. It has been reported that some candidates showed reluctance toward taking the national examinations (Okushima, 2010) or little interest in long-term employment in Japan (Kreasita., 2010). In short, some EPA candidates regard their participation in the EPA programme as a mere pit stop or steppingstone in their career development (Ogawa, 2012; Sasaki, 2016; Takahata, 2014). Similarly, host institutions may see different values in the EPA programme and take advantage of the programme to fulfil their own agenda. If candidates fail the examination, the facilities face risks of losing their investments in the people they have accepted and trained for several years. However, the current programme does not guarantee that candidates will continue working in the same facility after becoming certified professionals, even if they pass the examination. In order to avoid such risks or to meet other business interests (such as alleviating shortfall in human resources or enhancing the productivity of the facility on a short-term basis), host institutions may provide the candidates with less study support (Asato, 2012). In one case, a hospital uses JLPT as an internal screening test to decide who needs more study hours for exam preparation (Setyowati et al., 2012). Here, the hospital plays an active role in selecting promising candidates according to the JLPT results. These reported cases suggest that different actors have different understandings of and motivations toward the EPA programme, thus teaching and learning Japanese may not be of much importance or relevance to every one of them.

3.3.2 The Dominance of Standard Japanese Another type of language ideology implicit in the previous research is related to the overemphasis on language acquisition, because this ideology naturalises standard Japanese to be the target language. Many scholars largely draw on only one imagined scenario: Japanese staff and patients/facility users are assumed to be monolingual standard-Japanese speakers, and EPA candidates are assumed to be not proficient in standard Japanese and therefore must learn to communicate with monolingual Japanese speakers. This view excludes local varieties spoken by Japanese staff and patients/facility users. Some researchers have reported that EPA candidates face a great deal of difficulty in understanding local varieties (e.g., Ueno, 2012). However, no serious effort has been made to pose such important questions as: Do Japanese staff and patients/facility users always use local varieties? If not, how are different varieties used? What features of these varieties are considered difficult for EPA candidates? Does the pre-employment training incorporate these varieties in order to better prepare candidates? If so, what kind of training is being provided? If not, on what rationale do they exclude those varieties? The focus on standard Japanese diverts research attention not only from local varieties but also from other languages. Little research has been done about the language use among EPA candidates, Japanese staff and patients/facility users in host institutions. The only exceptions are Ueno (2012), Kusunoki (2018), and Shima

62

3  Policy Discourses in the EPA Programme

(2014). Ueno (2012) showed how Indonesian candidates incorporate English into their Japanese utterances to resolve communication problems. Kusunoki (2018) presented a contrary picture that Japanese co-workers strongly request EPA candidates refrain from speaking non-Japanese languages just because they do not understand these languages. Shima (2014) documented that EPA candidates utilise Japanese, Tagalog, Indonesian, and English at work to communicate with each other and that the host institutions have established a hard-and-fast rule for the candidates not to speak English or their first language in the workplace (see also Yoshida (2008) for a similar heavy-handed attempt). Yet, the existence of such rules confirms the presence of other languages at play in the workplace. Monolingual ideologies among some EPA scholars may be a reason for their limited sensitivity to language. For instance, Ohno (2012) described Japan as a “country of linguistic homogeneity” (p. 541). This kind of view denies the dynamic communication practices among EPA candidates and Japanese staff and patients/ facility users through their available semiotic resources. Lack of awareness about other languages and their speakers can easily strengthen the correctness discourse, allowing host institutions to put in practical training the right, correct or proper use of language (e.g., Nakamura (2012) reported on one facility’s language correction training). When ignoring the use of languages other than Japanese in the institutions, a monolingual approach to language learning may well be justified, in which EPA candidates are believed to learn Japanese best through Japanese-only immersion (see Sect. 5.3 for my analysis on these ideologies exhibited in the pre-­ employment training and in-facility training).

3.3.3 The Uncritical Reference to JLPT The third ideology implicit in EPA scholarship not only assumes the importance of the standard language but also places a blind trust in the standardised language proficiency test, namely JLPT.  Since JLPT is the most popular and widely taken Japanese language proficiency test among Japanese language learners around the world, it has been used in the EPA programme to review and access effectiveness of the training and candidates’ achievement (see Sections 5.5.1 and 6.2 on how conventional testing including JLPT maintains the prestige throughout the EPA programme). In view of is popularity, EPA researchers often take no issues with JLPT. Little EPA research has pointed out that JLPT does not assess speaking and that little information about its reliability and validity is officially provided. While the national examinations have been much discussed as a crucial agenda for EPA research, JLPT is not seriously taken up as a target of scholarly investigation and discussion. This uncritical treatment of JLPT among researchers has legitimated the use of JLPT and allowed it to remain largely unchallenged, while blocking other alternatives (e.g., candidates’ portfolios, trainers’ comments) to be considered.

3.4  Language Policy and Planning for the EPA Programme

63

3.4 Language Policy and Planning for the EPA Programme As discretely introduced above, some insightful researchers begin to question assumptions underlying the existing EPA scholarship by addressing the linguistic/ communicative dynamism of the local workplace and/or giving much thought to the sociolinguistic situation, human interaction and micro-politics. Yet, I argue that the investigation into policy discourse within and about language issues in the EPA programme is still largely missing. While it is equally important to examine and discuss language situated in the actual implementational context of language learning and use, the power of policy discourse is largely ignored in the EPA literature despite the fact that, though to a varying degree, it impacts, directs and informs people’s viewpoints and actions, not to mention language learning and use. Though acknowledging with caution that the discursive approach is never perfect and has limitations,1 it helps to identify the conditions which allow language issues - be they workplace communication or language education  - to be silenced or counted as worth-tackling problems accompanied by solutions in the policy output. In order to adequately address language issues and ideologies inherent in the EPA programme while avoiding the reinforcement of the dominant discourse about language in the existing EPA literature, I proffer an LPP perspective. What follows proposes why this book adopts a LPP perspective and examines the under-investigated policy discourse of the EPA programme. Definitions of discourse range from the focused meaning of a sequence of connected speech, writing or other mode of communication among human beings, to the more extended meaning of “all forms of meaningful semiotic human activity seen in connection with social, cultural, and historical patterns and developments of use” (Blommaert, 2005, p. 4). The latter meaning of discourse has been one of the most important foci in the field of LPP, because LPP researchers inevitably deal with policy texts in which discourse about language is produced and emerges for a particular end. To date, many LPP studies have employed policy discourse analysis. In fact, the focus on policy discourse has accompanied the development of LPP as an academic discipline. Realising that classical LPP research’s insufficient attention and inability to examine and take account of various conditions under which a particular language policy is created and put into practice, critical language policy (Tollefson, 2006) brought the importance of discourse to the forefront. Tollefson (1991)‘s work  For example, Barakos (2016, p. 24) argued that “an analysis of textual policy data alone no longer suffices to grasp the complex interaction of policy actors, action, and the political, economic and social structures shaping these”. Davis (1999) also pointed out the focus on discourse alone failed to address “current conditions and methods for determining or documenting language plans” (p. 70) and “the actual needs and purposes of language and literacy within speech communities” (p.  71). Indeed, the contemporary line of LPP researchers (e.g., Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Liddicoat & Baldauf Jr., 2008; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996) state that the conventional conceptualisations such as power-structure and macro-level social systems/processes downplays the importance of agency. 1

64

3  Policy Discourses in the EPA Programme

has marked the advent of critical language policy, proposing the historical-structural approach to inquire into underlying historical, ideological and sociopolitical conditions that dialogically create and are sustained by powerful political elites. Also, Tollefson (1991)‘s pioneering work has provoked the paradigm shift in the LPP field, putting an end to the early mission of value-free, ahistorical and overly optimistic activities and research (see Ricento, 2000 and Johnson & Ricento, 2013 for a review of the classical LPP scholarship). It has also paved the way for a more nuanced and reflexive theory to organise and examine LPP activities, focusing on practice (e.g., language use and educational activities) and more importantly on dominant (policy) discourse that legitimates such practice (e.g., Pennycook, 2002). Johnson (2013) provides a reasonable account of why policy discourse has been analysed by many LPP researchers to date. He notes that it “attends to the multiple layers of sociocultural context in which a text is created, interpreted, and appropriated and includes both a close analysis of the language within the text and links between the multiple levels of sociocultural practice” (Johnson, 2013, p. 158). That is, it seeks to unveil the links between productions of written/spoken texts (e.g., policy texts themselves), discursive practices (e.g., what people do with the texts such as interaction and meaning making), surrounding social contexts and wider discourses within which those text productions and discursive practices are located (Fairclough, 2010). Thus, the main value of discourse-oriented analysis for LPP is a focus on the interaction between policy texts, discursive practices and wider sociopolitical contexts. While the contemporary theorisation of language policy process continues its attempt at capturing such links and power that operates across them, the field of LPP has begun to address multiple agency involved in language policy. Instead of seeing government officials, politicians, and professional linguists as de facto policy actors, the field has redefined actors as individuals and collectives who are, wittingly or unwittingly, consciously or unconsciously, participatory in the processes of policymaking and implementation, regardless of their roles in and their attitude to the activities (e.g., active, resistant, or dormant) (Baldauf Jr., 2010; Blommaert, 2006; Ricento, 2006). A heightened attention is now paid to non-governmental organisations, social groups, communities and individuals, whose participation and voice were once marginalised if not ignored as mere non-experts in the past academic discourse. In the case of school language policy, for example, stakeholders such as teachers are regarded important policy actors (Menken & García, 2010; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). In the picture of the EPA programme, actors include not only relevant ministries, quasi-governmental organisations and interest groups but also local individual stakeholders such as EPA candidates, their colleagues, and patients/facility users. In one layer, the EPA programme was officially set up by governments and concerned organisations, and formulated into several documents that specify regulations, including the requirements of Japanese language training and the national nursing/ caregiving examinations. In another layer, for instance, at a host institution, the EPA programme is enacted. The interpretation of the programme and its implementation process can differ from that of other institutions, due to the different actors and

3.4  Language Policy and Planning for the EPA Programme

65

human agency involved, different institutional politics, and specific local (e.g., business, professional, social, individual) needs and contexts. This view of language policy therefore affirms the complex, idiosyncratic and situated nature of language policy, in which a given language policy in one layer may differ considerably from another layer, with varying and sometimes unexpected processes and consequences as a result. I thus recognize multiple actors and treat their language use, their engagement in the EPA programme, and their visions toward it as important for understanding the language policy process. In order not only to address multiple agency but also to investigate conditions under which such agency is (de)activated and (under)exercised, language policy is now best conceptualised as a dynamic, multi-layered process, within which a variety of policy actors act on policy goals, texts and discourses and ideologies in divergent ways in specific local contexts (Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; McCarty, 2011; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). This view does not simply acknowledge the divisions of implicit/explicit, overt/covert, de jure/de facto language policies (Schiffman, 1996, 2006; Shohamy, 2006) but rejects head-on the assumption that formal language policies (e.g., official policy texts) are implemented merely top-down as intended by the policy provisions and the policymakers. While this view does not downplay the importance of official policy declarations, it requires the conscious (re)reading and (re)placement of policy texts in the wider sociopolitical and economic contexts. This approach prompts researchers to examine the creation process of language policy, such as the making of explicit policy texts and the subsequent modification and improvement. In so doing, they are encouraged to see the process as “a niched activity” (Blommaert, 2006, p. 249) in which individuals are engaged with various activities and thus they negotiate with specific norms, create political/ legislative compromises and (re)produce particular discourses about language and communication. This kind of conceptualisation resonates well with the other policy study literature. Originated in education policy studies, for example, Ball’s conceptualisations of policy as text and policy as discourse (Ball, 1993, 2006) are influential. In contrast to a simplistic assumption that a given policy is a direct representation of authorial intention, policy as text refers to a complex reality of policy interpretation and implementation. In this view, every policy text has many possible readings and divergent meanings due to differences in readers; therefore, contradictions and negotiations naturally occur, leading to varieties in implementation. On the other hand, research on policy as discourse investigates how policy is charged with issues of power that can limit the range of policy interpretation and implementation. That is, researchers seek to identify “boundaries to what actors are allowed to think and do” (Walford, 2002, p.  25), which impact on policymaking, interpretation and implementation. Indeed, policy as discourse allows researcher to shake the foundational body of a given policy by attending to such questions as who get positioned in having a say about policy decisions, how and why they obtain such positionings and the basis of claims to authority. Likewise, Bacchi (2009) has proposed “What’s the Problem Represented to be?” approach (WPR approach for short). It diverges from conventional public policy

66

3  Policy Discourses in the EPA Programme

analysis which tends to generate evidence and suggestions for the making of (better) policy or to evaluate how the government is reacting to problems identified or declared in the policy texts and how and whether the problems are solved or not. Instead, the WPR approach attempts to identify on what grounds a certain category of people becomes the target of the policy provision, on what grounds, in the first place, such a category is created, and on what grounds a certain set of directives becomes justified as (cost-)effective and efficient and thus recommendable. According to Bacchi (2009), the major goal of WPR approach is to capture and examine problematisation activities  - a crucial policymaking process in which a certain issue is (implicitly) taken up as a problem for which the policy is created and the fixing plan or remedy is advocated - and to interrogate problem representation as the end product of the problematisation (see also Bacchi, 2012, 2015). She explained that understanding problematisation and problem representation means tracking how a specific issue is picked up and gets expressed in a particular form and packaged as a problem. It is important because how something is transformed into a problem and how it is represented in the policy can have numerous implications on the way people think about the policy, the targeted population, and the suggested solutions and the way people evaluate and act on the policy. Just like Ball’s policy as text approach, Bacchi (2009) acknowledges multiple voices, interests, and motivations behind a policy text. However, the WPR approach lays a greater stress on identifying underlying assumptions and preconceptions behind problematisation that condition a particular problem representation possible and reject other possibilities. This emphasis is well-demonstrated in a systematic set of questions which guides the discourse-oriented policy analysis: such as “What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the ‘problem’?”, “What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the ‘problem’ be thought about differently?” (Bacchi, 2009, p. 2). Within the field of LPP, equally important concepts have emerged for the analysis of policy as discourse. Hornberger (2002, 2005) has theorised implementational and ideological spaces. Conceived in a rather positive sense, these spaces refer to the capability/feasibility of a given language policy to accommodate multiple languages, literacies and identities, or that of language educators and language users to embark on multilingual education. I understand these two concepts in a broader sense: implementational space refers to a degree to which alternative forms of language policy can be imagined and implemented, while ideological space means a degree to which ideological transformation can occur, such as replacing the existing dominant policy discourse and ideology to help policy actors reimagine, recreate or redesign language policy and its implementation. The availability and accessibility of these spaces depend largely on human agency. It rests on an idea that policymaking is never a homogenous activity and inevitably involves multiple actors with different (language) ideologies and expectations and varying authority in negotiating the order of discourse, that is, “a network of social practices in its language aspect” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 24, see alfo Fairclough, 1992, 1995). With these conceptual pointers in mind, I examine language policy activities (e.g., national debates and decision-making) materialised in the various forms of

3.4  Language Policy and Planning for the EPA Programme

67

written, verbal/non-verbal communication about the EPA programme (e.g., several policy papers, press releases, JICWEL’s reports and actors’ verbal remarks in official meetings). I consider these materials as important discursive practices which form and inform the EPA programme as a language policy and are therefore relevant for analysis. Ball’s policy-as-text approach reminds us that these materials represent not only different understandings and meanings of the EPA programme but also negotiations, contestations and compromises regarding policy interpretations and implementations. In this regard, my analysis envisions multiple discourses about and within the EPA programme. I understand that an officially endorsed and circulated discourse, for example, EPA candidates must pursue a Japanese nurse/caregiver qualification, can be the product of how policy actors accept or struggle to accept competing discourses such as EPA candidates are full-time professionals who have signed the formal employment contract. I also understand such discourses emerge under specific institutional conditions (e.g., the composition of policy actors in one particular policymaking table) and wider social contexts, including social norms and (language) ideologies such as credentialism (i.e., a caregiver credential is necessary and important) and xenophobic attitudes (i.e., EPA candidates are underqualified so that they potentially tarnish Japan’s reputation in healthcare discipline and service quality). Similarly, I believe passing the national examinations is not a de facto and fixed goal that all EPA candidates are striving to achieve, but it is only shared among some candidates, because my analysis affirms the presence of multiple actors involved in the EPA programme and they are likely to interpret the programme differently. At the same time, as guided by the policy-as-discourse and WPR approaches I seek an explanation for how the conditions make possible particular creations, interpretations and implementations of the policy. Such conditions include power, interest and (language) ideologies of multiple actors (e.g., different ministries, sectoral organisations, EPA candidates), specific local contexts (e.g., power relationships among different policy actors, professional and situational needs and rationales) and the wider sociopolitical conditions under which discursive events take place (see Chap. 4 for in-depth analysis of goals). The policy-as-discourse and WPR approaches are also found useful for me to question how and why the exam requirement has retained the way it has been institutionalised by being attentive to multiple agency and goals envisioned by selected policy actors and thus examine what goals are set and promoted by whom in what way. Here, Hornberger’s spatial concepts are tapped to the maximum as well, because they enable me to analyse why other options, particularly the use of the translated version of the examinations or the introduction of an entirely new credential system for foreign-born/foreign-educated healthcare professionals, are marginalised in the policy creation process (see Chap. 6). Overall, the analysis acknowledges policy actors’ ability and creativity that produces a variety of policy discourse, interpretations and implementation decisions, while being reminded of a multitude of constraints on agency, that is, on how policy, problems and solutions are created and interpreted and how it is implemented, leading to different and often unanticipated consequences.

68

3  Policy Discourses in the EPA Programme

3.5 Policy Texts In the present research project, I performed an extensive document analysis. This section presents the collection of datasets subjected to analysis and then spells out the method of data analysis that helps organise and interpret the collection of the documents. Table 3.1 illustrates the corpus of documents collected and analysed. The EPA programme is firstly formulated into a set of treaty documents and relational documents, all of them fall within the scope of analysis. Take the JP-EPA programme for example, it is comprised of several official documents. Chapter 9 in the “Agreement between Japan and the Republic of the Philippines for an Economic Partnership” (hereafter Chap. 9) determines the definition and categories of natural persons2. A relational document to Chap. 9, titled “Annex 8 Referred to in Chap. 9 Specific Commitments for the Movement of Natural Persons” (hereafter Annex 8), is devoted substantially to the JP-EPA programme. It clarifies the ultimate goal of the programme, duties and regulations regarding the length of stay and the national examinations. Processes of recruitment, selection, matching, sending, and accepting are described at great length, for instance, in the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and the Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services (JICWELS), both of which are responsible for operating and coordinating the JP-EPA programme. In addition to these documents, press releases and joint statements made by the governments of Japan and the Philippines, a task force report, and selected documents published by the concerned ministries are collected for analysis. Apart from these orthodox policy texts, I have included two kinds of key documents for analysis. First of all, documents regarding the exam reform advisory panels were collected. They are final reports, meeting minutes and accompanying materials. All of them are available and downloadable from the website of MHLW. While the final reports are produced by all the three panels, the meeting minutes and accompanying materials are only available for Nursing Exam Panel 2 and Caregiving Exam Panel. The minutes are verbatim records of the panel meetings, which enable me to identify who said what in what order at each meeting. No details of participants’ (non-)verbal production (e.g., prosody, intonation, backchanneling, hesitation, pause, and overlap between speakers) are provided. The accompanying materials involve documents such as draft reports, results of public comments and handouts provided by invited speakers. Also, I have collected documents published by JICWELS. As a sole coordinating agency on the Japanese side, it has translated the aforementioned official declarations and included them in their own publication, namely the handbooks and pamphlets for the host institutions and the guidelines for EPA candidates. Together with these materials, I also analysed JICWELS’s survey reports and associated handouts distributed at the JICWELS’ annual briefing session, which has been held since the inception of the EPA programme. In addition to these key documents, I have collected materials that show policy actors’ advocacy. They include relevant individuals’ interview/journal articles,

69

3.5  Policy Texts Table 3.1  Key policy texts for document analysis Year No. published Title of text analysed 1 2003 Joint announcement of the Japanese prime minister and the Philippine president

Government agencies involved Japanese government; Filipino government Japanese government; Filipino government Japanese government; Filipino government MOFA; MOJ; POEA

2

2003

Japan-Philippine economic partnership agreement: Joint coordinating team report

3

2004

Joint press statement: A Japan-Philippines economic partnership agreement

4

2004

5

2006

6

2006

7

2006

8

2006

9

2008

10

2008

11

2009

12

2009

Symposium report: Cross-border movement of people - the economic partnership agreement and acceptance of foreign workers Joint statement on the occasion of the signing of Japanese the agreement between Japan and the Republic government; of the Philippines for an economic partnership Filipino government Chapter 9 Japanese government; Filipino government Annex 8 Japanese government; Filipino government Japanese Implementing agreement between the government of Japan and the government of the government; Filipino Republic of the Philippines to article 12 of the government agreement between Japan and the Republic of the Philippines for an economic partnership (hereafter implementing agreement) Implementation guideline regarding the Filipino MHLW nurses and caregivers under the agreement between Japan and the Republic of the Philippines for an economic partnership About implementation guideline regarding the MHLW Filipino nurses and caregivers under the agreement between Japan and the Republic of the Philippines for an economic partnership Memorandum of understanding POEA; JICWELS Guidelines on the recruitment and deployment POEA of Filipino nurses and caregivers for Japan

Language written English

English

English

Japanese

English

English; Japanese

English; Japanese

English; Japanese

Japanese

Japanese

English English (continued)

70

3  Policy Discourses in the EPA Programme

Table 3.1 (continued) Year No. published Title of text analysed 13 2010– The government strategic plans: “The New 2011 Growth Strategy: Blueprint for Revitalizing Japan (2010), “Interim Report on Strategies to Revitalize Japan” (2011) and “Realizing the New Growth Strategy 2011″ (2011) 14 2010– Minutes of the exam reform advisory panels 2012 and accompanying materials 15 2010– Final reports of the exam reform advisory 2012 panels 16 2013 A debrief report on public sector evaluation and supervision: Centring on the technical intern-training programme 17 2014 The first follow-up report for the public-sector evaluation and supervision: Regarding the acceptance of foreigners 18 2015 The second follow-up report for the public-­ sector evaluation and supervision: Regarding the acceptance of foreigners 19 2011– Pamphlet about accepting foreign nurses and 2021 caregivers under the EPA programme 20 2011– Reports on the facility-visit survey 2021 21 2013– Handbook about accepting nurse candidates 2021 under the EPA programme 22 2013– Handbook about accepting caregiver candidates 2021 under the EPA programme 23 2015 Handbook of Management of Foreign Nurses and Caregiver Human Resources 24 2013– Handouts of JICWELS’s annual briefing session 2021

Government agencies involved Japanese government

Language written English; Japanese

MHLW

Japanese

MHLW

Japanese

MIAC

Japanese

MIAC

Japanese

MIAC

Japanese

JICWELS

Japanese

JICWELS

Japanese

JICWELS

Japanese

JICWELS

Japanese

JICWELS

Japanese

JICWELS

Japanese

concerned organizations’ opinion briefs, policy proposals, position statements, petitions, appeals as well as other contents on their websites where references to the EPA programme are made (for detail, see Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 in Chap. 4). Most of the documents were collected through archival search on the Internet. Yet, it is of note that a few documents were no longer available online or in soft copy format. For example, the newer versions of JICWELS’s pamphlets and handbooks are available on their website (Nos. 19, 21 and 22 in Table 3.1); however, some older versions were not accessible anymore. I was able to obtain them before the links were broken. The JICWELS’s pamphlets and handbooks produced in 2013 and 2014 were obtained through my participation in JICWELS’s annual briefing session, which was designed to explain the programme to prospective Japanese

3.5  Policy Texts

71

healthcare institutions. In this briefing session, I also obtained other materials in hard copy format, including Nos. 23 and 24  in Table  3.1. The Handbook of Management of Foreign Nurses and Caregiver Human Resources (No. 23  in Table 3.1; hereafter Management Handbook) was later found to have been distributed only to the session participants. The analysis mainly focuses on the latest publications, while paying attention to the differences between the publications issued in different years. I conducted qualitative content analysis of the data collected for this research project. Qualitative content analysis is a principled data analysis method to interpret textual data, ranging from written forms (i.e., policy documents) to spoken forms (i.e., transcripts of interviews). Although content analysis and its associated coding schemes are sometimes criticised as being reductive about the data, I take the view of Saldaña (2013) who argues that qualitative data analysis technique such as coding is a meaning-making and value-adding act, in which researchers interpret a given segment of datum and add a new, different symbol, value and insight to it. Hsieh and Shannon (2005) identify three approaches in qualitative content analysis: conventional, directed and summative content analysis. Of the three approaches, I applied directed content analysis, in which initial coding of the data is guided by existing theory or a previous research project. The existing literature helps identify key concepts at the initial coding stage and also with developing and refining those concepts at the later stage of analysis. In my research project, I found the concept of language ideology and several theoretical pointers developed in (language) policy studies (see Section 3.4) useful for guiding the analysis in order to keeping the analysis focused on policy discourse. Hsieh and Shannon (2005) have posed that reliance on the existing literature may increase researchers’ bias in the data analysis and lessen contextual information of the data. Subjective data analysis is inescapable, as long as I remain as a main and sole investigator. However, Ball’s conceptualisation (Ball, 1993; Ball, 2006), especially his policy-as-text approach, reminds us that (policy) texts are not static representations but a range of feasible ones. Therefore, my data analysis aims to tease out possible representations of the texts. By reminding myself of the multiple actors involved in the EPA programme and their different motivations and degrees of involvement, policy-as-discourse and WPR approaches, on the other hand, inspire me to be reflective on my position during the data analysis. Since analysis of policy as discourse looks for reasons why certain textual representations are considered feasible, I must consider my own bias and position that may influence interpretation of the data. This reflective process helps to increase the credibility of data analysis in this project. Contextual sensitivity to the interpretation of the texts is also enhanced by presenting codes, sub-codes and analytic memos with contextual information and nuance (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). My coding strategy for this project involved multiple readings of the texts with extensive memo writing followed by the application of an amalgam of coding strategies. As a first step, I mapped out descriptive information, such as year of publication, format/genre of texts, producers of texts, potential audience of texts and distribution methods (if applicable) according to the data source. This descriptive

72

3  Policy Discourses in the EPA Programme

mapping is crucial for organising recurring codes and sub-codes across the data corpus and describing and explaining how codes and sub-codes relate themselves to which actors and what kind of (language) policy activities. After these descriptive attributes were attached to each data set, I have employed a so-called eclectic coding technique (Saldaña, 2013) which combines several coding strategies at the same time. The coding techniques range from a descriptive coding with a goal of identifying general topics expressed in a specific segment of datum, to using pre-determined codes such as “language ideology”, “agency”, “goals”, “problem”, and “solution”. As eclectic coding is open to the simultaneous use of other coding techniques, I have also performed a more focused coding technique such as In Vivo coding, process coding and value coding (Saldaña, 2013). In Vivo coding nominates a certain in-text word/expression in the data or in my analytic memo as a code, while process coding and value coding attaches action-­ capturing codes (e.g., opposing, agreeing with, ignoring) and codes that reflect one’s values, attitude and beliefs (e.g., positive, negative, sympathetic, uncritical) respectively. The following exemplifies the eclectic coding technique. A paragraph or a sentence in a given policy text specifies the location and range of responsibility associated with the policy implementation. This piece of the data is coded as “agency”, which is a pre-established code, along with a simultaneous code such as “being responsible”. In order to increase the trustworthiness of the coding as well as to be accommodative for newly identified items which may run counter to the prior coding result, subsequent reading of the texts was performed and re-coding or additional coding of the texts was conducted accordingly. Next, all the data coded under the same code (e.g., “agency”) was compared and related to one another in order to produce sub-codes, to refine the original codes and those sub-codes and  to elaborate each sub-code and explain the relationship between the sub-codes such as similarity, difference, sequence, correspondence, frequency and causation (Hatch, 2022). For instance, the code” agency” may consist of such sub-codes as” MHLW”, “POEA”, “host institutions” and “EPA candidates” and may involve some evaluative codes such as “being vocal” and “positioned as low-key”. The data collection and analysis proceeded iteratively to contribute to the methodological enrichment. I analysed the data as I collected them. I examined the initially emerging codes and sub-codes, often supplemented by the additional data collected. In doing so, the subsequent data collection procedure was refined and deeper analysis was made possible to reinforce the finding or search for alternative explanation, interpretation and assertion. Finally, trustworthiness of data analysis will be facilitated by triangulation in terms of types and genres of data (e.g., official declarative statements, press releases, meeting minutes) and timeframe from 2003 to 2021. The collected materials also include various voice and perspectives ranging from national/ministerial/sectoral representatives, individual candidates to workers at host institutions. The integration of all these data allows me to gain a holistic perspective to analyse them interpretively.

3.6 Summary

73

3.6 Summary This chapter devoted itself to presenting the conceptual orientation and the research design for the present study. It began with a survey on the scholarly contribution of previous research on the EPA programme developed in the field of Japanese language education, healthcare and policy studies. Through a critical literature review, I have pointed out that ideologically loaded views about language served a basis for some of them and shaped their resultant arguments. Some scholars piled too many expectations on the acquisition of Japanese as the most effective solution that leads to successful in-facility training and the eventual success in the national examination. Overemphasis of Japanese-language mastery runs the risk of misconstruing communication problems and belittling, if not ignoring, other languages and communication means at play as well as other equally important factors such as the professional knowledge and skills of candidates and their perceptions about immediate nursing/caregiving situations. This at the same time creates an overtly optimistic discourse such as: all is well if the Japanese language (education) issue is fixed. In order to upset the dominant discourse about language in the EPA literature and to properly address language issues and ideologies inherent in the EPA programme, I have proposed an LPP perspective, particularly that focuses on policy discourse, as an alternative. Resonating with a growing body of LPP research, this research project aligns itself with the concept of language policy as process. As the term “process” indicates, in this conceptualisation language policy is understood not as static but rather as a social practice constituted by diverse actors, contexts and discourses (within and without the policy), resulting in different goals and processes. Language policy is situated in particular contexts, subjected to particular discourses, and thus (re) created, (re)interpreted, and (re)appropriated through constant negotiation among a variety of policy actors who act on policy goals, texts and discourses and ideologies in divergent ways because of various and sometimes conflicting interests and expectations. Together with this conceptual orientation, I have also explicated important constructs including the policy-as-text and policy-as-discourse approaches, the WPR approach, and spatial concepts such as implementational and ideological spaces. They all inform the centrality of policy discourse in this book project, giving thought to the power and limitation of human agency as well as that of policy texts and discourse over the language policy processes. By closely examining how the flow of policy discourse of the EPA programme unfolds, I will demonstrate that the EPA programme can be read and translated in many different ways depending on the intention and goals of diverse social groups, implicating different interpretations and implementation options as a language policy. The second half of this chapter has provided accounts of the data source and methodological guidelines and procedures. As elucidated in Chap. 2, the EPA programme was established on compromises among many political actors in Japan and its partner countries, rather than with unanimous accord, as a result of complicated

74

3  Policy Discourses in the EPA Programme

and sometimes competing negotiations among groups with differing political stances and interests. Hence, the analysis focuses on a variety of textual representations about the EPA programme produced by these policy actors. I have also demonstrated the procedure of qualitative data analysis I employed for the data collected and points of analytical and methodological concern of which I especially took heed, including the variation in textual representations, reflective process as an investigator during the data analysis, and triangulation. Based on the rich dataset I have compiled, I will present my analysis of the process of the EPA programme as a language policy in the following chapters. To begin with, in the next chapter, I will examine the multiple agencies represented in the process of policy creation.

References Akaba, K., Takao, K., & Satoh, K. (2013). EPA介護福祉士候補者の受入れ態勢の現状と課題: 受入れ施設への質問紙調査を中心として [the present conditions and problems of acceptance of candidates for EPA care workers: Based on the investigation of key question papers to acceptance institutions]. 聖徳大学研究紀要 [Bulletin of Seitoku University], 24, 25–32. Alam, B., & Wulansari, S. A. (2010). Creative friction: Some preliminary considerations on the socio-cultural issues encountered by Indonesian nurses in Japan. 九州大学アジア総合政策 センター紀要 [Bulletin of Kyushu University Asia Center], 5, 183–192. Asakura, K., Asakura, T., Hyodo, C., & Hirano, Y. (2009). 日比間の経済連携協定による外国人 看護師受け入れをめぐる諸問題 [issues of receiving foreing nurses to Japan by the dramework of the Japan-Philippine economic partnership agreement]. 東北大学医学部保健学科紀 要 [Bulletin of School of Health Sciences, Tohoku University], 18(2), 67–74. Asato, W. (2012). Nurses from abroad and the formation of a dual labor market in Japan. Southeast Asian Studies, 49(4), 652–669. Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Pearson Education. Bacchi, C. (2012). Why study problematizations? Making politics visible. Open Journal of Political Science, 2, 1–8. Bacchi, C. (2015). The turn to problematization: Political implications of contrasting interpretive and poststructural adaptations. Open Journal of Political Science, 5, 1–12. Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2010). Methodologies for language policy and planning. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford University Press. Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse, 13(2), 10–17. Ball, S. J. (2006). Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen J. Taylor & Francis. Barakos, E. (2016). Language policy and critical discourse studies: Toward a combined approach. In E. Barakos & J. W. Unger (Eds.), Discursive approaches to language policy (pp. 23–49). Palgrave Macmillan. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J. (2006). Language policy and national identity. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 238–254). Blackwell Publishing. Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. Routledge. Cavanaugh, J. R. (2020). Language ideology revisited. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2020(263), 51–57.

References

75

Davis, K. A. (1999). The sociopolitical dynamics of indigenous language maintenance and loss: A framework for language policy and planning. In T. Huebner & K. A. Davis (Eds.), Sociopolitical perspectives on language policy and planning in the USA (pp. 67–97). John Benjamins. Errington, J. (2001). Ideology. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Key terms in language and culture (pp. 110–112). Blackwell. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. E. Arnold. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman. Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85, 149–171. Ford, M., & Karashima, K. (2013). Temporary labour migration and care work: The Japanese experience. Journal of Industrial Relations, 55(3), 430–444. Ford, M., & Karashima, K. (2016). Regulatory approaches to managing skilled migration: Indonesian nurses in Japan. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 27(2), 231–247. Hatanaka, K., & Tanaka, T. (2012). 在日外国人看護師･介護士候補生の異文化適応問題の背 景に関する研究ノート: EPA制度とその運用 [the research note about the background of the cultural adaptation problems of foreign nurses and care worker candidates in Japan: From the view of EPA systems and its circumstances]. 岡山大学大学院社会文化科学研究科紀要 [Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Okayama University], 34, 90–79. Hatanaka, K., & Tanaka, T. (2014). 在日外国人介護士候補生の異文化適応: 3層構造モデル に基づく縦断的事例の分析 [cross cultural adjustment of foreign care workers in Japan: Analyzing the longitudinal cases based on a three-layered structural model]. 岡山大学大 学院社会文化科学研究科紀要 [Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Okayama University], 37, 67–76. Hatch, J. A. (2022). Doing qualitative research in education settings. SUNY Press. Hazawa, S., Kamiyoshi, U., & Nunō, K. (2009). EPAによるインドネシア看護師･介護福祉士 候補者受入研修の現状と課題 [current status and issues of training for Indonesian nurse and care worker candidates under the EPA]. In 2009年度日本語教育学会春季大会 [the 2009 Japanese language education association spring conference]. Hornberger, N. H. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approach. Language Policy, 1(1), 27–51. Hornberger, N. H. (2005). Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces in heritage language education. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 605–609. Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509–532. Hosono, Y. (2011a). Accepting nurse and certified care worker candidates in Japan: How a bilateral policy decision is implemented at the administration level. 横浜国際社会科学研究 [Yokohama Journal of Social Sciences], 16(3), 29–45. Hosono, Y. (2011b). 日本･フィリピン経済連携協定を通じた看護師･介護福祉士受け入れ 交渉過程: 日本とフィリピンの政策決定における政治学的力学 [negotiation process for accepting nurses and caregivers with reference to the Japan-Philippines economic partnership agreement: Political dynamics of policy decision of Japan and The Philippines]. 横浜国際社 会科学研究 [Yokohama Journal of Social Sciences], 15(6), 67–89. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. Iwata, K., & Iori, I. (2012). 看護師国家試験のための日本語教育文法必修問題編[grammar of the Japanese-language education for the national nursing licensure examiantion]. 人文･自然 研究 [Hitotsubashi Review of Arts and Sciences], 6, 56–71. Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy. Palgrave Macmillan. Johnson, D.  C., & Johnson, E.  J. (2015). Power and agency in language policy appropriation. Language Policy, 14(3), 221–243.

76

3  Policy Discourses in the EPA Programme

Johnson, D. C., & Ricento, T. (2013). Conceptual and theoretical perspectives in language planning and policy: Situating the ethnography of language policy. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 219, 7–21. Kamiyoshi, U., Nunō, K., & Hazawa, S. (2009). EPAによるEPAによるEPAによるインドネ シア看護師･介護福祉士候補者受け入れ研修の現状と課題 [current status and issues of training for accepting Indonesian nurse and care worker candidates under the EPA]. In 2009年度日本語教育学会春季大会 [the 2009 Japanese language education association fall conference]. Kawaguchi, Y., Hirano, Y.  O., Ogawa, R., & Ohno, S. (2012). Exploring learning problems of Filipino nurse candidates working in Japan: Based on the results of a practice national board examination of Japan given in English. Southeast Asian Studies, 49(4), 643–651. Kawauchi, Y. (2007). グローバル経済時代における看護労働の国際化 [internationalization of nursing work in the era of global economy]. 九州国際大学経営経済論集 [KIU Journal of Economics and Business Studies], 14(1), 95–153. Kawauchi, Y. (2013). 日本EPAのアジア展開と看護･介護労働の国際化(2) [the development of Japan’s economic partnership agreements in Asia and the internationalization of nursing/caregiving work (2)]. 共立国際研究 [The Kyoritsu Journal of International Studies], 30, 63–96. Kitamura, I. (2011). 介護･看護を提供する組織の多様化への対応: EPAによる外国人の受 入経験を踏まえて [the role of diversity management in nursing-care and medical facilities accepting certified caregivers: Nurse candidates under the Japan-Indonesia EPA program]. 日本福祉大学研究紀要−現代と文化 [Journal of Culture in Our Time, Nihon Fukushi University], 122, 45–59. Kreasita. (2010). インドネシア人の看護師･介護福祉士候補者の来日動機に関する予備的 調査: 西日本の病院･介護施設での聞き取りから [a preliminary study on Indonesian nurse/ certified care worker candidates and their motives to work in Japan: The results of interviews with Indonesian candidates assigned in hospitals and care facility in western Japan]. 九州大 学アジア総合政策センター紀要 [Bulletin of Kyushu University Asia Center], 5, 193–198. Kroskrity, P. (2004). Language ideology. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 496–517). Blackwell. Kusunoki, R. (2018). Japanese co-workers’ view of their communication with EPA foreign nurse trainees [unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of Queensland]. Australia. Liddicoat, A. J., & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2008). Language planning in local contexts: Agents, contexts and interactions. In A. J. Liddicoat & R. B. Baldauf Jr. (Eds.), Language planning in local contexts: Agents, contexts and interactions (pp. 18–41). Multilingual Matters. Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. Routledge. Martín-Rojo, L. (2018). The “self-made speaker”: The neoliberal governance of speakers. In L.  Martín-Rojo & A.  Del Percio (Eds.), Language and neoliberal governmentality (pp. 162–189). Routledge. Maruyama, M., & Mitsuhashi, A. (2011). EPA介護福祉候補者向け国家試験対策: 効率よく解 くためのテクニック [national exam preparation for EPA caregiver candidates: Techniques for efficient test-taking]. In 2013年度日本語教育学会春季大会 [the 2011 Japanese language education association spring conference]. McCarty, T. L. (Ed.). (2011). Ethnography and language policy. Routledge. Menken, K., & García, O. (Eds.). (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers. Routledge. Minoda, S., Aono, J., Higuchi, S., Kitagawa, C., Hiruma, Y., Aoki, M., & Kusakabe, K. (2020). Analysis of the Japanese national nursing examination completed for the first time by Vietnamese economic partnership agreement nurse candidates: A true/false comparison with Japanese examinees. 愛知県立大学看護学部紀要 [Bulletin of Aichi Prefectural University School of Nursing and Health], 26, 83–94. Mori, J., & Shima, C. (2020). Text, talk, and body in shift handover interaction: Language and multimodal repertoires for geriatric care work. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 24, 593–612.

References

77

Mori, J., Imamura, A., & Shima, C. (2017). Epistemic management in the material world of workplace: A study of nursing shift handovers at a Japanese geriatric healthcare facility. Journal of Pragmatics, 109, 64–81. Nagae, M., Iwase, T., Furuzawa, A., Tsubonouchi, C., Shimai, S., & Ando, T. (2013). EPAイ ンドネシア看護師候補者の日本の職場環境への対応に関する研究 [the needs for EPA Indonesian nurse applicants to adapt to the work environment in Japan]. 日本赤十字豊田看護 大学紀要 [Bulletin of Japanese Red Cross Toyota College of Nursing], 8(1), 97–119. Nagai, R. (2007). 看護師による｢申し送り｣会話のインターアクション: 雑談との比較を通 じて [The interaction in "Moushiokuri" nurse reports: Comparing with chats in workshops]. 筑 波応用言語学研究 [Tsukuba Journal of Applied Linguistics], 14, 73–86. Nakagawa, K. (2012). 新カリキュラム介護福祉士国家試験受験に向けた漢字学習の効率化 に関する一考察 [a study on promoting efficient kanji learning for new curriculum state examinations for certified care workers]. 専門日本語教育研究 [Journal of Technical Japanese Education], 14(1), 41–46. Nakagawa, K., Nakamura, E., Sunami, H., & Saitoh, M. (2012). 介護福祉士国家試験科目別出 現漢字に関する調査 [a study about to construct a prioritized list of kanji in the state examinations for certified caregiver]. JSL漢字学習研究会会誌 [JSLK Journal], 14(1), 19–28. Nakamura, A., Akimoto, H., & Lee, J.-H. (2010). 介護福祉士候補者向け国家試験対策のた めのコーパス調査 [corpus survey of the national examination for care worker candidates]. In 2009年度日本語教育学会春季大会 [the 2010 Japanese language education association spring conference]. Nakamura, E., Kojima, S., & Iwasaki, Y. (2013). 外国人看護師候補者支援に関わった看護師 支援者の認識: インタビューの結果から [the viewpoint of a nursing support staff member who support foreign nursing assistants: Interview results]. 新潟青陵学会誌 [Bulletin of Niigata Seiryo University], 5(3), 51–60. Nakamura, T. (2012). 日本語教師の｢社会的主体性｣を考える: 外国人介護福祉士の受け入 れ現場における教育実践から ["Social independence" of Japanese teachers: The educational practice for foreign caregivers]. 早稲田大学大学院日本語教育研究科 [Bulletin of Graduate School of Japanese Applied Linguistics, Waseda University], 12, 1–22. Noborizato, T., & Nagai, R. (2011). 介護福祉士候補者を対象とする｢申し送り｣聞き 取り授業の実践報告 [Action report on a Japanese listening class of "Moshiokuri" for "Kaigofukushishi" candidates]. 国際交流基金日本語教育紀要 [The Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Education Bulletin], 7, 85–101. Noborizato, T., Ishii, Y., Imai, H., & Kurihara, Y. (2010). インドネシア人介護福祉士候補者 を対象とする日本語研修のコースデザイン: 医療･看護･介護分野の専門日本語教育と 関西国際センターの教育理念との関係において [Designing a Japanese-language program for care giver candidates from Indonesia: Connections between specialized Japanese language education for medical, nursing and care giving fields and the Japanese language education policy of the Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Institute, Kansai]. 国際交流基金日本語 教育紀要 [The Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Education Bulletin], 6, 41–56. Noborizato, T., Yamamoto, A., Suzuki, E., Mori, M., Saito, S., Matsushima, Y., Aonuma, K., & Iizawa, N. (2014). 経済連携協定に基づくインドネシア人･フィリピン人看護師･介護福 祉士候補者を対象とする日本語予備教育事業の成果と展望 [results and future possibilities of preparatory Japanese-language training for the Indonesian and Filipino nurse and certified care worker candidates under economic partnership agreements]. 国際交流基金日本語教 育紀要 [The Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Education Bulletin], 10, 55–69. Nomura, A. (2013). 介護福祉士候補者に対する日本語教育の制度的課題 [systemic issues in Japanese language education for care worker candidates]. In 2013年度日本語教育学会春季 大会 [the 2009 Japanese language education association spring conference]. Nomura, A., & Kawamura, Y. (2009). 介護現場での実態調査を基にした介護語彙リスト作 成: 外国人介護士のための日本語学習支援を目指して [creating a vocabulary list based on a survey of actual conditions of eldercare: Toward Japanese language learning support for

78

3  Policy Discourses in the EPA Programme

f­oreign caregivers]. In 2009年度日本語教育学会春季大会 [the 2009 Japanese language education association fall conference]. Nugraha, S., Hirano, Y. O., & Honda, S. (2017). The change in mental health status of Indonesian health care migrant worker in Japan. Kesmas: Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat Nasional [National Public Health Journal], 12(2), 53–59. Ogawa, R. (2012). Conceptualizing transnational migration of care workers: Between “skilled” and “unskilled”. The German Journal on Contemporary Asia, 124, 95–114. Oh, S. (2013). Kokusaika and EPA: Japan’s migration policies in the era of globalization [unpublished master thesis, Roskilde university]. Denmark. Ohno, S. (2012). Southeast Asian nurses and caregiving workers transcending the national boundaries: An overview of Indonesian and Filipino workers in Japan and abroad. Southeast Asian Studies, 49(4), 541–569. Okuda, N. (2011a). 看護国家試験の語彙の様相: 日本語能力試験出題基準語彙表との比較 から [the vocabulary of the national nurses’ examination: A comparison with test content specification of the Japanese language proficiency test]. 国際協力研究誌 [Journal of International Development and Cooperation], 17(2), 129–143. Okuda, N. (2011b). 看護師国家試験の日本語分析: 第99回,第100回看護師国試の改正 [Anaylysis of Japanese of the national nursing examination: The reform in the 99th and 100th examination]. 看護教育 [Nursing Education], 52(12), 1036–1040. Okushima, M. (2010). インドネシア人看護師･介護福祉候補生の学習実態: 背景と課 題 [Indonesian nurse/caregiver candidates in Japan preparing for the national examination: Background and problems]. 国際社会研究: 神田外語大学国際社会研究所 [The Kanda Journal of Global and Area Studies], 1, 295–342. Ono, S., & Yamamoto, Y. (2011). 看護者の異文化間能力に関する文献検討 [cultural competence in nursing: A literature review]. 川崎医療福祉学会誌 [Kawasaki Medical Welfare Journal], 20(2), 507–512. Otomo, R. (2021). The policy and institutional discourse of communication ability: The case of (migrant) eldercare workers in Japan. In K. Gonçalves & H. Kelly-Holmes (Eds.), Language, global mobilities, blue-collar workers and blue-collar workplaces (pp. 147–163). Routledge. Pennycook, A. (2002). Language policy and docile bodies: Hong Kong and governmentality. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 91–110). Lawrence Erlbaum. Piller, I. (2015). Language ideologies. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The international Encyclopedia of language and social interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 917–927). Wiley-Blackwell, Wiley. Rampton, B., & Holmes, S. (2019). How we feel and think about language: Language ideologies and the ‘total linguistic fact’. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies, Paper, 261, 1–7. Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 4(2), 196–213. Ricento, T. (2006). Methodological perspectives in language policy: An overview. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp.  129–134). Blackwell Publishing. Ricento, T., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427. Saitoh, I. (2007). 日本における高齢者介護支援者としてのフィリピン人の社会･心理的適 性の研究: 日本の少子高齢化とFOWの受け入れについて [competence of FOW for caregivers in Japan]. 立正大学心理学研究所紀要 [The Journal of Psychology Rissho University], 5, 51–63. Saitoh, M., & Miyazawa, H. (2020). 経済連携協定に基づく外国人看護師候補者の受け入れ に見られる大都市集中傾向 [concentration of EPA nurse candidates in major cities]. 季刊地 理学 [Quarterly Journal of Geography], 72, 143–161. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.).

References

79

Sasaki, A. (2016). Career plan of Indonesian EPA care workers in Japan. ASEAN Social Work Journal, 1–19. Sato, F., Hayakawa, K., & Kamide, K. (2016). Investigation of mental health in Indonesian health workers immigrating to Japan under the economic partnership agreement. Nursing and Health Sciences, 18, 342–349. Sawa, S. (2018). インドネシアEPAケアワーカーの地域社会定着への展望: 看護師介護 福祉士候補者受入れの｢アジア健康構想｣からの考察 [Toward permanent settlement of EPA Indonesian careworkers in Japan: From the perspective of "Asia Health and Wellbeing Initiative"]. 広島経済大学研究論集 [HUE Journal of Humanities, Social and Natural Sciences], 41(1), 47–66. Schiffman, H. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy. Routledge. Schiffman, H. (2006). Language policy and linguistic culture. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 111–125). Blackwell. Setyowati, O.  S., Hirano, Y.  O., & Yetti, K. (2012). Indonesian nurses’ challenges for passing the national board examination for registered nurse in Japanese: Suggestions for solutions. Southeast Asian Studies, 49(4), 629–642. Shima, C. (2014). Language socialization process of Indonesian and Filipino nurses in Japan [unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison]. The United States. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Routledge. Silverstein, M. (1996). Monoglot “standard” in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In D. Brenneis & R. Macaulay (Eds.), The matrix of language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology (pp. 284–306). Westview Press. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge University Press. Sumiya, A., Kano, Y., Miyara, J., & Shiba, Y. (2018). 経済連携協定に基づく看護師候補者の 国家試験誤答の傾向に関する一考察 [a study of the tendency in the mistakes made by economic partnership agreement nurses in Japanese national nurse examination]. 中京学院大学 看護学部紀要 [Bulletin of Faculty of Nursing of Chukyo Gakuin University], 8(1), 69–77. Taihei, M. (2008). 介護･家事労働を担う外国人労働者の権利保障: 社会権からのアプロー チ [guaranteeing the rights of migrant workers engaged in nursing care and domestic work: The approach from the economic, social and cultural rights]. 龍谷大学大学院法学研究 [The Bulletin of the Graduate School of Law, Ryukoku University], 10, 129–143. Takahata, S. (2014). 過疎地･地方都市で働く外国人介護者: 経済連携協定によるフィリピ ン人介護福祉士候補者49人の追跡調査から [foreign care workers in underpopulated areas and local cities: Follow-up research on 49 certified Filipino care worker candidates under the Japan-Philippines economic partnership agreement]. 日本都市社会学会年報 [The Annals of Japan Association for Urban Sociology], 32, 133–148. Takamoto, K. (2011). 異文化間看護･介護とコミュニケーション: EPAに基づく外国人看 護師･介護福祉士候補者の受け入れをめぐって [care and communication: Issues on the EPA and foreign care workers]. 麗澤学際ジャーナル [Reitaku Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies], 19(1), 33–43. Takamoto, K. (2014). 異文化間ケアの現場におけるコミュニケーション: EPA看護師候補者 の事例から [communication on the international care front: Examples from the EPA nurse candidates]. 言語と文明 [Language and Civilization, Reitaku University], 12(1), 21–33. Takeuchi, H. (2017). EPAに基づく介護福祉士候補者が捉えた介護福祉士国家試験対策過 程とは: インタビューの分析から [the process of preparing for the national licensure examination: An analysis of interviews]. 日本語教育-首都大学東京･東京都立大学･日本語･日本 語教育研究会 [Japanese Language Education], 166, 1–14. Takeuchi, H. (2018). 外国人介護福祉士が捉えたうまくいかなかったコミュニケーション の要因 [difficult factors of the communication between Japanese nursing staff and EPA care workers: From the viewpoint of EPA care workers]. 日本語教育-首都大学東京･東京都立大 学日本語･日本語教育研究会 [Japanese Language Education], 38, 59–74. Tollefson, J.  W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. Longman.

80

3  Policy Discourses in the EPA Programme

Tollefson, J. W. (2006). Critical theory in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 42–59). Blackwell Publishing. Tollefson, J. W. (2011). Ideology in second language education. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 801–816). Routledge. Ueno, M. (2012). EPAによるインドネシア人介護福祉士候補者の受け入れ現場の現状と求 められる日本語教育支援: 候補者と日本語教師への支援を目指して [the practical issues and necessary support in teaching Japanese to Indonesian care worker candidates under the EPA scheme in a Japanese care facility: Aiming to support to the candidates and Japanese language teachers]. 国際協力研究誌 [Journal of International Development and Cooperation], 18(3), 123–136. van Dijk, T.  A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115–140. Vogt, G. (2018). Population aging and international health-caregiver migration to Japan. Springer. Walford, G. (2002). When policy moves fast, how long can ethnography take? In B. A. U. Levinson, S. L. Cade, A. Padawer, & A. P. Elvir (Eds.), Ethnography and education policy across the Americas (pp. 23–38). Praeger. Weinberg, M. (2021). Scale-making, power and agency in arbitrating school-level language planning decisions. Current Issues in Language Planning, 22(1–2), 59–78. Wiley, T. G., & Lukes, M. (1996). English-only and standard English ideologies in the U.S. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 511–535. Wollard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55–82. Yagi, N., Mackey, T. K., Liang, B. A., & Gerlt, L. (2014). Policy review: Japan-Philippines economic partnership agreement (JPEPA): Analysis of a failed nurse migration policy. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51(2), 243–250. Yoshida, M. (2008). 福祉現場における外国人介護員との協働 [co-working with foreign caregivers]. In the Wako Institute of Social and Cultural Sciences, 東西南北: 和光大学総合文化 研究所年報 [bulletin of the Wako Institute of Social and Cultural Sciences] 日本･インドネ シア交流の過去･現在･未来 [past, present and future of the relationship between Japan and Indonesia], Japan.

Chapter 4

Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

Abstract  This chapter pays specific attention to policy actors’ participation in language policy process and the diverse goals they pursue in the EPA programme. The policy actors analysed here include: governmental agencies, sectoral organisations, pre-employment training providers, Japanese language educators, host institutions and EPA candidates. By depicting the social positioning of each group which is created and negotiated in the policy discourse, this chapter shows how such representations lay the groundwork for distributing to different policy actors different degrees of manoeuvring power in managing actual implementation and (un)transformation of ideological space.

4.1 Introduction Based on the conceptual orientations laid in Chap. 3, Chaps. 4, 5 and 6 attend to a document analysis of the EPA policy texts. While they share a wider scope to elements of language policies, language ideologies, explicit/implicit practices represented in the policy discourse, each chapter has its own focus. This chapter pays specific attention to social groups with diversified goals whose voices are differently represented in the policy discourse. They include: governmental agencies, sectoral organisations, pre-employment training providers, Japanese language educators, host institutions and EPA candidates. The next section identifies their involvement as policy actors in three components of the EPA programme as a language policy: the pre-employment training, in-facility training, and the national licensure examination. By depicting the social positioning of each group of policy actors which is created and negotiated in the policy discourse, this chapter shows how such representations lay the groundwork for distributing to different policy actors different degrees of manoeuvring power in managing actual implementation of the EPA programme and (un)transformation of ideological space.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. Otomo, Linking Language, Trade and Migration, Language Policy 33, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33234-0_4

81

82

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

4.2 Roles, Participation, and Relationships This section disentangles the complex involvement of policy actors by focusing on their implicitly/explicitly expected roles and the form and degree of their participation, as well as the relationships they forge with one another. The following subsections are generally organised by actors: governmental agencies (Sect. 4.2.1), training providers (Sect. 4.2.2), sectoral organisations (Sect. 4.2.3), host institutions (Sect. 4.2.4) and EPA candidates (Sect. 4.2.5).

4.2.1 Governmental Agencies: Visible Policy Actors The list of governmental agencies and their participatory activities is described in Table 4.1. This table is created to capture the general pattern of their involvement in the (re)creation of the EPA programme as a language policy. However, the line-up of the listed agents may not appear exhaustive. Indeed, there is overwhelming presence of the Japan-affiliated agencies despite the bilateral nature of the EPAs. In order to understand this imbalance, one must pay attention to the background information of the EPA programme. Receiving little attention from researchers and policymakers is the fact that the EPA programme is two-fold. In the JP-EPA programme, Japan accepts Filipino migrant healthcare workers. The EPA treaty also includes the Philippines-Japan EPA programme under which the Philippines could technically accept Japanese migrant healthcare workers. However, little has been discussed to actualise this programme, and no Japanese healthcare workers have moved to the Philippines under this programme. This one-sided exchange creates a disproportionate share of responsibilities and authority over the EPA programme between the two governments. The roles of governmental agencies are visibly assigned in the EPA treaty documents, which dictate degrees and forms of their participation. On the Filipino side, POEA, as “the competent authority of the Philippines” (Annex 8 referred to in Chapter 9 Specific Commitments for the Movement of Natural Persons, 2006, September 9, p. 925) operates the JP-EPA programme. Its scope of responsibility is limited to the recruitment and screening processes of applicants in the Philippines, in contrast to its active involvement in the earliest stage of development of the programme (e.g., the former POEA director’s participation in a MOFA-led symposium on the EPA programme in 2004). On the Japanese side, MHLW is “the competent authority of Japan” (Annex 8, 2006, p.  922) and the largest funding body of the EPA programme. MHLW is a voice of authority as well. For instance, the ultimate decision-making power regarding the reforms of the national licensure examinations was in the hands of its Minister. Despite the fact that Nursing Exam Panel 2’s final report was equivocal on the extension of testing time and the use of more Furigana to accompany Kanji, the then Minister’s announcement became the first and last push to implement these two

4.2  Roles, Participation, and Relationships

83

Table 4.1  Governmental Agencies’ Participation in Language Policy Process Name of organisation Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW)

Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services (JICWELS)

Ministry of Foreign Affair (MOFA)

Participation in the language policy process and related activities Participated in the MOFA-led symposium in 2004 Administer recruitment and screening processes in the Philippines Finance and supervise JICWELS Fund local prefectural governments (which finance host institutions located in the jurisdictional area) Organised and participated in the exam reform advisory panels in 2010, 2011, and 2012 Published a series of surveys on EPA candidates and host institutions (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2010, 2012a) Coordinate the overall EPA programme with other concerned organisations Offer information with host institutions and candidates Commission International Exchange & Japanese Language Assistance Y (IJY) to develop and administer learning support projects Provide host institutions with financial assistance A point man for EPA negotiations Organised a symposium “Cross-border Movement of People: The Economic Partnership Agreement and Acceptance of Foreign Workers” in 2004 (in tandem with International Organisation for Migration) Finance Arc Academy, the Association for Overseas Technical Cooperation and Sustainable Partnership (AOTS) and the Japan Foundationa Finance AOTS

Ministry of Economy, Technology and Industry (METI) Ministry of Internal Affairs Issue assessments on the EPA programme and Communication (MIAC) Local (prefectural) Provide host institutions with financial support governments Commission private schools to cater for EPA candidates’ exam preparation

MOFA has created ministerial projects that directly fund AOTS and Arc Academy for pre-­ employment training. The Japan Foundation, on the other hand, conducts the training out of the grant that they receive from MOFA every year a

measures (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012e). Furthermore, MHLW is in the unique position to be able to finance and supervise JICWELS, “a coordinating organisation” (Annex 8, 2006, p. 922) of the EPA programme. While MHLW holds JICWELS accountable for the operation of the EPA programme, it professes administrative devolution to JICWELS.  JICWELS possesses autonomy in coordinating the programme and cooperating with POEA, pre-employment training providers, and host institutions from the recruitment stage to the after-care stage at which

84

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

JICWELS looks after EPA returnees’ exam preparation and job hunting in their home countries. The official EPA treaty documents do not acknowledge any official status of any Japanese governmental agencies other than MHLW and JICWELS; however, other agencies are, in effect, deeply involved. In the preparatory stage of the EPA, MOFA acted as a point man for EPA negotiations and coordinated a special task force involved with representatives from MOJ, MOFA, METI, and the National Police Agency (Economic Affairs Bureau EPA Negotiating Team, 2007). In addition, MOFA organised several events, including a MOFA-led symposium held in 2004, where major interest groups (e.g., POEA, MOJ, JNA, JBF, and the Japan Trade Union Confederation) were invited for sharing their opinions about the EPA programme. MOFA also finances pre-employment training providers, together with METI. MOJ (2004, 2009, 2014) also has held advisory panels concerning migrant healthcare workers from time to time. However, MOJ generally recuses itself from the actual operation of the programme, paying more attention to EPA candidates’ residential status within the larger immigration scheme. It is also worth noting here the inspectional role of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication (MIAC). As a policy advisor for the ministries and local governments, MIAC conducts policy evaluation. MIAC (2013) published an evaluation report on immigration schemes including the EPA programme and made several recommendations to MHLW, MOFA, and MOJ, urging them to take measures to increase the number of exam passers and the number of applicants, both candidates and host institutions. MIAC (2014, 2015) continued to oversee the three ministries by following up their responses to the recommendations. Taking a slightly different position, the presence of local government is worth mentioning. Although the number of well-committed prefectural and city government for the EPA programme is very limited (Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers, 2019), some local governments are reported to provide financial support to host institutions and commissioning private cramming schools for medical practitioners to run courses for EPA candidates (Saitoh & Miyazawa, 2020; Takahata, 2014).

4.2.2 Training Providers: Invisible Yet Influential Policy Actors Fully funded by METI and MOFA,1 AOTS and the Japan Foundation have been the major providers of pre-employment Japanese language training. Although METI and MOFA solicit bids for training providers every year, the two institutions are the de facto training providers for Indonesian and Filipino EPA candidates, with a few

 METI and MOFA split expenses for the pre-employment training (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2014, 2017, 2021). 1

4.2  Roles, Participation, and Relationships

85

exceptions in the past.2 Apart from running the training, both also develop learning materials and host annual speech contests for healthcare workers including the EPA candidates. Other de facto providers are Arc Academy and International Exchange & Japanese Language Assistance Y (IJY). The former is a private Japanese language school that has been the sole training provider for Vietnamese candidates since its inception. The latter was initially a volunteer group in support of EPA caregiver candidates, but turned into an association in 2011. On the JICWELS’s commission, IJY runs the pre-employment professional training and various learning support projects after candidates are stationed in host institutions (e.g., joint exam preparation, regular Kanji tests). Furthermore, the representative director of IJY was nominated as a member of the Caregiving Exam Panel 1. While these training providers are certainly policy actors who plan and administer language training, their presence is less recognised than the governmental agencies for two reasons. First, their identities as training providers are relatively closed, due to the open bidding system where training providers can change every year, technically speaking. Second, little information about their policymaking activity is disclosed. Due to the open bidding system and the underlying culture of information non-disclosure in the governmental agencies (Ozeki et al., 2014), details about the training are limited to general training objectives, training duration and dates, and teacher recruitment information. Unless the agencies themselves release the details in their websites, magazine articles (e.g., Hashimoto, 2012), and research publications (e.g., Noborizato et al., 2010), it is generally difficult to observe and investigate their implementation activity and interpretation of the EPA programme as a language policy. Table  4.2 sums up the four training providers’ activities as policy actors.

4.2.3 Vocal Sectoral Organisations Table 4.3 summarises the active involvement of groups of medical practitioners as well as medical corporations. While many of them are involved in policy creation as discussants of the exam advisory panels, they have also publicised their own stance regarding the EPA programme. For example, the Philippine Nurses Association published a series of position statements critical of the EPA programme in 2015. In the service of Filipino qualified nurses, they requested a review and amendment of the JP-EPA with regard to the trainee status accorded to well-educated and well-­ experienced Filipino nurses (Philippines Nurses Association, 2015b). They have also pointed out language issues such as the inadequacy of language training (Philippines Nurses Association, 2015a) and the stringency of language requirements (Philippines Nurses Association, 2015c). On the Japanese side, the Association  In the early implementation stage, private institutions, such as Akamonkai Japanese Language School, Hiroshima International Centre, Human Resocia. Co. Ltd., and N.I.S. Co. Ltd. were providers of the post-departure training (Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry, 2010b, 2011, 2012). 2

86

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

Table 4.2  Training Providers’ Participation in Language Policy Process Name of organisation Japan Foundation

Association for Overseas Technical Cooperation and Sustainable Partnership (AOTS)

Arc Academy International exchange & Japanese language assistance Y (IJY)

Participation in the language policy process and related activities Organise pre-employment (pre-departure) language and culture training Host annual speech contest for foreign nurses and caregivers (in collaboration with AOTS) Develop learning materials and tools for foreign nurses and caregivers Conduct and publish research on the pre-­ employment training Organise pre-employment (post-departure) language and culture training Host annual speech contest for foreign nurses and caregivers (in collaboration with the Japan Foundation) Develop learning materials for foreign nurses and caregivers Organise pre-employment language and culture training (only for Vietnamese candidates) Organise pre-employment professional training and post-employment learning projects Develop learning materials for foreign nurses and caregivers (in collaboration with JICWELS) Participated in Caregiving Exam Panel

of Japanese Healthcare Corporations and like-minded organisations jointly tabled a proposal to revise the programme, arising from a concern over the candidates’ Japanese language proficiency (Japan Psychiatric Hospitals Association, 2010). In their position statements, Japan Medical Association (JMA) firmly maintained that they do not consider the EPA programme as a solution to the shortfall of nurses in Japan but rather a contribution to developing countries (Japan Medical Association, 2006, 2012). This perspective is in accordance with Japan Nursing Association’s (JNA) perspective. JNA is an active sectoral organisation, lobbying their positions in response to any changes made in the EPA programme. As early as 2004 when JNA was invited for the MOFA-led symposium, JNA demanded the famous four conditions for the signing of the EPA: (1) candidates must take the Japan’s national nursing examination and acquire the licence, (2) candidates must possess Japanese language ability necessary for conducting safe nursing care, (3) candidates must be employed under the employment standard commensurate to Japanese nurses, and (4) JNA does not support the mutual recognition of nursing licences (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004). These conditions were reiterated (e.g., Japan Nursing Association, 2008; Okatani, 2004) and later taken on by other interest groups (e.g., Japan Federation of Medical Worker’s Unions, 2009). As a more recent advocacy,

4.2  Roles, Participation, and Relationships

87

JNA (2010) requested not to replace professional/technical terminology with plain words, just after the second meeting of Nursing Exam Panel 1. JNA was powerful enough that their request was adopted in the final reports of Nursing Exam Panel 1 and that its representative was nominated as a panel member in the subsequent Nursing Exam Panel 2.

Table 4.3  Medical/Nursing Sector’s Participation in Language Policy Process Name of organisation Philippine Nurses Association

Association of Japanese Healthcare Corporations Japan Psychiatric Hospitals Association

Participation in the language policy process and related activities and advocacy Released a series of position statements (Philippines Nurses Association, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c) Request a review/amendment of the JP-EPA Released a position statement (Philippines Nurses Association, 2017) Maintain their position that Filipino nurses should not practice as caregivers under the JP-EPA programme Released a joint policy proposal (Japan Psychiatric Hospitals Association, 2010) Request to provide adequate Japanese language education for candidates in their home country, at least 18-months period Request to set up the JLPT N2 for the entry requirement Request to create textbooks with parallel translation of Japanese and languages of foreign candidates’ countries Request to provide additional education about the Japanese language, medicine and medical system in Japan, care-work and long-term care insurance, and exam preparation Request to allow EPA nurse candidates to sit the national assistant nurse examination Participated in Nursing Exam Panel 2

Japan Hospital Association All Japan Hospital Association Japan Medical Released a position statement in 2006 Association (JMA) “The EPA programme is not a solution to the shortfall of nurses in Japan” (Japan Medical Association, 2006, own translation) Released a position statement in 2012 “We recognise that a certain level of ability is guaranteed if EPA nurses pass the national examination in the Japanese language…we regard the EPA programme as a mechanism where they go back to their home country someday in the future and raise the nursing standard” (Japan Medical Association, 2012, own translation) Participated in Nursing Exam Panel 2 (continued)

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

88 Table 4.3 (continued) Name of organisation Japan Nursing Association (JNA)

Participation in the language policy process and related activities and advocacy Participated in the MOFA-led symposium in 2004 Request for the four conditions:  1. EPA nurse candidates must take Japan’s national nurse examination and acquire the license  2. EPA nurse candidates must possess Japanese language ability necessary for conducting safe nursing care  3. EPA nurse candidates must be employed under the commensurate to Japanese counterparts  4. JNA does not support the mutual recognition of nurse license Then senior director published a magazine article (Okatani, 2004) Repeated request for the four conditions above Released a position statement in 2006 “The EPA programme is not a countermeasure to the short-fall of nurses” (JNA, 2006 as cited in Ogawa, 2010, p. 73, own translation) Repeated request for the four conditions above Reissued a position statement specifically for Japan-Indonesian EPA programme in 2008 “The four conditions are important for medical safety and medical and nursing quality” (Japan Nursing Association, 2008, own translation) Released an opinion brief on nursing terminology (Japan Nursing Association, 2010) Then executive director published an article in JNA’s organ (Ogawa, 2010) Then executive director issued a statement (Ogawa, 2011) Participated in Nursing Exam Panel 2

Caregiving sectoral organisations had a varying degree of presence and engagement in policymaking, as indicated in Table  4.4. Some were less active in their advocacy, even though they were invited speakers at Caregiving Exam Panel. In contrast, others are publicly visible actors, publishing position statements and organising events. Of interest is that they do not necessarily share the same view. For example, the Japanese Council of Senior Citizens Welfare Services (JCSCWS) sides with host institutions in trying to reduce the host institutions’ burden by eliminating the costs of pre-employment training shouldered by the institutions and revising the status of EPA candidates when calculating a facility’s personnel distribution.3 On the other hand, JACCW was initially against the EPA programme, because it feared that the foreign healthcare workers would aggravate the already difficult working conditions. JACCW’s general aim continues to be the overall

 Meeting the standard personnel distribution (e.g., one caregiver for 15 users in a daycare facility) is vital for caregiving facilities, because violation of staffing standards is against the law and may result in the suspension of their business. 3

4.2  Roles, Participation, and Relationships

89

Table 4.4  Caregiving Sector’s Participation in Language Policy Process Name of organisation Japan Association of Training Institutions for Certified Care Workers Japanese Council of Employers of Social Welfare Facilities Japan Association of Geriatric Health Services Facilities Japanese Council of Senior Citizens Welfare Services (JCSCWS)

Japan Association of Certified Care Workers (JACCW)

Participation in the language policy process and related activities and advocacy Participated in Caregiving Exam Panel

Participated in Caregiving Exam Panel

Participated in Caregiving Exam Panel

Released an institutional newsletter (Japanese Council of Senior Citizens Welfare Services, 2008) Request to accelerate the signing of the JP-EPA programme Released a petition (Japanese Council of Senior Citizens Welfare Services, 2011) Request not to make institutions shoulder the cost of Japanese language training Request to count candidates as full-time workers that can add up to the standard personnel distribution Held a press conference (Japanese Council of Senior Citizens Welfare Services, 2012) Request to count candidates as full-time workers that can add up to the standard personnel distribution Participated in Caregiving Exam Panel Released a petition in 2000 “The import of foreign caregivers worsens labour condition for caregivers and caregiving service quality” (Japan Association of Certified Care Workers, 2000, own translation) Released an opinion brief in 2005 “We oppose the acceptance of foreign caregivers because labour condition for caregivers is not yet consolidated” (Japan Association of Certified Care Workers, 2005, own translation) Participated in Caregiving Exam Panel Sponsor annual speech contest for foreign nurses and caregivers (co-hosted by AOTS and the Japan Foundation)

improvement of working conditions for caregivers in Japan (Japan Association of Certified Care Workers, 2005). Both nursing and caregiving sectors were strongly represented in the exam advisory panels, constituting the majority voice and powerfully shaping the meeting trajectory. Their presence was not only reinforced by the number of seats they secured in the panels but also their ability to rebuke the governmental agencies, including MHLW. For example, in the fourth meeting of Nursing Exam Panel 2, Kenji Fujikawa, a representative of JMA, identified the government’s poor preparation for the EPA programme as the major cause for bringing a host of troubles to

90

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

host institutions, EPA candidates and the advisory panel. Likewise, a representative of the Japanese Council of Employers of Social Welfare Facilities, Yukawa Tomomi, inquired into the governmental responsibility for educating candidates deployable to host institutions. These direct reprimands may characterise their relatively higher-­ level position in relation to the governmental agencies, whereas many discussants in the panel meetings never assumed such a high-handed attitude toward MHLW during the meetings (see Chap. 6 for detailed analysis of the exam advisory panels). The participatory status of non-healthcare organisations in policy creation is summarised in Table  4.5. The Japan-Indonesia Association sponsors the annual speech contest for foreign healthcare workers including EPA candidates and conducts a livelihood assistance programme for Indonesian candidates. Japan Business Federation (JBF) was one of the strong supporters for the signing of the EPA programme. They actively advocated for modification of the national licensure examinations in 2010 and 2011, and replacement of the examination requirement with other measures in 2016. The Japanese Trade Union Confederation and Japan Federation of Medical Worker’s Unions have generally seen foreign workers as a potential threat to the domestic labour market and working conditions. Although admitting that the EPA programme is a special case, they take a particularly hard line on the language requirement. The Confederation firmly maintained that “EPA candidates should take the national qualification in the Japanese language” (Japanese Trade Union Confederation, 2010, own translation, emphasis original), while the Federation repeated the same four conditions proposed by JNA (Japan Federation of Medical Worker’s Unions, 2009). Among the five non-healthcare organisations, JBF, Japanese Trade Union Confederation, and Japan-Indonesia Association hold positions on the exam advisory panels. However, their contribution was minor, as the panels considered specific comments and suggestions for ideas to modify the examinations that have little relevance with their expertise in culture, business, and labour conditions. They were generally inconspicuous, neither releasing concrete ideas on possible modifications nor actively leading the discussion. Given the little connection between their expertise and the meeting agendas, these groups not only yielded power to healthcare representatives but also occasionally upset the pace of the panel meetings, resulting in many side-tracked lines of discussion (see Chap. 6 for in-depth analysis).

4.2.4 Inconspicuous Japanese Language Educators There are a number of groups from the community to the nation-wide level that develop learning materials, release policy proposals, facilitate candidates’ language learning, and conduct research on their learning (see Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education, 2011c for a list of such groups). While it is unlikely, especially for smaller groups, to be given the privilege of participating in the governmental policy creation stage, there are some politically visible organisations (Table 4.6): Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers

4.2  Roles, Participation, and Relationships

91

Table 4.5  Other Sector’s Participation in Language Policy Process Names of organisations Japan-Indonesia Association

Japan Business Federation (JBF)

Japan Federation of Medical Worker’s Unions

Japanese Trade Union Confederation

Participation in the language policy process and related activities and advocacy Sponsor annual speech contest for foreign nurses and caregivers (co-hosted by AOTS and the Japan Foundation) Organise the clothes donation campaign for Indonesian candidates Participated in Nursing Exam Panel 2 and Caregiving Exam Panel Participated in the MOFA-led symposium in 2004 Released policy proposals (Japan Business Federation, 2006, 2010) Request to revise the number of sitting opportunities and writing of the examinations Released a policy proposal (Japan Business Federation, 2011) Request to use the parallel English translation, and to revise the number of sitting opportunities and the writing of the examinations Released a policy proposal (Japan Business Federation, 2016) Request to alleviate the current requirement for EPA caregiver candidates to pass the national examination Participated in Nursing Exam Panel 2 Released a position statement (Japan Federation of Medical Worker’s Unions, 2009) Request for candidates to obtain the national qualification Request for candidates to acquire Japanese language ability capable of workplace communication Request for treating candidates under the same labour condition as Japanese workers Participated in the MOFA-led symposium in 2004 Released an appeal (Japanese Trade Union Confederation, 2007) Request for the maintenance of the current requirement for candidates Released an appeal (Japanese Trade Union Confederation, 2008, 2009) Reconfirmation of candidates’ obtainment of the relevant licenses in the Japanese language Request not to sign the EPA programme with new countries Publicised subjects of discussion with MHLW (Japanese Trade Union Confederation, 2010) Reconfirmation of candidates’ obtainment of the relevant licenses in the Japanese language Request not to increase the quota of candidates Participated in Nursing Exam Panel 2

(BIMACONC), Garuda Supporters, and Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language. Gaining primacy in policy creation is found difficult for many Japanese language educators. While the above listed groups are large and well-acknowledged enough

92

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

Table 4.6  Japanese Language Educators’ Participation in Language Policy Process Name of organisation Garuda Supportersa

Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers (BIMACONC)

Participation in the language policy process and related activities and advocacy Organise annual gatherings for candidates and their supporters, and meeting with EPA returnees Provide e-newsletters for candidates Offer telephone consultation services and collective exam preparation sessions Released a policy proposal (Miyazaki, 2011) Request to extend testing time Request to extend the length of candidature Request to provide exam-retake opportunity for returnee candidates Participated in Nursing Exam Panel 2 and Caregiving Exam Panel Organise workshops and orientations for candidates Provide e-newsletters for candidates and publish monthly newspapers Offer telephone/visit consultation services, collective exam preparation and mock exam sessions Conduct research on candidates and host institutions Released a policy proposal (Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Worker, 2010a) Request to count candidates as full-time workers that can add up to the standard personnel distribution Request to extend the length of candidature Request to increase the number of exam-taking opportunities Request to set up the JLPT N2/N3 as candidature requirement Released a petition (Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Worker, 2010b) Request to allow EPA nurse candidates to take the national assistant nurse examination Request to extend the length of candidature (continued)

4.2  Roles, Participation, and Relationships

93

Table 4.6 (continued) Name of organisation Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language

Participation in the language policy process and related activities and advocacy Established Special Interest Group (the predecessor of WNCJE) on the EPA programme Publicise research outcome (Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education, 2011a, 2011d) Sponsor annual speech contest for foreign nurses and caregivers (co-hosted by AOTS and the Japan Foundation) Released a policy proposal (Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education, 2011b) Request to provide reading aids for the national examinations Request to extend the testing time Request to provide separate testing rooms for candidates Participated in Caregiving Exam Panel

Garuda Supporters dissolved in 2014. However, former executive director, Wakako Miyazaki, maintains her own website (see http://www.miyazaki-­wakako.jp/index.html) and blog (see http:// miyazakiwakako.blog102.fc2.com/) where past activities of Garuda Supporters were well-archived

a

to be invited for Nursing Exam Panel 2 (e.g., Garuda Supporters), Japanese educators were mere suppliers of information. As mentioned above, the exam advisory panels were well-represented by the sectoral organisations so that Japanese language educators had little chance of exuding its presence, particularly in Nursing Exam Panel 2 where they were unable to gain a regular position. The exclusion may have been purposeful, since some members’ expertise did not bear clear relevance to the issue in question (see Table 6.1 for the panel demographics). The other two panels  - Nursing Exam Panel 1 and Caregiving Exam Panel  included a few Japanese language educators as proper members. While it is not known publicly how the educators participated in the discussion of Nursing Exam Panel 1,4 the discussion in Caregiving Exam Panel addressed candidates’ learning difficulties and generally stayed focused on the dimensions of the national caregiving examinations to be modified. Indeed, this panel advanced reforms regarding the rewording of the Japanese language expressions used in the examinations. Although triggered by the then Minister’s announcement just before the commencement of the panel meeting, the panel also proposed to extend the testing time and add Furigana alongside all Kanji. Remarkably, they even suggested including Japanese

 Nursing Exam Panel 1 did not officialise the meeting minutes.

4

94

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

language educators in the examination writing committee, although this measure has not yet been adopted.5 In spite of the potential significance of Japanese language educators in the policymaking processes, reform ideas were rather conservative and aimed mainly at maintaining the current examination system. Japanese language educators certainly play a part here, as their major concerns are to help EPA candidates succeed within the existing examination system and to develop methods of teaching and learning by extension. This tendency is well-reflected in the existing EPA literature (see Sects. 3.2 and 3.3). Hashimoto Yukie, the representative director of IJY, is a typical figure, leaving the following comment in one of the exam panel discussions: “I have been thinking of how we can have candidates pass the examination for the past four years”. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012c, own translation) Although their contribution was noticeable, Japanese language educators did not address more fundamental issues, such as questioning the capacity of the licensure examination for evaluating candidates’ Japanese language ability as well as professional knowledge and skills. Their limited leverage in policy creation may be due in part to their specific professional expertise and the mission of Japanese language educators. What Yamamoto (2014) says holds true in the case of the EPA programme: “politicians remain more powerful in Japanese-in-education policymaking than general Japanese language educators” (p. 20, own translation).

4.2.5 Agentive Host Institutions Host institutions are recognised as agents who shape the destiny of the EPA programme. For example, MHLW noted: [Excerpt 4-16] Host institutions shall endeavour to work on securing the acceptance system in order for Filipino nurses and the like7 to acquire knowledge and skills necessary for obtaining the nurse/caregiver qualification by Japanese Law. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2008a, p. 1, own translation)

 MHLW lists committee members only by name. In order to identify their affiliation and expertise, I conducted a brief Google search with the combination of each member’s name and key words such as “kaigo” (caregiving) and “rōnengaku” (gerontology). The result showed that all the members are university professors or vocational school lecturers in the healthcare-related fields such as medicine, nursing, gerontology, caregiving, and social welfare, with a few exceptions of researchers at government-affiliated healthcare research institutions or directors at government-backed healthcare institutions. The committee members searched here served for the examination that was delivered in 2018. 6  In the reminder of this chapter, the excerpts are consecutively numbered such as 4-1, 4-2, and so forth. 7  MHLW consistently uses the phrase “the Filipinos nurses and the like” to mention EPA candidates and former EPA candidates who have successfully passed the national licensure examinations. 5

4.2  Roles, Participation, and Relationships

95

The agentive position of host institutions is more pronounced and noticeable when compared with that of EPA candidates. Although matching is a reciprocal process between candidates and host institutions, JICWELS and POEA regard it as a “selection by prospective employers” (MOU (POEA.-JICWELS.), 2009, January 12, p. 6). This statement invokes a portrayal of host institutions as a more powerful, potent, and decisive actor. JICWELS further emphasised the autonomous role of host institutions but in a delicate manner due to its unique relationship with host institutions. As the coordinating organisation, JICWELS publicises the EPA programme to the public, especially prospective institutions, by various means (e.g., websites, briefing sessions and published materials). One of the JICWELS’s agendas is to secure a stable number of host institutions; otherwise the EPA programme is likely to be discontinued. Retaining current host institutions and attracting new ones is important not only because the number of candidates is determined by that of host institutions, but also because they partly finance the programme (see Sect. 2.3). Thus, JICWELS adopts a low profile toward host institutions, which may be observed in the following excerpt from a booklet that was distributed to (prospective) institutions. [4-2] The textbooks are designed to be kindly utilised in in-facility training after the employment has begun. (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021, p. 22, emphasis added, own translation)

The use of deferential language was completely absent from other materials analysed so that it might highlight the power difference between the two parties. JICWELS’s low-key attitude is also seen in how they evaluate host institutions. While EPA candidates are under constant performance evaluations (e.g., linguistic screening after the pre-employment training), host institutions are able to run in-­ facility training at their own discretion. Compared with the abundant learning resources provided for candidates, there is indeed almost no constructive system for host institutions to regularly reflect on and advance in-facility training programmes, except the annual JICWELS’s facility visit, during which they can seek consultation with language teaching experts (see Chap. 5 for more discussion on support for institutions). This laissez-faire approach has been criticised, i.e., JICWELS has left too many decisions up to the host institutions without providing much support. However, so long as they hand in the required reports on time, the host institutions receive almost no evaluation from JICWELS, in contrast to the candidates and governmental agencies that receive some form of evaluation from the host institutions and JICWELS (see Sect. 4.2.6) and from MIAC (see Sect. 4.2.1) respectively. In addition, there is no stipulated sanction on the host institutions that inappropriately provide in-facility training.8 The JICWELS’s minimal intervention over the host  If host institutions present a false training plan for prospective candidates and fail to run the training as planned, they can be subjected to forfeit their entitlement as host institutions and their EPA candidates are subjected to relocation. However, the inspection system to examine whether host institutions run in-facility training for EPA candidates at the satisfactory level is poorly developed. 8

96

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

institutions’ in-facility training clearly manifests the vertically structured relationship between host institutions and JICWELS. This seemingly hierarchical relationship is also implicit in the wide-open criteria for host institutions. In principle, any hospital/caregiving facility with a certain number of certified nurses/caregivers, beds, and patients/facility users can host EPA candidates. Even if they have no experience in training native or foreign-born healthcare workers, facilities can still qualify as host institutions to provide in-­ facility training. Again, this contrasts starkly with the stringent requirements imposed on candidates. Yet, JICWELS’s unobtrusive approach does not mean that host institutions are agents without limitations. JICLWES’s booklets are designed not only to attract host institutions but also to guide them through the operation of the EPA programme. The preface of the Management Handbook (see document No. 23 in Table 3.1) typifies the unique relationship between JICWELS and host institutions: [4-3] … if solely relying on management methods … that host institutions usually employ for Japanese workers, the host institutions may encounter situations where they fail to keep highly motivated Indonesian candidates motivated or fail to bring out their real strengths, talents and abilities … JICWELS has published this handbook, since we consider it necessary that the host institutions know the situation in Indonesia and its national character and the value judgements of Indonesians who live and work in Indonesia in order to appropriately manage Indonesian candidates … (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2015a, own translation)

In the above preface, JICWELS positions host institutions as less experienced in dealing with foreign workers. This apprentice positioning is also articulated when JICWELS empathetically portrays EPA candidates as relatively vulnerable and in turn takes a sanctimonious attitude towards the host institutions: [4-4] Please imagine if you work overseas. Being separated from your family, in an unfamiliar environment and among strangers, you work in a workplace where only a foreign language can be heard. How anxious would that be? (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2015a, p. 80, own translation)

Describing EPA candidates in an emotive tone is an extreme case; milder versions are also available in the same handbook. In the following excerpt, JICWELS cautions against host institutions’ potential exploitation of candidates as mere workers rather than candidates whose prime objective is to obtain a qualification. [4-5] As candidates continue to work, they strengthen their position as members of the caregivers in host institutions and in the third year of employment they come to play a critical role. Although in the final year the provision of study time before the national licensure examination is most necessary, it is not often secured … it is expected that work shifts are

In actuality, host institutions are simply required to submit the annual report on facility training and welcome the annual facility visit by JICWELS.

4.2  Roles, Participation, and Relationships

97

well-planned to provide candidates with enough study time especially in the second half of their third year. (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021, p. 46, own translation)

Here, one may observe the master-apprentice relationship where JICWELS provides a list of dos and don’ts to the host institutions. Unsurprisingly, this kind of representation of EPA candidates as vulnerable is rare in the JICWELS’s publications. Since candidates are not the main reader of these booklets, the real agenda of these representations may be not only to make host institutions aware of the range of issues they need to consider for candidates, but also for JICWELS to assert its authority as the sole certified broker in the EPA programme. For most host institutions, claiming an agentive position in the course of examination reforms as well as in the pre-employment training was impossible. Caregiving Exam Panel invited the participation of a few exam passers and representatives of their host institutions. However, the representatives made only a few introductory words before yielding the floor to the exam passers. In Nursing Exam Panel 2, a few discussants were representatives of host institutions who also hold positions in sectoral organisations (see Table 6.1). When they used the voice of host institutions, they were treated as outsiders who should not interfere in the professional discussion. For instance, Shigeaki Kano, vice president of the Association of Japanese Healthcare Corporations, sympathetically asked for the extension of testing time by referring to the EPA candidates in his own institution. He was immediately criticised for being “overly sentimental” by Kenji Rinsho, a former exam writer of the national nursing examination (see Excerpts 5–18 for his complete remark). Accordingly, Kano was positioned as a non-expert who knows nothing about the examination. As well, host institutions have little bearing on the pre-employment training. JICWELS offers them little information about the training, only limited to training dates and duration, training objectives, hours of instruction, and general descriptions of the training (see Sect. 2.6). Although host institutions shoulder part of the training cost, they are generally ill-informed about it. Only if/when they can afford paying a visit to the training venue at their own expense can they make early contacts with their EPA candidates and attend a briefing session in which the attendees will be informed of the general procedure and necessary paperwork after the training is completed. After all, host institutions can do little to change the pre-­ employment training and the examination itself, as they are neither receivers nor providers of the training, and neither test-takers nor test-administrators.

4.2.6 Deprived Participation: Candidates as Objects and Commodity In the texts analysed, EPA candidates are represented as those who have the least power in influencing the EPA programme. Specifically, they are described as passive objects, relatively blocked from participation in policy creation, with little

98

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

autonomy in their own actions. This representation is partly due to the one-­ directional EPA programme, where the involvement of concerned organisations in the candidates’ home country is kept minimal. In the EPA treaty documents, EPA candidates are generally subjugated as objects of control that go through a series of immigration check-points (e.g., contract signing, medical check-up, and visa issuance) and fulfil requirements (e.g., language training and job-specific training). The verb “allow” in the following statement is indicative of such a representation, in which candidates are already objectified, even before the execution of the JP-EPA programme: [4-6] The Japanese side will allow entry of Filipino candidates for qualified nurses and certified careworkers that satisfy certain requirements and will allow them to work. (Joint Press Statement: A Japan – Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement, 2004, emphasis added)

Nevertheless, at times the EPA candidates are portrayed positively  as desirable human resources. Such a positive framing of candidates was salient well before the commencement of the EPA programme. During the negotiation process, the Filipino government pointed out the workforce shortages in the Japanese healthcare front and presented the Philippine’s nursing school curriculum and the track record of Filipino oversea healthcare workers (Japan-Philippine Economic Partnership Agreement Joint Coordination Team, 2003). In the MOFA-led symposium in 2004, the former POEA director promoted high-quality products of the Philippines by employing the nationally crafted discourse of workers of the world (Lorente, 2012, 2018). With reference to some research studies, he stressed the appealing characteristics of Filipino workers: they are the most cooperative colleagues for Japanese; they are “specially talented to conduct tender loving care”; and they provide “something that the current Japan lacks for sustainable development” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004, p. 21, own translation). As mentioned in Sect. 4.2.5, JICWELS also needs to sell host institutions on the benefits brought about by the EPA candidates in order to continue the EPA programme. The relationship among JICWELS, host institutions and candidates is then a triangle of seller/broker, buyer, and product, mediated not only by the monetary transaction, but also by the brokerage system (e.g., interviews and matching assisted by JICWELS). Most prominently, the packaging of EPA candidates as a sellable commodity was enabled through the pre-employment training which equips candidates with the necessary Japanese language ability (cf. Heller, 2010). JICWELS’s public relations strategy crafts good product images of the EPA candidates to appeal to (prospective) host institutions. They portray the candidates as high-skilled, Japanese-like, and pro-Japan workers. Takashi Tsunoda, executive director of JICWELS, spoke in an interview about these three characteristics of candidates. He described EPA candidates as those who “know Japan is a very good country and have an intense longing for working in Japan” (Tsunoda, 2016, p. 5, own translation), “are selected with the greatest potential” (p. 6, own translation),

4.2  Roles, Participation, and Relationships

99

and remind him of “the good old Japanese in the 20’s and 30’s in the Shōwa period [1945-1964]” (p. 6, own translation). The three qualities are also illuminated in JICWELS’s booklets. First, EPA candidates become roughly synonymous with “professionals with high-skilled and specialised knowledge” (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2015a, p. 69, own translation). The high-calibre profiles of candidates are further supported by the active work participation of Filipino overseas workers, Vietnamese innate hard-working attitude, the well-developed school education system in the Philippines and Vietnam, and the well-qualified healthcare professionals in the Philippines and Indonesia poised for the EPA programme. The positive image is assisted by their alleged similarities to Japanese people, too. The direct comparison between Japan and each country was made with respect to close geographical location, language similarity, food resemblance, and similar socialisation style. For example: [4-7] Filipinos hold a similar thought called utan-na-robu, which is ongi [obligation/debt] in Japanese. People strongly feel ongi when others do something for you but you are not required to return something back. … because this thought is very strong, Filipinos tend to pay close attention to the pecking order especially toward bosses, seniors and mentors. (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2015a, p. 78, own translation)

JICWELS further disseminated the view that EPA candidates are not only similar to Japanese people but they also admire Japan, Japanese culture and Japanese people. The Management Handbook includes the results of a survey that asked Indonesian nurses about their interest in working in Japan. The summary is as follows: [4-8] … some [Indonesian nurses] like Japanese origami (paper folding) and kimono and others answered that Japan has a culture of embarrassment, which is the very characteristic of Japan. Considering these answers, there are many Indonesian who have positive impressions toward Japan and Japanese people. They have these impressions because Japan is an advanced country and they appreciate the efforts which Japanese people have made in order to become such an advanced country. (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2015a, p. 43, own translation)

Likewise, Vietnamese’ friendly attitude and affinity toward Japan and Japanese people is equated with their familiarity with Japanese products: [4-9] Vietnamese has strong affinity for Japan … many Japanese products and Japanese restaurants were seen in Vietnam and Vietnamese people are friendly toward Japan and Japanese people. (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2015a, p. 153, own translation)

In contrast to the idealised candidates as shown above, there are some negative depictions: EPA candidates are not like Japanese. For instance, JICWELS cited a report published by the Japan External Trade Organisation that positioned Vietnamese as primitive as opposed to Japanese sophistication. Drawing on a direct causal relationship between weather and culture, the report notes that Vietnamese

100

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

do not “ever feel the pinch due to their country’s shorter winter and abundant resources” (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2015a, p.  124, own translation, emphasis original), whereas “Japanese’ diligence, carefulness and traits of always deepening thoughts” (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2015a, p. 124, own translation) are gleaned from their enduring preparation for the long winter. EPA candidates are also depicted as potentially unprofessional due to different work ethics. Issues such as poor punctuality, disinclination to take on others’ work voluntarily, and boundary issues in the workplace (e.g., prioritising family matters over work, distinguishing between privately-owned and company-owned items) cut across as stereotypical characteristics of Filipino, Indonesian and Vietnamese workers. The Management Handbook lists these characteristics as problems and outlier behaviours commonly identified by anonymous Japanese employers running businesses in Indonesia and Vietnam. Specific to Vietnamese, JICWELS quotes a report published by Overseas Vocational Training Association, which describes Vietnamese as “being poor at foreseeing and forming a long-term view”, and who “never apologise for their faults” and “have a know-it-all attitude” (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2015a, p. 123, own translation) - unprofessional and undesirable characteristics that need to be corrected through retraining. Despite the presentation of these negative stereotypes, JICWELS takes an equivocal stance for foreigners with different cultural backgrounds. For instance: [4-10] This chapter explains Filipino society, culture and people that consolidate the basis on which you understand your partners. However, this explanation does not necessarily apply to everyone. Please take heed because applying them to everyone may lead to a wrong understanding of a given person, due to differences in individuals, regions, classes etc. (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2015a, p. 71, own translation)

When comparing this statement with the stereotypical excerpts above, there is a clear difference in the use of others’ voice. JICWELS consistently quotes from externally published materials such as the reports of Japan External Trade Organisation and Overseas Vocational Training Association or other experienced Japanese employers when making negative remarks on foreign workers and alerting host institutions to the conflict potentially brought on by EPA candidates. Using others’ voice may be JICWELS’s tactic to escape potential criticism for being too assertive in their cultural stereotyping. Even though there are positive descriptions of EPA candidates, the candidates do not get to participate in policy creation. One example is how JICWELS appropriates their voices. After the modification of the licensure examinations, JICWELS conducted surveys with the nursing and caregiving candidates about the examinations, asking questions such as whether the modification was helpful or not and whether the extended testing time was appropriate or too short or long. The surveys included such fact-verifying questions only and excluded open-ended questions where the candidates could express their opinions more freely. Also excluded were the more important, future-oriented questions that could directly ask them to provide suggestions on further/potential modification and educational support. Such questions and

4.2  Roles, Participation, and Relationships

101

resultant answers would have generated a key input for the betterment of examination system. The marginalisation of EPA candidates is also evidenced by the fact that no candidates were invited to participate in Nursing Exam Panel 2. Some discussants argued that the panel discussion should take account of the candidates’ voice and questioned their exclusion from the panel. MHLW answered that the examination date was so close that the panel discussion would disrupt the candidates’ study and cause anxiety, although the panel could have invited those who were not going to take the exam in that year, or MHLW could have rescheduled the meeting to take place after the examination. MHLW’s response shows, at least, that they had no intention to include the candidates from the beginning, or in the worst-case scenario, that they intentionally held the series of meetings when the nurse candidates would be busy preparing for the examination. In response to the criticism against MHLW’s exclusion of EPA candidates, MHLW directed panel members to the candidates’ responses in the past survey results. In desperation, MHLW also commented that the candidates’ voices could be heard through the host institutions’ public comments, although they hardly represent the candidates’ opinions (see Sect. 6.3.1 for detail). Another example of portraying host institutions as the candidates’ mouthpiece is found in the Handbook about Accepting Caregiver Candidates under the EPA Programme (see document No. 22 in Table 3.1). In the handbook, JICWELS presents the templates of the annual in-facility training evaluation forms which each of the in-facility training supervisors (personnel in host institutions) and candidates is required to evaluate the in-facility training they provide or receive.9 The form is inherently problematic because it requires candidates to include their identification. There seems no way to secure the anonymity of evaluators, as the host institutions are likely responsible for gathering the evaluation forms from the candidates and handing them in to JICWELS. Thus, candidates cannot avoid the monitoring by the host institutions. This means that JICWELS naively accept the annual evaluations that may represent a view convenient only for host institutions. This one-sided evaluation is also seen in the application form for candidates’ extension of stay, which does not require any candidate’s reflection or input in the in-facility training but only requires host institutions to amend the in-facility training plan. While EPA candidates play almost no role in the policy creation, former candidates, namely exam passers, have a limited presence. Caregiving Exam Panel invited two exam passers. Apart from their timeline of studying for the examination, the exam passers also made comments about the reform proposals raised by the panel. Interestingly, both of them negatively evaluated the proposals. For example, one exam passer noted that “excessive use of Furigana makes the text even harder to  Training supervisors and candidates choose one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree) on the following items: the candidate can communicate well with facility users; the candidate can communicate well with colleagues; the candidates’ learning proceeds well along with the self-learning plan; his/her Japanese language acquisition proceeds well; the host institution functions well to support the self-learning plan; and the candidate can deal with mental health issues. 9

102

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

read. I don’t think it is a good idea to make it kinder than necessary” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012d, own translation). Despite the fact that they are indeed highly selected exam passers, they represent the voice of candidates in the final report as in “majority of the views made by these groups [interest groups invited for public hearing] and exam passers were negative [about the exam reforms]” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012b, pp.  10–11, own translation). On the other hand, the exam passers’ recommendations for improvement of the examinations were generally dismissed. One of them recommended that the national caregiving examination can refer to a final examination used at a vocational caregiver school to make the exam questions more straightforward. This suggestion was taken up neither in the final report nor the following meeting when the same issue was again brought up. Thus, the representation of exam passers in Caregiving Exam Panel indicates not only that exam passers are far less influential policy actors than they appeared to be, but also that their voice is cherry-picked and selectively used to maintain the status quo of the national licensure examination (see Sect. 6.3.3 for analysis of the ignorance of other examinations).

4.3 Goals Given that the responsibilities and relationships of policy actors take different shapes and differ in their ability and degree of autonomy, it is unsurprising that they view the EPA programme differently from one another. Such views are also subject to change depending on context and time, as actors are agentive human beings, always responding to the changing social, political, and economic circumstance in which they situate themselves. The complexity is well-exemplified by the governmental strategic plan titled “The New Growth Strategy: Blueprint for Revitalizing Japan”, published a few years after the commencement of the EPA programme. This plan encouraged the acceleration of EPAs and relevant domestic regulatory reforms and specifically described the EPA programme as follows: [4-11] Through the efforts to ensure the acceptance under EPAs of foreign candidates of qualified nurses and nursing care workers, we can increase the number of foreign people working at medical care or nursing care institutions in Japan. By spreading Japanese medical and nursing care technologies and knowledge overseas, we expect that the medical and nursing care services will be improved, which will stimulate latent demand for these services. By taking these measures, we will greatly help to double the volume of the flows of people, goods and funds in Asia, and will promote trade within this region, encourage foreign firms to set their business bases in Japan, and accumulate human resources in Japan. (Cabinet Office, 2010, pp. 56–57)

This excerpt includes several goals that the government of Japan has envisaged for the EPA programme: the spread of Japan’s medical and caregiving knowledge and

4.3 Goals

103

skill to the world, the improvement of domestic medical and nursing care field, the expansion of demand for healthcare services, and the security and enhancement of Japan’s standing in Asia. These goals are highly likely to change, for example, if/ when Japan faces a social, political, or economic crisis. Not only the national government but also the original negotiation team of the EPA had multiple goals in mind, perhaps due to the discussants’ diverse ministerial backgrounds, expertise and responsibilities. They include: (1) to contribute to the overall economic vitalisation between two countries, (2) to boost Japanese citizens’ mental preparedness for foreign workers, and (3) to serve as a touchstone for planning a systematic immigration framework in the future (Economic Affairs Bureau EPA Negotiating Team, 2007). These goals are multifaceted and this multifacetedness indicates that EPA negotiators on the Japanese side tended to focus exclusively on the effect of the EPA programme on the entire Japanese society and presented a visionless picture of the EPA programme without any consideration of the EPA candidates. As these aforementioned examples indicate, the range of goals for the EPA can be extensive, and there is remarkable variation in the policy actors’ expectations. Nevertheless, it is worth reminding ourselves that the EPA programme is an immigration policy that emerged out of diplomatic necessity, compromise and negotiation, rather than an outcome of careful long-range planning or a reflection of the well-established public discourse for immigration. As detailed in Chap. 2, the acceptance of migrant workers was a response to the Southeast Asian countries’ request as well as a necessity to balance the economic benefits incurred from the EPA (i.e., Japan overly benefits from the tariff elimination on its exports to the Southeast Asian countries, while receiving comparatively few imports from them). Accordingly, many government agencies stressed the special nature of the programme. MOFA affirmed that “the EPA programme is essentially different from the wider movement of people positioned under the umbrella of the comprehensive immigration policy” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004, p. 28). MHLW (2008b) and JICWELS (2021) created the official discourse of the EPA programme that exceptionally accepts foreign workers through a channel of the economic-oriented agreement. These remarks show the governmental agencies’ cautious attitude toward immigration, as they do not wish to make the EPA programme a precedent for the creation of other kinds of immigration schemes. Besides its original identification as a special immigration policy, I have identified four other policy goals addressed in the EPA policy texts: (1) workforce recruitment; (2) internationalisation; (3) foreign aid; and (4) cultural/linguistic outreach. These four goals are not always clearly delineated. Their boundaries are often fuzzy, so that policy actors may attach more than one goal to the EPA programme. The following sections examine the goals proposed by the governmental agencies, sectoral organisations, and Japanese language educators. The goals proposed by host institutions and EPA candidates are absent from the data collected and thus are not subjected to scrutiny here.

104

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

4.3.1 The EPA Programme as a Workforce Recruitment Policy For some policy actors, the EPA programme is a worker recruitment channel to rescue the understaffed healthcare sector and Japan’s economic decline. POEA, for instance, saw such an opportunity in the programme because it enables the Philippines to help “meet the domestic labour demand” in Japan and Japan “to establish stronger labour relationships with those people who have something missing in Japan for its steady growth” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004, p. 22, own translation). JBF and the Japanese Council of Senior Citizens Welfare Service (JCSCWS) and Philippine Nurses Association also regard EPA candidates as workers who solve the deficiency in the Japanese healthcare labour market. As early as 2004, JBF estimated that the medicine and caregiving sector would be potentially understaffed in the future and in urgent need of well-trained foreign human resources (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004). In the JBF’s wishful thinking, the EPA programme would contribute to the rejuvenation of the Japanese economy, as EPA candidates could relieve the Japanese staff currently off work caring for family members and in turn encourage their return to full-time work (Japan Business Federation, 2006). JCSCWS (2011) criticised the treatment of candidates as trainees and explicitly reframed them as “employees based on the regular labour contract” (own translation, emphasis original). As was repeatedly emphasised by JCSCWS (2011, 2012), this rhetorical transformation was necessary, because the number of full-time caregivers is one of the most important parameters that determines the revenue of caregiving facilities.10 Although based in the Philippines, the Philippine Nurses Association took issue with the EPA programme in a very similar manner to JCSCWS, requesting the recognition of Filipino EPA nurse candidates as professional nurses (Philippines Nurses Association, 2015b). When they made stinging statements about the EPA programme, Filipino nurse candidates were often described as workers who were compelled to supply cheap labour while providing quality nursing services and whose salary and benefit package should be made equal to their Japanese counterparts. While these three actors - JBF, JCSCWS and the Philippine Nurses Association are relatively consistent in their view of the EPA programme as a measure for recruiting foreign workers, others waver in their stances. MHLW and JICWELS have repeatedly voiced their reluctance to treat candidates as workers, since they are the major producers of the official discourse that the EPA programme is a special immigration policy that originates from the EPA treaty, not from manpower shortages in the healthcare sector. However, the MHLW’s ambivalence is clearly observable in their website which begins with an introduction that the EPA programme is  Within Japan’s long-term care insurance system, a caregiving service fee is paid to service providers with 80–90% from public funds and 10–20% by service users. The amount of the service fee is determined by the type of service used, the level of the user’s frailty, and the location of the service providers. If the service providers fail to keep the standard personnel distribution (e.g., one caregiver for 15 users in a daycare facility), they are sanctioned by receiving a reduced amount from the public fund. 10

4.3 Goals

105

not a response to labour shortages, but later states that “the purpose of employing EPA candidates may vary between host institutions, such as ‘for international contribution/international exchange’, ‘for workplace activation’, or ‘as a test case for future employment of foreigners’” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2017). This statement points to the fact that MHLW is well aware that labour shortage triggers the institutional participation in the EPA programme. Similarly, the JICWELS’s director acknowledged that the signing of the programme was partly promoted by “the anxiety for the future workforce shortages” (Tsunoda, 2016, p.  5, own translation). The swaying stance can also be shown in the use of two terms: “workers” and “trainees”. One of the EPA treaty documents defines candidates as trainees, rather than workers, who engage in: [4-12] (i) pursuing the course of training including Japanese language training … for six (6) months; and (ii) after completion of the said training, acquiring necessary knowledge and skills at the caregiving facility mentioned below through the training under the supervision of Kaigofukushishi [certified caregiver] (Annex 8, 2006, p. 922, emphasis original)

The treaty documents shun using work-related vocabulary such as “work”, “labour” and “employment” in order to adhere to the discursive framing of trainees. Although the original negotiation team of the EPA explained that the training was included in the EPA programme to help the candidates pass the licensure examinations (Economic Affairs Bureau EPA Negotiating Team, 2007), this depiction of candidates is inaccurate because candidates are treated like regular employees, such as signing a regular labour contract and getting paid on the same standard as full-time Japanese workers. Indeed, the dual role of candidates is problematic at its heart. First, it confuses the Japanese language training providers. Working or training is an important classification by which the providers determine their teaching priorities and goals because they are tasked to get EPA candidates ready for the workplace within a limited period of time. Second, it causes serious systematic inequality among EPA candidates, creating disparity between candidates who have their study time paid and allocated within their work hours and those who do not (Asato, 2012). Third, it poses an issue for MHLW and JICWELS as to how to position candidates within the EPA programme. Indeed, the original principle of the EPA allows freer movement of individuals who can provide economically valuable services (Economic Affairs Bureau EPA Negotiating Team, 2007, emphasis added), and makes no reference to trainees who are not necessarily expected to provide such quality services. One way to manage this contradiction or to depict EPA candidates without such words as “trainees” or “foreign labour” is to discursively create a new category of migrants that accommodates EPA candidates, that is, skilled workers-to-be who will contribute to Japan in future. MHLW, for instance, confirmed that the EPA programme “enable[s] Filipino candidates to obtain a nurse and caregiver certificate

106

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

during the stipulated period and to continue staying in our country” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2008b, own translation), thereby representing the future of candidates as accredited healthcare workers. JICWELS made a similar effort in the following comparative texts, both taken from the same series of documents published by JICWELS. [4-13] … it is expected that every nurse and caregiver candidate passes the national licensure examination and continues to stay in Japan afterwards. Moreover, this programme is not to employ mere unskilled workers. It is necessary for Japan to actively promote foreign workers’ employment in the specialist and technical area. On the other hand, it is necessary to consider the effect of expansion in the range of receiving foreign workers on, for example, unskilled workers, on the domestic labour market especially employment of youth, women and elderly … (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2015b, p. 6, own translation) This programme is intended to strengthen the economic ties between Japan and Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, and is not simply for the purpose of hiring workers. It is hoped that as many nurse/caregiver candidates as possible will pass the national examinations and subsequently stay in Japan continuously … in recent years, various channels have been established to accept foreign caregivers in addition to the EPA programme. EPA candidates are expected to obtain Japanese national certifications and to work as registered nursing and caregiving professionals, as well as to provide advice and guidance to foreign caregivers [recruited through the newly established channels]. (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021, p. 7, own translation)

Although the two excerpts denied that EPA candidates are mere unskilled workers, JICWELS underscored the candidates’ promising future by alluding to their possibility of passing the examination and remaining in Japan as full-fledged professionals. Also of note is that two types of migrants are compared in both excerpts. In the first excerpt (published in 2015), the direct comparison between problematic unskilled workers and beneficial specialists(−to-be) is interesting enough because this is not a common strategy when the entry permits for skilled workers such as lawyers, IT specialists and business leaders are discussed. Such workers are welcomed and viewed as desperately needed, due to their contribution to Japan’s economic revitalisation (see Ministry of Justice, 2015, for example). The second excerpt (published in 2021) did not mention anything about mere-skilled workers but referred to a new group of migrant caregivers who are recruited through different immigration channels (see Sect. 7.2 for detail). As applicants for these channels are not strictly screened as those for the EPA programme, the reference to non-EPA caregivers elevates the status of the EPA programme and the candidates, positioning the latter as more experienced and desirable professionals in the workplace. In a nutshell, the contrast of EPA candidates with unskilled workers and with non-EPA caregivers is a rhetorical technique to accentuate their desirability as long-term residents as well as professionals. This discursive move is necessary not only to align candidates with ideal (skilled) migrant workers, but also to rescue them from being categorised as unwanted migrants with no Japanese certification and engaged in caregiving jobs which is commonly seen as mundane and low status.

4.3 Goals

107

The depiction of EPA candidates as skilled workers(−to-be) was successfully taken up or strengthened by other governmental agencies. A government strategic plan published in 2011, “Interim Report on Strategies to Revitalize Japan”, categorises candidates into a group of “high-skilled human resources and specialists/technicians” (Cabinet Office, 2011b, p.  27, own translation, see also Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry, 2010a for a similar attempt). Later, MOJ (2015) has also confirmed the EPA programme as one of the immigration channels that accepts “foreigners in the professional and technical area in response to the changing economy and society” (p.17, own translation), while warning not to treat it as a tool to solve the workforce shortages in the caregiving sector. Even the Japanese Trade Union Confederation, which resists importing foreign workforce, accepted the movement of skilled healthcare workers, so long as they “can contribute to Japan’s economic and cultural development” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004, p. 15, own translation).

4.3.2 The EPA Programme as an Internationalisation Policy Some policy actors view the EPA programme as an avenue for Japan’s internationalisation. This view was noticeable in another government strategic plan called “Realizing the New Growth Strategy 2011”. It stated: [4-14] … in order to strengthen high-level economic partnerships with major countries and regions, the Government of Japan, with a view to opening the country, will first promote appropriate domestic reforms with respect to … movement of natural persons from abroad to Japan. (Cabinet Office, 2011a, emphasis original)

The key phrase “a view to opening the country” implies Japan’s active and positive attitude towards the acceptance of foreigners including EPA candidates. In fact, one of the reforms mentioned in the excerpt was to form a study group under the Minister of State for National Policy to discuss the examination system for EPA candidates (which eventually prompted the establishment of Nursing Exam Panels 1 and 2 and Caregiving Exam Panel). An example of this kind also appeared in other actors’ discourses. For example, the original negotiation team of the EPA has positioned the EPA programme as a challenge as well as an opportunity for Japan, the “homogeneous society” (Economic Affairs Bureau EPA Negotiating Team, 2007, p.  290, own translation) to internationalise itself. Similarly, Arc Academy has asserted that the EPA programme is a project for Japan to “accept foreigners as neighbours” (Arc Academy, n.d., own translation), suggesting a change for Japan to become a foreigner-­friendly and open country. The international nature of the EPA programme is also addressed in the expectation that it provides an opportunity for Japan to demonstrate its presence in the world and to internationalise its healthcare system. This is done with particular

108

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

reference to the field of caregiving, in which Japan considers itself one of the leading and most knowledgeable countries. In the third meeting of Caregiving Exam Panel, representatives from IJY and the Japan Association of Training Institutions for Certified Care Workers argued that Japan can lead Asia and the world in terms of caregiving service for the elderly population and create the global standards for caregiving knowledge and skills. In the following meeting, JICWELS shared a similar idea to elevate the Japanese national caregiving examination to the international licensure examination, while the Japan Association of Geriatric Health Services Facilities saw the English-translated examination as a promotional strategy for Japan’s vanguard of caregiving. On this matter, Sawa (2018) has argued that the EPA programme can be situated in a broad policy framework, “The Asia Health Initiative”, announced in early 2017 by the Japanese government. This initiative is a plan for Japan to take a leading role in the entire Asia where the expansion of the elderly/aging market is clearly anticipated over the next 20 to 30 years but social systems and markets for aging societies are still underdeveloped. In this ambitious vision, the EPA programme is considered a long-term investment strategy for Japan to be well-prepared for the explosive demand for eldercare services and to spread Japan-style caregiving across the Asian region. Yet, the internationalisation discourse does not always have a positive connotation for Japan. At times, it is used to heighten the sense of crisis, as Japan falls behind other nations in the global labour market. In other words, the EPA programme marks a point where Japan joins the worldwide competition for securing human capital. JBF, for instance, emphasised the need to nurture and secure healthcare workers due to “the severity of human resource competition” (2010; 2011, own translation), which reminds us of their proposed idea of the programme as a workforce recruitment policy (Sect. 4.3.1). In its petition for the extension of candidature and permission for EPA nurse candidates to take the national assistant nurse examination, BIMACONC also mentioned “the severity of competition” for Indonesian nurses among advanced countries such as Australia and Germany, warning that “the effort and investment put into the EPA programme will end up in vain because other countries will be delighted to recruit the Japan-educated EPA returnees” (Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Worker, 2010b, own translation). Thus, in light of the internationalisation discourse, the EPA programme awakens Japan’s zeal to become a major player on the global stage, not only as a global leader in the healthcare field but also as a global competitor for human resources.

4.3.3 The EPA Programme as a Humanitarian Foreign-Aid Policy While the internationalisation discourse is centred around Japan’s future success in the international competition, the humanitarian foreign-aid discourse is produced in relation to Japan’s contribution to the international community. The earliest

4.3 Goals

109

example of this discourse appeared in 2004, when a senior director of JNA noted that the cross-border movement of nurses “standardises nursing knowledge and skills and contributes to the worldwide development of healthcare” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004, p. 31, own translation). This statement implies that the EPA programme accelerates the development of the healthcare field in Japan and its partner countries. Indeed, Japan’s international contribution has been frequently referenced by several policy actors on many different occasions in many different forms. In part, this discourse glosses over the root of the EPA programme - the economic inequality between Japan and the Southeast Asian countries that is reflected onto the trade imbalance (Asai & Miyamoto, 2011). Policy actors who are dissatisfied with the stigmatised label of cheap labour or the general framing of candidates as workers are eager to illuminate the foreign-aid elements in the EPA programme. Here, EPA candidates are less likely to be constructed as workers, but as trainees who experience Japan’s advanced healthcare workplace, develop their professional knowledge and skills, and eventually contribute to the healthcare development in their own countries. For instance, the executive director of JICWELS proudly expressed that “the goal of the EPA programme is very sublime” (Tsunoda, 2016, p. 5, own translation) because human resources such as the EPA candidates can contribute to the medical and welfare development in both countries. He further emphasised the mutual benefits of the programme by categorising candidates into two groups. Candidates in one group are skilled workers-to-be, who will pass the examinations and advance Japan’s healthcare service as qualified healthcare professionals in the future (see Sect. 4.3.1 for the similar depiction). The other group of candidates contribute to the development of the field of healthcare and welfare in their own countries. They may be exam passers, exam failures, and even drop-outs, who return to their own country but are considered to have gained extra education and working experience in Japan. Hence, even if the EPA programme fails to produce a good number of exam passers or some candidates drop out in the middle of their candidature, the discourse of the foreign aid policy can save the JICWELS’s face and defend its position as a generous contributor to developing countries. The view of the EPA programme as a humanitarian foreign-aid policy is hard to resist, not only for JICWELS but also for the healthcare sectoral organisations. While they are similarly persistent in the official discourse of the EPA programme as a special kind of immigration policy, they also have shaped the discourse of foreign-­aid policy to serve their respective interests. JACCW (2005) emphasised that Japan cannot achieve true international cooperation through accepting foreign caregivers unless it first improves the working conditions for domestic caregivers, which was their sticking point in the negotiations. In like fashion, the executive director of JNA urged the setting up of a pre-entry language benchmark for several reasons, including the enhancement and development of medicine and nursing in Indonesia and in the Philippines (Ogawa, 2011). Japan’s self-admiration as a country with the highest level of healthcare knowledge and technology and a well-developed welfare system underlines not only the internationalisation discourse but also the humanitarian foreign-aid discourse.

110

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

Many policy actors expressed the educational and knowledge-transfer aspect of the EPA programme in which EPA candidates can advance their professional careers through exposing themselves to Japan’s advanced high-tech and well-developed healthcare system and subsequently using their gain to benefit their own countries. JMA was particularly vocal about Japan’s benevolence and righteousness. In the panel meetings for the reform of the national nursing examination, the representative of JMA strongly stated that the EPA programme “reflects the virtue of Japanese kindness that provides EPA candidates from countries with a low level of medicine and nursing with education” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2011b, own translation) and that “distinguishes the Japanese warm-hearted quality from Europe and the US” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2011a, own translation). MOFA also confirmed Japan’s diplomatic stance with regard to immigration, whereby Japan feels a substantial level of responsibility as “a leader in Asia” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004, p. 7, own translation) to provide developmental support for other Asian countries. Thus, the EPA programme as a foreign-aid policy is a double-edged sword, displaying Japan’s spirit of mercy in the form of developmental support as well as demonstrating its supremacy in Asia and beyond. The humanitarian foreign-aid discourse is also found to be versatile, since it is utilised by policy actors who are poles apart in their proposed goals. As shown previously, JBF conceived of EPA candidates as workers, unlike other advocacy groups who viewed the candidates as trainees benefitting from humanitarian aid through the EPA programme. However, JBF drew on the same humanitarian discourse to support its appeal to revise the examinations in order to increase the number of exam passers. In their requests, JBF repeated the following sentence: [4-15] … it is desirable that EPA candidates maximise their ability in our country, since the EPA programme contributes to international transfer of knowledge and skill and advances harmonious international relationship. (JBF, 2010; 2011, own translation)

The example of JBF provokes a fundamental question as to whether the foreign-aid discourse is a shield to hide the fact that the EPA programme is a workforce recruitment programme. This possibility arises out of the placement of the programme under Chap. 9 “Movement of Natural Persons” of the EPA treaty. Chapter 14 “Cooperation” arguably resonates better with the humanitarian foreign-aid policy, as it encourages human resource development in areas such as “language training and education on culture and social values; education and training; development of human resources with knowledge and skills at an advanced level” (Implementing agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Article12 of the Agreement between Japan and the Republic of the Philippines for an Economic Partnership, 2006, September 9, p. 10). The placement of the EPA programme in Chap. 9 instead of Chap. 14 suggests that there was no original intention to locate the programme within the humanitarian foreign-aid discourse; rather, the discourse may have been engineered ad hoc by interest groups, as we have seen.

4.3 Goals

111

This possibility increases when comparing the EPA programme with the existing immigration channel, called the Technical Intern Training Programme. As one of the side-doors (Thränhardt, 1999) through which Japan recruits unskilled workers, this programme projects itself as a knowledge transfer programme that provides nationals from developing countries with training in technical skills and knowledge that will eventually bring benefits for their countries. Although trainees land a job in the industries with a critical labour shortage, such as agriculture, construction and manufacturing, this rhetorical use of humanitarian discourse to justify the programme and to avert the criticism that the programme imports unskilled workers resembles what we have seen in the EPA policy texts. Although EPA candidates are granted an opportunity to continue to work in Japan, the examination requirement technically eliminates such an opportunity for most of them, resulting in a small number of long-term migrant workers and a large number of short-term migrant workers. What is common between the two programmes is that the humanitarian foreign-aid discourse serves to disguise temporary workers as an ear-pleasing category of migrant trainees (see also Sect. 7.2 on the connection between the two programmes). Accordingly, the humanitarian foreign-aid policy and the workforce recruitment policy may be two sides of the same coin. From the perspective of a foreign-aid policy, the EPA programme promotes the professional career development of individuals in Japan’s high-level healthcare field during their candidature as well as after they become accredited professionals. In the language of workforce recruitment policy, this can be interpreted as a highly selective labour recruitment programme whereby Japan cherry-picks skilled migrant workers. Looking at the flip side of the coin, the humanitarian foreign-aid policy encourages reverse migration and expects former EPA candidates to serve in their own country as Japan-educated professionals, with the EPA programme as a short-term workforce recruitment programme whereby Japan promotes circular labour migration in which migrant workers conveniently supplement the declining workforce in the healthcare sector and leave within a short period of time. With the temporary workers, Japan does not need to worry about the social costs of their settlement and can maintain the general principle of its skilled-only immigration policy (see Oh, 2013 for similar claim).

4.3.4 The EPA Programme as a Cultural/Linguistic Outreach Policy The major producers of the cultural/linguistic outreach discourse are Japanese language educators. As noted previously, due to their professional mission and spirit they are mostly concerned with learning support for EPA candidates. However, these educators tend to claim that they add extra value to the EPA programme in that candidates experience joy, accomplishment, self-discovery, understanding and affinity toward Japan through learning Japanese. For example, when invited to

112

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

Caregiving Exam Panel, a representative from the Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language made a closing remark as follows: [4-16] … caregiving service is all about respecting users for who they are and their human rights. Human rights of caregivers, including EPA candidates, should also be protected. In order to do that, we think that Japanese language acquisition and challenge for the national examination should accompany achievement, joy and enjoyment as a tool to open a new world rather than suffering, severe drudgery and intense labour. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012c, own translation)

Japan Foundation’s approach, on the other hand, seems politically motivated. It has been placing their pre-employment training project for EPA candidates under the category of “Japanese language education overseas”, one of the three core components of their business along with “promotion of arts and cultural exchange” and “promotion of Japanese studies and intellectual exchange”. The significance of this component is illustrated as follows: [4-17] The Japanese language is an important starting point for developing interest in Japan. Through Japanese language education, we promote learners’ broader understanding of Japanese culture, politics, economy and society, and nurture more pro-Japan and Japan-­ savvy people, bearers of contact with Japan, and Japan specialists, such as Japanese study researchers. Japanese language education therefore contributes to the activation of arts and cultural exchange and intellectual and grass-root human exchange. (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2015, own translation)

Among other regions (e.g., Latin America, the US and UK), Southeast Asia is now the centre of the Foundation’s effort to promote Japanese language education (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2015). In 2014, the Japan Foundation launched the Nihongo (the Japanese language) Partners programme which sends Japanese citizens to secondary schools in ASEAN countries. These partners are supposed to “assist local Japanese language teachers and interact with students and local people outside the classroom to respond to their desire to learn more about Japan” (Japan Foundation Asia Center, 2019). With the placement of the EPA programme and the Nihongo Partners Programme under the flag of the promotion of Japanese language education overseas, the EPA programme may be viewed as a cultural/linguistic outreach policy, similar to those of language academies/councils in other countries (e.g., see Phillipson, 1992, for the case of the British Council). In this context, the programme may be viewed as a contemporary reformulation of an imperialistic language policy by which Japan spreads its language in the expectation of increasing the number of forging supporters for Japan generally and a workforce for Japan’s benefit specifically. The cultural/linguistic outreach discourse also at times takes precedence in other policy creators’ input. For example, JBF addressed the importance of “taking the initiative in cultivating foreigners who can speak Japanese properly and in increasing the number of those who have mastered Japanese thoroughly” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004, p. 26, own translation) in order to secure a sufficient workforce in the future. This statement suggests a clear link between the linguistic

4.4 Summary

113

outreach and the workforce recruitment JBF has been continuously proposing. Indeed, this view works in concert with Japan Foundation’s recent agenda to “expand the number of Japanese language learners including not only Japanophiles but also tourists, business travellers, exchange students and human resources that cover shortfall caused by the demographic aging” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2015, emphasis added, own translation). While JBF fully supports the import of migrant healthcare workers proficient in Japanese into Japan, others began to take advantages of EPA returnees who failed to pass the licensure examinations, dropped out in the middle of their candidature, or went back home even after having qualified as nurses/caregivers. Although these returnees index the failure of the EPA programme to some extent, the linguistic/ cultural outreach discourse provides a cover story to turn the failure into something positive. For example, the returnees are considered as ambassadors of Japanese culture abroad who “introduce the good things about Japan” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2011b, own translation). At a more pragmatic end, candidates can “shine with their Japanese ability in other sectors” (Tsunoda, 2015, p. 30, own translation) besides the healthcare sector. In fact, the government of Japan organises job fairs in its embassies in Indonesia and in the Philippines (Ojio, 2013). The fairs invite the returnees to meet not only healthcare institutions but also Japanese-­ affiliated companies in search of workers with Japanese proficiency. During the time from the pre-departure training to the after-care stage, the EPA programme functions as a cultural/linguistic policy package that creates not only Japanophiles but also workers with Japanese-language competence who supply the workforce in Japan and overseas for the interest of Japan.

4.4 Summary The present chapter has identified the agents and their participatory roles in creating the EPA programme as a language policy. Section 4.2 has depicted the roles and relationships of major policy actors, and examined the degree of their participation in language policy process and the power that each policy actor exerts. Due to the one-directional programme, the government agencies affiliated with Japan and training providers on its commission are found to be powerful, responsible for operating and controlling most stages of the EPA programme. Interest groups, particularly those in the healthcare sectors, were active in their policy advocacy and strongly represented in the exam advisory panels. On the other hand, Japanese language educators constituted the minority voice, despite their commitment to the candidates’ Japanese learning and preparation for the national licensure examinations. Compared with the policy actors who at least could secure a seat at the policymaking table, host institutions and EPA candidates find few opportunities to do so, even though they are most affected by any decisions to be made. While host institutions enjoy relative autonomy in running the in-facility training, candidates are generally regarded as powerless figures in the operation of the EPA programme. Yet, the

114

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

roles of host institutions and EPA candidates are depicted as far more complex, when putting JICWELS in the picture. The triangle relationship of seller/broker (JICWELS), buyers (host institutions), goods (candidates) emerges. This relationship manifests itself in the JICWELS’s use of polite language and the creation of attractive product images of EPA candidates. Section 4.3 has uncovered the actors’ views of the EPA programme and their implicit goals and agendas. The programme is originally a part of Japan’s immigration policy, which emerged as an inevitable result from the signing of the trade liberalisation treaty. Policy actors were found to attach additional goal(s) in order to accomplish their own desired ends. For some, the EPA programme opens up international opportunities by which Japan showcases its world-renowned advancement in healthcare and joins the worldwide competition for securing human resources. Japan’s self-admiration is also observed in the way policy actors attach humanitarian value with the EPA programme. Almost all policy advocates saw the programme as contributing to knowledge transfer from Japan to the developing Southeast Asian countries in the field of healthcare. This section has also shown that the humanitarian foreign-aid goal is congruent with the workforce recruitment goal promoted by those who are anxiously vocal about the shortfall of human resources in the healthcare sector. In this regard, the EPA programme is a two-in-one workforce recruitment policy. The examination requirement sorts candidates into the category of long-term migrant workers and that of temporary migrant workers. Under the humanitarian interpretation, the EPA programme provides exam passers with career advancement opportunities in highly developed Japan. Even if candidates fail the examination, it is believed that they can contribute to their home countries as Japan-­ educated professionals. By a similar logic, the EPA programme serves as a cultural/ linguistic outreach policy, by which Japan spreads its language in Southeast Asia in the expectation to nurture and recruit the future workforce for Japan’s benefit.

References Annex 8 referred to in Chapter 9 Specific Commitments for the Movement of Natural Persons. (2006, September 9). [Bilateral Treaty]. JA.-PH. https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-­paci/philippine/epa0609/annex8.pdf Arc Academy. (n.d.). EPA事業への取り組み [Our engagement with the EPA project]. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://jp.arc-­academy.net/about/epa.html Asai, A., & Miyamoto, S. (2011). 日本･インドネシア経済連携協定による看護人材受け入 れをめぐる組織コミュニケーション: 政府間における意味生成と共有過程に注目し て [Public organizational communcations in receiving nurses through the Japan-Indonesia Economic partnership agreement: How meanings are created and shared between governments]. 多文化関係学 [Multicultural Relations], 8, 17–33. Asato, W. (2012). Nurses from abroad and the formation of a dual labor market in Japan. Southeast Asian Studies, 49(4), 652–669. Cabinet Office. (2010). The new growth strategy: Blueprint for revitalizing Japan. Retrieved August 23, 2022, from http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/npu/policy04/pdf/20100706/20100706_newgrowstrategy.pdf

References

115

Cabinet Office. (2011a). Realizing the new growth strategy 2011. Retrieved August 23, 2022, from http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/npu/policy04/pdf/20110210/20110210_01.pdf Cabinet Office. (2011b). 日本再生のための戦略に向けて2011 [Interim report on strategies to revitalize Japan]. Retrieved August 23, 2022, from http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/npu/policy04/pdf/20110805/20110805.pdf Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Worker. (2010a). 経済連携協定に基づく外国人 看護師･介護福祉士候補者受入制度に関するお願い(緊急分) [Urgent proposal for the acceptance system of foreign nurse and caregiver candidates under the Economic Partnership Agreement]. Retrieved August 23, 2022, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/teigensho01.html Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Worker. (2010b). 要望書 [The petition]. Retrieved August 23, 2022, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/youbousho02.html Cooperation for Overseas Nurses and Care Workers. (2019). 第11回EPA受入施設,看護師,介 護福祉士実態調査 [The 11th survey for host institutions and nurse/caregiver candidates under EPA program]. Retrieved August 29, 2022, from http://www.bimaconc.jp/%E7%AC %AC11%E5%9B%9E%E3%80%80%E5%AE%9F%E6%85%8B%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F %BB200416.pdf Economic Affairs Bureau EPA Negotiating Team (Ed.). (2007). 解説 FTA･EPA交渉 [Description: Negotiation for FTAs and EPAs]. Nihon Keizai Hyōronsha. Hashimoto, Y. (2012). EPA介護福祉士候補者の学習支援: ｢介護の言葉と漢字ハンドブッ ク｣｢介護の言葉と漢字国家試験対策“ウォーミングアップ”｣について [Learning support for EPA caregiver candidates: “Caregiving words and Kanji handbook” and “‘Warming Up’: Caregiving words and Kanji for the national examination”]. 日本語学 [Japanese Language Studies], 31(8), 60–71. Heller, M. (2010). The commodification of language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 101–114. Implementing agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Article12 of the Agreement between Japan and theRepublic of the Philippines for an Economic Partnership. (2006, September 9). [Bilateral treaty]. JA.-PH. https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-­paci/indonesia/epa0708/implement.pdf Japan Association of Certified Care Workers. (2000). 外国人介護労働者の受け入れに関する 要望書 [A petition for accepting foreign caregivers]. Retrieved September 12, 2014, from http://www.jaccw.or.jp/pdf/yoboshoteigensho/20001213gaikoku_yobosyo.pdf Japan Association of Certified Care Workers. (2005). 外国人労働者の受入れを巡る考え方に ついて [The idea of acceptance of foreign workers]. Retrieved August 23, 2022, from https:// www.jaccw-­carewel.net/jaccw_info_file/topics/185/news_050610.pdf Japan Business Federation. (2006). 経済連携協定の｢拡大｣と｢深化｣を求める [Request for expanding and deepening the Economic Partnership Agreement]. Retrieved September 29, 2014, from http://www.keidanren.or.jp/japanese/policy/2006/072/honbun.html Japan Business Federation. (2010). 2010年度経団連規制改革要望 11. 外国人材分野 [Japan Business Federation’s request for regulatory reform in 2010: 11. Foreign human resource]. Retrieved September 29, 2014, from http://www.keidanren.or.jp/policy/2010/088_11.pdf Japan Business Federation. (2011). 2011年度経団連規制改革要望 11. 外国人材分野 [Japan Business Federation’s request for regulatory reform in 2011: 11. Foreign human resource]. Retrieved September 29, 2014, from http://www.keidanren.or.jp/policy/2011/088_11.pdf Japan Business Federation. (2016). 2015年度経団連規制改革要望 11. 外国人材分野 [Japan Business Federation’s request for regulatory reform in 2015: 11. Foreign human resource]. Retrieved September 29, 2014, from http://www.keidanren.or.jp/policy/2016/013_11.pdf Japan Federation of Medical Worker’s Unions. (2009). 医療･介護職場への外国人労働者の就 労問題についての見解 [Position statement regarding employment issues of foreign workers at medical and nursing workplace]. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://www.irouren.or.jp/ jp/html/menu4/2009/20090619161024.html Japan Foundation Asia Center. (2019). Trajectory of Nihongo Partners program. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://asiawa.jpf.go.jp/partners_kiseki/np.pdf

116

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2015a). 外国人看護師･介護福祉士人 材マネジメント手引き [Handbook of management of foreign nurses and caregiver human resource]. Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2015b). 平成28年度版 EPAに基づく外国人 看護師･介護福祉士受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2016 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurses and caregivers under the EPA program]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https:// jicwels.or.jp/files/E291A0H28E78988E38391E383B3E38395E383ACE38383E3838.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2021). 2022年度受入版EPAに基づく外 国人看護師･介護福祉士候補者受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2022 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurse and caregiver candidates under the EPA program]. Retrieved August 23, 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/wp-­content/uploads/2021/03/20210325-­%E5%8 F%97%E5%85%A5%E3%82%8C%E3%83%91%E3%83%B3%E3%83%95%E3%83%AC %E3%83%83%E3%83%88.pdf Japan Medical Association. (2006). 定例記者会見 フィリピン人看護師受け入れ問題に関 する日医の見解について [Regular press conference: Japan Medical Association’s position about the acceptance of Filipino nurses]. Retrieved August 23, 2022, from http://www.med. or.jp/shirokuma/no496.html Japan Medical Association. (2012). 定例記者会見 経済連携協定におけるインドネシア人及 びフィリピン人看護師候補者の准看護師試験受験について [Regular press conference: The national practical nurse examination for Indonesian and Filipino EPA nurses]. Retrieved August 23, 2022, from http://www.med.or.jp/shirokuma/no1556.html Japan Nursing Association. (2008, June 17). インドネシア人看護師候補者受け入れに あたっての日本看護協会の見解 [JNA’s view on acceptance of Indonesian nurse candidates]. Retrieved September 18, 2014, from http://www.nurse.or.jp/home/opinion/ press/2008pdf/0617-­4.pdf Japan Nursing Association. (2010). 看護師国家試験の用語についての日本看護協会 の基本的な考え方 [JNA’s basic idea about terms used in the national nursing examination]. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://www.nurse.or.jp/home/opinion/ newsrelease/2010pdf/20100714.pdf Japan Psychiatric Hospitals Association. (2010). 経済連携協定に基づく外国人看護師･介護 福祉士候補者 受け入れに関する問題点の指摘と提言: 四病協 [Poliycy proposal for and problems of the acceptance of foreign nurse and caregivier candidates under the Economic Partnership Agreement: The Four Hospital Organizations Council]. Retrieved August 19, 2022, from https://www.nisseikyo.or.jp/opinion/teigen/teigen.php?id=26&bm=50 Japanese Council of Senior Citizens Welfare Services. (2008). 速報 いよいよ始動!!｢人材開国｣ [Breaking news: Finally opening the country to human resource]. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://www.roushikyo.or.jp/contents/pr/papers/zenkoku/detail/119?attach=true&fld=att1 Japanese Council of Senior Citizens Welfare Services. (2011). EPAによる外国人介護福祉士等 の受入れについて [The acceptance of foreign caregivers under the EPA]. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from https://mitte-­x-­img.istsw.jp/roushikyo/file/attachment/302981/8.pdf Japanese Council of Senior Citizens Welfare Services. (2012). 優秀な人材確保のためにEPA の見直しを 中村常任顧問が主張 [Revision for EPA to secure excellent human resource. Standing Advisor Nakamura claimed]. Retrieved August 23, 2022, from https://mitte-­x-­img. istsw.jp/roushikyo/file/attachment/305817/1.pdf Japanese Trade Union Confederation. (2007). 医療･介護サービスの質の向上を求める要請 [Appeal to improve the quality of medical and caregiving service]. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from https://www.jtuc-­rengo.or.jp/kurashi/kaigohoken/data/0708servise_yousei.pdf Japanese Trade Union Confederation. (2008). 医療･介護サービスの質の向上を求める要請 [Appeal to improve the quality of medical and caregiving service]. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://www.jtuc-­rengo.or.jp/news/rengonews/data/20080820yousei.pdf Japanese Trade Union Confederation. (2009). 医療･介護サービスの質の向上を求める要請 [Appeal to improve the quality of medical and caregiving service]. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from https://www.jtuc-­rengo.or.jp/news/rengonews/data/20090818yousei.pdf

References

117

Japanese Trade Union Confederation. (2010). 医療･介護サービスの質の向上に関する協議事 項: 厚生労働省との政策協議 [Discussion points of improvement of medical and care service: Policy discussion with the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare]. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from https://www.jtuc-­rengo.or.jp/news/rengonews/data/20100616yousei.pdf Japan-Philippine Economic Partnership Agreement Joint Coordination Team. (2003). 日･フィ リピン経済連携協定合同調整チームの報告 [Japan-Philippine Economic Partnership Agreement joint coordination team report]. Lorente, B. P. (2012). The making of “Workers of the World”: Language and the labor brokerage state. In A. Duchêne & M. Heller (Eds.), Language and late capitalism: Pride and profit (pp. 183–206). Routledge. Lorente, B. P. (2018). Scripts of servitude: Language, labor migration and transnational domestic work. Multilingual Matters. Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry. (2010a). Report on compliance by major trading partners with trade agreements: WTO, FTA/EPAs, BITs. Retrieved December 23, 2020, from http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/data/gCT10_1coe.html Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry. (2010b). 行政事業レビューシート [Ministerial project review sheet]. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://www.meti.go.jp/information_2/ downloadfiles/review_sheet/0072.pdf Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry. (2011). 行政事業レビューシート [Ministerial project review sheet]. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://www.meti.go.jp/information_2/publicoffer/review2011/pdf/22_0057.pdf Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry. (2012). 行政事業レビューシート [Ministerial project review sheet]. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://www.meti.go.jp/information_2/publicoffer/review2012/kokai_pdf/h23_0050_s.pdf Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2004). III.発言要旨及び討議内容 [III.  Summary of statements and contents of discussion]. シンポジウム｢国境を越えた人の移動: 経済連携協定と外 国人労働者の受け入れ｣ [Symposium: Cross-border movement of people: The Economic Partnership Agreement and acceptance of foreign workers], United Nation University, Tokyo. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2014). 行政事業レビューシート [Ministerial project review sheet]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/ms/fa/page22_001495.html Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2015). 平成27年行政事業レビュー説明資料国際交流基金運営 費交付金(日本語普及) [The 2015 ministerial project review hanout: Subsidy for the Japan Foundation (Dissemination of the Japanese langauge)]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from http:// www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/files/000087505.pdf Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2017). 平成29年度行政事業レビューシート [The 2017 ministerial project review sheet]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/ms/ fa/page25_000871.html Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2021). 令和3年度外務省行政事業レビュー外部有識者会合 [The 2021 external experts meeting for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ project review]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/files/100191995.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2008a). 経済上の連携に関する日本国とフィリピ ン共和国との間の協定に基づく看護及び介護分野におけるフィリピン人看護師等 の受入れの実施に関する指針 [Implementation guideline regarding the Filipino nurses and caregivers under the agreement between Japan and the Republic of the Philippines for an economic partnership]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/11650000/000595235.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2008b). ｢経済上の連携に関する日本国とフィリピ ン共和国との間の協定に基づく看護及び介護分野におけるフィリピン人看護師等の 受入れの実施に関する指針｣等について [About the implementation guideline regarding the Filipino nurses and caregivers under the agreement between Japan and the Republic of the Philippines for an economic partnership]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://www. mhlw.go.jp/file/06-­Seisakujouhou-­11650000-­Shokugyouanteikyokuhakenyukiroudoutaisak ubu/phi_tsutatsu_290112.pdf

118

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2010). インドネシア人看護師候補者受入実態 調査結果概要 [Survey result overview: The acceptance of Indonesian nuse candidates]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/houdou/2r98520000005ltf-­ img/2r98520000005lwb.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2011a). 議事録 (第1回) [Meeting minutes (the first meeting)]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/ shingi/2r9852000001zu1c.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2011b). 議事録 (第2回) [Meeting minutes (the second meeting)]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/ shingi/2r98520000021vni.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012a). 看護師候補者受入れ施設の意識調査の結果 [Survey result for host instittuions for nurse candidates]. Retrieved August 29, 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/houdou/2r9852000002hb5l.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012b). 看護師国家試験における母国語･英語での 試験とコミュニケーション能力試験の併用の適否に関する検討会報告書 [The final report of the advisory panel regarding the use of mother tongue and English in the national nursing examination and supplementary use of communication skills test]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r98520000025ge6.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012c). 議事録 (第2回) [Meeting minutes (the second meeting)]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/ shingi/2r9852000002arvm.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012d). 議事録 (第3回) [Meeting minutes (the third meeting)]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/ shingi/2r9852000002csq1.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012e). 小宮山大臣閣議後記者会見概要 [Brief summary of the press conference made by Minister Komiyama]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/kaiken/daijin/2r98520000026519.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2017). インドネシア,フィリピン,ベトナムからの 外国人看護師･介護福祉士候補者の受入れについて [The employment of foreign nurse/ care worker trainees from Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam]. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/koyou_roudou/koyou/gaikokujin/other22/index.html Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. (2013). 外国人の受け入れ対策に関する行 政評価･監視-技能実習制度等を中心として: 結果報告書 [A debrief report on public sector evaluation and supervision: Centering on the technical intern-training program]. Retrieved August 23, 2022, from http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000219634.pdf Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. (2014). 外国人の受け入れ対策に関する行政 評価･監視に基づく勧告にe対する改善措置状況(1回目のフォローアップ)の概要 [The first follow-up report for the public sector evaluation and supervision: Regarding the acceptance of foreigners]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from http://www.soumu.go.jp/menu_news/s-­news/81451.html Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. (2015). 外国人の受け入れ対策に関する行政 評価･監視に基づく勧告に対する改善措置状況(2回目のフォローアップ)の概要 [The second follow-up report for the public sector evaluation and supervision: Regarding the acceptance of foreigners]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from http://www.soumu.go.jp/menu_news/s-­news/95239.html Ministry of Justice. (2004). 第4次出入国管理政策懇談会第19回会合 [The 19th advisory panel meeting on the basic plan for immigration control (fourth edition)]. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://www.moj.go.jp/nyuukokukanri/kouhou/nyukan_nyukan22.html Ministry of Justice. (2009). 第5次出入国管理政策懇談会第15回会合 [The 15th advisory panel meeting on the basic plan for immigration control (fifth edition)]. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://www.moj.go.jp/nyuukokukanri/kouhou/nyukan_nyukan44-­02-­15.html

References

119

Ministry of Justice. (2014). 第6次出入国管理政策懇談会第8回会合: 議事録 [The eighth advisory panel meeting on the basic plan for immigration control (sixtth edition): Meeting minutes]. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000121297.pdf Ministry of Justice. (2015). 出入国管理基本計画(第4次) [Basic plan for immigration control (fourth edition)]. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://www.moj.go.jp/content/001166991.pdf Miyazaki, W. (2011, July 14). EPA: 政府の基本的な方針 [EPA: The basic policy of the government]. Miyazaki Wakako. http://miyazakiwakako.blog102.fc2.com/category3-­3.html MOU (POEA.-JICWELS.). (2009, January 12). Memorandum of understanding between The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration and the Japan International Corporation of Welfare Service on the deployment and acceptance of Filipino candidates for “Kangoshi”, Filipino candidates for “Kaigofukushishi”, Filipino “Kangoshi” and Filipino “Kaigofukushishi” [Memorandum of Understanding]. https://www.dmw.gov.ph/archives/ laborinfo/bilateralLB/BLA_PH_Japan%20(JPEPA)2009.pdf Noborizato, T., Ishii, Y., Imai, H., & Kurihara, Y. (2010). インドネシア人介護福祉士候補者 を対象とする日本語研修のコースデザイン: 医療･看護･介護分野の専門日本語教育と 関西国際センターの教育理念との関係において [Designing a Japanese-language program for care giver candidates from Indonesia: Connections between specialized Japanese language education for medical, nursing and care giving fields and the Japanese language education policy of the Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Institute, Kansai]. 国際交流基金日本語 教育紀要 [The Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Education Bulletin], 6, 41–56. Ogawa, S. (2010). 外国人看護師候補者受け入れに関する日本看護協会の基本的スタンス について [Japan Nurisng Association’s basic stance toward the acceptance of foreign nurses]. 看護 [Nursing], 62, 72–73. Ogawa, S. (2011). 第100 回看護師国家試験の結果について [The result of the 100th national nursing examination]. http://www.nurse.or.jp/home/opinion/newsrelease/2010pdf/ 20110325.pdf. Oh, S. (2013). Kokusaika and EPA: Japan’s migration policies in the era of globalization [Unpublished master thesis, Roskilde university]. Denmark. Ojio, K. (2013, October 11). Improvement of employment is the key: Japanese embassy and the Indonesian department of manpower and Ttansmigration held a briefing session for the EPA returnees [就職支援の充実がカギ 日本大使館,労働省が説明会 帰国のEPA看護師介護士 候補者 ]. The Daily Jakarta Shimbun. http://www.jakartashimbun.com/free/detail/14810.html Okatani, K. (2004). 外国人看護師の受け入れについて: 専門職能団体の基本的な考え方 [Acceptance of foreing nurses: Professional sectoral organization’s basic idea].III.発言要旨及 び討議内容 [III. Summary of statements and contents of discussion] シンポジウム｢国境を 越えた人の移動: 経済連携協定と外国人労働者の受け入れ｣ [Symposium: Cross-border movement of people: The Economic Partnership Agreement and acceptance of foreign workers], United Nation University, Tokyo. Ozeki, Y., Okumura, K., & Kamiyoshi, U. (2014). 外国人介護人材に関する日本語教育研究 の現状と課題: 経済連携協定による来日者を対象とした研究を中心に [current situation and issue of Japanese language education regarding foreign caregivers: A focus on literature on the Economic partnership agreement]. 国際経営フォーラム [International Business and Management Forum], 25, 239–280. Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement. (2004, November 29). Joint Press statement: A Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement [大筋合意に関する共同プレス発表], JA-PH. Philippines Nurses Association. (2015a). Addressing the resolution to express the sense of the house of representatives urging his excellency president benigno aquino III to undertake a thorough review of the JPEPA. Retrieved January 14, 2020, from https://www.pna-­ph.org/ component/attachments/download/247 Philippines Nurses Association. (2015b). The Philippine Nurses Association’s position paper on the plight of Filipino nurses under JPEPA implementation August 23, 2010. Retrieved January 14, 2020, from https://www.pna-­ph.org/component/attachments/download/251

120

4  Policy Actors and Goals in Negotiation

Philippines Nurses Association. (2015c). Philippine Nurses Association position statement of the JPEPA. Retrieved January 14, 2020, from https://www.pna-­ph.org/component/attachments/ download/262 Philippines Nurses Association. (2017). Position paper on Filipino nurses as caregivers/care workers in Japan. Retrieved January 14, 2020, from https://www.pna-­ph.org/component/ attachments/download/280 Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press. Saitoh, M., & Miyazawa, H. (2020). 経済連携協定に基づく外国人看護師候補者の受け入れ に見られる大都市集中傾向 [Concentration of EPA nurse candidates in major cities]. 季刊 地理学 [Quarterly Journal of Geography], 72, 143–161. Sawa, S. (2018). インドネシアEPAケアワーカーの地域社会定着への展望: 看護師介護 福祉士候補者受入れの｢アジア健康構想｣からの考察 [Toward permanent settlement of EPA Indonesian careworkers in Japan: From the perspective of “Asia Health and Wellbeing Initiative”]. 広島経済大学研究論集 [HUE Journal of Humanities, Social and Natural Sciences], 41(1), 47–66. Takahata, S. (2014). 過疎地･地方都市で働く外国人介護者: 経済連携協定によるフィリピ ン人介護福祉士候補者49人の追跡調査から [Foreign care workers in underpopulated areas and local cities: Follow-up research on 49 certified Filipino care worker candidates under the Japan-Philippines Economic partnership agreement]. 日本都市社会学会年報 [The Annals of Japan Association for Urban Sociology], 32, 133–148. Thränhardt, D. (1999). Closed doors, back doors, side doors: Japan’s non-immigration policy in comparative perspective. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 1(2), 203–223. Tsunoda, T. (2015). 国際厚生事業団角田隆専務理事に聞く [interview with JICWELS’s executive director Tsunoda]. 介護保険情報 [Caregiving and Welfare Information], 11, 30–33. Tsunoda, T. (2016). EPAによる介護人材受け入れ･最新情報 [Current fact for the acceptacnce of caregivers through the EPA]. シニア･コミュニティ [Senior Community], May-June. Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education. (2011a). 23回介護 福祉士国家試験問題の難解さに関する調査報告 [Research report on the difficulty of the 23rd national caregiving examination]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from http://www.nkg.or.jp/ kangokaigo/houkokusho/4.%E8%B3%87%E6%96%99%EF%BC%92.pdf Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education. (2011b). EPA候補者 の介護福祉士国家試験及び看護師国家試験に関する緊急提言 [Urgent proposal for EPA candidates’ national nurse and caregiving examinations]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from http://www.nkg.or.jp/kangokaigo/images/20111017kouroukishakai.pdf Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education. (2011c). インター ネット上で公開されているカリキュラム，e-Learning, 教材 [Curriculum, e-learning, and teaching materials available online]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from http://www.nkg.or.jp/ kangokaigo/houkokusho/6.%E8%B3%87%E6%96%99%EF%BC%94.pdf Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education. (2011d). 介護福祉 士国家試験問題の日本語の難しさについて考えるための基礎資料 [Basic references in order to consider the difficulty of the Japanese language in the national caregiving examination]. Retrieved August 23, 2022, from http://www.nkg.or.jp/kangokaigo/images/kisoshiryou-­v2.pdf Yamamoto, S. (2014). 戦後の国家と日本語教育 [Post-war nation-state and Japanese language education]. Kuroshio Shuppan.

Chapter 5

Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation and Appropriation

Abstract Chapter 5 examines the language policy process represented in the EPA policy documents, focusing on the policy representation of pre-employment and in-facility training. It first explores how language per se is treated in the broader context of the EPA treaty documents, which forms a basis on or even dictates how language is and should be treated in the context of training. Then, in the analysis the training sessions are framed as a site of creation, interpretation and appropriation of language policy. It is argued that EPA candidates are ideologically constructed as a convenient shield for the government and possibly host institutions to hide behind and avoid responsibility and concerted effort pertaining to intercultural communication and Japanese language education.

5.1 Introduction Based on the identification of policy actors, the range of their policy activities and the goals they envision for the EPA programme, Chaps. 5 and 6 specifically examine the language policy processes through which their policy activities of creation, interpretation and appropriation are manifested. This chapter firstly looks at the representations of language per se in the broader context of the EPA policy texts, as they form a basis on or even dictate how language is and should be treated in the particular training contexts. To do this, I analyse how the issue of language is represented in the EPA treaty documents, and then closely draw attention to the representation of other language varieties, namely English, Filipino, Indonesian, Vietnamese, and local varieties of Japanese. The second half of this chapter zooms in on how the EPA programme as a language policy is created, interpreted and appropriated with regard to pre-employment and in-facility training. I inquire into the ideological underpinnings that support particular language teaching and learning practices in the two training contexts.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. Otomo, Linking Language, Trade and Migration, Language Policy 33, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33234-0_5

121

122

5  Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation…

5.2 Triviality of Language The EPA treaty documents are characterised by the extremely trivial treatment of language, even though language plays a central role in the operation of the EPA programme. Although the centrality of language in the programme was realised by the task force in the negotiation process (Japan-Philippine Economic Partnership Agreement Joint Coordination Team, 2003), it was not declared in the EPA treaty documents: there is no occurrence of the word “communication” as in “healthcare communication” or “workplace communication”; and there are only nine occurrences of the word “language”, all of which appear in the form of “Japanese language training”. In other words, the EPA treaty documents only specify the target language of the pre-employment training, as if other aspects of the EPA programme are free of language issues. The explicit reference to “the Japanese language” does not mean that the EPA programme attaches extra importance to Japanese language training. In fact, the EPA treaty documents offer little information except the length of training. Likewise, other early documents produced by MHLW only noted that the operation of training would be commissioned to arbitrary training providers. This is surprisingly minimal, compared with the information provided for other adjunct training programmes: nursing/caregiving introductory training and employment guidance.1 The scarce information may indicate that careful planning of the Japanese language training was considered unnecessary for signing the EPA programme (Otomo, 2016). The underweighted representation of language underlies the commonly believed social fixation of one-language and one-nation in Japan. Since Japan’s wished-for self-representation has been a linguistically homogeneous country (Heinrich, 2012), sensitivity to different varieties of the Japanese language and bi/multilingual options are not to be expected in the EPA treaty documents. When Japanese is taken for granted as the language of Japan, there is no need to specify the medium of instruction in the pre-employment training and the language of the national licensure examination. A few mentions of the target language for the pre-employment training are sufficient. Below, I continue to explore this notion of linguistically homogeneous Japan by paying attention to the representation of languages other than Japanese in other policy texts.

 MHLW (2008) offers the following descriptions: “the nursing/caregiving introductory programme equips candidates with the knowledge and skills necessary for working in hospitals and obtaining a nurse certificate”; and “the employment guidance is an orientation session which introduces a variety of services available to EPA candidates” (p. 3, own translation). 1

5.3  Double Monolingualism

123

5.3 Double Monolingualism While the Japanese language is predominantly represented as the target language of acquisition on the part of EPA candidates, languages other than Japanese play a role, especially those with a national/official status in the sending countries. For example, JICWELS has translated past examinations into English, Indonesian and Vietnamese and designed textbooks for pre-employment and in-facility training, which include parallel translation of Japanese and the three respective languages (for discussion on translation, see Sect. 6.4.1). The selected language for translation was English for Filipino candidates, Indonesian for Indonesian candidates, and Vietnamese for Vietnamese candidates, which JICWELS (2021e) calls “the language of the candidates’ mother country” (p.23, own translation). However, in real life it would not be unfair to assume that these languages are not necessarily the candidates’ mother tongues, considering the widely diversified (socio)linguistic situation in the three countries. It exhibits JICWELS’s naïve understanding of and insensitivity to languages in general and perhaps represents the case where the notion of one-language and one-country was applied to make sense of the language situation in other countries. Of particular interest here is the strong association between English and Filipino candidates. Although Filipino, also known as Tagalog or Pilipino, is the national language of the Philippines and widely spoken among its nationals, it is barely mentioned in the EPA programme.2 Instead, English, the co-official language of the Philippines, is assumed to be the language in which Filipino candidates have the strongest command, or even their mother tongue. Similar to the available languages for translation in learning materials, phone/email consultation services for EPA candidates are offered in Japanese, Indonesian, Vietnamese and English, presumably identifying all Filipino candidates with English dominant speakers. Likewise, the exam advisory panels mostly concerned Indonesian and English, although the original agenda was to discuss the possible use of translated national examinations into Indonesian, Filipino and English. As a matter of fact, Filipino was referred to only once in each panel as “the language of the Philippines” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012c, own translation) and “the national/official language of the Philippines” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012b, own translation), respectively. While the Indonesian and Vietnamese languages seem firmly associated with Indonesian and Vietnamese candidates in the consultation services and learning materials, it is not always the case. English-Japanese and Japanese-English dictionaries are primarily recommended as desirable self-learning materials for EPA  For example, the Philippines-Japan EPA programme specifies English and Filipino as the medium of language used in the language training required for Japanese migrant nurses (Annex 8, 2006). This was the first and only time when the word “Filipino” as the name of a language appeared in the treaty documents. The word “Tagalog” appeared also only once when JICWELS (2021e) introduces a general consulting desk for foreign residents in Japan, which is available in Tagalog, among other languages. 2

124

5  Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation…

candidates, regardless of the candidates’ home country or language preference (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2015a). In the same line, in Nursing Exam Panel 2, MHLW unfolded the inside story that the international status of English turned out to be one issue driving the panel agenda which was to consider the possibility of using translated licensure examinations (e.g., the Englishmedium nursing/caregiving examinations). The English-only approach was also observed in what JICWELS means by successful in-facility training. For example, JICWELS (2015e) recommended that candidates “have daily conversations with training supporters who can speak English at a daily-conversation level” (p.38, own translation) as an activity beneficial for their Japanese acquisition.3 Even granting that some EPA candidates are highly proficient in English and professionally trained in English (e.g., Filipino nurse license holders), JICWELS, by and large, provides English-centric language assistance for all EPA candidates, displaying a crude understanding of the candidates’ linguistic profile. Indeed, the ways languages other than Japanese are represented in the EPA programme generally reflect “double monolingualism” (Kubota & McKay, 2009, p. 613) in Japan that only credits monolinguals in Japanese or English or bilinguals in both. This exclusivity marginalises speakers of other languages and assimilates them into Japanese monolinguals (e.g., Kanno, 2008). The powerful status of English and Japanese places EPA candidates under a sink-or-swim situation where they have no choice but to use Japanese (or English if situation allows) to go through in-facility training, unless they are fortunate to work for host institutions capable of providing support in the other languages they are familiar with. Indeed, monolingualism is a key ideology to understanding language issues encompassing Japan (Heinrich, 2012). Originating in Japan’s modernisation era in the Meiji period (1818–1912), it has been powerful and still vibrant up until today, though it has become increasingly questionable in the face of the revitalisation activities on indigenous languages, and encounters with languages of old and new immigrants. This ideology is embedded in Japan’s national identity comprised of ethnolinguistically unified people. The EPA programme is no exception for exhibiting such an imaginary of Japan, as the following kind of comment from the then executive director of JNA, Shinobu Ogawa, remained unquestioned, even though ample evidence to the contrary exists (see Ueno, 2012 for English used in the in-­ facility training): [5-1] … it is common sense to master the culture and language of the country you’re going to work for … Patients are Japanese. Regardless elderly or children, it is impossible for service receivers to speak English or Indonesian, for they do not need to make such effort. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2011b, own translation)

 In their latest publication, JICWELS (2021f) has slightly reviewed their English-centric approach by rephrasing the same expression as “having daily conversations with training supporters who can speak English and language(s) of candidates’ mother countries at a daily-conversation level” (p.43, own translation, emphasis added). 3

5.4  Ignorance of Local Varieties

125

Put plainly, the EPA programme only cares about the Japanese language. Therefore, the idea of When in Rome, do as the Romans do has become pervasive as a rationale for adopting the assimilative approach in the programme and for naturally expecting candidates’ tremendous effort at mastering the Japanese language.

5.4 Ignorance of Local Varieties While local varieties of the Japanese language are commonly acknowledged and spoken in Japan, there are only two references to them in the analysed texts. The first case appears in one section in the Management Handbook where a Japanese hospital offers its experiences with non-EPA Vietnamese nurses whom the hospital has been hiring and training for more than ten years. The hospital made the following comment about the local language varieties: [5-2] You can observe Vietnamese nurses learning culture and language through communicating with Japanese people and copying how they speak including dialects … even if they have passed the JLPT N3, their Japanese is far from polished and they still have not learned many aspects of the Japanese language such as slang, technical terms and dialects. It is effective for their language acquisition if Japanese colleagues actively communicate with them at work. (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2015a, pp. 155–156, own translation, emphasis added)

The second case is found in a survey conducted in the same hospital, by which JICWELS asked 208 hospital staff questions, such as “Did you feel any different from Vietnamese nurses? Were there any problems while working together with Vietnamese nurses?” (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2015a, p.  166, own translation). One of the answers to this question touches upon local varieties: [5-3] A Vietnamese nurse couldn’t understand the dialect that one of our patients spoke and got the patient’s request wrong. (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2015a, p. 166, own translation, emphasis added)

Different explanations for the remarkably little attention to local varieties are possible. First, Japan’s monolingualism underlies the trivialising treatment of local varieties. The ideology does not confine itself to the denial of languages other than Japanese; rather it was constructed and achieved through the eradication of local varieties (Heinrich, 2012), making it possible to claim that Japanese people are monolingual in the standard Japanese. The standard language ideology (Lippi-­ Green, 2012; Milroy & Milroy, 2012; Wiley & Lukes, 1996) thus naturalises the choice of language to be the standard Japanese, including all school subjects, textbooks, or training programmes such as those for EPA candidates. Second, the extensive focus on the national licensure examinations belittles local varieties, for the exams necessitate written Japanese competence to read and answer the questions, and spoken Japanese, including local varieties, is generally

126

5  Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation…

underweighted. This imbalance is demonstrated in the dichotomised language learning objectives of the pre-employment training: basic Japanese and caregiving/ nursing Japanese (Japan Foundation, n.d.-b; The Association for Overseas Technical Cooperation and Sustainable Partnerships, n.d.). As a result, the training providers remain silent about local varieties. Meanwhile, they are forward-looking enough to include preparation for the national licensure examination in the pre-employment training (Arc Academy, n.d.; Noborizato et al., 2014; The Association for Overseas Technical Cooperation and Sustainable Partnerships, n.d.), even though local varieties may be deemed immediately necessary for work at host institutions. The third explanation emerges from a brief analysis of the two excerpts above where the local variety came into the picture. In Excerpt 5-2, a local variety is considered important for polished Japanese and somehow Vietnamese nurses are expected to acquire it through communication with Japanese colleagues. In Excerpt 5-3, the Vietnamese nurse seemed to be accused of not knowing the particular variety, which was considered a problem. These two excerpts suggest that overcoming the issues with local varieties boils down to the Vietnamese nurse’s individual effort at learning and acquiring them. This assumption rationalises the immersion approach as the optimal method of language learning and normalises candidates’ devotion to acquiring local varieties through self-motivated involvement in communication, while affording Japanese natives an advantage in the intercultural communication. The power difference between natives and non-natives is clearly at play in terms of the labour of bearing the burden of communication including understanding and accommodation (Lippi-Green, 2012; Rymes, 2010). The three explanations taken together, one can conclude that local varieties of Japanese are not included in the pre-employment training, not only because of the standard language ideology and the undue emphasis on the examination, but also because of the assumption that local varieties are best acquired if candidates actively communicate with native speakers. Let us now look at similarly problematic assumptions and their associated imaginaries regarding language teaching and learning of standard Japanese.

5.5 The Monopoly of Standard Japanese in the Training Context The EPA programme is a form of national language policy in Japan that selects the standard Japanese language as the desirable variety for EPA candidates to acquire and use at work. Pre-employment and in-facility training are the two major platforms where one can observe the monopoly of standard Japanese. The present subsection demonstrates how the monopoly of the standard Japanese language was achieved in the (language) training context and identifies the underlying ideological factors that support this monopolisation.

5.5  The Monopoly of Standard Japanese in the Training Context

127

The pre-employment training is where many EPA candidates make their first contact with the Japanese language. It involves intensive sessions on the Japanese language and culture, and introductory sessions for nursing and carework. The term “pre-employment training” indicates the whole 12-month training, while “pre-­ departure training” and “post-departure training” are used when specifically referring to the training in candidates’ home country and in Japan, respectively. The scope of in-facility training as specified in the analysed EPA documents is rather complex and wide-reaching, resulting in a variety of definitions. They include “acquisition of necessary knowledge and skills at the caregiving facility … through the training under the supervision of Kaigofukushishi [certified caregivers]” (Annex 8, 2006, p.  922, emphasis original) and “employment in the form of training” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2011c, p. 1, own translation). Here, I adopt JICWELS’s brief definition. JICWELS (2021e, 2021f) sets out three goals of in-­ facility training: acquisition of tested contents on the paper-test and skill-test part of the national caregiving examination; continuous Japanese language learning; and acquisition of Japanese life customs and promotion of workplace adaptation. Accordingly, in-facility training in the reminder of this book refers to any activities (either on-the-job or off-the-job) that EPA candidates conduct under the host institutions’ supervision or with their permission or recommendation, so long as the activities are conducive to developing professional knowledge and skills, the Japanese language and (workplace) culture. In other words, the following activities are considered as in-facility training: performing job-related tasks and duties (toilet care, bathing, feeding, assisting a facility user’s movement and rehabilitation, planning recreational activities, record-keeping, etc.), studying for the examination (reading preparation materials, attending an exam-preparation lecture, doing a mock test, etc.), and learning Japanese language and culture (reading textbooks, taking JLPT, participating in externally available Japanese lessons and events in the community and workplace, etc.). In the following, I focus on representations of language teaching and learning regarding the two forms of training in the policy texts and analyse the expected role of candidates and host institutions in the training contexts. Candidates assume the role of learners of Japanese, while teachers are identified as instructors who teach Japanese for specific purposes as officially assinged training providers or institutionally assinged trainers for in-facility training. The analysis also zeros in on teaching plans of pre-employment and in-facility training. The pre-employment training is planned on the basis of instructors’ understanding of what skills and knowledge EPA candidates need to be equipped with before pursuing in-facility training. Likewise, JICWELS sets out the standardised plan of in-facility training which instructors in each host institution are encouraged to follow. The analysis of these teaching plans not only reveals what kinds of teaching practices are recommended explicitly and implicitly with what rationale(s), but also what form and degree of engagement learners and teachers are expected to exhibit in the training contexts.

128

5  Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation…

5.5.1 The Making of Good Learners If EPA candidates are identified as good learners in the first place, good outcomes can be easily anticipated, which primarily means a good number of exam passers. The most lucid example of good learners is those on the fast-track. They include candidates who can prove their Japanese language ability at a very early stage. For example, Filipino and Indonesian holders of a certificate of the JLPT N3 or N4 level can skip the pre-departure training. Candidates who hold a certificate of the JLPT N2 level or above or who have completed Japanese language education for more than 12 months are exempt from most of the pre-employment training and immediately start in-facility training. The fast-track candidates also include high-achievers in the pre-employment training because they gain a head start over others, for the advanced class typically begins the exam preparation during the pre-employment training (Noborizato et al., 2014). In the operation of the EPA programme, identifying these fast-trackers has become one of the important agendas. Although based on a small-scale study that investigated 18 nursing exam-passers’ Japanese language proficiency, MIAC (2013) has confidently engendered the proportional relationship between candidates’ Japanese competence at the end of pre-employment training and the possibility of passing the national licensure examination. Researchers such as Ariji et al. (2014) refuted this hypothesis, arguing that candidates’ length of stay in Japan significantly contributes to their exam results, rather than their (linguistic) aptitude and their past (linguistic/ professional) experience in the homeland. However, the hypothesis was further reiterated in MIAC’s report (2015) which included other supporting data such as a survey report in which more than half of host institutions felt burdened due to candidates’ lack of Japanese ability. Following MIAC’s direction, the pre-­linguistic screening was introduced in 2013 for the Japan-Indonesian EPA programme and in 2015 for the JP-EPA programme. Although such an initiative closes the door on the opportunities for some candidates, it enables the Japanese government to deal with the EPA candidates’ “lack of Japanese ability” (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2014, p. 10), an alleged root cause of the low passing rate and to identify good learners much earlier during the recruitment stage. In short, if candidates demonstrate their proficiency in Japanese earlier either by the JLPT certificate, past formal Japanese language education, or their performance in the JLPT after the pre-employment training, they are automatically considered as good learners, hassle-free, presumably costeffective without burdening host institutions with too much educational cost (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012a; Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2014) and thus highly likely to pass the examinations in the end. While those on the fast-track may be exceptional, all EPA candidates are regarded as having properties of good learners, such as motivation. Indeed, one of the criteria for candidate selection is “willingness” (Philippines Overseas Employment Administration, 2009) to take the pre-employment training and the licensure examination. It is also understood that candidate’s willingness and motivation form an essential foundation for in-facility training (e.g., Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2011c). The highly motivated character thus matches with the typical

5.5  The Monopoly of Standard Japanese in the Training Context

129

description of EPA candidates, such as those “came to study with high motivation” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2011b, own translation), who “will work in Japan as international and highly professional nurses with motivation” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012e, own translation), and who possess “strong willpower and desire for learning” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012d, own translation). Since these remarks were made by discussants in the exam advisory panels, these portrayals could prompt a call for more study support for EPA candidates (see Sect. 6.6 for detail), evoking images of diligent and committed learners who are striving to make the impossible possible. The reasoning epitomises the assumption that the more motivated candidates are, the more eager they study and the higher their chance of passing the exam will be. In addition to candidates’ strong willpower, their attitude toward in-facility training and healthcare profession in general is positively conceived. As the executive director of JICLWES noted below, EPA candidates are often described as greatly hospitable to the elderly. [5-4] I suppose that their basic hospitality is well-accepted [in the caregiving front]. In addition, most of them grow up in a large family so that they feel comfortable taking care of the elderly … they are very dedicated. (Tsunoda, 2016, p. 6, own translation)

Their hospitable, warm-hearted quality is often contrasted with their Japanese counterparts, as Shigeaki Kanō (vice president of the Association of Japanese Healthcare Corporations, director of a host hospital) commented in Nursing Exam Panel 2 that “they are more cheerful and compassionate than Japanese”, “they possess excellent national trait”, “they possess something missing in Japanese”, and “they have a better human side with ability that Japanese nurses are losing” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012c, own translation). Nevertheless, the discourse of hospitality is not new, particularly with regard to Filipinos (e.g., Lopez, 2012; Lorente, 2012; Saitoh, 2007). As shown previously, POEA and JICWELS utilise this discourse to package EPA candidates as commodities to achieve their desired end. The discourse of good candidates, not limited to their hospitable nature but inclusive of their skilled, Japanese-like, and Japanese-­friendly natures, not only conveys the sellers’ promotional message but also may ease the institutional burden in running in-facility training, because candidates are assumed to be already possessed of such desirable qualities as healthcare workers. Let us now turn to investigate the training plans of pre-employment and in-facility training respectively to tease out the role of teachers and recommended set of teaching practices.

5.5.2 Ideology of Maximum Exposure Considering the official admission that the pre-employment training was not operated “in full scale” (Cabinet Office, 2013, own translation) for the first few years when the training duration was only six months, it was perhaps not an outcome of

130

5  Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation…

Fig. 5.1  Effectiveness of the Pre-Employment Training . (Adopted from JICWELS [2015d, p. 12] with permission)

careful planning and preparation. After the extension started in 2011, JICWELS begun publicising it as being effective, fo instance, in their booklets distributed for (prospective) host institutions. Figure  5.1 is one of such displays, entitled “Improvement of Japanese language ability by the expansion of the pre-departure training”. The horizontal bars and the upward rising arrow scripted as “the expansion of the pre-departure training” indicate that the extension of the training increases the number of candidates having achieved the JLPT N3, giving credit to their policy amendment as well as to the training providers. Providers for the pre-employment training, the Japan Foundation (n.d.-b) and AOTS (n.d.) pose the same training objectives: Japanese language; self-learning; and sociocultural understanding, primarily designed for candidates without prior Japanese language learning experience (Noborizato et al., 2010). The same objectives are introduced to ensure the smooth transition from pre-departure to post-­ departure training, although a host of systematic issues, particularly the annual bidding system for training providers, has been hampering the transition and cooperation among them, resulting in the sketchy implementation and remediation (Nunō, 2015). While both organisations state how long to teach and what to teach in order to achieve the proposed objectives (see Sect. 2.6), they give little account of how the training is conducted, part of which can be explored by analysing their teacher recruitment brochures. Whereas AOTS generally tends to hold back information pertaining to the EPA programme, the Japan Foundation openly recruits instructors for the EPA programme every year. The recruitment information available on their website offers a rough idea of how the training is conducted, and by whom. For

5.5  The Monopoly of Standard Japanese in the Training Context

131

example, an eligible applicant for the instructor position must “have Japanese citizenship and the Japanese language as his/her mother tongue” (Japan Foundation, n.d.-c, own translation), among other things such as Japanese teaching certificate or relevant experiences. The following statement also informs us of teacher profiles and part of classroom practices: [5-5] Even relatively less experienced Japanese instructors can apply for this short-term programme. At present, those from 20s to 60s with various experiences are actively involved as EPA Japanese language instructors. Classes are basically conducted through direct method therefore we attach less importance to the ability in the language of the proposed sites and professional knowledge about nursing and carework. (Japan Foundation, n.d.-a, own translation)

The medium of instruction is presumably only Japanese by relying on the direct method, which generally uses the target language only in the classroom. However, Indonesian instructors in the team-teaching sessions are found to use Indonesian to explain training contents to Indonesian candidates (Nunō 2011 as cited in Noborizato et al., 2014). Noborizato et al. (2014) also reported the use of non-Japanese language among Filipino and Indonesian instructors, yet it was only limited to the time dedicated to self-learning sessions during which candidates preview, review and reflect on their own learning. Even when team-teaching is encouraged and languages other than Japanese are partially utilised, the Japanese language seems to enjoy comparative privilege, given that Japanese instructors are not necessarily familiar with the language of EPA candidates nor fully experienced in teaching Japanese as an additional language or for specific purposes. The potential contributions of other languages in the classroom are largely unacknowledged and overshadowed in the name of Japanese language training. As was implicated in relation to local varieties of Japanese (Sect. 5.4), the direct method, or the maximum exposure to the target language, is believed optimal. What is at stake here is not only that this belief goes against the recent research in which monolingual instruction is losing its purchase (e.g., Creese & Blackledge, 2010), but also that this reinforces the view of Japanese monolingualism, compelling EPA candidates to conform to standard Japanese as the only preferred and ideal language to be used in classroom and beyond. This imaginary runs the risk of undermining other languages spoken in Japan, including local varieties and the languages of the indigenous and migrants’ communities that the EPA candidates are going to join.

5.5.3 Native-Speaker Ideologies and/or Shifting Responsibility? In-facility training is conducted at the discretion of each host institution based on their own training plan. To begin with, host institutions are obliged to appoint at least two trainers: a training supervisor who presides over the overall course of the

132

5  Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation…

training and training supporter(s) who provide support for learning the Japanese language, professional knowledge and skills, and general livelihood assistance. Personnel with overseas experiences and competency in English or Indonesian are considered preferable for these positions.4 Although these are not essential requirements, the trainers must meet work-related criteria. In principle, a training supervisor for caregiver candidates is a certified caregiver with more than five years of working experience and only a chief nurse of the nurse training section qualifies for the training supervisor position for nurse candidates. The criteria for training supporters, on the other hand, are less constrained: those in hospitals need to have more than three years of working experience as certified nurses, while those in caregiving facilities face no requirement, meaning that virtually anyone can assist EPA candidates’ learning the Japanese language, and professional knowledge and skills. In short, the qualifications of trainers are largely determined by their professional experience, rather than their experience of teaching Japanese as an additional language or for specific purposes such as nursing and carework, largely because such personnel are unlikely to work in the healthcare institutions in Japan. Although trainers are likely to be inexperienced in teaching Japanese for any purpose, they receive incredibly little support. Know-how about training foreign healthcare workers barely exists, and even when it exists, it is rarely distributed to all host institutions, due to the small number of foreign healthcare workers practising in Japan and to the existing education and certification systems for nurses and certified caregivers (Sect. 2.7). MHLW and JICWELS facilitate information exchange among host institutions in the same region and assist host institutions financially to outsource part of the in-facility training. However, some host institutions are found to make independent effort at offering in-facility training, albeit to a varying extent (e.g., Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021c, 2021d). In order to guide generally inexperienced host institutions to plan their own in-­ facility training, JICWELS (2021f) developed the Standard Learning Plan (SLP), projecting “model methods of in-facility training” (p. 42, own translation). However, it appears less constructive and helpful. For instance, JICWELS (2021e) calls the below a “method of implementing in-facility training” (p.47, own translation) that trainers can try during the first year of candidature. [5-6] With regard to the caregiving vocabulary used in the host institutions, if candidates cannot understand the particular words, training instructors explain their meanings and promote vocabulary learning. In the meantime, please also facilitate the building of a congenial relationship between the candidates and the training instructors. (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021e, p. 47)

 Each host institution needs to indicate: whether they have studied in Indonesian−/English-­ speaking countries; whether training supervisors/supporters have English/Indonesian competence; whether they have working experience using either language; and whether they have obtained a certain level/score on language tests (e.g., TOEFL, Indonesian Language Proficiency Test, etc.) (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021e, p. 97). 4

5.5  The Monopoly of Standard Japanese in the Training Context

133

This excerpt simply tells the trainer to adopt a gentle attitude towards candidates when they encounter difficulty learning caregiving words, far from what one normally considers as a method. Just as what was provided by the pre-employment training providers, the SLP is full of what is to be taught within the ideal timeline without mentioning how to teach Japanese and support the exam preparation. The following excerpts illustrate such a tendency, delineating what to be taught during the first year of candidature with regard to Japanese language learning. [5-7] 1st-2nd months since the beginning of employment: –– Reviewing grammar, basic Kanji and Katakana5 –– Cultivating ability of reading comprehension and speed reading

3rd-4th months: –– Acquiring high-frequency caregiving Kanji and vocabularies –– Cultivating ability of reading comprehension and speed reading

10th–12th months: –– Acquiring frequently tested Kanji and vocabularies on the national examination. (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2015c, p. 45, own translation)

One possible explanation for the undue focus on what rather than how could be due to the native-speaker ideologies (cf., Holliday, 2006 in the English teaching context): native Japanese speakers are naturally qualified to teach Japanese; and Japanese healthcare workers are capable of teaching nursing/caregiving knowledge and skills. Thus, the SLP does not need to dictate how to teach because the trainers are assumed to be fully qualified and know how to instruct candidates. These ideologies may explain why the SLP looks like a training syllabus rather than a teacher’s resource guide, and why JICWELS’s learning supports are mainly geared toward candidates (see below). The trainers are not the primarily recipients of such support, presumably because of their assumed capability. The native-speaker ideologies could help us, to some extent, understand why JICWELS lends little support to the less-experienced trainers in teaching Japanese and training foreign healthcare workers. As I have presented elsewhere (Otomo, 2022), a further analysis into the SLP affords another clue. One of the striking features of the SLP is its emphasis on candidates’ self-learning. As noted previously, self-learning constitutes one of the three training objectives in the pre-employment training, mainly due to the fact that host institutions can provide varying degree of external support and resource, and candidates are not well-­experienced in self-­ learning (Noborizato et al., 2010). JICWELS continues to promote this idea in the SLP, but very differently. JICWELS (2015c) noted that the SLP was invented, in part, to “review the roles of trainers and alleviate their burden” (p. 39, own translation). Thus, the SLP was not introduced to help trainers to better assist EPA  Katakana, one of the three scripts used in the Japanese language, is mostly used to indicate loanwords. 5

134

5  Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation…

candidates’ learning at the host institutions, but to minimise the institutional burden by promoting candidates’ self-learning. When taking into consideration the unique relationship between host institutions (buyers) and JICWELS (seller/broker), reducing the institutional burden is indeed a plausible way to earn credit with host institutions. In fact, the three clusters of teaching content illustrated in Excerpt 5–7 were later renamed as “learning objectives”, as in Excerpts 5–8. This excerpt also shows that the timeline provided for each cluster in Excerpt 5–7, such as “the first and second months since the beginning of employment”, was rephrased as an “approximate period length of study”. These changes within the SLP over the years showed the targeted subject of the SLP has shifted from trainers to learners, that is, EPA candidates.6 [5–8] 1st learning objective (approximate length of study: 1–2 months): –– Reviewing grammar, basic Kanji and Katakana. –– Cultivating ability of reading comprehension and speed reading.

2nd learning objective: (approximate length of study: 8–10 months): –– Acquiring high-frequency caregiving Kanji and vocabularies. –– Cultivating ability of reading comprehension and speed reading.

3rd learning objective: (approximate length of study 2 months): –– Acquiring frequently tested Kanji and vocabularies on the national examination. –– (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2020b, p.  48, emphasis added, own translation)

An alternative explanation for JICWELS’s minimal support for trainers is therefore the belief that candidates are fully qualified to coordinate in-facility training and even train themselves. In this view, there is no need to support the trainers in the first place, because responsibility of running the in-facility training is being shifted from the institutions (trainers) to the candidates. The shift has been facilitated and accelerated by constructing candidates as capable and independent learners. For example, JICWELS declared that the beginner level of Japanese is enough for EPA candidates to self-learn the Japanese language and prepare for the examination on their own, as follows: [5–9] … to proceed to self-learning, reasonable Japanese language competence is required. Before the employment, candidates are expected to acquire reasonable Japanese language competence (beginner level Japanese language competence) that enables them to self-­ learn … since the [pre-employment] Japanese language training has been extended to one year for Indonesian and Filipino candidates, it is expected that [in-facility] Japanese training will be conducted with this consideration. (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021e, p. 45, emphasis added, own translation)

 In the latest publication (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2021e), the bracketed description in Excerpts 5–8 was removed. 6

5.5  The Monopoly of Standard Japanese in the Training Context

135

This excerpt was not the only instance where candidates are assumed to possess enough Japanese language ability to fend for themselves.7 Tables 5.1 and 5.2 also testify to the fact that the government support for Japanese language education is increasingly geared toward the distribution of self-learning devices and materials (see also Otomo, 2022). Although autonomous learning is truly an essential part of learning, it is not reasonable to expect beginners to navigate exam preparation that includes understanding tested content as well as job-specific Japanese vocabulary and grammar far beyond beginner-level Japanese (Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education, 2011) while working as full-time healthcare workers. Nevertheless, EPA candidates are already discursively constructed as willing and highly motivated learners who can potentially make the impossible possible (Sect. 5.5.1). JICWELS’s heavy support for candidates therefore makes more sense  - the learning support enables candidates to manage and direct their own learning, while alleviating institutions’ training burdens.

5.5.4 Candidates’ Japanese Language Ability Under Fire When responsibility is passed down to candidates, candidates’ individual qualities, especially their Japanese language ability, comes to be the major factor in the success of in-facility training. Put conversely, the candidates’ lack of Japanese language ability becomes an object of attack that accounts for poor outcome for in-facility training and the national licensure examination by extension. Indeed, candidates’ Japanese proficiency comes under attack with regard to in-­ facility training and workplace communication. Host institutions feel burdened when encountering candidates who are deficient in Japanese language ability (e.g., Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2013a), because they presumably expect the candidates to be sufficiently proficient in Japanese to administer their own training. This view was aggressively expressed during the early period when the pre-employment training only lasted six months (e.g., Japan Psychiatric Hospitals Association, 2010). This kind of complaint continued even after the training was extended to one full year. For example, Yōko Nakayama, the chairperson in Nursing Exam Panel 2, made an interim summary of the discussion, as follows: [5–10] … what concerns most of us [in the series of the panel discussions] is that nurse candidates do not catch up [with the study] despite the efforts of the host institutions, as the candidates did not perform sufficiently well as professional nurses and they came without achieving [the satisfactory level of] daily Japanese. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012e, own translation)

 For example, JICWELS (2021e) stated “although EPA candidates are expected to acquire Japanese competence that can assist their own learning to some extent after the completion of one year Japanese language training, it is necessary to secure study time for them” (p. 47, own translation, emphasis added). 7

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓

Reorganized by the Author based on JICWELS (2011, 2012, 2013b, 2013c, 2014a, 2014b, 2015b, 2015d, 2016a, 2016b, 2017a, 2017b, 2018a, 2018b, 2019a, 2019b, 2020a, 2020c, 2021a, 2021b)

Not available

✓

✓

✓

Not available

✓

✓

✓

Not available

Not available

✓

✓

Not available

Not available

✓ ✓

✓ (No mention of lessons to be provided) ✓ ✓

255 lessons

Not available Not available

230 lessons

Self-learning textbook A study booklet and a checklist for exam preparation Tests (professional content, the Japanese language) Facility visit by Japanese language instructors Training opportunity for institutional trainers Facility visit by nursing professionals for exam preparation Online guide on how to make a study plan and how to prepare for the exam

230 lessons

Not available

✓

2018 2019 2020 2021

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (No mention of times to be provided) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

2017

Not available

180 lessons

✓

✓

✓

2016 ✓

2015

✓ ✓ 5 times per year

2014

Online lecture

✓ (No mention of lessons to be provided)

Type of support 2010 2011 2012 2013 E-learning (past exam quizzes) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Collective training ✓ (No mention of times to be provided) Online educational advising ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Table 5.1  Governmental Learning Support for Nurse Candidates (2010–2021)

136 5  Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation…

5.5  The Monopoly of Standard Japanese in the Training Context

137

Table 5.2  Governmental Learning Support for Caregiver Candidates (2011–2021) Type of support Collective training

2011 2012 2013 2014 2–4 ✓ times (No mention of per times to be year provided)

2015 1–4 times per year

2016 1–2 times per year

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Textbook (the Japanese language, exam preparation) Correspondence education for caregiving contents Japanese language tests Standard training programme and manuals for institutional trainers Via-Email educational advising Daily quiz via email Online lectures Online lecture on “how to proceed learning” Self-learning check sheet Self-learning planning sheet Introduction of e-learning system Professional educational consulting

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Not available

Not available

Not available Not available Not available

Not available

✓

✓ (No mention of times to be provided)

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✓

✓ Not available

✓

✓

✓ ✓

Not available Not available

Not available

✓

✓ ✓

Reorganized by the Author based on JICWELS (2011, 2012, 2013b, 2013c, 2014a, 2014b, 2015b, 2015d, 2016a, 2016b, 2017a, 2017b, 2018a, 2018b, 2019a, 2019b, 2020a, 2020c, 2021a, 2021b)

138

5  Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation…

More recently, the executive director of JICWELS similarly attributed the problem of in-facility training to candidates’ Japanese language ability: [5–11] I suppose [candidates’] language problems influence how host institutions accept candidates after all. Unsurprisingly, staff at the host institutions are burdened in various ways because the candidates have difficulty communicating with them. The trainers also say that they are too busy to teach. I am worried that the EPA candidates will end up studying less for the examination in the facilities. (Tsunoda, 2016, p. 6, own translation)

These excerpts drew a simple cause-and-effect relationship: candidates cause language problems such as inadequate Japanese for daily and workplace communication (Excerpts 5–10); and they render the host institutions’ support in vain (Excerpts 5–11) and add to the institutional burden, reflecting negatively on candidates’ study time (Excerpts 5–11). The two remarks are apparently protective toward host institutions, while pinning the blame for the undesirable progress of in-facility training and any resultant negative consequences on EPA candidates’ poor Japanese (see Kusunoki, 2018 for a similar attitude expressed by Japanese co-workers at host institutions). It is easy and plausible to attribute miscommunication in the workplace to the candidates’ lack of Japanese proficiency, too. Their limited competence in speaking and comprehending Japanese was simply regarded as a cause of incidents at work. For instance, in one of the MHLW’s survey reports, the host institution reported communication problems with Indonesian candidates, as follows: [5–12] I [a colleague] instructed a nurse candidate to move a patient who was supposed to take a bath but the candidate did not. Although the candidate said “I understand”, in fact s/he could not understand. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2010, p. 14, own translation)

Likewise, the JICWELS’ survey result was introduced in the first meeting of Caregiving Exam Panel as a reference document.8 It reports that 23 out of 202 institutions answered that EPA candidates have caused some forms of incidents or problems when performing the job (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012f). The following excerpt is from one of such incident reports: [5–13] A caregiver candidate cannot understand the information exchanged at job-handovers sometimes. One day, s/he was encouraging a facility user to get out of bed, when the user was not supposed to due to his/her poor physical condition. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012f, p. 9, own translation)

This incident report shares similarity with Excerpts 5–12 and Excerpts 5–3 above, where a Vietnamese nurse got the patient’s request wrong due to his/her inability to understand the local variety that the patient spoke. These candidates’ Japanese ability may not have been satisfactory. However, these narratives ascribed the  The survey introduced in the panel meeting was special in that it substantiates people’s free answers. Although JICWELS has been producing this series of surveys from 2012 to date, they rarely disclose such details, except for a special occasion like the exam advisory panel. 8

5.5  The Monopoly of Standard Japanese in the Training Context

139

communication breakdowns and subsequent problems solely to the candidates’ inadequate Japanese, as if there was nothing wrong with the way the Japanese staff instructed at job-handovers or the way the facility users made requests, or the specific circumstances where the communication exchanges took place (e.g., candidates were engaged in other tasks and they were paying less attention to the interlocutor, etc.). EPA candidates’ voices are completely muted here, leaving almost no clues for us to understand the workplace communication from their perspective. Figuratively speaking, they are put on trial in absentia as the major culprit for miscommunication in the workplace, while native Japanese speakers are presumed to be innocent. The power difference between native and non-native speakers thus shapes the definition of miscommunication. Failure of in-facility training can signal failure in the national licensure examination. As shown earlier, candidates’ Japanese ability is conceived of as a prime predictor of their likelihood of passing the examination. When the onus in on the candidates to take responsibility for in-facility training, their insufficient Japanese language ability represents a major cause for the small number of exam passers, setting aside other important factors such as study hours and environment, and institutional support. This causal link was officially maintained by a study group that involved high officials from MHLW, MOFA, METI, and the Ministry of Finance (National Policy Unit, 2011). The group’s official line of argument further prompted the exam advisory panels to tackle the low passing rate. Not surprisingly, the advisory panels took on the study group’s problematisation and housed a significant number of claims and opinions that accepted, beyond all doubt, the causal relationship between candidates’ competence in the Japanese language and the exam passing rate. For instance, Shinobu Ogawa, then executive director of JNA, posed that: [5–14] … this panel is now considering the reform of the national exam in various ways … there is a fundamental problem with the current EPA programme that accepts people with proper Japanese ability and those without. If we assessed candidates properly against a certain standard and received them accordingly, there wouldn’t be a problem. It feels to me that we are putting the cart before the horse. Therefore, if the system [of the EPA programme] per se is fixed, I think the debates around the passing rate would end. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012c, own translation)

In the same meeting, Masami Kumagai (deputy director and head nurse of a host hospital, the executive director of JNA since 2017) put forward a more supportive argument, yet still based on the same logic. For instance: [5–15] … it is the biggest misfortune that the EPA programme began with Japan, as an accepting side, being unprepared … Provided little opportunity to acquire the Japanese language, EPA candidates are told to make it within a few years. Then, when they fail, they are immediately rejected. I think this pressure is quite enormous. Therefore, … I think that [we] better find specific ways to manage the current candidates who have come to Japan under an inappropriate system … host institutions, patients and their family all expressed in the public comments that the EPA candidates absolutely need communication skills together with an accurate understanding of the Japanese language. Therefore, we should focus on

140

5  Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation…

how to supplement [the deficiency] and keep the current examination in Japanese only. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012c, own translation)

Ogawa and Kumagai pointed to a somewhat different aspect of the EPA programme. While the former urged the implementation of the pre-entry language requirement (see also Ogawa, 2011 for his similar request), the latter called for more educational support for the current EPA candidates. However, both arguments centred on candidates’ poor performance in Japanese, setting aside other factors that also affect the passing rate. While candidates’ (lack of) Japanese language proficiency may be an obvious determiner of the passing rate, other dimensions of the candidates’ qualities are considered potentially hazardous for the EPA programme. In Caregiving Exam Panel, Tomomi Yukawa (the training division head of the Japanese Council of Employers of Social Welfare Facilities) pointed out that some ill-disciplined candidates had caused trouble to the host institutions. Referring to the opinions from other Council members, she expressly stated: [5–16] Some EPA candidates’ behaviour was intolerable: they receive negative job performance review, and always assert their own right without fulfilling their responsibilities. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2012d, own translation)

She further suggested introducing “some forms of penalty for candidates who break the rule” to protect all the host institutions. Although she did not fully explain what rule she meant here, Yukawa appeared to point out some deviants in the normative group of willing candidates. If seen this way, EPA candidates must keep (visibly) motivated for in-facility training without bothering host institutions too much, and show the potential of passing the exam in order to stay in the category of good candidates, or they are deemed lackadaisical rule-breakers. This situation contrasts starkly with the fact that host institutions face no obvious sanction (see Sect. 4.2.5). Candidates’ academic background was also questioned, as it was considered an important indicator of examination success. In the first meeting of Nursing Exam Panel 2, Mika Okushima, a professor in Southeast Asian studies, pointed out the different educational background among Indonesian candidates: the majority are graduates of the diploma programme, while the minority are bachelor degree holders.9 She presumed that bachelor degree holders are more likely to pass the examination because the diploma programme graduates are generally inexperienced in studying for the examination. Although Okushima’s hypothesis was based on a small number of participants (16 Indonesian nurse candidates) who were at that time the only exam passers, her point prompted Kenji Fujikawa (executive director of JMA) to suggest recruiting high-achieving applicants for the EPA programme

 The diploma programme in Indonesia is offered for three years in a vocational education institution for those who have completed high school. On the other hand, the bachelor programme lasts four years, focusing more on research than clinical practice. Therefore, graduates from each programme are accredited differently: beginner professional nurse for diploma graduates; and professional nurse for bachelor holders (see Nugraha et al., 2008 for detail). 9

5.5  The Monopoly of Standard Japanese in the Training Context

141

based on his nonsensical assumption that “excellent nurses can master the Japanese language and those one-rank-down cannot because their language background is Islamic language” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2011a, own translation). Fujikawa believed that renewing the criterion for EPA applicants is more effective than exam reforms for increasing the exam passing rate. In the second meeting, Okushima insinuated that EPA candidates are not necessarily the best nurses, while the best nurses are usually dispatched to the US, the UK, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia, due to linguistic and religious familiarity, higher pay and friendly recruitment system in these countries. The present section has delved into the expected roles of teachers (training providers and institutional trainers) and learners (EPA candidates) in pre-employment and in-facility training, and how these discursively constructed imaginaries made possible particular interpretations and appropriation of the EPA programme as a language policy. Japanese monolingualism as well as the power difference between native and non-native speakers explain the training principle of maximum exposure to the target language and the full reliance on institutional trainers as qualified Japanese language teachers. These ideological bases contribute to shifting the responsibility of miscommunication at work, so that it is taken for granted that non-­ native speakers are expected to conform to the monolingual norm of native-speakers and pick up after communication breaks down. The portrayal of EPA candidates as good learners also facilitate and accelerate the shift in responsibility for in-facility training as well as for any negative consequences, including exam failure. When the principle of self-discipline and self-­ responsibility is emphasised, other equally important factors that impact language learning and the national examination are all dismissed (Otomo, 2022). Candidates’ individual qualities, especially Japanese language proficiency, have become the sole determining factor to account for the success or failure of the EPA programme as well as differentiate good from bad candidates. While exam preparation unquestionably involves professional knowledge, knowing the language of the examination and analysing the types and trends of exam questions, other factors are found to be in the picture (Ariji et al., 2014; Takeuchi, 2017). For instance, successful healthcare facilities which have produced EPA exam-passers listed the following key conditions: setting aside sufficient study time within working hours, securing teaching staff within an institution, making use of external institutions, offering mental support for candidates, recognising their individual learning styles, and devising a strategic learning plan to focus on Kanji and technical terms (e.g., Añonuevo et al., 2016; Hirano, 2016; Ikarashi et al., 2011). Unless major initiatives are conducted to enforce a standardised support system, manage the flawed host institutions as well as change the general working conditions for all staff in host institutions, the effectiveness of in-facility training and exam preparation can only depend on the host institutions’ goodwill and available resources and EPA candidates’ individual qualities.

142

5  Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation…

5.6 Summary The present chapter focused on training as a site of language policy creation, interpretation and appropriation. Although language teaching and learning carry importance in the operation of the EPA programme, marginalisation of language (issues) is found in the bedrock of the programme and the entire EPA treaty. Further, Japan’s societal language ideologies and popular myths of language teaching and learning legitimise the trivial treatment of language. The monolingual and standard language ideologies belittle varieties of language(s) other than standard Japanese and dismiss their potential value in the training contexts. The myths of the value of maximum target language exposure and of the native speakers’ innate ability to teach their native language were also found to pervade the training sessions where standard Japanese enjoys its supremacy. Furthermore, these ideologies turn EPA candidates into scapegoats for the shortcomings of the EPA programme. Candidates are constructed as highly motivated and strongly committed to studying Japanese and studying for the examination. Once this construction confirmed candidates’ ability to manage their own learning, their trainers’ capability and instructional experience no longer matter. Here, the monolingual and standard ideologies provide a fertile ground for the legitimatisation of the immersion approach too, by which candidates are further encouraged to study hard and make themselves understood to their native-speaking interlocutors. Meanwhile, the Japanese native-speakers enjoy the privilege of escaping or even shrinking responsibility for running effective in-facility training and bear no burden in intercultural communication. When the image of capable EPA candidates is mobilised, the failure of in-facility training, miscommunication at work, and the examination failure are constructed as resulting solely from candidates’ inadequate Japanese proficiency, disregarding other factors that impact the effectiveness of training, the progress of the candidates’ language learning and its outcome. After all, the EPA programme unequally attributes responsibility, effort and accountability. In the following chapter, the analysis focuses on examinations, where the processual nature of language policy is more pronounced than the training sessions. The analysis reveals how powerful policy actors navigate space for LPP agitation (Lo Bianco, 2001) or ideological and implementational spaces of language policy (Hornberger, 2002, 2005) when discussing the reforms of the national licensure examinations. Emphasis will be placed on their discursive strategies to (re)create social positioning, to reassign responsibility for programme success/failure to the powerless, and to utilise other surrounding discourses in order to justify their proposed policy reforms.

References Annex 8 referred to in Chapter 9 Specific Commitments for the Movement of Natural Persons. (2006, September 9). [Bilateral Treaty]. JA.-PH. https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/philippine/epa0609/annex8.pdf

References

143

Añonuevo, C., Kawaguchi, Y., Yoneno-Reyes, M., & Hirano, Y. O. (2016). Warmly received but still adjusting: Filipino EPA nurses in Japan. Asian Studies: Journal of Critical Perspectives on Asia, 52, 81–106. Arc Academy. (n.d.). EPA事業への取り組み [Our engagement with the EPA project]. Retrieved 22 Jan 2018, from http://jp.arc-­academy.net/about/epa.html Ariji, C., Seki, K., & Kaneko, T. (2014). インドネシア人看護師候補者の国家試験における困 難に関する研究 [Difficulties faced by Indonesian nurse applicants taking Japanese national examination]. 民族衛生. The Japanese Journal of Health and Human Ecology, 80(3), 144–150. Cabinet Office. (2013). 経済連携協定に基づくインドネシア人及びフィリピン人看護師･ 介護福祉士候補者の滞在期間の延長について [The extension of stay for Indonesian and Filipino nurse and caregiver candidates under the EPA program]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-­Seisakujouhou-­11650000-­Shokugyouanteikyokuhakenyukirou doutaisakubu/0000075381.pdf Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94, 103–115. Heinrich, P. (2012). The making of monolingual Japan. Multilingual Matters. Hirano, Y.  O. (2016). “Double standard employment” under JPEPA: The bilateral agreement and its implications for Filipino nurse migration to Japan. Asian Studies: Journal of Critical Perspectives on Asia, 52(2), 33–54. Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387. Hornberger, N. H. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approach. Language Policy, 1(1), 27–51. Hornberger, N. H. (2005). Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces in heritage language education. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 605–609. Ikarashi, H., Higuchi, H., Fernandes, Y. F., Agustina, R., & Hukaya, K. (2011). インドネシア 人看護師候補者の国家試験合格への道: 三之町病院の取り組み [Indonesian candidates’s path to the success in the national nursing examination: The case of Sannocho Hospital]. 聖路 加看護大学紀要 [Bulletin of St. Luke’s College of Nursing], 37, 19–24. Japan Foundation. (n.d.-a). EPA 日本語講師募集 [recruitment of EPA Japanese language instructors]. Retrieved 5 May 2022, from https://www.jpf.go.jp/j/project/japanese/education/training/ epa/download/epa_2017_guide.pdf Japan Foundation. (n.d.-b). Japanese-language pre-training program for Indonesian and Filipino candidates for nurses and care workers under economic partnership agreements (EPA). Retrieved 12 Aug 2022, from https://www.jpf.go.jp/e/project/japanese/education/training/epa/ Japan Foundation. (n.d.-c). 国際交流基金 2022年度経済連携協定日本語予備教育事業 日本 語講師募集について [The Japan Foundation call for Japanese-language instructors for the 2022 EPA Japanese language preparatory education project]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from https://www.jpf.go.jp/j/about/recruit/epa_2022.html Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2011). 平成24年度版 EPAに基づく外国人 看護師･介護福祉士受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2012 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurses and caregivers under the EPA program]. Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2012). 平成25年度版 EPAに基づく外国人 看護師･介護福祉士受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2013 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurses and caregivers under the EPA program]. Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2013a). EPA看護師に関する調査事業報 告書 [Report on the research regarding EPA nurses]. Retrieved 5 May 2022, from https:// jicwels.or.jp/files/E69CACE69687.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2013b). 受入支援等の取り組み･ 受入れ状況等について [Support projects and current situation regarding the acceptacne of foreign candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E38090E7A2BAE5AE9AE78988E38091H27E585A5E59BBDE59BB.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2013c). 平成26年度版 EPAに基づく外国人 看護師･介護福祉士受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2014 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurses and caregivers under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://www. jicwels.or.jp/files/H26E5B9B4E5BAA6E78988E38391E383B3E38395E383ACE3838.pdf

144

5  Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation…

Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2014a). 受入支援等の取り組み･ 受入れ状況等について [Support projects and current situation regarding the acceptacne of foreign candidates]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E38090E7A2BAE5AE9AE78988E38091H27E585A5E59BBDE59BB.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2014b). 平成27年度版 EPAに基づく外国人 看護師･介護福祉士受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2015 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurses and caregivers under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://www. jicwels.or.jp/files/H26E5B9B4E5BAA6E78988E38391E383B3E38395E383ACE3838.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2015a). 外国人看護師･介護福祉士人 材マネジメント手引き [Handbook of management of foreign nurses and caregiver human resource]. Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2015b). 受入支援等の取り組み･ 受入れ状況等について [Support projects and current situation regarding the acceptacne of foreign candidates]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E38090E5AE8CE68890E78988E38091EFBC88E9858DE5B883E7_2_3.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2015c). 平成28年度版 EPAに基づく介護 福祉士候補者受け入れの手引き [The fiscal year 2016 handbook about accepting caregiver candidates under the EPA framework]. Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2015d). 平成28年度版 EPAに基づく外国 人看護師･介護福祉士受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2016 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurses and caregivers under the EPA program]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from https:// jicwels.or.jp/files/E291A0H28E78988E38391E383B3E38395E383ACE38383E3838.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2015e). 平成28年度版 EPAに基づく看護 師候補者受け入れの手引き [The fiscal year 2016 handbook about accepting nurse candidates under the EPA program]. Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2016a). 受入支援等の取り組み･受入れ 状況等について [Support projects and current situation regarding the acceptacne of foreign candidates]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/H29EPA_setsumeikai-­2.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2016b). 平成29年度版 EPAに基づく外 国人看護師･介護福祉士受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2017 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurses and caregiverrs under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/EPA_H29_pamph.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2017a). 受入支援等の取り組み･受入れ 状況等について [Support projects and current situation regarding the acceptacne of foreign candidates]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/EPA_setsumeikai_H30_ Part-­2.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2017b). 平成30年度版 EPAに基づく外 国人看護師･介護福祉士受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2018 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurses and caregiverrs under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/EPA_H30_pamph-­r.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2018a). 2019年度版 EPAに基づく外国人 看護師･介護福祉士受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2019 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurses and caregiverrs under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https:// jicwels.or.jp/files/EPA_2019_pamph_r.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2018b). 受入れ状況・支援等につい て [Current situation regarding the acceptacne of foreign candidates and support projects]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/EPA_setsumeikai_2019_Part-­2.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2019a). 2020年度受け入れ版EPAに基づ く外国人看護師･介護福祉士受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2020 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurses and caregiverrs under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/EPA_2020_pamph.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2019b). 受入れ状況・支援等につい て [Current situation regarding the acceptacne of foreign candidates and support projects]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/EPA_setsumeikai_2020_Part-­2.pdf

References

145

Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2020a). 2021年度受け入れ版EPAに基づ く外国人看護師･介護福祉士受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2021 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurses and caregiverrs under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/EPA_2021_pamph.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2020b). 2021年度受入版EPAに基づく介 護福祉士候補者受け入れの手引き [The fiscal year 2021 handbook about accepting caregiver candidates under the EPA program]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/ files/EPA_2021_C.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2020c). 受入れ状況・支援等につい て [Current situation regarding the acceptacne of foreign candidates and support projects]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/wp-­content/uploads/2020/03/2021%E5%B9 %B4%E5%BA%A6%E5%8F%97%E5%85%A5%E3%82%8C%E5%9B%BD%E5%86%85 %E8%AA%AC%E6%98%8E%E4%BC%9A-­%E7%AC%AC2%E9%83%A8-­.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2021a). 2022年度受入版EPAに基づく外 国人看護師･介護福祉士候補者受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2022 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurse and caregiver candidates under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/wp-­content/uploads/2021/03/20210325-­%E5%8F% 97%E5%85%A5%E3%82%8C%E3%83%91%E3%83%B3%E3%83%95%E3%83%AC%E 3%83%83%E3%83%88.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2021b). EPAに基づく外国人看護師･介 護福祉士候補者受入れの状況･支援等について [Support projects and current situation regarding the acceptacne of foreign nurse and caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/wp-­content/uploads/2021/03/2022%E5%B9%B4%E5%BA%A6%E 5%8F%97%E5%85%A5%E3%82%8C%E8%AA%AC%E6%98%8E%E4%BC%9A%E7% AC%AC2%E9%83%A8%E3%80%80%E8%AA%AC%E6%98%8E%E8%B3%87%E6%9 6%99%EF%BC%88%E5%9B%BD%E9%9A%9B%E5%8E%9A%E7%94%9F%E4%BA%8 B%E6%A5%AD%E5%9B%A3%EF%BC%89.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2021c). 令和2年度介護福祉士候補者巡 回訪問実施結果について [The 2020 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/wp-­content/uploads/2021/05/%E4%BB%A4%E5%9 2%8C2%E5%B9%B4%E5%BA%A6%E3%80%80%E4%BB%8B%E8%AD%B7%E7%A 6%8F%E7%A5%89%E5%A3%AB%E5%80%99%E8%A3%9C%E8%80%85%E5%8F%9 7%E5%85%A5%E3%82%8C%E6%96%BD%E8%A8%AD%E5%B7%A1%E5%9B%9E% E8%A8%AA%E5%95%8F%E7%B5%90%E6%9E%9C%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8A%E6% 9B%B8.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2021d). 令和2年度看護師候補者巡回 訪問実施結果について [The 2020 visit: Survey results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/wp-­content/uploads/2021/05/%E4%BB%A4%E5%92% 8C2%E5%B9%B4%E5%BA%A6%E3%80%80%E7%9C%8B%E8%AD%B7%E5%B8%A B%E5%80%99%E8%A3%9C%E8%80%85%E5%8F%97%E5%85%A5%E3%82%8C%E6%96%BD%E8%A8%AD%E5%B7%A1%E5%9B%9E%E8%A8%AA%E5%95%8F%E7% B5%90%E6%9E%9C%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8A%E6%9B%B8.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2021e). 令和3年度(2022年受入) EPAに基 づく介護福祉士候補者受け入れの手引き [The fiscal year 2022 handbook about accepting caregiver candidates under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels. or.jp/wp-­content/uploads/2021/03/20210325-­%E4%BB%8B%E8%AD%B7%E5%8F%97%E 5%85%A5%E3%82%8C%E6%89%8B%E5%BC%95%E3%81%8D.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2021f). 令和3年度(2022年受入)EPAに 基づく看護師候補者受け入れの手引き [The fiscal year 2022 handbook about accepting nurse candidates under the EPA program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/ wp-­content/uploads/2021/03/20210325-­%E7%9C%8B%E8%AD%B7%E5%8F%97%E5%8 5%A5%E3%82%8C%E6%89%8B%E5%BC%95%E3%81%8D.pdf

146

5  Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation…

Japan Psychiatric Hospitals Association. (2010). 経済連携協定に基づく外国人看護師･介護 福祉士候補者 受け入れに関する問題点の指摘と提言: 四病協 [Poliycy proposal for and problems of the acceptance of foreign nurse and caregivier candidates under the economic partnership agreement: The four hospital organizations council]. Retrieved 19 Aug 2022, from https://www.nisseikyo.or.jp/about/teigen/detail.php?@DB_ID@=380 Japan-Philippine Economic Partnership Agreement Joint Coordination Team. (2003). 日･フィ リピン経済連携協定合同調整チームの報告 [Japan-Philippine Economic Partnership Agreement joint coordination team report]. Kanno, Y. (2008). Language and education in Japan: Unequal access to bilingualism. Palgrave Macmillan. Kubota, R., & McKay, S. L. (2009). Globalization and language learning in rural Japan: The role of English in the local linguistic ecology. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 593–619. Kusunoki, R. (2018). Japanese co-workers’ view of their communication with EPA foreign nurse trainees [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Queensland]. Australia. Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. Routledge. Lo Bianco, J. (2001). Policy literacy. Language and Education, 15(2–3), 212–227. Lopez, M. (2012). Reconstituting the affective labour of Filipinos as care workers in Japan. Global Networks, 12(2), 252–268. Lorente, B. P. (2012). The making of "Workers of the World": Language and the labor brokerage state. In A. Duchêne & M. Heller (Eds.), Language and late capitalism: Pride and profit (pp. 183–206). Routledge. Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (2012). Authority in language: Investigating standard English (4th ed.). Routledge. Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2008). 経済上の連携に関する日本国とフィリピ ン共和国との間の協定に基づく看護及び介護分野におけるフィリピン人看護師等 の受入れの実施に関する指針 [Implementation guideline regarding the Filipino nurses and caregivers under the agreement between Japan and the Republic of the Philippines for an economic partnership]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/11650000/000595235.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2010). インドネシア人看護師候補者受入実態 調査結果概要 [Survey result overview: The acceptance of Indonesian nuse candidates]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/houdou/2r98520000005ltf-­ img/2r98520000005lwb.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2011a). 議事録 (第1回) [Meeting minutes (the first meeting)]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r9852000001zu1c.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2011b). 議事録 (第2回) [Meeting minutes (the second meeting)]. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/ shingi/2r98520000021vni.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2011c). 特例フィリピン人看護師候補者及び特例 フィリピン人介護福祉士候補者の雇用管理･研修の実施等に関する指針 [Guideline regarding emploment management and training operation of exceptional Filipino nurse and caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 22 Jan 2018, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-­ Seisakujouhou-­11650000-­Shokugyouanteikyokuhakenyukiroudoutaisakubu/phili_tokurei_ shishin_280330.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012a). 看護師候補者受入れ施設の意識調査の結果 [Survey result for host instittuions for nurse candidates]. Retrieved 29 Aug 2022, from http:// www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/houdou/2r9852000002hb5l.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012b). 議事録 (第1回) [Meeting minutes (the first meeting)]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r98520000028iem.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012c). 議事録 (第3回)’ [Meeting minutes (the third meeting)]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r9852000002798v.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012d). 議事録 (第3回) [Meeting minutes (the third meeting)]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r9852000002csq1.html

References

147

Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012e). 議事録 (第4回) [Meeting minutes (the fourth meeting)]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r9852000002b6ks.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012f). 資料6: 平成22年度EPA介護福祉士候補者受 入れ施設巡回訪問実施結果(概要) [Handout 6: Visit for host institutions for caregiver candidates in fiscal year 2010 (overview)]. Retrieved 29 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/ stf/shingi/2r985200000261i3-­att/2r985200000261rw.pdf Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. (2013). 外国人の受け入れ対策に関する行政 評価･監視-技能実習制度等を中心として: 結果報告書 [A debrief report on public sector evaluation and supervision: Centering on the technical intern-training program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000219634.pdf Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. (2014). 外国人の受け入れ対策に関する 行政評価･監視に基づく勧告に対する改善措置状況(1回目のフォローアップ)の概要 [The first follow-up report for the public sector evaluation and supervision: Regarding the acceptance of foreigners]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.soumu.go.jp/menu_news/ s-­news/81451.html Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. (2015). 外国人の受け入れ対策に関する 行政評価･監視に基づく勧告に対する改善措置状況(2回目のフォローアップ)の概要 [The second follow-up report for the public sector evaluation and supervision: Regarding the acceptance of foreigners]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.soumu.go.jp/menu_news/ s-­news/95239.html National Policy Unit. (2011). 経済連携協定に基づく看護師･介護福祉士候補者の受け入れ 等についての基本的な方針 [Basic directions regarding the acceptance of nurse and caregiver candidates under the Economic Partnership Agreement]. Noborizato, T., Ishii, Y., Imai, H., & Kurihara, Y. (2010). インドネシア人介護福祉士候補者 を対象とする日本語研修のコースデザイン: 医療･看護･介護分野の専門日本語教育と 関西国際センターの教育理念との関係において [Designing a Japanese-language program for care giver candidates from Indonesia: Connections between specialized Japanese language education for medical, nursing and care giving fields and the Japanese language education policy of the Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Institute, Kansai]. 国際交流基金日本語 教育紀要 [The Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Education Bulletin], 6, 41–56. Noborizato, T., Yamamoto, A., Suzuki, E., Mori, M., Saito, S., Matsushima, Y., Aonuma, K., & Iizawa, N. (2014). 経済連携協定に基づくインドネシア人･フィリピン人看護師･介護 福祉士候補者を対象とする日本語予備教育事業の成果と展望 [Results and future possibilities of preparatory Japanese-language training for the Indonesian and Filipino nurse and certified care worker candidates under Economic Partnership Agreements]. 国際交流基金日 本語教育紀要 [The Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Education Bulletin], 10, 55–69. Nugraha, S., Tanaka, M., & Efendi, F. (2008). A comparative study of nursing educational system in Indonesia and Japan. Jurnal Ners, 3(2), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.20473/jn.v3i2.4997 Nunō, K. (2015). EPA看護･介護福祉士候補者への｢配慮｣の諸相 ["consideration" for EPA nurse and caregiver candidates]. In M.  Yoshinaga & H.  Yamashita (Eds.), ことばの｢やさ しさ｣とは何か 批判的社会言語学からのアプローチ [What is "kidness" of language? Critical sociolinguistic approach] (pp. 45–71). Sangensha. Ogawa, S. (2011, March 25). 第100回看護師国家試験の結果について [The result of the 100th national nursing examination]. Retrieved 20 Jan 2018, from http://www.nurse.or.jp/home/ opinion/newsrelease/2010pdf/20110325.pdf Otomo, R. (2016). New form of national language policy?: The case of the economic partnership agreement (EPA) in Japan. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(5), 735–742. Otomo, R. (2022). The discourse of self-learning: An analysis of Japan’s EPA programme for healthcare workers from Southeast Asia. Asian Studies Review. Philippines Overseas Employment Administration. (2009, January 13). Guidelines for the recruitment and deployment of Filipino nurses (Kangoshi) and caregivers (Kaigofukushishi) for Japan on a government-to-government arrangement http://www.ofwguide.com/likod/documents/3/MC-­03-­2009.pdf

148

5  Language Training as a Site of Language Policy Creation, Interpretation…

Rymes, B. (2010). Classroom discourse analysis: A focus on communicative repertoires. In N. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 528–546). Multilingual Matters. Saitoh, I. (2007). 日本における高齢者介護支援者としてのフィリピン人の社会･心理 的適性の研究: 日本の少子高齢化とFOWの受け入れについて [Competence of FOW for ­caregivers in Japan]. 立正大学心理学研究所紀要 [The Journal of Psychology Rissho University], 5, 51–63. Takeuchi, H. (2017). EPAに基づく介護福祉士候補者が捉えた介護福祉士国家試験対策 過程とは: インタビューの分析から [The process of preparing for the national licensure examination: An analysis of interviews]. 日本語教育-首都大学東京･東京都立大学･日本 語･日本語教育研究会 [Japanese Language Education], 166, 1–14. The Association for Overseas Technical Cooperation and Sustainable Partnerships. (n.d.). EPA 看護師･介護福祉士研修事業 [Training project for EPA nurse and caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 6 April 2022, from https://www.aots.jp/other/epa/ Tsunoda, T. (2016). EPAによる介護人材受け入れ･最新情報 [Current fact for the acceptacnce of caregivers through the EPA]. シニア･コミュニティ [Senior Community], May-June. Ueno, M. (2012). EPAによるインドネシア人介護福祉士候補者の受け入れ現場の現状と 求められる日本語教育支援: 候補者と日本語教師への支援を目指して [The practical issues and necessary support in teaching Japanese to Indonesian care worker candidates under the EPA scheme in a Japanese care facility: Aiming to support to the candidates and Japanese language teachers]. 国際協力研究誌 Journal of International Development and Cooperation, 18(3), 123–136. Wiley, T. G., & Lukes, M. (1996). English-only and standard English ideologies in the U.S. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 511–535. Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education. (2011). 介護福祉士国 家試験問題の日本語の難しさについて考えるための基礎資料 [Basic references in order to consider the difficulty of the Japanese language in the national caregiving examination]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.nkg.or.jp/kangokaigo/images/kisoshiryou-­v2.pdf

Chapter 6

(Re) Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

Abstract Chapter 6 analyses the policy discourse revolving around two tests and demonstrates how the EPA programme is test-bound and the tests are operated in a problematic manner. It is argued that the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) is administered and referenced heavily and uncritically throughout the EPA programme without justifiable reasons and that powerful policy actors, particularly healthcare interest groups, navigate and dominate the discursive space of the reforms of the national licensure examinations.

6.1 The Examinations under Investigation Examinations govern almost all aspects of the EPA programme, because they determine which EPA candidates (1) can or cannot enter Japan, (2) go on the fast track or non-elite standard track, and (3) are short-term or long-term healthcare migrant workers in Japan. The examinations take two forms: JLPT and the national licensure examination. JLPT applies to the first two stages. The JLPT N4 is now a benchmark for Filipino and Indonesian EPA candidates to be admitted entry to Japan, while the JLPT N3 has been a requirement for Vietnamese candidates to join the matching session. With Japanese ability demonstrated in the form of JLPT, one can be exempt from the pre-employment language training, or begin the exam preparation much earlier than the rest of candidates. The national licensure examination concerns the third stage. The examination result reflects directly on candidates’ residential and professional status: exam passers become accredited healthcare professionals and obtain renewable working visas; and exam failures return to their home countries. Unsurprisingly, the high-stake examinations impact in-facility training and candidates’ learning path (e.g., Shima 2014). The present chapter investigates how the two examinations came to play central roles in the EPA programme. I begin with JLPT and inquire into its ubiquitous use and establishment as the sole Japanese language ability test. Then, I turn my attention to the national licensure examination. Focusing on the exam advisory panels,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. Otomo, Linking Language, Trade and Migration, Language Policy 33, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33234-0_6

149

150

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

I demonstrate how the current regime of the national licensure examinations has been maintained, while allowing minor modifications to occur.

6.2 JLPT as Jack-of-All-Trades JLPT is the most widely recognised and administered test of the Japanese language for non-native speakers. It is held twice a year and co-administered by the Japan Foundation and the Association of Japan Educational Exchanges and Services. JLPT merits its test-takers a supplementary credit that supports their admission to or completion of school, and preferential treatment for their employment at Japan-­ affiliated companies and for a newly introduced point-based immigration scheme (Immigration Services Agency of Japan 2017). JLPT is a multiple-choice test, having five levels: N1, N2, N3, N4, and N5 (N5 being the easiest). In general, JLPT assesses competence in three dimensions: language knowledge (grammar and vocabulary); reading; and listening. It excludes speaking and writing. JLPT is inescapably tied to the way foreign healthcare workers are currently certified in Japan. For example, a certificate of the JLPT N1 is required for overseas-­ licensed medical practitioners, including nurses, to sit the licensure examination for the relevant professions.1 With regards to caregiver profession, JLPT has gained a firm position in the selection process, particularly since the Japanese government has expanded the scale of caregiver migration well beyond the EPA programme beginning 2017 (see Sect. 7.2 for detail). Despite the close relationship between JLPT and the healthcare certification system, the relevance of JLPT to the healthcare front is little explored but generally taken for granted. The inauguration of the EPA programme has indeed initiated and stimulated the recent expansion of research in teaching Japanese for foreign healthcare professionals (see Noborizato et  al. 2010 for a detailed literature review). However, the development of research in this area, particularly pertaining to caregivers, is still embryonic. Only a few researchers have questioned the taken-for-­ granted JLPT requirement for foreign healthcare professionals (Nunō 2015, 2018) and pointed out the different set of language skills measured between JLPT and the licensure examinations (Shima 2014). A similar assumption holds true for the EPA programme. First of all, a holder of the JLPT N2 or above is able to be exempted from the pre-employment language training, based on the assumption that they have enough Japanese language competence to start working and receiving in-facility training immediately. While this assumption may be proven right for some candidates, JLPT is not designed for the healthcare sector or for any specific workplace. In fact, no rationale is provided for  Medical practitioners here include: public health nurses, midwives, pharmacists, dentists, dental hygienists, dental technicians, radiology technologists, clinical laboratory technicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, orthoptists, clinical engineers, prosthetists, emergency medical technicians, speech therapists, and veterinarians. 1

6.2  JLPT as Jack-of-All-Trades

151

choosing JLPT as an exemption criterion. Thus, the introduction of JLPT as an exemption criterion is not the result of a thorough consideration based on a solid analysis of the relation between JLPT and language use in the healthcare context. JLPT is utilised throughout the pre-employment language training, too. JICWELS and MHLW asked host institutions to indicate a preferred level of JLPT they wish EPA candidates to have at the beginning of their employment. The results show that about 70% of the host hospitals preferred N2 and above (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012a) and that most of the host caregiving facilities required at least N3 (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services 2015a). The formulation of this question is strategic because the government bodies can justify the use of JLPT in the pre-employment training as a measure to address institutional needs. Indeed, training providers incorporate JLPT into the training curriculum to assess candidates’ learning development and outcome (e.g., Noborizato et al. 2014). JLPT also functions as a policy evaluation tool. MIAC (2013, 2014, 2015) problematised that some Filipino and Indonesian candidates could not attain the N3 and N4 levels and advised MHLW, MOFA, and METI to improve the percentage by introducing JLPT as a device of pre-linguistic screening and enrichment of the pre-­ employment training. Figure 5.1 shown previously is more hard evidence for JLPT’s functioning as a policy evaluation tool. JICWELS uses JLPT to publicise the effectiveness of the pre-departure training that has been producing a large number of candidates with the JLPT N3 ability. JLPT continues to influence the way candidates’ Japanese proficiency is evaluated beyond the pre-employment training. Indeed, JLPT is now established as an important part of in-facility training. It is not unusual for host institutions to incorporate JLPT preparation into in-facility training, purchase the JLPT preparation materials, and devote part of the annual funding from JICWELS to the JLPT registration fee (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services 2011a, 2011b, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2014b, 2014c, 2015c, 2015d, 2016b, 2016c, 2017b, 2017c). JLPT has been the centre of discussion in the exam advisory panels, too. In Nursing Exam Panel 2, JLPT was the default candidate for a Japanese communication skills test to be concomitantly used with the translated nursing examination. Since the panel was largely against the combined use of the two tests in the first place, JLPT was hardly mentioned in the discussion. However, JLPT surfaced when the representative from MHLW referred to the exam passing rate of non-EPA foreign nurses (who have passed the JLPT N1) as being much higher than that of the EPA candidates. Since then, the JLPT N1 has received some mentions, for example, when discussants questioned the need for exam reforms and argued instead to introduce JLPT as the pre-entry language requirement. Other discussants praised the non-EPA nurses as ideal foreign nurses who possess sufficient nursing knowledge as well as communication skills in Japanese, while criticising the EPA candidates as if their low passing rate resulted solely from the fact that many of them have not yet achieved higher JLPT levels. All these remarks highlight the commonly accepted myth that JLPT fully assesses one’s communication skills.

152

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

As we have seen above, JLPT has come to be vitally important in the working of the EPA programme as the well-referenced, officially sanctioned test which nobody interrogates, due in part to the long-standing tradition and popularity of JLPT among Japanese language learners around the world. It may well be the fact it is the handiest tool available to make the complicated notion of Japanese language ability representable and digestible for policymakers (cf. Shohamy 2001). Thus, JLPT was found to serve different purposes: a filter to identify fast-track candidates; a measuring rod to gauge candidates’ learning progress; a policy evaluation tool to assess the effectiveness of the pre-employment training; a handy pedagogical tool to guide the candidates’ Japanese language learning in host institutions; and a reference point to differentiate good and bad foreign healthcare professionals. When JLPT comes to serve the last purpose, then it is reasonable to conclude that it is no different from other language tests increasingly used for the lodgement of immigration and citizenship applications in other national contexts that are criticised for its link with an exclusionary attitude for immigrants (Blackledge 2009; Piller & Lising 2014; Shohamy 2009). The idea that JLPT sufficiently assesses the language competence of foreign healthcare workers has become an irreversible fact. That the exclusive use of JLPT restricts the way the training providers, host institutions and policymakers understand candidates’ Japanese language ability has now gone unnoticed. The positive value of JLPT has been solidified and reinforced in a cyclical manner: the more the EPA programme relies on JLPT, the more recognised, authorial, and credible JLPT has become, and the more the programme considers JLPT to be the desirable test. In this mechanism, JLPT can continue to escape critical scrutiny as regards its relevance to the EPA programme and to language use in the healthcare context. Training providers, host institutions, EPA candidates, and even researchers in the field of Japanese language education all play a part in this mechanism, as long as they keep consuming JLPT in one way or another.

6.3 The Exam Advisory Panels: Overview Language has surfaced as an issue in the national licensure examinations since the inception of the EPA programme. The examinations were originally designed to evaluate nursing/caregiving knowledge and skills of Japanese test-takers, who are considered as having no problems in understanding the Japanese language per se. Thus, the EPA programme brought language issues into the open and led to discussion of whether the examinations themselves are too challenging for EPA candidates whose first language is not Japanese, and, if so, whether and to what extent the examinations should be reformed. These questions were discussed in three exam advisory panels formed under the MHLW’s jurisdiction: Nursing Exam Panel 1, Nursing Exam Panel 2, and Caregiving Exam Panel. A series of review of the national licensure examinations, broadly speaking, proceeded in a linear manner (see Fig. 6.1). The very first attempt was made in 2010 by

Increase in the use of English

English for difficult Japanese

Caregiving Exam Panel (2012)

Increase in the use of English

Furigana for all Kanji

MHLW’s Minister’s Announcement (2012)

Simplification of difficult Japanese words and expressions (except for professional terms)

Extension of testing time

Increase in the use of Furigana

Nursing Exam Panel 2 (20112012)

Furigana for difficult Kanji

Fig. 6.1  Overview of the Exam Advisory Panels

Reform suggested

MHLWCSE’s Joint Announcement (2010)

Other consideration for candidates’ test-taking

Possible measures for medical and nursing professional terms

Nursing Exam Panel 1 (2010)

Implementing easy-to-understand Japanese

The combined use of translated licensure examinations in the languages of candidates’ mother country and/or English with a Japanese communication skills test

Replacement of generic terms with easier ones

Agenda

6.3  The Exam Advisory Panels: Overview 153

154

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

Nursing Exam Panel 1, agendas of which included the simplification of professional/technical terms. This panel later prompted the joint committee between MHLW and the Centre of Social Welfare Promotion and National Examination (CSE)  to announce a very similar reform plan for the caregiving examination (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2010b). These two groups suggested three types of changes: (1) replacement of difficult Japanese words with easier ones (excluding professional/technical terms), (2) adding Furigana next to difficult Kanji, and (3) adding English for difficult Japanese equivalents. These reform ideas have been reflected since 2011. In December 2011, Nursing Exam Panel 2 was formed to consider the possibility of the combined use of the translated nursing examination and a Japanese communication skills test. However, the panel’s final report eventually negated such a possibility. They instead proposed to extend the testing time and add more Furigana and English than what was originally suggested by Nursing Exam Panel 1. However, these two reform ideas were not immediately implemented, because they did not receive unanimous assent. It was March 23, 2012, a week after the final report was published, that the extension of time and the increased use of Furigana began to gain serious consideration and draw discursive support. Then Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare announced these two reforms to be made in the national nursing and caregiving examinations, while expressing reservation about “administering the examinations in [EPA candidates’] mother tongues or English from the perspective of medical safety” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012k). This announcement dictated the way Caregiving Exam Panel (March–June, 2012) proceeded. The original agendas of this panel were to discuss (1) improvement of writing of Japanese in general, (2) the possible use of the translated caregiving examination along with a Japanese communication skills test, and (3) other considerations relative to test-taking. However, following the Minister’s announcement, the panel spent much time discussing the use of Furigana for all Kanji and the extension of testing time, which eventually took effect for both nursing and caregiving examinations in 2013. Also, particularly pertaining to the writing of Japanese in the examinations, Caregiving Exam Panel pushed forward with the suggestions initially made by Nursing Exam Panel 1 and the joint committee between MHLW and CSE. The exam advisory panels merit elaborate analysis because they were an attempt from which a new form of language policy could have emerged. Compared with the in-facility training and pre-employment training where (standard) Japanese unquestionably dominated, the panels, especially those with the agenda to discuss the use of translated examinations, were innovative in considering the potential role of other languages in the EPA programme. It was space for LPP agitation (Lo Bianco 2001), or in Hornberger’s terms (2002) ideological and implementational spaces, in which ideological transformation is possible, enabling alternative forms of language policy to emerge, to be planned and perhaps implemented. However, in the end, such space was closed, and the monolingual operation of the national licensure examination continued.

6.3  The Exam Advisory Panels: Overview

155

In the existing literature, Nunō (2012) sheds light on the structural issues of the panel examinations, concluding that the panel generally “followed a pre-written scenario” (p.70, own translation). My analysis not only adds to this scholarship but goes beyond the structural issues, paying close attention to how policy actors interpreted the exam reform ideas and eventually closed the opportunity for LPP agitation or space for implementation or ideological transformation.

6.3.1 Structural Features: Sequence, Discussant, and Scheduling Before moving to an in-depth analysis of the meeting minutes and the final reports of the three panels, it is helpful to overview the overall structure of the panel meetings. By examining how the structure determined the general direction, we can find some evidence as to how controversial progressive agendas - namely the simplification of professional/technical terms and the combined use of the translated examination and a communication skills test - have ended up being reshaped in conservative reform plans. I have identified the following features to account for the shift: sequence; discussant; and scheduling. The timeline of the panels, in part, explains why all of them conformed to conservative ideas. The underlying pattern here is that the preceding panel dictated or at least overshadowed the following panel. Regarding the replacement of professional/technical terms with plain terms, Caregiving Exam Panel confirmed what Nursing Exam Panel 1 had previously proposed, although Caregiving Exam Panel advanced other minor reform ideas initially suggested by Nursing Exam Panel 1 such as the use of Furigana and stylistic simplification of Japanese writing (e.g., rewording expressions and restructuring sentences). Just as Nursing Exam Panel 2, Caregiving Exam Panel also negated the combined use of the translated examination and a communication skills test. This is particularly interesting because neither Nursing Exam Panel 2 nor Caregiving Exam Panel made any attempt to fully discuss this agenda (see Sect. 6.4 for detailed analysis). Although the direction of Caregiving Exam Panel was enormously impacted by the preceding Minister’s passive stand against the use of languages other than Japanese as the medium of examinations, the panel simply repeated the final decision already made by the preceding panels without scrutinising the former panel’s discussions. Figure 6.1 sums up the timeline of the panels with its initial agendas and suggestions made in the final report of each panel. The second structural feature that kept the controversial reform ideas under wraps was the panel discussants. As shown in Table 6.1, the advisory panels involved a very large number of members and invited speakers, in addition to an official or two from MHLW. While the large group allowed a diversity of opinions to unfold, it also ran the risk of veering away from the main agenda. The member selection was conspicuous, too. Among the invited speakers, Filipino-affiliated groups were

Members (affiliation) [meeting(s) attended]

Meeting frequency and date

Kenji Rinshō (professor in nursing education; and former exam writer of the nursing examination) [1, 3, 4] Shunsuke Watanabe (journalist; former editorialist at Nikkei; and professor in medical journalism) [all]

Noriko Totsuka (professor in nursing) [all]

Natsumi Takeshita (professor in international nursing and medical anthropology) [1, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Chairperson: Yōko Nakayama (professor in nursing) [all]

The Nursing Exam Panel 2 4 meetings (2 hours each, except the fourth meeting lasting 2.5 hours) (1) December 9, 2011 (2) December 16, 2011 (3) February 15, 2012 (4) March 8, 2012

Kenji Rinshō (professor in nursing education; and former exam writer of the nursing examination) [all] Yūko Hirano (professor in medical sociology) [1, 2, 3, 5, 6]

(1) June 23, 2010 (2) July 8, 2010 (3) July 15, 2010 (4) July 27, 2010 (5) August 9, 2010 (6) August 24, 2010 Chairperson: Yōko Nakayama (professor in nursing) [all]

The Nursing Exam Panel 1 6 meetings (2 hours each)

Table 6.1  Comparison of three exam advisory panels

Yoshiaki Nemoto (professor in social welfare; vice-chairperson of the caregiving exam writing committee during 2004-2010; chairperson of the caregiving exam writing committee during 20112016; and former assistant director in social affairs bureau of MHLW) [all] Kyōko Asakura (professor in nursing education; and vice-chairperson of the caregiving exam writing committee during 2008-2016) [2, 3, 4]

Chairperson: Yoshiko Ushiotani (president of a university specializing in caregiver education; and former governor of Kumamoto Prefecture) [all] Kiyoshi Kitamura (professor in medical education) [all]

(1) March 23, 2012 (2) April 17, 2012 (3) April 27, 2012 (4) May 22, 2012 (5) June 5, 2012

The Caregiving Exam Panel 5 meetings

156 6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

Kōichi Nishiguchi (professor in Japanese language education) [all]

Mika Okushima (professor in Southeast Asian studies) [1, 2, 4]

Sumiko Kurimoto (training management division head of a nursing school) [2, 3, 4, 5] Sumi Takagishi (vice principal of a nursing school) [all] Makirō Tanaka (professor in corpus Japanese linguistics) [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The Caregiving Exam Panel Tomiko Kubota (professor in care-giving and welfare; former caregiving instructor of the EPA pre-employment training, member of the caregiving exam writing committee during 2001-2005; and vice-chairperson of the caregiving exam writing committee during 2006-2013) [all] Yoshiko Kawamura (professor in Japanese language education) [all]

(continued)

Fukunari Kimura (professor in international trade Yukie Hashimoto (representative director IJY) [all] and economics) [4] Masami Kumagai (deputy director and head nurse of a host hospital, and executive director of JNA during 2017-present) [1, 3, 4] Shigeaki Kanō (vice president of the Association of Japanese Healthcare Corporations; and director of a host hospital) [all] Manabu Yamazaki (president of the Japan Psychiatric Hospitals Association; and director of a host hospital) [all] Shinobu Ogawa (executive director of JNA during 2005-2013) [all] Kenji Fujikawa (executive director of JMA; director of a hospital) [all] Nobuko Sanui (director of JBF during 20082019) [1, 3, 4] Keiko Hanai (policy division head of the Japan Trade Union Confederation) [1, 3] Akihisa Ito (attended in Hanai’s place) [2] Mr. Endō (attended in Hanai’s place) [4]

The Nursing Exam Panel 2 Yūya Ogata (professor in medical management and administration; and a former public official of MHLW) [1, 4]

The Nursing Exam Panel 1 Mitsuru Sawa (professor in medicine; and hospital director) [all]

6.3  The Exam Advisory Panels: Overview 157

Table 6.1 (continued) The Nursing Exam Panel 1 No invited speakers Invited speakers [meeting invited] The Nursing Exam Panel 2 Tatsuo Nishida (advisor of the Japan-Indonesia Association) [2] Satoru Hoshi (representative of Garuda Supporters) [2) Yūko Hoshi (representative of Garuda Supporters) [2]

The Caregiving Exam Panel Tatsuo Nishida (advisor of the Japan-Indonesia Association) [2] Satoru Hoshi (representative of Garuda Supporters) [2] Orie Endō (representative of the Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language; and researcher in sociolinguistics and Japanese language education) [2] Shinji Ishibashi (president of JACCW) [2] Takashi Tsunoda (executive director of JICWELS) [3] Kiichi Inagashi (recruitment assistance division head of JICWELS) [3] Kazumasa Kumagai (executive director (incumbent vice-president) of Japanese Council of Senior Citizens Welfare Service) [3] Yoshiaki Shibayama (director of a host institution) [3] Hiroyuki Hirakawa (executive director (incumbent vice-president) of the Japan Association of Geriatric Health Services Facilities; and vice-president of Tokyo Medical Association) [3] Tomomi Yukawa (training division head of Japanese Council of Employers of Social Welfare Facilities) [3] Mitsutoshi Kobayashi (president of the Japan Association of Training Institutions for Certified Care Worker during 2007-2017) [3] Ms. Handajani (exam passer) and the directors of her host institutions [3] Ms. Palupi (exam passer) and the directors of her host institutions [3]

158 6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

6.3  The Exam Advisory Panels: Overview

159

absent, completely yielding voice to the Indonesian side, such as the Japan-Indonesia Association and Garuda Supporters. Besides, the expertise of some members was of little relevance to the panel agenda, such as economics or labour issues and these discussants attended the meeting only a few times. Nunō (2012) identified that the invited former EPA caregiver candidates at Caregiving Exam Panel were in effect exam passers who were exempted from taking the pre-employment training due to their abundant previous Japanese language learning experience. Finally, members with a background in the field of healthcare constituted the majority of voice. As we shall see later, they largely dominated the meetings and opposing ideas were often kept off the table. The panel scheduling is the third problematic feature. Table  6.1 demonstrates that the panels were generally given insufficient time to run the discussion: each meeting only lasted two to 2.5 hours; only four to six sessions of the panels were held in total, and the interval between one meeting and another was seven-to-ten days in many cases. Given the large number of discussants, it is not difficult to imagine how meandering and disorganised the meetings were, as evident in the meeting minutes. The tight scheduling inevitably limited the breadth and depth of the discussions, so that conclusions could only be reached on minor modifications. The hastily-put-together schedule trivialised important external input, too. For instance, public comments were poorly solicited. The two exam panels allowed only approximately a month to poll, resulting in 147 comments in Nursing Exam Panel 2, and 16 comments in Caregiving Exam Panel (which later increased to 25, after the deadline extension by about a week). The scheduling of Nursing Exam Panel 2 was found most undemocratic in two ways. First, it avoided the inclusion of nurse candidates in the panel and it scheduled the meetings around the time when the nursing examination was held. Nunō (2012) ascribed this exclusion to the advisory panel’s priority to meet the fiscal year-end deadline over enriching the panel itself. Second, invited speakers were required to leave the meeting right after they had finished their sharing without being given the opportunity to participate in the discussion that followed. For example, the representatives of Garuda Supporters, Hoshi Satoru and Yūko Hoshi, were invited to Nursing Exam Panel 2 but were given only 15  minutes in total, within which a question-and-answer session was even included. Since they had to leave immediately afterwards, the significance of their sharing was watered down over the course of the meeting and remained untouched, slipping from the rest of the panel meetings and the final report (see Sect. 6.3.3 and 6.4.2 for their sharing). I ascribe the three structural features partially to the MHLW’s ill-preparedness for the meetings. For example, MHLW failed to provide the necessary information, such as the language background of the non-EPA foreign nurses, the foreign nurse recruitment systems in other countries, and the logistics of the past examination(s) which test-takers in Braille and foreign test-takers attended. MHLW could have taken a proactive approach to preparing such information, because it is not difficult to anticipate that it would be sorely needed for the panel discussions. The MHLW’s reactive approach may have interrupted the rhythm of the meetings and hampered the panel members to discuss the agenda in depth. Indeed, a few discussants in

160

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

Nursing Exam Panel 2 questioned the way the meetings were organised. For example, Manabu Yamazaki, president of the Japan Psychiatric Hospitals Association, suspected that “it seemed like the final report was already completed from the beginning and we are simply following or digesting what was already written in there” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2011b, own translation). MHLW allegedly took part in manipulating the panels to deal exclusively with minor rather than major reform plans, which needed an ample and solid information base, time, and relevant experts.

6.3.2 Fair Examination for Whom? Fairness is rather a fuzzy rationale for supporting or opposing reform ideas. Indeed, the discussants proposed their own fair examination or disapproved of other kind of fair examination depending on their own yardstick of fairness and on whom they think might be treated unfairly by the current examination or by the amendment. Three approaches to exam fairness were identified in the panel discussion: (1) fairness to be achieved by rescuing EPA candidates from their linguistic disadvantage in taking the existing examinations (which I term compassionate approach); (2) fairness to be achieved by​keeping the reform at a minimum​and insisting on the same condition for all test-takers (which I term conservative approach); and (3) fairness to be achieved by e​ ncouraging​reform beneficial for both Japanese test-takers and EPA candidates (which I term universalist approach). Reform ideas surfaced in the discussion surrounding the topic of exam fairness were: the use of Furigana; the use of English equivalents; the extension of testing time; stylistic simplification of Japanese expressions; and the combined use of the translated examination and a communication skills test. The original operation of the national licensure examination was perceived to be unfair by compassionate discussants, who argued that EPA candidates do not possess the same Japanese language competence as their Japanese counterparts. The candidates’ obvious disadvantage was emphasised to argue for stylistic simplification, the use of Furigana, and the extension of testing time. In relation to the simplification, Orie Endō, a sociolinguist, delivered her sharing in Caregiving Exam Panel as a representative from the Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language. She spoke for the candidates, problematising long Kanji compounds that appear in the caregiving examination (the longest one having 13 characters in total), as follows: [6–12] The national examination contains this kind of long stretch of Kanji compound that makes up one noun phrase. I strongly urge that you give thought to the EPA candidates’  Many of the excerpts in the reminder of this chapter are statements made by panel participants. The citation information for each statements lacks the number of page and line because meeting minutes do not insert page and line number. 2

6.3  The Exam Advisory Panels: Overview

161

struggles. The candidates must understand the Kanji compounds, even though they have three to four years only to study Kanji and the Japanese language. I admit that some have mastered Kanji already but the majority was stranded. Some exchange students from non-­ Kanji countries told me that they cannot crawl out of the Kanji maze, once they get lost there. If inserting particles in between or separating words is the way to guide them out of the maze, I would like to encourage these kinds of support. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012d, own translation)

Similar to Endō, Yoshiaki Shibayama (the director of a caregiving host institution) pointed the finger at the way the exam questions were worded. The exam questions usually use the imperative such as “Choose the most/least X answer from the following” in the multiple-choice questions. The two discussants argued that there were too many variants of adjective X (e.g., eight and nine different adjectives in the caregiving examination delivered in 2011 and 2012), which confuse EPA candidates. Sympathetic remarks were also made in relation to the increased use of Furigana and the extension of testing time. After examining Kanji that accompanied Furigana according to Nursing Exam Panel 1’s suggestions, some discussants in the third meeting of Caregiving Exam Panel claimed that adding Furigana alongside all Kanji would help EPA candidates to understand the tested content well. Yoshiaki Shibayama indicated that the candidates in his facility strongly requested this change. Mitsutoshi Kobayashi, then president of the Japan Association of Training Institutions for Certified Care Worker, also suggested adding Furigana to all Kanji and even inserting illustrations. Similarly, Yoshiko Kawamura, a university professor of Japanese language education, described foreign candidates as “disadvantaged in Japanese” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012c, own translation) and strongly advocated the introduction of Furigana for all Kanji as well as the extension of testing time. In Nursing Exam Panel 2, Tatsuo Nishida (the Japan-Indonesia Association) similarly referred to EPA candidates as “handicapped by Kanji” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2011a, own translation) and requested the time extension in the second meeting. His request was immediately affirmed by Manabu Yamazaki (the Japan Psychiatric Hospitals Association) and Shigeaki Kanō (vice president of the Association of Japanese Healthcare Corporations; and director of a host hospital) who expressed compassion for EPA candidates as language learners. Unsurprisingly, the two of them are the directors of host institutions who are likely to be sympathetic about EPA candidates. In Nursing Exam Panel 2, conservatives appeared as staunch opponents against testing time extension. Reacting to Nishida’s request above, Shinobu Ogawa (JNA) made the following comment: [6–2] …it has been said that they [EPA candidates] have a Japanese language barrier and that they need the extended testing time, just like the disabled need sign language interpretation. However, EPA candidates are not disabled, because they could work properly in their own country. I found it unreasonable to treat EPA candidates on the same footing as the disabled. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2011b, own translation)

162

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

This comment incited Manabu Yamazaki (the Japan Psychiatric Hospitals Association; and director of a host hospital), who requested the extension on an empathetic footing together with Nishida. He criticised Ogawa’s point as “a straw man fallacy” that utilises a logic (i.e., the candidates and disabled people are different in their capacity of working as nurses) to argue for a totally irrelevant issue (i.e., candidates need no special treatment as if they are disabled). The following meeting orbited around a similar kind of debate over the extension of testing time. Immediately after Shigeaki Kanō (vice president of the Association of Japanese Healthcare Corporations and director of a host hospital) urged extending the testing time for EPA candidates who have difficulty reading the exam questions once again, Kenji Rinshō (a university professor in nursing education and a former question-­ setter of the nursing examination) sternly criticised Kanō’s standpoint. He spoke with the authority of an exam writer but left what he meant by “problems” unanswered. [6–3] I think Mr. Kanō is overly sentimental. From the standpoint of an exam writer, the allocation of time is extremely important. Therefore, providing longer time to a specific group of people ignores this importance and, quite honestly, it creates problems for writing the examination. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012e, own translation)

Fierce battles between the compassionists and the conservatives were also observed in Caregiving Exam Panel. In this panel, four participants (Orie Endō, Yoshiaki Shibayama, Mitsuyoshi Kobayashi and Yoshiko Kawamura) showed their sympathetic attitudes toward EPA candidates and demanded exam reform. However, their views met with strong opposition from the conservatives. For instance, in the third meeting, Tomomi Yukawa (the Japanese Council of Employers of Social Welfare Facilities) argued that Furigana is unnecessary for all Kanji, especially Kanji which can be read by ordinary Japanese people who have completed compulsory education. This point is misleading since many Kanji in the national examination were already found to be far different from the frequently tested Kanji items in JLPT (Okuda 2011a) or beyond the level of the officially designated Kanji for daily use (Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education 2011c). At least she appeared to maintain that the introduction of Furigana for all Kanji would support EPA candidates more than necessary. Yukie Hashimoto, the representative director of IJY, also questioned the usefulness of Furigana for all Kanji, drawing on some candidates’ accounts that they felt annoyed reading Kanji with Furigana. The following quote is illustrative of Hashimoto’s stance for Japanese language education in general, in which she commented on the advancement of stylistic simplification proposed by the draft final report. [6–4] … when looking at the part under the title of “simplifying the Japanese language as a whole” and specifically at the sentences that are modified for demonstration, I thought what kind of level of Japanese this [examination] will eventually become. I felt that [the reform] is leading to elementary Japanese that foreigners learn for the first time … In fact, EPA candidates have already exposed themselves to this kind of easy Japanese in the textbooks … When we created the elementary-level textbooks [for EPA candidates], we keep

6.3  The Exam Advisory Panels: Overview

163

each sentence short, just like what was suggested in the draft final report. Thus, if we make Japanese much easier as suggested in the draft, I feel that the actual sentences [in the modified examination questions] may look like these ones [in the elementary-level textbooks]. The candidates [learn] these sentences at the primary stage of their study. As their study proceeds, they advance [their level of] Japanese to deal with the national examination. If lowering the [the language of] examination to this level, I wonder what EPA candidates would study in the one-year pre-employment training and what kind of grammar they would study. I question whether such simplification is really necessary. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012h, own translation)

Hashimoto’s pedagogical approach encourages EPA candidates to achieve native-­ level proficiency, which can be indicative of the conservative perspective. The simplification of the Japanese language, such as shortening sentences, is presented as an excessive accommodation. Later in the same meeting, Hashimoto also discredited the effectiveness of the testing time extension. She referred to her small experiment that demonstrated little difference in the time spent to finish reading one past exam question between 11 Japanese individuals and 17 EPA exam passers. Hashimoto’s conservative remarks contrasted strikingly with Yoshiko Kawamura, another Japanese language educator in the same advisory panel. Kawamura was a compassionate supporter of adding Furigana for all Kanji and extending the testing time. She immediately challenged Hashimoto after she questioned the effectiveness of the time extension by stressing the need to focus more on the current candidates, not on the exam passers. Kawamura also affirmed the effectiveness of the extension for some current EPA candidates, albeit it was also her own study and unclear in its sample size and research design. Thus far, we have seen that the conservative approach came in conflict with the compassionist approach in debate especially over the use of Furigana and the extension of testing time. However, when the discussion revolved around the use of the translated examination, conservatives faced no opponents and gained more backing. For instance, Shunsuke Watanabe (a university professor in medical journalism), noted that: [6–5] In my opinion, I, too, think we should not administer the national examination in English or languages of candidates’ home country … the proper national examination for medical practitioners should be the same [for all] and administered equally. From the perspective of citizens, or as a matter of common sense in society, it is rather unfamiliar to consider the translated examination in languages of their home countries as the same [as the national examination in Japanese] and to provide special treatment with [EPA candidates]. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2011a, own translation)

What matters here is whether the translated examination is on par with the original examination. By constructing and contrasting the translated examination and the original examination as essentially different, the conservatives could argue that all nurses and caregivers, EPA candidates and Japanese test-takers alike, must be fairly evaluated under the same condition: Japanese as the medium of examination. In other words, the conservatives succeeded in removing the supplementary use of a Japanese communication skills test from the original reform plan.

164

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

The discourse of overaccommodation is rife and further upheld by the celebration of candidates’ struggles for exam preparation. Former EPA candidates appeared as the most aggressive group of conservatives who disallowed all reform plans: the use of Furigana for all Kanji, the time extension, and the combined use of the translated examination and a Japanese communication skills test. They described these reform plans as “a sweetheart deal”, “unequal in relation to other general test-­ takers”, and “meaningless if EPA candidates are to continue to work in Japan” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012f, own translation). In the following excerpt, Ms. Palupi (exam passer) took up the discourse of overaccommodation while recounting her journey to the passing of the examination: [6–6] In the first year, I was thinking that the Japanese government should lower the passing score if they wish us, Indonesian candidates, to pass. However, the more I understood Japanese and studied caregiving techniques and knowledge, the more confident I became. Now, I can be proud of myself, having taken the same questions during the same duration under the same condition as Japanese [test-takers] … even if the extended testing time enables [other EPA candidates] pass the examination, I don’t think they themselves and their surroundings will be satisfied with that. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012f, own translation)

Taking the examination in Japanese is also glorified among Japanese discussants as a precious opportunity for candidates to feel proud of themselves. In Nursing Exam Panel 2, Shinobu Ogawa (JNA) noted that “… taking the same examination is extremely meaningful. I believe that a sense of pride as professionals is created by having taken the examination on equal terms with Japanese test-takers, rather than being treated as guests and continuing to work as special persons” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012g, own translation). In Caregiving Exam Panel, Mitsuyoshi Kobayashi (the Japan Association of Training Institutions for Certified Care Worker) emphasised that the equal condition will “draw great encouragement from EPA candidates, and they can share and taste the victory together with the host institution and the government” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012f, own translation). In the following meeting, a few discussants elaborated on the beauty of candidates taking the examination under the same condition as Japanese test-takers. Tomiko Kubota (then vice-chairperson of the caregiving exam writing committee and former caregiving instructor of the EPA pre-employment training) stated that the success under the same condition “displays their status, satisfaction and pride” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012h, own translation). Yukie Hashimoto (IJY) further argued that the same condition not only brings EPA candidates a sense of achievement and self-esteem but also protects them from colleagues who might treat the candidates unfavourably if they were to qualify on unequal footing. Compared with the two approaches of fairness – compassionate and conservative – the universalist view was of little controversy. An illustrative example is the addition of English words in parallel with Japanese equivalents, which faced no criticism and was implemented smoothly. It was first proposed at Nursing Exam Panel 1 based on the argument that: (1) the introduction of English equivalents will assist EPA candidates’ reading; (2) English is frequently used in medical records on

6.3  The Exam Advisory Panels: Overview

165

the Japanese medical front; and (3) the introduction of English is meaningful in the era of globalization (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2010a). These justifications were taken up and repeated by members in the subsequent panels. In Nursing Exam Panel 2, Kenji Fujikawa (executive director of JMA) argued that adding English medical terms would benefit Japanese nurses, as doctors sometimes write clinical records in the combination of Japanese, English and/or German. In Caregiving Exam Panel, Tatsuo Nishida (the Japan-Indonesia Association) described this change as “necessary for the Japanese who are going to learn English from primary schools” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012d, own translation). Likewise, the final report of Caregiving Exam Panel concluded that “the concomitant use of English will advance internationalization of caregiving education and stimulate Japanese test-takers’ deeper understanding by the exposure to the original meaning in English” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012i, own translation). Clearly, adding English words next to Japanese words is not seen as being overly protective of EPA candidates, for it is believed to provide opportunities for Japanese test-takers to learn English. The globalisation discourse and appeal to Japanese test-takers were effective strategies to win support, even though the partial introduction of English vocabulary is highly unlikely to make any difference to English language education in Japan (Nunō 2015) and may create unequal treatment between those who are familiar with English and those who are not among EPA candidates. Appealing to Japanese test-takers was also found to be a successful strategy to enlist favourable comments and support for stylistic simplification of Japanese expressions used in the examination. For example, Shinji Ishibashi, president of JACCW, expressed his delight at the modified examination in the second meeting of Caregiving Exam Panel. The source of his delight was that the modified examination became more comprehensible for Japanese test-takers and increased their exam passing rate. In the same meeting, Orie Endō (sociolinguist, and representative of the Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language) suggested minor improvements such as shortening long subjects in sentences and dividing a long sentence into short sentences. She affirmed that these modifications “are to make exam questions easy to read not to go easy on [EPA candidates]” and that modified questions are in effect “easier for Japanese [test-takers] to read” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012d, own translation). In the fourth meeting, Yoshiaki Nemoto (then chairperson of the caregiving exam writing committee) and Kyōko Asakura (then vice-chairperson of the caregiving exam writing committee) exchanged views on the wording of multiple-choice questions. Nemoto, as one of the exam writers, expressed difficulty reducing negative wording (e.g., “Choose one option that is not correct from the following”) and using positive wording (e.g., “Choose one option that is correct from the following”) consistently in the caregiving examinations. Then, Asakura referred to the nursing examination’s reform in the past where the positive wording completely replaced the negative, and pointed out the importance of assessing test-takers’ ability of selecting the right answer to positive questions. She concluded that this change improved the quality of questions as well as the quality of exam writing among exam writers. Rather than being compassionate

166

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

about candidates, Asakura appealed to the benefit for all people involved in the examination, including exam writers. In the end, her suggestion successfully appeared in the final report based on the ground that the unified use of positive wording will improve the quality of the examination.

6.3.3 Examination as a Sacred Cow The present section investigates the ideology of the national licensure examinations as unchangeable entity, which underlies the survival of the existing examinations in Japanese. One of the earliest examples of this representation is seen in the final report of Nursing Exam Panel 1. The following excerpt rejected the proposal to replace professional/technical terms with plain terms by suggesting that it would knock down the walls of tradition and destroy the profession as a whole. [6–7] Professional/technical terms reflect academic discipline and each term has a rigorous definition. Medical and nursing terminology is steeped in the long history and accumulation of academic and systematic knowledge which underpins the definitions. Expressing the terminology with plain language may ruin the academic discipline, obfuscate understandings and cause turmoil in the healthcare site. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2010a, own translation)

One can also get a glimpse of this representation in the way the subsequent panels treated the existing tests. In the course of the panel meetings, the discussants introduced currently available tests that can be used as Japanese communication skills tests in combination with the translated examinations, or that could inform the stylistic/linguistic innovation and betterment of the national licensure examinations. For example, Garuda Supporters suggested the potential use of JLPT and other tests.3 Kenji Rinshō also took note of the Japanese Medical Care Ability Examination administered by MHLW. This examination is designed for physicians who graduated from foreign universities and assesses their Japanese listening, speaking, writing and reading in the medical care context through mock medical interviews, record keeping and comprehension (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, n.d.). As mentioned in Sect. 4.2.6, Ms. Palupi (exam passer) pointed out that the exam questions in the final examination for vocational caregiver schools were more comprehensible than those in the caregiving licensure examination. While these tests merited attention and had great potential to shape a fairer exam for foreign healthcare workers, these tests went unnoticed and slipped from the mainstream discussion, due in part to the panel’s meeting schedule (which made Garuda Supporters  Garuda Supporters introduced: Standard Speaking Test (a phone-based assessment for conversation ability in Japanese), the American Council of Teaching of Foreign Language Oral Proficiency Interview (an interview-based test to assess speaking ability), and the Care Communication Proficiency Examination (a multiple-choice paper test which assesses one’s caregiving communication ability). 3

6.3  The Exam Advisory Panels: Overview

167

leave immediately), and to the positioning of the two representatives: Kenji Rinshō was not supportive of the exam reform (see Excerpt 6–3 for example), and EPA candidates were relegated to a low profile and were precariously recognised as legitimate policy actors (see Sect. 4.2.6). No mentions about these existing tests have consolidated an ideological base where the national licensure examinations are conceived as unchanging and unchangeable. The ideology of the examinations as an unchangeable entity was also witnessed by the panel members’ tacit approval of test-takers’ exam techniques. This point was articulated in Caregiving Exam Panel, when discussions revolved around issues of positive and negative wording, as introduced above. Both positive and negative questions appeared in a random order and in widely varying forms in the caregiving examination before the examination was linguistically modified (e.g., “Choose the correct/appropriate/most appropriate/inappropriate/most incorrect option”) (Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education 2011a, 2011b). Ms. Handajani (exam passer) described them as “trick questions” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012f, own translation) which candidates need to get used to by acquiring exam techniques to reach the right answer. However, Yoshiaki Nemoto, then chairperson of the exam writing committee, maintained that the varieties were not intended to frustrate or trick test-takers, but were “unavoidable” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012f, own translation). Test-takers’ exam technique was further justified by Yukie Hashimoto, a Japanese language educator as well as the representative director of IJY.  She insisted on the need for “brain training to guess from what you understand and to ignore what you do not understand” because “it is impossible for EPA candidates to know every single item perfectly” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012f, own translation). Although it is a common technique for test-takers for all kind of tests, these two participants’ remarks signify how much the ideology of examinations as an unchangeable entity constrained their vision of the exam reform. Indeed, nobody in the panel questioned the fact that candidates needed such techniques, besides Japanese language skills, in order to read the exam questions. The above examples are only a few of many that attest the national licensure examinations is understood as absolute, enshrined, and “unshakable” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012h, own translation), as Tomiko Kubota (then vice-­ chairperson of the caregiving exam writing committee, and former caregiving instructor of the EPA pre-employment training) described. Exam reform is generally viewed as taboo, so that the EPA programme is construed as a villain trying to violate the examinations’ sanctity, even though the examinations technically change every year in their content and are subjected to changes made in the healthcare field, including new technology and medical advances. The sense of taboo was particularly intensified in the two contested reform ideas: the simplification of professional/technical terms and the combined use of the translated licensure examinations and a Japanese communication skills test. As analysed above, conservative approach to fairness, or to put it differently, the discourse of overaccommodation partially contributed to the rejection of the concomitant use of

168

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

the two tests. Yet, the present format of licensure examinations was turned into something firmly fixed and unalterable in the discussion of these two reform ideas. In order to maintain the status quo of the national licensure examinations, the exam advisory panel catastrophised the exam reforms based on the potent and overriding ideology of examinations, to which I will now turn.

6.3.4 Exam Reforms as a Threat to Japan’s Fame and Healthcare Quality The examinations as an unshakeable entity is a catchy, plausible concept for healthcare-­related policy actors who place a heavy emphasis on care service quality. Extreme proponents of this kind might even believe that any exam reform is hazardous to Japan’s high level of medical and healthcare. Japan’s standing as one of the most advanced countries in medicine and nursing care was first referenced in the third meeting of Nursing Exam Panel 2, when MHLW shared the results of public consultation. Since the comments were largely devoid of EPA candidates’ voices, a few discussants criticised MHLW for neglecting the candidates. However, Kenji Fujikawa (executive director of JMA) found it nonsensical to modify the examination in response to the test-takers’ requests and opinions. He further used the discourse of overaccommodation to add that such an overprotective attitude potentially “erodes Japan’s medical culture and identity” and that “Asia’s medical standard will fall if Japan, as the front-runner of advanced medicine and nursing care in Asia, lowers its standard” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012e, own translation). The alleged harmful effect of exam reforms on Japan’s reputation is, in effect, secondary to the risk to Japan’s care quality, because the national licensure examinations are primarily conceived as the bastion that assures medical and nursing care standards. In the fourth meeting, Shinobu Ogawa (JNA) elaborated on Fujikawa’s point and emphasised the impact of exam reforms on Japan’s care quality: [6–8] … it is nonsense that Japan’s medical system and other systems are affected by problems arising from the EPA programme … we have had opportunities to discuss with the Nursing Associations in Indonesia and the Philippines, and the ASEAN Nursing Association. They value the national licensure examination in their own countries and their own languages. They also give careful thought to the mutual recognition of nursing licensure due to the quality assurance. Reflecting on these opinions from our colleagues in the international Nursing Associations, it is rather odd that Japan provides special treatment to foreigners in this globalised world. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012g, own translation)

Ogawa’s remark draws a picture in which Japan is being forced by the EPA programme to demolish its well-established medical and certification system. By referring to their partner associations in the Philippines, Indonesia and ASEAN, and their dealing with the licensure examinations and languages, Ogawa succeeded in warning that Japan might deviate from other countries if it translates the national

6.3  The Exam Advisory Panels: Overview

169

examination into languages other than Japanese (see Sect. 6.4.1 for a similar technique). Another technique to craft a reasonable correlation between exam reforms and degradation of care quality is the circulation of the following scenario: the exam reforms cause miscommunication among practitioners and with patients, leading to medical accidents, collapse of the healthcare certification system, and adverse effect on Japan’s world-renowned position. This imaginary firstly appeared in the final report of Nursing Exam Panel 1 with regard to the simplification of ­professional/ technical terms. It argued that “replacing the technical terminology with plain language may ruin the academic discipline, obfuscate understandings and cause turmoil in the healthcare site” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2010a, own translation). In Nursing Exam Panel 2, the simplification was also called into question, albeit it was not on the original agenda. In the second meeting, Tatsuo Nishida (the Japan-Indonesia Association) compassionately argued for readjusting the difficult professional/technical terms to “normal Japanese” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2011b, own translation) on the basis that EPA candidates from non-­ Kanji countries have a disadvantage. He even handed in a list of terms which he found difficult or incomprehensible. Later in the same meeting, Shinobu Ogawa (JNA) overturned Nishida’s pleading as follows: [6–9] Thus far, it has been said that there are difficult professional/technical terms. I had a quick look at [the list made by Nishida] but the [listed] words were not difficult for us and I think these were the words that medical practitioners can normally understand. If we make only the national nursing examination easier, [nurses] will not be able to use professional/ technical terms that are common language among medical practitioners. Therefore, communication among Japanese medical practitioners will be inhibited. We should not discuss the national nursing examination in a vacuum. We must consider professional/technical terms as a collective issue for all medical practitioners. If the situation calls for it, the use of a communication skills test [along with the translated examinations] should be discussed as such. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2011b, own translation)

As phrased by Ogawa, JNA was consistent in accentuating two negative consequences that the revision might bring: negative influences on the whole healthcare sector beyond the nursing field; and damage to workplace communication among healthcare workers. In the third meeting of Nursing Exam Panel 2, Ogawa and Shunsuke Watanabe (a university professor in medical journalism) stated that the exam reform may create negative ripple effects on other healthcare licensure examinations and Japan’s medical system as a whole, because the nursing examination coexists with other exams within Japan’s healthcare system. They perceived the exam reform as potentially undermining the stable examination system, rather than an opportunity to invent a renewed and better-suited examination system for all test-­ takers. Their warning was vague enough to paint multiple alarming pictures of Japan’s healthcare system in future. As alluded in Ogawa’s aforementioned remarks, JNA also assumed the causal relationship between the simplification of professional/technical terms and the miscommunication and resultant medical accidents. A month before Nursing Exam

170

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

Panel 1 published the final report, JNA (2010, own translation) released the opinion brief headlined with the following: “Understanding Japanese language and Kanji is a minimum necessary requirement for medical safety”, and “Nursing terminology is common language among medical practitioners”. These two points were reiterated in Ogawa’s interview article (Ogawa 2010), his opinion piece (Ogawa 2011), and his other remark in Nursing Exam Panel 2, in which he utilised a rhetoric of attaching victimhood to EPA candidates and guardianship to JNA.  Ogawa stated that keeping hands off professional/technical terms “protects candidates from becoming the assailants of medical accidents resulting from their lack of understanding of professional/technical terminology” (Ogawa 2010, 2011, own translation). In Nursing Exam Panel 2, Ogawa again utilised this discursive technique, while affectionately addressing Filipino and Indonesian candidates as “friends” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2011a, own translation) who belong to the circle of the international nursing community. The slogan: “We are protecting our friends” is effective in creating the compassionate image of JNA, although at the same time advocating for the conservative exam reforms to protect their own interest in the name of protecting Japan’s care standards. The combined use of the translated examination and a communication skills test was viewed as an ominous change that poses the greatest hazard to Japan’ healthcare front. In Nursing Exam Panel 2, the idea that the quality of the concomitant use of two examinations is lower than that of the original examination gained popularity, and eventually led the panel to turn down the reform idea. The following kind of comment represents the mainstream opinions that ran though the panel discussions. [6–10] All citizens normally understand that the level of the national examination should be properly kept to maintain quality and dignity, and secure the safety and lives of citizens. This is a matter of people’s lives; thus, we must understand that this is not the issue [to be solved] in response to foreign countries’ request to lower the standard [of the examination]. (Kenji Fujikawa [JMA], Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012e, own translation)

The Caregiving Exam Panel had had less intense discussions in this regard, because it took a different meeting trajectory due to the structural differences (see Sect. 6.3.1). However, remarks by invited speakers, such as Shinji Ishibashi (JACCW), resonated with the above excerpt. He noted that “the excessive consideration [for EPA candidates] may place the caregiving examination at risk for failing to secure the quality of certified caregivers” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012d, own translation). The final report, too, argued that the proposed amendment (i.e., the use of two tests) is “detrimental to caregiving service quality, workplace cooperation with other caregivers, and candidates’ learning in general” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012i, pp. 10–11, own translation). The two panels draw the same conclusion from the same rationale: the combined use of the two tests is harmful.

6.4  Dismissing the Progressive Reform Idea

171

6.4 Dismissing the Progressive Reform Idea In this section, I delineate the process by which the two tests - a translated national licensure examination and a communication skills test - were bombarded by criticism and scepticism, and the reform plan was eventually turned down, despite counterevidence that the revised assessment could better evaluate EPA candidates’ professional knowledge and communication skills in Japanese. The focus from here turns exclusively to the two panels: Nursing Exam Panel 2 and Caregiving Exam Panel, as their agendas included the possibility of using the two tests in place of the existing national licensure examinations.

6.4.1 (Not) Translating National Licensure Examinations The feasibility of translating the national licensure examinations was an important point at issue because it could easily support or reject the idea of translating the examination. However, translatability was not thoroughly examined in the absence of translation specialists in the advisory panels although a few discussants made comments about it. In the second meeting of Nursing Exam Panel 2, Tatsuo Nishida (the Japan-Indonesia Association), who identified himself as “having studied Indonesian a little”, articulated the impossibility of providing Indonesian translation, due to difficult Japanese words in the examination for which “the Indonesian language does not have the same equivalents” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2011b, own translation). His opinion was not compelling, because Nishida also confessed that his opinion was based on second-hand information from language teachers, instead of specialists who are familiar with nursing terms in Indonesian as well as in Japanese. As opposed to Nishida, Mika Okushima (professor in Southeast Asian studies) and Garuda Supporters were, to different extents, positive about the feasibility of translation. Okushima, although not an expert in translation, was nominated to answer questions regarding translatability, for example, whether contents in gerontological nursing and home care nursing can be translated into Indonesian. She replied rather helplessly, “What can I say? I’m not a language specialist. But, those concepts that do not exist [in Indonesian society] can be translated; however, the translation does little to the understanding [of the concepts]. After all, [we] need to educate [candidates]” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012d, own translation). In support of the translation, Garuda Supporters argued that nursing education is rather standardised across the countries, and therefore professional/technical terms and concepts used in nursing education in Japan are, at least to some extent, compatible with those used in the Philippines and Indonesia. The third meeting of Nursing Exam Panel 2 marked the critical juncture where the panel almost unanimously agreed not to translate the examination. In this meeting, MHLW provided information about the certification scheme for foreign-born

172

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

nurses in seven arbitrarily chosen countries (the United States, Canada, Germany, South Korea, China, England, and Sweden), which was requested by a few discussants in the previous meeting. Their sharing can be summarised as follows: (1) most countries (the United States, Canada, South Korea, and China) operate a system of a licensure examination that requires foreign-born nurses to take the national examination; (2) no countries in the list administer the examination in language(s) other than that of the said countries; and (3) some countries (Germany, England, and Sweden) do not have a system of licensure examination but still set language requirements for foreign-born nurses. The highly selective information became powerful ammunition for some discussants to suggest sustaining the current examination system on the basis of a “global standard” (Kenji Fujikawa [JMA], Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012e, own translation). However, the selection of countries is questionable, as MHLW provided no rationale for the inclusion of the seven countries and exclusion of other countries such as Australia and New Zealand where an English proficiency test designed for healthcare professionals is well- administered and utilised as part of the assessment for foreign-born applicants.4 More curiously, nobody delved into Germany,5 Sweden6 and the UK,7 where foreign nurses’ language ability and

 Occupational English Test is a well-established and widely used English language test designed for 12 healthcare professions. It receives constant and continuous research and validation from Cambridge English Language Assessment and Box Hill Institute. It assesses test-takers’ level of reading, writing, listening and speaking in the specific healthcare context (Occupational English Test, n.d.). 5  In Germany, foreign nurses must have a minimum of a B1 or B2 level German certificate (Make it in Germany 2022). B1 (lower intermediate) and B2 (upper intermediate) are levels of language ability according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, which indicates one’s language proficiency in a six-tiered system in the four areas: listening, reading, speaking, and writing. As German language certificates are issued by seven authorized exam providers, applicants have to choose one of the providers and take a relevant test in order to acquire the certificate. One’s professional qualification such as nurse licence is assessed separately as to whether it is equivalent to the German one. If the applicants are not recognized as equally qualified for the nurse profession, they have to take a knowledge test to compensate for the difference between a foreign qualification and the German one. Alternatively, one can choose to work in hospitals while being supervised by a registered nurse for a maximum of three years during which applicants are expected to go through additional on-the-job training and to prove an equivalent level of knowledge (Recognition in Germany, n.d.). 6  In Sweden, professional qualifications and the language ability of foreign nurses who were educated outside of EU and EEU (Eurasia Economic Union) are separately assessed. The first assessment that foreign nurses face is qualification assessment to see if their nurse licence is equivalent to the Swedish one, in terms of education level, programme duration and content. The next step is to prove one’s language proficiency in Swedish (or equivalent proficiency in Norwegian or Danish). Applicants can submit a C1 level Swedish certificate (according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) or complete a Swedish as a second language course or an upper secondary adult education in Swedish (Socialstyrelsen, n.d.). 7  In the UK, all applicants must (1) obtain IELTS score of 7.0, (2) have completed a pre-registration programme for nursing professionals in which participants are required to use English, or (3) have practised in an English-speaking country for a year (Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2020). 4

6.4  Dismissing the Progressive Reform Idea

173

professional ability are assessed separately, which could have informed and supported the proposed reform idea in a meaningful manner. The reference to the exclusive global standard rendered the reform idea irrelevant to Japan as well as gave an edge to those who concern Japan’s standing in the stage of international health care. The information provided by MHLW and the subsequent argument were so powerful and compelling that no follow-up remark was made regarding the translation in the rest of the meeting. The final report therefore took note of the global standard, in addition to the following grand statement about the untranslatability of the examination: [6–11] It is possible to literally translate the national nursing examination in the languages of candidates’ home countries, such as Indonesian and Filipino. However, difficulty is expected in terms of expressing the meaning fully because there is not always the vocabulary that accurately corresponds [to Japanese vocabulary] as a result of the differences in culture and the conditions underlying the medical discipline in Japan and in those countries. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012b, p. 7, own translation)

The above paragraph overstated the translation difficulty, which had been claimed only by Tatsuo Nishida (the Japan-Indonesia Association), as introduced earlier. Again, no translation specialists examined the issue of translatability in this context. Moreover, neither the final report nor the discussants in the panel meetings noted that the past examinations had been translated into English,8 Indonesian and Vietnamese for educational purposes (see Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services 2015e, p.31 for example), which could have been evidence countering the fiction of the untranslatability. In Caregiving Exam Panel, only a few discussants made reference to the translation so that the final decision was more or less set by Nursing Exam Panel 2. For instance, Nishida asserted that “discussions should focus more on how one can make the Japanese version easier” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012d, own translation) rather than translation of examinations. Yoshiko Kawamura (professor in Japanese language education) posed a similar question brought up in Nursing Exam Panel such as the translatability of culture-specific words (e.g., miso shiru [miso soup]). However, her question remained unanswered, because other agendas took over the floor. Also, the translation of the examination was, by that time, already considered unfeasible. The final report of Caregiving Exam Panel stated: [6–12] Considering that the concept of caregiving differs depending on each country, it is difficult to accurately translate [the Japanese-language licensure examination] into English or Indonesian, while brushing up the exam questions, simplifying the Japanese questions, and

 Another attempt at making an English version of the national examination was made with the cooperation between the Association for Overseas Technical Scholarship (the previous training provider of the JP-EPA programme) and Kyushu University. The university’s research team translated the 98th national nursing examination into English and had it reviewed by native English speakers who were familiar with medical English. This translated examination was used as a mock exam, which was taken free of charge by EPA nurse candidates on December 26, 2009 at four locations throughout Japan (Kawaguchi et al., 2010). 8

174

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process securing the exam quality within a limited time. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012i, p. 11, own translation)

Just like the final report of Nursing Exam Panel 2, the above statement is devoid of any evidentiary basis. The hollow argument gives rise to a cloud of suspicion that the final decision not to translate the examination was already predetermined; translation experts were therefore excluded from the panel; the untranslatability of exams would have to be asserted, no matter how groundless the evidence.

6.4.2 Discrediting the Use of a Communication Skills Test: Two Discursive Moves After establishing the notion of the untranslatability of examinations, the next step for the conservative reform was to discredit the use of a Japanese communication skills test. However, advocating the superfluity of such a test was a difficult task for most of the panel discussants, because good communication skills are uncontroversial qualities required of healthcare workers, both EPA candidates and their Japanese counterparts alike. Indeed, the importance of communication skills was well-­ acknowledged, especially in early meetings of Nursing Exam Panel 2, and many discussants suggested that communications should be assessed together with professional knowledge and skills. For example, Kenji Rinshō (a former exam writer of the nursing examination) noted: [6–13] Many people think that communication ability means the ability of having conversations but in principle it includes reading, writing and speaking. The reason why reading is important is that doctors are generally required to provide instruction in written form, as it is forbidden [by law] to do so verbally in principle. Therefore, failing to read properly and understand accurately will cause problems … reading and writing ability is absolutely essential and the major premise of keeping [medical] records accurately and understanding the objectives of the record keeping. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2011a, own translation)

Thus, the panel members more or less agreed on assessing EPA candidates’ communication skills in the form of a test. Communication ability was also understood to be comprised of reading (e.g., reading doctors’ written instructions), writing (e.g., keeping medical records), speaking (e.g., confirming doctors’ instructions and patients’ wishes), and perhaps even including listening though it was not emphasised. Yet the panel attacked the use of a communication skills test, primarily by redefining the meaning of communication ability to suit their desired end – the maintenance of the existing operation of the examinations in the Japanese language. Two discursive moves in Nursing Exam Panel 2 conditioned distortion of the meaning of communication ability: (1) ignoring and undermining the potential of communication skills tests and (2) drawing a boundary between professional communication and general communication. The next two subsections will provide a detailed account of the two moves.

6.4  Dismissing the Progressive Reform Idea

175

Ignoring and Undermining the Potential of Communication Skills Tests The second meeting of Nursing Exam Panel 2 hosted the first discursive move in which Garuda Supporters shared a concrete plan to utilise the translated national examination along with a variety of existing examinations. They rightly pointed out the fact that the current national nursing examination alone is incapable of assessing one’s communication skills because “it only assesses reading ability … and requires [EPA candidates] to read and understand all exam questions within the same time limit as other test-takers whose first language is Japanese” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2011c, p.  7, own translation). They further added that EPA candidates are likely to “cause problems after passing the examination” because the candidates can only acquire the “test language” (Shohamy, 2001, p. 110, see also Shima, 2014 for the application of this concept in the EPA context) which only accompanies the ability to understand the meaning of Kanji at the expense of the ability to pronounce it. Representatives of Garuda Supporters argued that their suggested plan could better gauge the candidates’ Japanese communication skills and professional knowledge and skills than the original operation. Garuda Supporters’ presentation challenged the taken-for-granted assumption that all test-takers already have communication ability in the Japanese language. However, the plan put forward by Garuda Supporters did not have a significant impact on the rest of the discussion. Blunted by the ill-scheduled meeting, their input was pushed to the margins, as the discussion moved forward in a different direction and other topics caught more attention in the end, such as the EPA candidates’ academic background. In the following meeting, Garuda Supporters’ point was about to be revived but was again side-tracked by other topics. The meeting took off with MHLW sharing the public comments that they had solicited. The results revealed that more than 60% of respondents (mostly self-identified as patients or their families) supported the combined use of a Japanese communication skills test with the translated examination either in English or the languages of candidates’ home countries; and more than half believed that the combined use of the two tests can appropriately assess one’s nursing skills and Japanese communication skills. While the result was generally supportive for the proposed modification, this external input was dismissed, because the invalidation of the dataset overwhelmed the discussion, due to its rather small number of comments collected (147 comments in total) and underrepresentation of the EPA candidates’ voice. Not only in the rest of meeting that followed but also in the final report of Nursing Exam Panel 2, Garuda Supporters’ plan as well as supportive public comments were left out. The first discursive move, that is, discourse to ignore and undermine the potential of communication skills tests, continued to appear in the third meeting. At the beginning of the meeting, MHLW summarised the discussion thus far and raised the following questions to advance the discussion: Can adequate translations be achieved? How can we make sense of the fact that no country administers the national nursing examination in a language other than their own? Would there be only limited selection of tests available for a suitable communication skills test? As

176

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

shown above, the first question concerns translatability, the second international reference, and the third communication skills tests  - all of which had already received fairly negative responses/reactions in the previous meetings. This suggests that the idea of rejecting the combined use of the two tests may have had already been concluded by the time of the second meeting. A short while after MHLW read out the skeleton plan for the final report, Noriko Totsuka, a university professor in nursing, questioned the feasibility of having two nurse certification channels. She stated: [6–14] … I understand EPA candidates try very hard and I do hope that they manage to pass the national examinations. However, I also think if the new channel of the national nursing examination certifies [EPA candidates] more easily, it means that the standard is lowered. I strongly question whether this is acceptable for citizens as well as other nursing and medical practitioners. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012e, own translation)

Tostuka’s remark emphasised the difference between the two systems while undermining the mission of assessing EPA candidates properly. Totsuka’s scenario assumed that any increase in the number of exam passers would be due not to a more appropriate test but to lowering the standard of the examinations. Totsuka missed what was proposed by Garuda Supporters in the second meeting about the misalignment between the different kinds of abilities that the current examination gauges and those that EPA candidates are required to have as healthcare professionals. Totsuka’s point was challenged by Nobuko Sanui (then director of JBF), who argued, as did Garuda Supporters, for “creating a testing scheme equivalent to the [original] national examination by changing the language and teaming up with a Japanese language ability test” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012e, own translation). However, Sanui’s suggestion was not taken up by anybody till the end of this meeting. Yōko Nakayama’s conclusion (chairperson, professor in nursing) at the end of this meeting supported Totsuka’s point, showing no acknowledgment of Sanui’s comment: [6–15] … thus far, we have discussed and agreed that the role of the national nursing examination is to ensure a certain standard, the proper standard, and to [assess] whether [test-takers] can perform the duties and responsibilities as nurses … therefore, our contention is that EPA candidates should take the national nursing examination in the Japanese language in order to maintain a certain quality [as certified nurses]. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012e, own translation)

Nakayama’s concluding remark represents the core idea of the first discursive move, which completely ignores the potential of using two tests but rather takes a firm stand on the continuation of the current exam operation. Her statement also expressed the overall tone of the advisory panel, as it did not confront any opposing statements but attracted enthusiastic support of the panel’s decisions. For instance, Shunsuke Watanabe (a university professor in medical journalism) reiterated that the panel unanimously suggested “the protection of the current examination in the Japanese language” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012e, own

6.4  Dismissing the Progressive Reform Idea

177

translation) and asked Nakayama and MHLW to deliver this point clearly in the final report.  rawing a Boundary Between Professional Communication D and General Communication The final meeting of Nursing Exam Panel 2 housed the second discursive move at which the new meaning was attached to communication ability in a far-fetched manner in order to take the stay-the-course approach. The meeting began with MHLW’s reading of the draft final report. This draft is worth investigating, firstly because of the use of convoluted language in the draft (e.g., the second paragraph in Excerpt 6–16 was actually one long, clunky sentence with embedded clauses in Japanese). Although the complexity is lost in translation, the lack of transparency and accessibility of the writing reveals MHLW’s hand-wringing over the fate of this particular panel while it also provides the discussants with much more room for interpretation (just as suggested by Ball [1993, 2006]) to ensure their desired ends. The draft included clauses that elucidate nurses’ necessary communication ability and affirmed the close connection between the nursing examination and communication ability as follows: [6–16] Nurses are required to gain information about patients’ mental and physical condition, promptly make decisions about necessary assistance for patients, accurately understand and implement doctors’ medical instructions, and appropriately read and create medical records. While communication through language is essential to accomplish these tasks, such ability can only be tested in the examination that assesses nursing professional knowledge and skills. Thus, many panel discussants supported that the operation of the national examination in the Japanese language is necessary. As medical professionals responsible for providing nursing services to patients, it is imperative to accurately communicate, such as exchanging professional information in the language of the said country, not merely communicating general information. Therefore, the use of a general communication skills test in conjunction [with the translated licensure examination] is insufficient to measure the actual communication skills that should be prepared [for the job/professional workplace], because the general communication skills test does not cover the professional knowledge. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012j, p. 5, own translation, emphasis added)

The second sentence in the first paragraph above shows an unforeseen twist in that communication ability is defined as something measurable only by the current form of the examination. This view is not surprising partly because MHLW had to write this draft according to the third meeting in which the rejection of the combined use was already carved in stone and no discussions were made on the relationship between nurses’ necessary communication skills and the kinds of skills that the national licensure examination assesses.

178

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

While the draft report explicitly demonstrated how effective the panel discussions had been in suppressing the reform ideas, it provoked some questions. For example, Nobuko Sanui (JBF) noted that the inconsistent and interchangeable use of the words “communication” and “communication ability” across the draft confuses readers. Her remark invited not only the discussion of the two terms in the final meeting but also MHLW’s confession that they primarily meant to use one of the existing general Japanese language ability tests (e.g., JLPT) to complement the translated examination and that they pushed aside the idea of inventing a brand-new communication skills test specifically designed for foreign nurses. In the trajectory of the panel meetings, this was the very first time when MHLW made such an assumption explicit. This confession not only attests that the scope of the reform idea was deliberately narrowed down by MHLW’s assumption, but also indicates how much the meetings were disrupted and the discussion was side-tracked. The previous meetings had taken place without clarification of what was meant by the communication skills test. The insufficient discussion on the communication skills test was substantiated in the draft as follows: [6–17] At present, there are Japanese language ability tests administered by public organisations such as JLPT … However, the panel fell short of carrying out more in-depth discussion on whether these tests are the appropriate “communication skills test” that will precondition the nurse qualification. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012j, p. 6, own translation, emphasis added)

This paragraph squarely admits that the panel did not fulfil its responsibility of addressing the core of the meeting agenda. Interestingly, no discussants took issue with this paragraph in the final meeting, allowing it to appear in the finalized report with little modification. Thus, the report not only presents an unprofessional impression of the advisory panel but also signifies that the discussants and MHLW did not even realize that the panel meetings were wanting in decent discussion on communication and assessment necessary for healthcare profession. Another problem centred on an italicised sentence in the second paragraph of Excerpt 6–16: “the use of a general communication skills test in conjunction [with the translated licensure examination] is insufficient to measure the actual communication skills that should be prepared [for the job/professional workplace]”. Nobuko Sanui (then director of JBF) again opened up the debate, questioning whether the current nursing examination properly assesses reading, writing, speaking and listening. She argued that the current operation takes the test-takers’ fours skills for granted. Her argument was immediately taken up by Kenji Fujikawa (executive director of JMA) who threw a red herring into the debate, criticising the writing quality of the draft report and the writing performance of Japanese youths in general. However, Sanui’s point survived, though somewhat differently, when Masami Kumagai (deputy director and head nurse of a host hospital; and the executive director of JNA since 2017) clarified two different kinds of communication skills necessary for nurses: professional ability with which nurses can use to understand and

6.4  Dismissing the Progressive Reform Idea

179

judge patients’ situation and medical condition; and daily Japanese language ability for communicating with Japanese people. This distinction made between different kinds of communication skills symbolised the second discursive move. Professional communication ability was ungainly separated from daily communication ability and crafted as something unique, special, professional, and different from daily communication. Yōko Nakayama (chairperson, professor in nursing) maintained that the national nursing examination only assesses the professional communication ability. This ability has become the core matter for the panel, and daily communication ability was deliberately dismissed from consideration and, importantly, the component of professional communication ability was never seriously discussed. In the aftermath, the remainder of the final meeting was geared toward polishing the draft and eliminating all vestiges of the daily communication ability. The textual engineering for naturalising/normalising the distinction between two communication abilities was spearheaded by Masami Kumagai. She problematised the wording in the draft, which, to her, “almost sounded like the national licensure examination in the Japanese language can evaluate one’s communication ability in the Japanese language” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012g, own translation). Noriko Totsuka (professor in nursing) offered a trick to resolve this conundrum. She stated: [6–18] The national nursing examination mainly consists of questions in which test-takers read cases, make judgement and answer with their nursing professional knowledge. This characteristic makes it meaningful for the exam to be administered in the Japanese language in terms of communication, such as listening and speaking, even though [the national examination is] a paper test. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012, own translation)

Tostuka created a far-fetched link between the component of professional skills (reading and evaluating specific medical situations) and that of communication skills (listening and speaking). This link was bridged by the medium of examination: the Japanese language. Based on this shaky ground, Tostuka went on to suggest avoiding the phrase “communication ability” to refer to professional ability to be tested in the examination and stating clearly what the professional ability means in this specific context. Totsuka’s point was favourably taken by Yōko Nakayama (chairperson, professor in nursing), who agreed that the national examination tests one’s ability of reading and assessing medical cases and situations, not one’s general communication skills in Japanese. Following Nakayama, Masami Kumagai (deputy director and head nurse of a host hospital, and executive director of JNA since 2017) reinforced the dichotomy, arguing that the term “professional ability” matches with the two-part structure of the national nursing examination, one assessing test-takers’ knowledge and the other assessing test-takers’ ability to deal with specific cases or situations. Kumagai’s remark ended the intense discussion over communication ability and truncated the panel discussion on the topic, as the subsequent discussions were again directed to other reform ideas such as the extension of testing time. The final report refined the paragraphs shown in Excerpt 6–16 (the

180

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

draft report) as follows. While the first paragraph is little modified, the second paragraph introduces a new sentence at the end, which generally reflects the boundary made between professional and general communication ability (see also Excerpt 6–21 for the resemblance between the final report of Nursing Exam Panel 2 and that of Caregiving Exam Panel). [6–19] Nurses are required to gain information about patients’ mental and physical condition, promptly interpret the situations, accurately understand and implement doctors’ medical instructions, and appropriately read and create medical records written in Japanese. While communication through language is essential to accomplish these tasks, such ability can only be tested in the examination that assesses nursing professional knowledge and skills. Thus, many panel discussants supported that the operation of the national examination in the Japanese language is necessary. As medical professionals responsible for providing nursing services to patients, it is imperative to accurately communicate, such as exchanging professional information in the language of the said country. Therefore, the use of a general communication skills test in conjunction [with the translated licensure examination] is insufficient to measure the actual communication skills that should be prepared [for the job/professional workplace], because the general communication skills test does not cover the professional knowledge. The necessary communication ability for nurses can be confirmed by the national licensure examination in the Japanese language which requires test-takers to make necessary decision and professionally interpret meaning of specific nursing cases and situation that involve communication. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012b, p. 6, own translation, underlined to highlight the change from the draft report [see Excerpt 6–16]).

The last push to be made was to distance daily communication ability as far as possible from professional ability, which the national examination only deals with. Once it is decided that the examination will not have any bearing on daily communication ability, it is easy to claim that relevant issues should be fixed outside of the exam reform. In fact, the later part of the final meeting as well as the final report of Nursing Exam Panel 2 touched upon issues other than what was on the original agenda (i.e., to discuss the possibility of using the translated licensure examinations in conjunction with a Japanese communication skills test). They include, for example, the alternative use of the assistant nurse examination, the enhancement of learning support for EPA candidates, and the introduction of pre-entry linguistic screening. The final report of Nursing Exam Panel 2 was, under critical analysis, incoherent and unfinished. However, it provided a solid foundation for Caregiving Exam Panel to follow the similar path. In its first meeting, MHLW gave a brief summary of Nursing Exam Panel 2 that rejected the combined use of the translated examinations with a communication skills test because of the concerns for “medical safety as well as the role of the national licensure examination and certified nurses” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012c, own translation). In Caregiving Exam Panel, the opinions like the following unfolded just as in Nursing Exam Panel 2:

6.5  We Don’t Accommodate you

181

[6–20] Communication ability necessary for certified caregivers can only be tested by the national caregiving examination in the Japanese language, which requires test-takers to make necessary decisions and professionally interpret the meanings of specific caregiving cases and situations that involve communication. Therefore, the aptitude of certified caregivers is likely to be assessed inappropriately if administering a communication skills test and a professional knowledge test separately. (Shinji Ishibashi (JACCW), Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012d, own translation)

Unsurprisingly, the excerpt above was a remarkable resemblance with the final reports of the two panels, as observed in the next two excerpts. Excerpt 6–21 is taken from the final report of Nursing Exam Panel 2, while Except 6–22 comes from that of Caregiving Exam Panel. [6–21] The necessary communication skills for nurses can be confirmed by the national licensure examination in the Japanese language which requires test-takers to make necessary decisions and professionally interpret meaning of specific nursing cases and situations that involve communication. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012b, p.  6, own translation) [6–22] The necessary communication skills for certified caregivers should be confirmed by the national licensure examination in the Japanese language which requires test-takers to make necessary decisions and professionally interpret meaning of specific caregiving cases and situations that involve communication situations, while taking into account the service users’ conditions. (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012i, p. 10, own translation)

To sum up, the two discursive moves discussed above contributed to the manipulation of the meeting agenda, particularly trivialising the use of a communication skills test. The first discursive move was to avert attention from other possible forms of communication skills tests, as exemplified by the panel ignoring external input made by Garuda Supporters and in the public comments. The alternative form of examination was rejected because the goal of the exam reform was shifted from making a educationally/professionally just assessment of EPA candidates to maintaining the hierarchy between Japanese test-takers and the candidates, rationalised by the fear of decline in care service and examination quality. The boundary making between professional ability and daily communication ability represents the second discursive point. Although vaguely and loosely defined, the former was treated as if it includes the ability to converse with medical practitioners and patients and keep patient records in the Japanese language, and thus it was worth being tested in the examinations. In defence of the status quo, this definition moved daily Japanese communication skills off the radar of the professional certificate system.

6.5 We Don’t Accommodate you When supporting or opposing the exam reform(s), policy actors had to attend to a suitable set of rationales to back their arguments and make them appear logical, plausible and agreeable. Over the course of decision-making in the exam advisory

182

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

panels, two major rationales were predominant: fair examination and unshakeable examination. The former became the basis for supporting or rejecting relatively minor reform ideas, while the latter was used to discourage the simplification of professional/technical terms and the combined use of the translated examination and a communication skills test. It is intriguing that these two rationales overtook others, such as political considerations. Since the dwindling number of exam passers threatens the international relationships and the continuation of the EPA programme per se, political considerations could have been a handy and robust point of reference to push exam reforms. Nevertheless, Yoshiaki Nemoto (then chairperson of the caregiving exam writing committee) was the only discussant who explicitly treated the exam reform (referring only to the testing time extension here) as “a political consideration” and “political service” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012h, own translation). The connotation of his statement was negative because he considered the extension to be a temporary bailout measure, until EPA candidates could take the examination at a similar speed as the Japanese counterparts. Similar negativity was expressed by Kenji Fujikawa (executive director of JMA). In his view, enough political gestures had already been made to improve the candidates’ Japanese performance and therefore any compromise with the national licensure examination should not be accepted. Therefore, he urged the EPA candidates to “thank Japanese people’s tender-heartedness in offering Japanese language training at Japan’s expense” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2011b, own translation) and appreciate “the benevolence of Japanese people” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2012h, own translation) who kindly initiated the exam reform. On a similar note, excessive political service for EPA partner countries was constructed as a potential cause of disorder in Japan’s healthcare licensure system. Regarding translated examinations, Kenji Fujikawa (JMA) and Shunsuke Watanabe (a university professor in medical journalism) in Nursing Exam Panel 2 depicted a dramatic scenario in which the use of a translated examination triggers a domino effect, the number of languages for translation growing every time Japan creates a new EPA programme with a new country. Again, these remarks closely resembled the construction of exam reform as a potential threat to Japan’s healthcare field (see Sect. 6.3.4). While political gestures were the official rationale to extend the length of candidature (Cabinet Office 2013), they were not used to support the exam reforms. If it is confirmed that the exam advisory panels were pinned down by the mission to maintain the status quo of the original examination regime (see Nunō 2012 for a similar conclusion), the planning process makes sense  - why the debates were shaped in a particular way, why the panels’ breach of responsibility of discussing the meeting agendas fully was allowable, and why some changes and modifications easily won consent and others were left unchanged. The overarching mission reveals why anti-reformers won the game against pro-reformers in appealing to a fair examination, and why exam reform was associated with reduced care quality and weakening of the examination, rather than amelioration, sophistication or innovation. The overall structure of the advisory panels could have been determined by the

6.6  The Examination Reforms Thereafter

183

pre-defined mission, enabling the healthcare sector to dominate the floor and to confidently claim untranslatability of the exams and the ill-defined meaning of communication skills while restricting other discussants and external input that supported the evidence-based amendment. To conclude, the underlying message of the exam panels was that it was EPA candidates, not the examinations, that need to be fixed. In consonance with Sect. 5.5.3, candidates were driven into a corner where they had no choice but to stay in a desperate plight, striving harder to prepare for the examinations, no matter how ill-designed it is for them (see Takeuchi 2018 for a similar argument on how Japanese language educators/researchers tend to paint communication problems as purely individual [candidates’] matter).

6.6 The Examination Reforms Thereafter Although only a few researchers have investigated the process in which the panel discussions unfolded, the reform measures taken by MHLW based on the panels’ recommendations have been under some critical scrutiny. WNCJE (2011a) demonstrated that the suggested reform ideas were poorly implemented and criticised that some question-and-answer formats are still too complicated. Similarly, Endo and Saegusa (2013) and Katoh (2017) continued to identify in the revised examinations such language issues as confusing sentence structure, ambiguity with subjects, predicates and objects, less consistency in punctuation and Furigana, frequent use of technical terms, and Kanji compounds and difficult words that are considered beyond the average achievement level of EPA candidates. The scope of modification has also been criticised. For example, Okuda (2011b) warned that simple replacement of technical terms with plain language might cause misreading and misunderstanding, as he found that medical terminology occupied only 20% of all words used in the past nursing examinations. Ariji et al. (2014) also pointed out that general expressions which were out of the range of the exam reforms act as a major bottleneck. Other researchers problematise the exam reforms from a different perspective. For instance, Kawaguchi et al. (2012) suggested that the cultural and professional gap between Japan and Southeast Asian countries can explain why candidates do not give right answers to certain exam questions. From their input, the difference between what candidates have already acquired in their homeland through their prior nursing/caregiving experience and education (including content and curriculum design) and what they are expected to learn and perform through in-facility training in Japan can partially explain the still unsatisfactory achievement rate of EPA candidates. Similar claims are made by researchers who pinpointed that the national licensure examinations test a different set of knowledge of nursing practices and social welfare system while requiring understanding of commonly accepted or even taken-for-granted lifestyle and family structure in Japan (Ariji et al. 2014; Katoh 2017; Minoda et al. 2020; Sumiya et al. 2018). More specifically, Iwata and Kohara (2011) revealed that (1) 14% of the nursing examination

184

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

questions focus on Japan-specific issues such as social welfare and the medical system, and (2) 86% of the questions, which are designed to cover universal nursing science but still require understanding of Japan-specific background knowledge. With regard to caregiving, Idei (2009) argued that part of the tested content about the social welfare system in Japan is irrelevant to or beyond what candidates need to know in their work. Taken together, candidates’ lower achievement in the examinations could result from their poor understanding of the tested content as well as the lack of congruence between what is tested and what is needed practically in the workplace. Although making changes in the contents of the national licensure examinations in view of EPA candidates was beyond the panel discussion agendas, the lines of research introduced above suggest that revising the way the Japanese language is used in the examinations is hardly the sole solution. However, MHLW has not taken up the relevant research input seriously or addressed the problems identified in the revised examinations. Thus far, there has been no sign of another opening of space for LPP agitation (Lo Bianco 2001) in which new exam reforms are reclaimed and relevant discussions are resumed. While the exam reforms and relevant discussions have been suspended since the completion of Caregiving Exam Panel, different types of suggestions raised by the panels were put in forth. Although one of the driving forces behind the introduction of pre-linguistic screening is the MIAC’s policy evaluation and recommendation (see Sect. 5.5.1), the similar suggestion (a prior screening to scrutinise candidates’ individual qualities and aptitude) was made by the panels. Also, the panels’ unanimous call for the enhancement of support for candidates’ exam preparation was also reflected in the increase in the level of educational support EPA candidates could receive (see Sect. 5.5.3). In fact, these characteristics, instead of the modified examinations, are presented as the major contributors to the improvement of the exam pass rate among EPA candidates, in the JICWELS’s promotional materials designed for prospective host institutions9 (Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services, 2014a, 2015b, 2016a, 2017a). That powerful policy actors such as JICWELS do not see or even value the exam reform as a creditable, promotable reason for the improvement of pass rate not only questions the effect of the exam reforms per se but also shows the short-lived impact of the exam reforms in the policy discourse.

6.7 Summary The present chapter examined the ways tests have been incorporated into the EPA programme. The analysis showed that the ubiquitous use of JLPT was supported by the uncritical acceptance of the test rather than by a careful analysis of its relevance  It is noteworthy that such a promotional discourse was absent in the JICWELS’s documents published after 2018. 9

6.7 Summary

185

to the healthcare profession. I also looked at the details of the decision-making process pertaining to the reform of the national licensure examinations, where the final decisions were largely pre-determined by such structural features as the time sequence of the panels, scheduling, and composition of the panel demographics. Experts and interest groups in healthcare-related fields represented the majority of panel voices, resulting in the stay-the-course approach to the exam reform. An in-depth analysis of the meeting minutes identified two major frames of reference with which panel members discussed and suggested reform ideas: examinations should be fair; and examinations should not be changed. Three approaches to exam fairness were employed to argue a fair examination. A compassionate approach, the goal of which is to minimise candidates’ language disadvantage, was generally unsuccessful in pushing for exam reform and came under fire from the panel members who took a conservative approach to regard the exam reforms as needless charity. The universalist approach prevailed because its proposed fair examination was considered not overly helpful for the candidates but beneficial for Japanese test-takers, regardless of its actual advantage and the potential benefits that the revision could bring. The myth of the examinations as an unshakable entity emerged from the view that equates exam reforms to risking the quality of care and to Japan’s identity as one of the world’s leading countries in healthcare. Particularly controversial were two reform ideas: the simplification of professional/technical terms and the combined use of translated examinations and a Japanese communication skills test. The former incited fear of miscommunication, medical misconduct and destruction of Japan’s healthcare system. The latter concerned the quality of the examinations. Untranslatability of the examinations was confirmed on shaky grounds, without ample and empirical evidence, by those who care not only about the accuracy of translation but also Japan’s position on a global scale. Communication skills were also transformed into something unnecessary for or irrelevant to certified healthcare workers, so that the use of a communication skills test was no longer of concern in the exam reform. The transformation proceeded in two steps. First, the majority of the panel members turned a blind eye to a broad range of possible communication skills tests, while sustaining the belief that the combined use of the two tests would erode the healthcare quality and the standard of the examinations. Thus, the plausibility of assessing EPA candidates’ professional and linguistic/communication skills separately was completely off the discussion table. As a result, communication skills necessary for healthcare professionals were abruptly and narrowly defined as passive reading skills. Following Nunō (2012) and Manabu Yamazaki, a panel member of Nursing Exam Panel 2 (see Sect. 6.3.1 for his actual remark), I also argue that the final decisions were likely pre-determined by the powerful policy actors, i.e., language arbiters (Johnson 2012; Johnson & Johnson 2015) in order to block progressive exam reforms. From the beginning, the course of the panel discussions and final decisions were in the hands of the powerful healthcare sector, including the panel organiser MHLW, which had taken a conservative and cautious stance on the EPA programme. This tactic convincingly solves many mysteries, such as: Why did nobody question the arbitrary selection of other countries regarding the foreign-born nurse

186

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

recruitment and certification systems? Why did nobody ask to examine the existing translated past examinations and learning materials to verify translatability? Why did nobody pinpoint the laboured logic of communication ability? Although the myth of the examinations was based on logically fragile grounds, it succeeded in disguising itself as a solid argument with the backing of the healthcare establishment. Despite the weak arguments, the panel successfully closed the implementational and ideological spaces (Hornberger 2002, 2005). In the end, it is EPA candidates, not the examinations, that are blamed, and therefore it is the candidates who must accommodate the EPA programme.

References Ariji, C., Seki, K., & Kaneko, T. (2014). インドネシア人看護師候補者の国家試験におけ る困難に関する研究 [difficulties faced by Indonesian nurse applicants taking Japanese national examination]. 民族衛生 [the Japanese Journal of Health and Human Ecology], 80(3), 144–150. Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse, 13(2), 10–17. Ball, S. J. (2006). Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen J. Taylor & Francis. Blackledge, A. (2009). Inventing English as convenient fiction: Language testing regimes in the United Kingdom. In G. Extra, A. Van Piet, & M. Spotti (Eds.), Language testing, migration and citizenship: Cross-national perspectives on integration regimes. Continuum. Cabinet Office. (2013). 経済連携協定に基づくインドネシア人及びフィリピン人看護師･ 介護福祉士候補者の滞在期間の延長について [The extension of stay for Indonesian and Filipino nurse and caregiver candidates under the EPA program]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-­Seisakujouhou-­11650000-­Shokugyouanteikyokuhakenyukirou doutaisakubu/0000075381.pdf Endo, O., & Saegusa, R. (2013). 介護福祉士国家試験の平易化のために: 第23回,24回試験の 分析 [A proposal to simplify and clarify the Japanese language of the national examination for caregivers]. 人文･自然研究 [Hitotsubashi Review of Arts and Sciences], 7, 22–41. Hornberger, N. H. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approach. Language Policy, 1(1), 27–51. Hornberger, N. H. (2005). Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces in heritage language education. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 605–609. Idei, Y. (2009). 長寿大国の虚構: 外国人介護士の現場を追う [Fiction of the country with the longest life expectancy: Following the caregiving front and foreign caregivers]. Shinchōsha. Immigration Services Agency of Japan. (2017). Points-based preferential immigration treatment for highly skilled professionals. Retrieved 24 Dec 2022, from https://www.isa.go.jp/common/ uploads/pub-­291_01.pdf Iwata, K., & Kohara, H. (2011). インドネシア人にとってわかりにくい問題とは: 看護師 国家試験必修問題の分析 [What questions are difficult for Indonesians to understand?: An analysis of compulsory questions on the national nursing examination]. 2011年度日本語教育 学会秋季大会 [The 2011 Japanese Language Education Association Fall Conference], Japan. Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2011a). 平成 22年度介護福祉士候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2010 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E5B9B3E68890EFBC92EFBC92E5B9B4E5BAA6E5A496E59BBDE4_2.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2011b). 平成 22年度看護師候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2010 visit: Survey

References

187

results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E5B9B3E68890EFBC92EFBC92E5B9B4E5BAA6E5A496E59BBDE4.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2012a). 平成 23年度介護福祉士候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2011 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E5B9B3E6889023E5B9B4E5BAA6E5B7A1E59B9EE8A8AAE5958F.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2012b). 平成 23年度看護師候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2011 visit: Survey results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E5B9B3E6889023E5B9B4E5BAA6E5B7A1E59B9EE8A8AAE5958F_2.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2013a). 平成 24年度介護福祉士候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2012 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidatess]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E5B9B3E6889024E5B9B4E5BAA6E4BB8BE8ADB7E7A68FE7A589_2.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2013b). 平成 24年度看護師候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2012 visit: Survey results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E5B9B3E6889024E5B9B4E5BAA6E79C8BE8ADB7E5B8ABE58099.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2014a). 受入支援等の取り組み･ 受入れ状況等について [Support projects and current situation regarding the acceptacne of foreign candidates]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E38090E7A2BAE5AE9AE78988E38091H27E585A5E59BBDE59BB.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2014b). 平成 25年度介護福祉士候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2013 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E585ACE8A1A8E78988E5B9B3E6889025E5B9B4E5BAA6E4BB8B.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2014c). 平成 25年度看護師候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2013 visit: Survey results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E585ACE8A1A8E78988E5B9B3E6889025E5B9B4E5BAA6E79C8B.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2015a). EPA介護福祉士の定着促進の課 題に係る調査報告書 [Research report on challenges fo the settlements of EPA certified caregivers] [Research Report]. Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2015b). 受入支援等の取り組み･ 受入れ状況等について [Support projects and current situation regarding the acceptacne of foreign candidates]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E38090E5AE8CE68890E78988E38091EFBC88E9858DE5B883E7_2_3.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2015c). 平成 26年度介護福祉士候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2014 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E5B9B3E6889026E5B9B4E5BAA6E4BB8BE8ADB7E7A68FE7A589.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2015d). 平成 26年度看護師候補者巡回訪問実施結果について [The 2014 visit: Survey results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://jicwels.or.jp/files/ E5B9B3E6889026E5B9B4E5BAA6E79C8BE8ADB7E5B8ABE58099.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2015e). 平成28年度版 EPAに基づく外国 人看護師･介護福祉士受け入れパンフレット [The fiscal year 2016 pamphlet about accepting foreign nurses and caregivers under the EPA program]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from https:// jicwels.or.jp/files/E291A0H28E78988E38391E383B3E38395E383ACE38383E3838.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2016a). 受入支援等の取り組み･受入れ 状況等について [Support projects and current situation regarding the acceptacne of foreign candidates]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/H29EPA_setsumeikai-­2.pdf

188

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2016b). 平成27年度介護福祉士候補者巡 回訪問実施結果について [The 2015 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/junkai-­report_C-­H27.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2016c). 平成27年度看護師候補者巡回訪 問実施結果について [The 2015 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/junkai-­report_N-­H27.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2017a). 受入支援等の取り組み･受入れ 状況等について [Support projects and current situation regarding the acceptacne of foreign candidates]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/EPA_setsumeikai_H30_ Part-­2.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2017b). 平成28年度介護福祉士候補者巡 回訪問実施結果について [The 2016 visit: Survey results on caregiver candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/junkai-­report_C-­H28.pdf Japan International Corporation of Welfare Services. (2017c). 平成28年度看護師候補者巡回訪 問実施結果について [The 2016 visit: Survey results on nurse candidates]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from https://jicwels.or.jp/files/junkai-­report_N-­H28.pdf Japan Nursing Association. (2010). 看護師国家試験の用語についての日本看護協会の基本的 な考え方 [JNA’s basic idea about terms used in the national nursing examination]. Retrieved 22 Jan 2018, from http://www.nurse.or.jp/home/opinion/newsrelease/2010pdf/20100714.pdf Johnson, D. C. (2012). Positioning the language policy arbiter: Governmentality and footing in the school district of Philadelphia. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (2nd ed., pp. 116–136). Routledge. Johnson, D.  C., & Johnson, E.  J. (2015). Power and agency in language policy appropriation. Language Policy, 14(3), 221–243. Katoh, K. (2017). なぜ経済連携協定看護師候補者たちは看護師国家試験で誤答を選んだ のか:日本語教育からのアプローチ [why EPA nurse candidates chose wrong answers in the national nursing examination?: An approach from Japanese language education]. 人間社会環 境研究 [human and socio-environmental Sudies], 33, 31–46. Kawaguchi, Y., Hirano, Y.  O., Ogawa, R., & Ohno, S. (2010). 外国人看護師候補者の教育と 研修の課題: フィリピン人候補者を対象とした国家試験模擬試験調査を通して [issues in the education and training of foreign nurse candidates: A mock national examination for Filipino candidates]. 九州大学アジア総合政策センター紀要 [bulletin of Kyushu University Asia center], 5, 141–146. Kawaguchi, Y., Hirano, Y.  O., Ogawa, R., & Ohno, S. (2012). Exploring learning problems of Filipino nurse candidates working in Japan: Based on the results of a practice national board examination of Japan given in English. Southeast Asian Studies, 49(4), 643–651. Lo Bianco, J. (2001). Policy literacy. Language and Education, 15(2–3), 212–227. Make it in Germany. (2022). Germany needs nurses. Retrieved 29 Mar 2022, from https://www. make-­it-­in-­germany.com/en/working-­in-­germany/professions-­in-­demand/nursing Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2010a). 看護師国家試験における用語に関する有 識者検討チームとりまとめ [The final report of the advisory panel regarding the technical terms in the national nursing examination]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw. go.jp/stf/shingi/2r9852000000nr2a.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2010b). 今後の介護福祉士国家試験における 難しい用語の取扱いについて [Dealing with difficult terms in the coming national caregiving examinations]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/ houdou/2r9852000000rifx.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2011a). 議事録 (第1回) [Meeting minutes (the first meeting)]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r9852000001zu1c.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2011b). 議事録 (第2回) [Meeting minutes (the second meeting)]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/ shingi/2r98520000021vni.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2011c). 資料2: 関係団体からのヒアリング資料 (ガ ルーダ･サポーターズ提出資料) [Handout 2: Supporting materials from invited speakers

References

189

(Supporting materials from Garuda Supporters)]. Retrieved 1 Dec 2021, from http://www. mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r9852000001ycxb-­att/2r9852000001yd1d.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012a). 看護師候補者受入れ施設の意識調査の結果 [Survey result for host instittuions for nurse candidates]. Retrieved 29 Aug 2022, from http:// www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/houdou/2r9852000002hb5l.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012b). 看護師国家試験における母国語･英語での 試験とコミュニケーション能力試験の併用の適否に関する検討会報告書 [The final report of the advisory panel regarding the use of mother tongue and English in the national nursing examination and supplementary use of communication skills test]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r98520000025ge6.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012c). 議事録 (第1回) [Meeting minutes (the first meeting)]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r98520000028iem.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012d). 議事録 (第2回) [Meeting minutes (the second meeting)]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/ shingi/2r9852000002arvm.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012e). 議事録 (第3回) [Meeting minutes (the third meeting)]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r9852000002798v.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012f). 議事録 (第3回) [Meeting minutes (the third meeting)]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r9852000002csq1.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012g). 議事録 (第4回) [Meeting minutes (the fourth meeting)]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r9852000002b6ks.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012h). 議事録 (第4回) [Meeting minutes (the fourth meeting)]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r9852000002csta.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012i). 経済連携協定介護福祉士候補者に 配慮した国家試験のあり方に関する検討会報告 [The final report of the advisory panel regarding the special treatment for the EPA caregiver candidates on the national caregiving examination]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/ shingi/2r9852000002caut-­att/2r9852000002caz1.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012j). 資料3: 看護師国家試験における母国語･英 語での試験とコミュニケーション能力試験の併用の適否に関する検討会報告書(案) [Handout 3: The final report of the advisory panel regarding the use of mother tongue and English in the national nurse examination and supplementary use of communication skills test (Draft)]. Retrieved 30 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r98520000024spe-­ att/2r98520000024su2.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2012k). 小宮山大臣閣議後記者会見概要 [Brief summary of the press conference made by Minister Komiyama]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/kaiken/daijin/2r98520000026519.html Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (n.d.). 医師国家試験受験資格認定について [Qualifications of candidacy for the national examination for medical practitioners]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/topics/2012/05/tp0525-­01.html Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. (2013). 外国人の受け入れ対策に関する行政 評価･監視-技能実習制度等を中心として: 結果報告書 [A debrief report on public sector evaluation and supervision: Centering on the technical intern-training program]. Retrieved 23 Aug 2022, from http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000219634.pdf Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. (2014). 外国人の受け入れ対策に関する 行政評価･監視に基づく勧告に対する改善措置状況(1回目のフォローアップ)の概要 [The first follow-up report for the public sector evaluation and supervision: Regarding the acceptance of foreigners]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.soumu.go.jp/menu_news/ s-­news/81451.html Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. (2015). 外国人の受け入れ対策に関する 行政評価･監視に基づく勧告に対する改善措置状況(2回目のフォローアップ)の概要 [The second follow-up report for the public sector evaluation and supervision: Regarding the acceptance of foreigners]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.soumu.go.jp/menu_news/ s-­news/95239.html

190

6  (Re)Marking the Boundaries: Language Policy as a Process

Minoda, S., Aono, J., Higuchi, S., Kitagawa, C., Hiruma, Y., Aoki, M., & Kusakabe, K. (2020). Analysis of the Japanese national nursing examination completed for the first time by Vietnamese economic partnership agreement nurse candidates: A true/false comparison with Japanese examinees. 愛知県立大学看護学部紀要 [bulletin of Aichi prefectural University School of Nursing and Health], 26, 83-94. Noborizato, T., Ishii, Y., Imai, H., & Kurihara, Y. (2010). インドネシア人介護福祉士候補者 を対象とする日本語研修のコースデザイン: 医療･看護･介護分野の専門日本語教育と 関西国際センターの教育理念との関係において [Designing a Japanese-language program for care giver candidates from Indonesia: Connections between specialized Japanese language education for medical, nursing and care giving fields and the Japanese language education policy of the Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Institute, Kansai]. 国際交流基金日本語 教育紀要 [The Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Education Bulletin], 6, 41–56. Noborizato, T., Yamamoto, A., Suzuki, E., Mori, M., Saito, S., Matsushima, Y., Aonuma, K., & Iizawa, N. (2014). 経済連携協定に基づくインドネシア人･フィリピン人看護師･介護福 祉士候補者を対象とする日本語予備教育事業の成果と展望 [results and future possibilities of preparatory Japanese-language training for the Indonesian and Filipino nurse and certified care worker candidates under economic partnership agreements]. 国際交流基金日本語教 育紀要 [the Japan foundation Japanese-language education bulletin], 10, 55–69. Nunō, K. (2012). 言語政策的観点から見たEPA看護師･介護福祉土候補者受け入れの問題 点: 国家試験に関する有識者検討会をめぐって [problems of acceptance of EPA nurse and caregiver candidates from the perspective of language policy: Focusing on discussion sessions with experts on the national examinations]. 社会言語学 [sociolinguistics], 12, 53–71. Nunō, K. (2015). EPA看護･介護福祉士候補者への｢配慮｣の諸相 ["consideration" for EPA nurse and caregiver candidates]. In M.  Yoshinaga & H.  Yamashita (Eds.), ことばの｢やさ しさ｣とは何か 批判的社会言語学からのアプローチ [what is "kidness" of language? Critical sociolinguistic approach] (pp. 45–71). Sangensha. Nunō, K. (2018). 介護分野の外国人技能実習生に求められる日本語能力はいかに議論さ れたか: 厚生労働省有識者検討会を題材に [what kind of discussions have been done of requirements for the Japanese language proficiency for technical intern caregiver trainees?: Focusing on discussions in the expertsʼ committee of Ministry of Health, labor and welfare]. 佐賀大学全学教育機構紀要 [bulletin of the integrated Center for Educational Research and Development, Saga University], 6, 71–83. Nursing and Midwifery Council. (2020). Guidance on registration language requirements. Retrieved 29 Mar 2022, from https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/registration/ language-­requirements-­guidance.pdf Occupational English Test. (n.d.). Occupational English test. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://www.occupationalenglishtest.org/ Ogawa, S. (2010). 外国人看護師候補者受け入れに関する日本看護協会の基本的スタンス について [Japan Nurisng Association’s basic stance toward the acceptance of foreign nurses]. 看護 [nursing], 62(12), 72–73. Ogawa, S. (2011, March 25). 第100回看護師国家試験の結果について [The result of the 100th national nursing examination]. Retrieved 20 Jan 2018, from http://www.nurse.or.jp/home/ opinion/newsrelease/2010pdf/20110325.pdf Okuda, N. (2011a). 看護師国家試験の日本語分析 [Anaylysis of Japanese of the national nursing examination]. 看護教育 [Nursing Education], 52(12), 1036–1040. Okuda, N. (2011b). 看護師国家試験の日本語分析: 第99回,第100回看護師国試の改正 [Anaylysis of Japanese of the national nursing examination: The reform in the 99th and 100th examination]. 看護教育 [Nursing Education], 52(12), 1036–1040. Piller, I., & Lising, L. (2014). Language, employment, and settlement: Temporary meat workers in Australia. Multilingua, 33(1–2), 35–59. Recognition in Germany. (n.d.). Recognition procedure. Retrieved 29 Mar 2022, from https:// www.anerkennung-­in-­deutschland.de/html/en/pro/recognition-­procedure.php#gs-­2265-­1883

References

191

Shima, C. (2014). Language socialization process of Indonesian and Filipino nurses in Japan [unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison]. The United States. Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Longman Pearson. Shohamy, E. (2009). Language tests for immigrants: Why language? Why tests? Why citizenship? In G.  Hogan-Brun, M.-M.  Clare, & P.  Stevenson (Eds.), Discourses on language and ­integration: Critical perspectives on language testing regimes in Europe. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Socialstyrelsen. (n.d.). Obtaining a license if you are educated outside EU or EEA. Retrieved 29 Mar 2022, from https://legitimation.socialstyrelsen.se/en/licence-­application/outside-­eu-­eea/ nurse-­responsible-­for-­general-­care-­educated-­outside-­eu-­eea/ Sumiya, A., Kano, Y., Miyara, J., & Shiba, Y. (2018). 経済連携協定に基づく看護師候補者の 国家試験誤答の傾向に関する一考察 [a study of the tendency in the mistakes made by economic partnership agreement nurses in Japanese national nurse examination]. 中京学院大学 看護学部紀要 [bulletin of Faculty of Nursing of Chukyo Gakuin University], 8(1), 69–77. Takeuchi, H. (2018). 外国人介護福祉士が捉えたうまくいかなかったコミュニケーション の要因 [difficult factors of the communication between Japanese nursing staff and EPA care workers: From the viewpoint of EPA care workers]. 日本語教育-首都大学東京･東京都立大 学日本語･日本語教育研究会 [Japanese language education], 38, 59–74. Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education. (2011a). 23回介護 福祉士国家試験問題の難解さに関する調査報告 [Research report on the difficulty of the 23rd national caregiving examination]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.nkg.or.jp/ kangokaigo/houkokusho/4.%E8%B3%87%E6%96%99%EF%BC%92.pdf Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education. (2011b). EPA候補者 の介護福祉士国家試験及び看護師国家試験に関する緊急提言 [Urgent proposal for EPA candidates’ national nurse and caregiving examinations]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http:// www.nkg.or.jp/kangokaigo/images/20111017kouroukishakai.pdf Working Group for Nursing and Caregiving Japanese Language Education. (2011c). 介護福祉士国 家試験問題の日本語の難しさについて考えるための基礎資料 [Basic references in order to consider the difficulty of the Japanese language in the national caregiving examination]. Retrieved 24 Aug 2022, from http://www.nkg.or.jp/kangokaigo/images/kisoshiryou-­v2.pdf

Chapter 7

Challenges and Prospects for the EPA Programme: Implications for Japan’s Language Policy and the Discipline of Language Policy and Planning

Abstract Chapter 7 discusses the near-term future landscape of Japan’s language policy. The first half of this chapter integrates insights from the policy discourse analysed throughout Chaps. 4, 5, and 6 with a brief analysis of the recent changes associated with the EPA programme to anticipate the future shape of the EPA programme in the coming years. The second half of this chapter presents the future research direction for the EPA programme as a language policy and discusses contributions of this research project to the LPP scholarship. It is argued that an emerging type of language policy like the EPA programme or so-called “tie-in language policy” prompts LPP researchers to re-examine the explicitness/implicitness of language policy components in given policy texts and that identifying language policy arbiters is a move toward a positive transformation of the LPP discipline as well as the society. This chapter ends with a summary of some pithy points in this book.

7.1 Introduction At the time of writing this book in 2022, the EPAs seem to operate in a steady, stable manner. Even though each of them is supposed to be reviewed every five years and renegotiations were indicated from time to time,1 no changes were made to the original treaties thus far. Domestically in Japan, the EPA programme was once made the object of attack by budget cutters (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2010). However, it has weathered the storm and economic benefits arising from the EPAs seem positively conceived for both Japan and the partner countries (see Medalla et al. 2010 for analysis of the JP-EPA; Navarrete & Tatlonghari 2018). In view of present-day international circumstances, the EPAs are expected to sustain not only because even graver shortage of healthcare workers is felt in Japan but also  The government of Japan indicated that it has entered renegotiations on the JP-EPA (Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry, n.d.) and that both leaders of Japan and Indonesia made an announcement at the summit to conclude the revision of the EPA by 2019 (Japan Bank for International Cooperation 2019). 1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. Otomo, Linking Language, Trade and Migration, Language Policy 33, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33234-0_7

193

194

7  Challenges and Prospects for the EPA Programme: Implications for Japan’s…

because the political and diplomatic relations between Japan and Southeast Asian countries will be tightened more than ever due to pressing maritime security challenges in the South China Sea, among others. Yet, the promising prospect does not mean that the EPAs are without problems. Indeed, what Kawauchi (2013) pointed out a decade ago still holds true for the present EPA programme: [The EPA programme requires] not only a coordination among conflicting domestic interests, but also that between Japan’s domestic system and legislation and the specific operation of the EPA programme involving different nation-states. Both positive and cautious arguments were raised by various ministries and agencies with opposing interests, resulting in a flurry of temporary measures with no clear future vision. These measures were created on an ad hoc basis and many of them were unclear about their purpose and goal. The problem of an aging society is becoming more serious, and the shortage of human resources to deal with it is becoming an issue that is obvious to all. Amid this situation, the EPA programme is prioritised over other domestic reforms so that many transitional/temporary measures were put forth. The biggest problem of the EPA programme may lie in this kind of implementational process (Kawauchi 2013, p. 83, emphasis original, own translation)

Due to the priority given to the EPA (programme), Japan has come to tackle a host of brewing internal problems and sectoral conflicts, and finally resorted to take temporary/transitional measures. An exemplary case is the language issues involved in the EPA programme. As Chap. 2 has reviewed, a requirement for EPA candidates to sit the national licensure examinations was an outcome of the political compromise at ministerial/sectoral levels. In addition, many temporal arrangements were observed especially at the beginning of the programme, for example, an unrealistically short period of pre-employment training, administration of the licensure examinations without consideration for foreign-born test-takers and little support for the host institutions where few foreign staff have ever worked. As Kawauchi (2013) anticipated, these problems of the EPA programme are far from settled but have instead been continuously addressed by a number of scholarly works from different disciplinary fields. One of the compromises - EPA candidates must pass the national licensure examinations in Japanese to take (semi-)permanent employment  - has occupied the centre of such scholarly attention. The field of healthcare is concerned about the impact of foreign workers on the nursing/caregiving fronts which are not primarily designed to educate healthcare professionals-to­be. Since EPA candidates are expected to work as well as to study for the examination with the help of host institutions, issues such as the quality of nursing and caregiving services, and workplace communication have been examined. Researchers in Japanese language education maintain an intense focus on the candidates’ language learning and use as well as the language used in the examinations, and seek ways to lessen their learning difficulties. Concurrently, policy researchers and analysts adopt a wider scope to explain the transitional/temporal nature of Japan’s immigration policy. The EPA programme serves as an analytic example because it aligns itself with the long-standing goal of keeping out unskilled workers through setting high-stakes (i.e., gate-keeping) examinations and giving little consideration to the integration of migrant population into the Japanese society.

7.2  A Stream of Change: Carework and Japan’s Labour Migration

195

While a number of researchers have pinpointed the various shortcomings arising from the variable implementation of the EPA programme, what was missing in these lines of research is what changes were brought about by the EPA programme. Just like the JP-EPA has triggered the beginning of the Japan-Indonesian and Japan-­ Vietnam EPAs (Economic Affairs Bureau EPA Negotiating Team 2007), the EPAs could have served as a springboard for other changes. Due to the special position they have occupied in Japan’s sociopolitical arena, the EPAs have indeed prompted some low-priority or hitherto untouched domestic reforms and left a great deal of impact mainly on the caregiving sector and the nation-wide immigration system. This closing chapter is designed to be forward-looking. I analyse the past and ongoing events to discuss the future shape of the EPA programme. To do so, I firstly focus on two material and discursive changes associated with the EPA programme: the skilling discourse revolving around carework and the expansion of the migration scheme for caregivers, which set the scene for the next section. Section 7.3 then zeros in on language issues and examines how the EPA programme has impacted research in the field of Japanese language education as well as language testing in the newly introduced migration schemes. Section 7.4 presents my conjecture of the EPA programme in future by integrating the insights and findings gained through this book. Section 7.5 then discusses two major contributions of this book project to the field of LPP pertaining to new forms of language policy like the EPA programme and the concept of language policy arbiter (Johnson & Johnson 2015). Section 7.6 offers a brief conclusion of the book.

7.2 A Stream of Change: Carework and Japan’s Labour Migration Since the signing of the EPA between Japan and Indonesia in 2008, at least new legislation including two social policies has gone through a transformation domestically. First, the Certified Social Workers and Certified Care Workers Act was revised (promogulated in 2007 and executed in 2022). The revision includes a major credential reform for the caregiving profession, obliging all certified caregivers to pass the national caregiving examination. Before the revision took place, graduates from government-approved caregiver vocational schools were automatically certified as caregivers without taking the examination. The original JP-EPA programme took advantage of this system and offered a vocational school course in which candidates enrolled themselves in a caregiver vocational school. At the request of the Filipino government, however, this course was discontinued in 2014. The cessation was a direct response to the revision proposal that obliges all graduates from those vocational schools, including EPA candidates, to take the national examination from 2017 onward (Daily Manila Shimbun, August 20, 2011 as cited in Ohno 2012, p. 545).

196

7  Challenges and Prospects for the EPA Programme: Implications for Japan’s…

The credential reform for the caregiver profession has to be understood as a constituent of the skilling discourse encompassing the Japanese caregiving sector for some time. There has been a strong sectoral urge for all caregivers to demonstrate caregiving expertise and performance and knowledgeability in a visible and standardised measure (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2015; see also Otomo 2021 for discussion on the skilling movement). The revised Certified Social Workers and Certified Care Workers Act is evidently in alignment with this move, because the standardised licensure examination now valorises the quality of all certified caregivers. The skilling discourse is identifiable not only in this credential reform but also in the very formation of the EPA programme. According to Kawauchi (2012), the credential reform itself was initiated partly by the EPA programme because it has sparked internal debates over caregivers’ expertise and the qualification system in the first place.2 In other words, the sectoral push for the requirement for EPA candidates to sit the national licensure examination may have reflected the skilling movement. In effect, the renewal of the credential system as well as the EPA programme have successfully consolidated the skilling discourse, serving a political project to reframe carework as a professional job rather than a semi/low-skilled job (Niki 2020). Another legislative change is the expansion of immigration schemes for migrant caregivers. It was realised in three different bur largely interconnected domains. The first change was observed in the 2017 amendment to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act. The revision grants any foreigners who have graduated from a two-year course in a government-approved vocational training school in Japan and have succeeded in the national caregiver exam to apply to a newly created ‘carework’ visa. Migrant caregivers with this visa can renew their work visa in an

 The EPA programme stirred debate regarding the creation of new credentials, i.e., assistant caregiver, and the use of the national assistant nurse examination for EPA nurse candidates. With regard to the former, JACCW (2007, 2021) has been directly opposed to providing the qualification of assistant caregivers to anyone (including EPA candidates) who have failed the examination, as this is opposed to the overall skilling movement. However, assistant caregiver has now become a qualification, allowing individuals (including EPA candidates) who have failed the national caregiver examination to register as an ‘assistant caregiver’ for the time being, until they pass the examination and obtain the certified caregiver qualification. The EPA candidates with this qualification, however, cannot extend their candidature or apply for the ‘carework’ visa category (see Sect. 7.2), because the qualification of assistant caregiver is neither recognized as an application criteria for candidature extension nor as a proper work visa. On the other hand, the qualification of assistant nurse has been utilized since the late 1940s, and it has been assigned in a separate examination system. However, whether this qualification should be applied to the EPA programme, especially to the nurse candidates who have failed the licensure examination, has been contentious. While JMA was positive about creating this option for the nurse candidates, because they are on the employer side of nurses (Kawauchi 2013; Mizutani 2019), JNA (n.d.) opposed to the idea because they have been attempting to eliminate the qualification in order to improve nurses’ expertise and improve their working conditions and social recognition (Kawauchi 2013). At the moment, there is no official route prepared for EPA nurse candidates to attempt the national assistant nursing exam, instead of the national nursing exam that is stipulated by the EPA programme. 2

7.2  A Stream of Change: Carework and Japan’s Labour Migration

197

unlimited number of times and bring their family to Japan, just like the EPA caregivers who have passed the exam. The second change had to do with the Technical Intern Training Programme, a side-door migration programme (Thränhardt 1999) that recruits unskilled workers in the name of knowledge transfer from Japan to developing countries (see Sect. 4.3.3). The 2017 revision allows the caregiving sector to accept technical trainees, among other reforms (e.g., improvement of working conditions of trainees, career development for trainees, duration of work visa and its extension). In 2021, there were 12,068 foreign caregiver trainees approved under this programme (Organization for Technical Intern Training 2021). Before this amendment, all foreigners, except for EPA candidates, permanent and long-term foreign residents and spouses or dependents of Japanese nationals, faced restrictions on the type of work activities or the number of work hours when they engage themselves with paid carework in Japan. Although the programme revision lifts such restrictions and opens a migratory route for more foreign caregivers, their career and residential prospects in Japan remain limited because they can stay in Japan for only up to five years (Organization for Technical Intern Training 2022). In other words, the fundamental orientation of the Technical Intern Training Programme remains unchanged, welcoming temporary workers to remedy workforce shortages acutely experienced in sectors such as carework under the pretext of international services. The last and the latest development for caregiver migration was found in the 2019 revision of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act. The revision introduced two visa categories, Tokutei Ginō (literally specified skilled worker) (i) and (ii), and enabled entry of migrant workers to take employment for up to five years in one of the 14 specific industries (e.g., agriculture, aviation, building cleaning, construction, fishing, hospitality, nursing). The admission bar for the Tokutei Ginō programme is lower than other channels such as the EPA programme and the Technical Intern Training Programme. Applicants are required to clear a Japanese language test as well as an industry-specific skill test (see next section for detail), without presenting any university degree/diploma or work-related certificate or proof of working experience. Similar to the Technical Intern Training Programme trainees, migrant workers identified as Specific Skilled Workers (i) are unlikely to upgrade their residential status to obtain (semi-)permanent residency and to secure long-term employment. However, more skilled migrant workers are encouraged to apply for Specific Skilled Workers (ii). Although the applicants’ qualities and expertise will be tested against the standard measure set by the specific industry they apply, Specific Skilled Workers (ii) are allowed to renew their work visa in an unlimited number of times and bring their family to Japan. Of particular interest is that the position of Specific Skilled Workers (ii) was designed for former trainees under the Technical Intern Training Programme as well as for former EPA candidates (who completed candidature without passing the exam) to be able to continue working in Japan (Niki 2020). Except for the creation of the Tokutei Ginō programme, it is difficult to precisely point out whether and how the EPA programme was referred to when these developments were discussed at the policymaking table. As these new provisions were

198

7  Challenges and Prospects for the EPA Programme: Implications for Japan’s…

geared only toward the caregiving profession, it is likely that the EPA programme, which concerns both caregivers and nurses, might have been bypassed. In addition, these changes were introduced when the country’s labour shortage has become even more visible and pronounced. Indeed, the latest Tokutei Ginō programme accompanied a broad statement by the then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe who acknowledged, for the first time ever, that the labour shortage was a prime reason for accepting foreign workers for industries with serious labour shortages, including carework (“Expansion of employment of foreigners, Prime Minister says, “We need to quickly create a mechanism“ for five industries, including construction and agriculture, Challenge for being a country of choice,” 2018). By contrast, in the official policy discourse of the EPA programme, this kind of labour-market driven policy framing has been continuously avoided and clearly denied. While the EPA programme may have exerted limited influence on the opening of new immigration doors for migrant caregivers, these newly created channels are certainly situated in the same developmental or even stagnating path in which the political leadership in Japan is continuously struggling to create a proper migration policy (see also Roberts 2013, 2018; Sasaki & Ogawa 2019). One could also assume that the EPA programme provides the opportunities for policymakers to rethink migrant (healthcare) workers’ language competence, performance and education and thus attempt to renew language policies. This is the issue I now turn to discuss. The next section looks at the specific effects that the EPA programme has left with regard to language issues.

7.3 The EPA Effect?: Language Research and Testing It may be no exaggeration to say that the EPA programme was a prologue to the sweeping change in Japanese language education. It was the EPA programme that sparked the interest in Japanese for healthcare purposes and gave rise to the formation of WNCJE within the Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language, one of the most influential academic organisations in the field of Japanese language teaching and learning. Although WNCJE seemed dormant these days, the EPA programme has dramatically changed the research landscape. In the past, Japanese language education for healthcare workers was too under-researched to provide evidence-based language training programmes particularly for the early batches of the EPA candidates. Although we still find glitches in the training programmes (see Sect. 5.5.2 and Nunō 2016 for example), the research on Japanese language education for healthcare professionals has grown substantially over the last decade. In the end, the Japanese language acquisition of migrant workers has gained legal status, as represented in the Promotion of Japanese Language Education Act that took effect in 2019. Although the enforcement was a direct response to the ongoing issues regarding lower/semi-skilled migrant workers as well as a proactive measure

7.3  The EPA Effect?: Language Research and Testing

199

in anticipation of the ever-rising number of migrant workers,3 the EPA programme is unmistakeably one of the impetuses that drives the movement, elevating language issues faced by EPA candidates as a critical national issue that requires legislative authorisation and action. Language testing has trodden a thorny path with respect to the EPA programme. The programme has passed several turning points or spaces for LPP agitation (Lo Bianco 2001), which stand for a chance for a language policy to get born, fine-­ tuned, renewed or completely removed. Chapter 6 has demonstrated that implementational and ideological spaces (Hornberger 2002, 2005) were closed in the end and that the closure seems planned in advance. The official agendas for the exam reforms hinted at the possibility of establishing a solid position for English and Indonesian in the examinations. This seemed to mark the opening of an implementational space for multilingual testing and the combined use of a skill test with a Japanese communication skills test. However, the ideological space was unavailable and occupied by the dominant discourse that such a revision was unfair and potentially disastrous for the healthcare profession and that languages other than Japanese have no useful role to play in Japan’s healthcare system. As a result, only a conservative reform plan was put forth. I have argued that there was little room for meaningful ideological space to emerge right from the start and that the officially advocated implementational space was perfunctory. It was created not to seriously consider the radical reform ideas, but to serve other politically motivated purposes such as producing a nominally official record that the Japanese government had given more than enough thought to the potential role of languages other than Japanese. Having such a record in advance may be helpful to deter emergent policy actors from challenging the final panel decisions and their valorisation of the national licensure examinations, which would save the face of the healthcare industry and protect their vested interests. The fact that the Japanese government has discussed the exam reforms will also be useful for diplomatic dialogue with EPA partner countries because it will serve as evidence of Japan’s consideration for EPA candidates and of the effort gone into maintaining a stable EPA and a cooperative relationship. Several years have passed since the final panel reports were published and no additional reform plans were made for the national licensure examinations since then. However, we are witnessing that an attempt once failed in the EPA programme has sprung back to life in the Tokutei Ginō programme. The programme includes two tests: the Nursing Care Japanese Language Evaluation Test and the Nursing Care Skills Evaluation Test. While the former evaluates whether test-takers attain a

 A bipartisan group played a significant role in the establishment of the Act. The goal of the group was to establish a legal provision/foundation to strengthen the promotion of Japanese language education. However, it was motivated by a wide range of problematizations (Bacchi 2009) such as the need to provide better language education for migrant workers, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology’s lack of ability to oversee private Japanese language schools, the shortage of qualified Japanese language teachers, and the absence of political strategy to promote the Japanese language overseas (Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language 2017). 3

200

7  Challenges and Prospects for the EPA Programme: Implications for Japan’s…

Japanese proficiency level that “does not hinder them from engaging in carework at eldercare institutions” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2020b, own translation), the latter examines whether test-takers demonstrate a certain level of understanding of carework in order to provide a certain level of service in response to the physical and mental conditions of carees. In order to be admitted for the Tokutei Ginō programme, applicants must attain 60% of the total score in these tests, in addition to sitting a general Japanese language proficiency test (either a pass of JLPT N4 or a scoring of more than 200 points or above out of 250 points in the Japan Foundation Test for Basic Japanese4). Although this requirement verifies the persistency of testing as an immigration control mechanism, what is remarkable about these two tests is the usage of non-Japanese language. The medium of the Nursing Care Japanese Evaluation Test is said to be Japanese; however, the questions are provided in ten languages5 (Japanese, English, Indonesian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Thai, Burmese, Cambodian, Mongolian, and Nepalese). The Nursing Care Skills Test is more advanced, providing ten language options as the medium of examination (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2020a, 2020b). While these changes themselves can be considered positively as a promising first step, I would like to cast a critical eye over this particular initiative. Firstly, the Nursing Care Japanese Language Evaluation Test appears less substantial and significant content-wise. Despite its specific focus on caregiving tasks and situations, it not only consists of just 15 questions but also lacks speaking, writing and presumably listening components (see sample questions on Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, n.d.). Although it is meant to be used together with another Japanese language test (the problematic JLPT or the Japan Foundation Test for Basic Japanese), this combination must be questioned, as these tests are devoid of speaking, writing and listening components, too. Indeed, these criticisms were similar in nature to the general criticism against JLPT which was heavily administered or referenced throughout the EPA programme (see Sect. 3.3.3 and Sect. 6.2). The repetition indicates that the fundamental issues with regard to the (language) screening tests used for migrant healthcare workers have remained unattended more than a decade. As shown above, the new tests devised in the Tokutei Ginō programme leave much to be desired especially with regard to the enrichment of the tested content  The Japan Foundation launched the Japan Foundation Test for Basic Japanese in 2019, which measures communication skills in Japanese necessary for daily life situations. As the creation of this test coincides with the inception of Tokutei Ginou programme, test-takers are assumed to be foreigners who wish to work in Japan in the 14 specific job categories. 5  Because these tests utilize a computer-based testing system requiring specific technical environments, they are administered in specific test centres located in selected countries (Vietnam, the Philippines, China, Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar, Nepal and Mongolia). Taking a simplistic view, the selection of nine languages merely reflects the test centres’ locations but it can demonstrate the embodiment of the Japanese government’s essentialist view on language and nation. The guideline of these tests determines the medium of tests as “local language of those countries in which the tests are administered” (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2020a), unsurprisingly showing that the Japanese government still holds fast on the one-language-one-nation ideology (see also Sect. 5.3). 4

7.4  The Future of the EPA Programme

201

and skill component. However, it is a giant step toward designing a sound and sector-­specific language proficiency test for migrant healthcare workers. And it is important to remember that this two-track testing system - a Japanese communication skills test and a skill test to be taken in non-Japanese language(s) - was what was originally proposed for the Nursing Exam Panel 2 and affirmed by pro-­reformers therein who are committed to redress the inequality inherent in test-taking and who believed in the potential roles of languages other than Japanese in the testing system.

7.4 The Future of the EPA Programme Following a brief review of the EPA programme’s standing in the renewed discursive and material landscape surrounding carework and labour migration, it is high time to map out a future scenario for the EPA programme. Here I make use of the currently available information to picture two hypothetical scenarios. Due not only to the entrenched nature of the examination in the EPA programme but also to the fatalistic nature of language tests embedded in a language policy (Shohamy 2001, 2006), the speculations concern the examinations only: (1) the minor renewal of pre-screening tests and (2) the maintenance of the as-is national licensure examinations. Based on these scenarios, I anticipate that the EPA programme projects little potential for any dynamic and radical change to language policy in Japan and that the EPA programme will not act as a major driver for an implementational and ideological change. One of my predictions about the future of the EPA programme is that it is likely to update the pre-screening system. Currently, the linguistic screening for EPA applicants is conducted monolingually by JLPT. Yet, the linguistic screening in the EPA programme has experienced a whirlwind of change over the years (see Sect. 2.5). For instance, the late departure Japan-Vietnam EPA programme adopted a different screening method from other precedent EPA programmes. This means that it is one of the most flexible provisions where a further change is anticipated. A new testing system could be introduced when, for example, the EPA programme is included in new EPA treaties with other countries, or as part of an overhaul of the current EPA programme. At some point in time, it may be considered appropriate to replicate the pre-screening mechanism implemented in the Tokutei Ginō programme and administer computer-based exams which allow multiple languages to appear, while assessing professional skills and Japanese language skills separately. In any case, a further reform on linguistic screening is doable, not only because there were many precedents but also it is not as critical as the national licensure examination in the sense that it does not shake the backbone of the EPA programme. Although a new screening alternative may be introduced to the EPA programme, it is next to impossible to imagine a scenario where multilingualism is promoted more widely throughout the EPA programme. Of course, this bleak future scenario does not negate the possibility of multilingualism in the local setting. As I have reported elsewhere (Otomo 2017, 2020), the EPA programme is implemented in a

202

7  Challenges and Prospects for the EPA Programme: Implications for Japan’s…

highly multilingual setting: EPA candidates chat in their own languages, while speaking Japanese as well as local varieties of Japanese with their colleagues, patients and their families; elderly Japanese patients and facility users talk to each other in different varieties of the Japanese language; colloquial Japanese language is spoken among Japanese staff with the frequent use of specialised medical and caregiving vocabulary; and some individuals use English, instead of Japanese, as a supplementary or a preferred communication tool. However, such reality seems out of tune with the test-bound EPA programme at the level of policy discourse. I argue that it is a desperate long shot that the national licensure examinations would welcome another reform initiative in the light of foreign healthcare workers. I have four reasons to support my forecast. First, as Sect. 7.2 has shown, the prevailing skilling discourse for the caregiving profession will continue to back up the current testing regime as the watchdog on the lookout for good (migrant) healthcare workers. In fact, the opening of new immigration doors failed to shake this impregnability. While the newly created visa category “carework” widens the front door for migrant caregivers, their longer-term employment and residence are determined solely by their achievement in the national licensure examination. The skilling discourse has been so widespread that the national licensure examination cannot be avoided, if one, regardless of their nationality, wishes to seek a longer and better employment option as a caregiver in Japan. Second, it seems difficult to reinvigorate the past debates. The analysis in Chap. 6 has revealed how misbegotten the panel meetings were to point out the incompleteness of the panel discussions, including the laboured logics and well-crafted myths about the legitimacy of the national licensure examinations. However, the exam reform in the service of EPA candidates was already a done deal. With the support of the emerging discourse about the EPA programme, it remains even less likely to expect the overturning of the final panel decisions. Amid the expansion of immigration routes for foreign caregivers, the EPA programme has begun to gain an affirmative portrayal. In the past when the EPA programme was the only scheme allowing the entry of migrant healthcare workers, it was often evaluated as a policy failure (e.g., Yagi et  al. 2014, see also Sect. 3.2). However, when it comes to be compared with the recent initiatives, the EPA programme is beginning to be seen as a model programme. For example, Sasaki and Ogawa (2019) pointed out that the EPA programme has been successfully implemented while other programmes are problematic in their policy design (e.g., the involvement of private brokerage agencies, poor prospect for citizenship status and career advancement). Sasaki and Ogawa’s (2019) positive evaluation of the EPA programme was also drawn from their interview research that host institutions as well as the candidates themselves positively acknowledged the EPA programme, i.e., not only because EPA candidates are generally well-integrated in the Japanese workplaces but also because the programme is government-sponsored and thus well-regulated and transparent, accepting candidates with relatively high educational background and offering them one-year pre-service language training. If the affirmative discourse of this kind continues to flourish, it will become even more difficult to challenge some of the solid underpinnings of the EPA programme, that is, the national licensure examinations and its rock-steady nature buttressed by the panels’ records and the final reports.

7.4  The Future of the EPA Programme

203

The two aforementioned reasons may suffice to show that the national licensure examination is likely to remain invariant and sacred. However, one has to also recall that the presence of powerful sectoral stakeholders, especially the healthcare circle including MHLW. As detailed in Chap. 6, their attitudes toward the national licensure examination were the foremost important variable to ascertain the possibility of change in the testing regime. A brief analysis presented below indicates that they never seem to make a move to advocate the exam reform ever again. First of all, the medical/caregiving sectors have been staunchly against any changes to be made in domains of both language and examinations. With regard to technical terminologies, the National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics (NINJAL), which is Japan’s language academy and one of the most powerful bodies of language experts, once released a document entitled “Proposals to Make the Language of Hospitals Easier to Understand” (NINJAL committee on Language of Hospitals 2009). It suggested simplifying the medical terminologies used by medical professionals to address non-specialists such as patients and their families. Although NINJAL’s proposal did not dare to put forward suggestions about professional language use among medical professionals, it has been met with silence from the healthcare sector thus far. Similarly, some healthcare researchers have made constant efforts at pinpointing the still problematic nature of the examinations (e.g., Minoda et al. 2020, see also Sect. 6.6). Their findings offer reasonable insight that the examinations have much room for linguistic modification. However, there seems neither mentions about linguistic reforms nor responses to these identified issues in the four Exam Review Panels formed under the guidance of MHLW (Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare 2013, 2016, 2020c, 2021), which were formed after Nursing Exam Panel 2 (2011–2012) and Caregiving Exam Panel (2012). The flip side of this silence or no-response may be a message from the healthcare interest groups that it is not the licensure examinations but Japanese language education that needs revision. In fact, we have observed the Japanese government’s ceaseless effort at consolidating support for EPA candidates’ Japanese language learning (see Sect. 5.5.3). The government seems to have much to lose and little to gain from proposing another attempt to make a reform of the national licensure examinations, because they must go out of their way to win assent from the healthcare sector in the first place. Instead, Japanese language education is a modestly sized intervention or a doable support project. Since the EPAs prioritise economic benefits primarily brought about by trade items (Economic Affairs Bureau EPA Negotiating Team, 2007), the failure of the EPA programme is permissible as long as the exam pass rate attains a level that does not endanger the EPA per se. In other words, the government would not dare to make enemies of the healthcare industry but would tolerate the slumping exam pass rate and/or give tacit approval to the temporary circular migration (see the similar logic found in the humanitarian foreign-­aid discourse of the EPA programme as detailed in Sect. 4.3.3). When re-­ examining the licensure examination system in view of EPA candidates seems unfeasible and unpromising, Japanese language education becomes a preferred and reasonable choice.

204

7  Challenges and Prospects for the EPA Programme: Implications for Japan’s…

Finally, the exam reform is a ticklish subject for many policymakers and vocal interest groups such as the healthcare sector, as it concerns Japan’s national identity. In Chaps. 4, 5, and 6, we saw that the EPA programme fits within the narrative of Japan’s national struggle over migration and the changes it would bring to Japan. With migration raising issues about the definition of us and them, Japan’s national identity as an affluent, humanitarian, highly advanced, and ethnically and linguistically homogenous nation is utilised to construct Japan’s uniqueness and superiority, shaping and maintaining the existing public discourse about migrants from neighbouring Asian countries, who are often construed as poor and inferior (Lie 2000, 2001; see also Lopez 2012; Takeuchi 2016 for Filipino residents in Japan). In the EPA programme, too, such national pride plays a central role in the policy discourse in which EPA candidates, including their limited Japanese language proficiency, are constructed as the problem. This candidates-as-problem discourse leaves the current testing regime unchallenged and provides a rationale for the further enrichment of Japanese language education instead. An emerging discourse that Japan is lagging in the worldwide competition for recruiting foreign healthcare workers (see Sect. 4.3.2) seems to be nowhere near enough to challenge Japan’s national identity as a monolingual nation with unparalleled excellence in medicine and carework. Given the special position of the examinations in the EPA programme, chances are slim that a dynamic change, such as another language reform on the national licensure examination, will take place. My conjecture partly follows Gottlieb’s (2008) prediction that Japan’s national language policy will take a long time to address multilingualism. Further, it is argued that the Japanese government seems to reap the (maximum) benefit from the least form of multilingualism. One such example is the partial use of English in the national nurse/caregiver examination, which was readily accepted due to the presumed educational benefit for Japanese test-­ takers (see Sect. 6.3.2). Similar to this, this section has anticipated a minor change in the pre-screening mechanism, the impact of which over the entire EPA programme is largely limited and marginal. The separation of a skill test with multiple language options and a Japanese language communication test may be pursued in future, just like the Tokutei Ginō programme. Such an revision can be easily framed as proof of the Japanese government’s effort to assess applicants’ skills accurately and/or efficiently (in the service of the healthcare sector and host institutions) or to showcase their consideration for and generosity to the partner countries and multilingual test-takers themselves, because of the politically visible and objective nature of the testing that can meet accountability demands and expectations (Shohamy 2001).

7.5 The Future of Language Policy Studies: Tie-in Language Policy and Language Policy Arbiter While this book is context-specific, focusing primarily on language policy in and about Japan, two broader contributions to the field of LPP can be highlighted. The first contribution is the focus on an emerging form of language policy, a public

7.5  The Future of Language Policy Studies: Tie-in Language Policy and Language…

205

policy which appears disconnected from a traditional language policy proper such as language laws or language education directives. I name this kind of language policy a “tie-in language policy” for the sake of convenience in the discussion below. As pointed out in Chap. 1, tie-in language policies have been thus far underrepresented and under-researched in the academic inquiry of LPP, mainly because they often leave no trace of language issues on the surface. Take the EPA for example, the paramount policy agenda and priority or the chief policy problematisation, in Bacchi’s (2009) words, appear independent of language issues. The overarching goal is to produce economic benefits and strengthen economic ties between the signatory countries primarily through international trade. The EPA programme is just another component of the broader trade agreement covering various areas such as trade in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and mineral products, trade in services, and liberalisation of investment. In fact, Goto (2015) is firmly of the opinion that the task of the EPA programme was completed at the conclusion of the EPA, because its assignment was to perform as a bargaining chip in the internal and external coordination of the overall EPA negotiations. The analysis of the EPA programme as a language policy illuminates at least three characteristics of tie-in language policies: 1. A tie-in language policy may be identified if a multitude of agenda, priority and problematisation exists in a single policy deal (e.g.,) one EPA treaty includes an array of programmes with varying assumptions, motivations and goals; 2. In a policy complex where multiple policy agendas, priorities and problematisations exist side by side, they are hierarchically arranged (e.g.,) although the JP-­ EPA treaty includes the JP-EPA programme, the foremost priority of the JP-EPA treaty is placed on international trade (tangible trade items); and. 3. A component of language policy carries less or even no weight within the policy complex (e.g.,) because the JP-EPA programme is set aside at the margin within the broader framework of the EPA treaty, the significance of the programme and its element of language policy is generally less visible. If one treats a public policy with these characteristics a valid subject of language policy inquiry, just like what I have accomplished in this book, LPP scholars face several scholastic challenges and opportunities. First, tie-in language policy points out the limitation of the explicit/implicit, covert/overt or de facto/de jure distinctions in language policy theory (Schiffman 1996; Shohamy 2006), demanding a more nuanced understanding of the explicitness/overtness of a given language policy. Originally, the covert/overt distinction was proposed by Schiffman (1996) who emphasised the importance of unwritten social forces that have policing effect on people’s linguistic practice and culture and argued that such grassroot language policy process was overlooked by the examination of overt language policy. However, these distinctions may not be useful for a language policy like the EPA programme, which is explicitly codified and formulated yet the presence and effect of which is planned to be minimal. Although the aforementioned characteristics of tie-in language policy may come short of adding into a series of well-established typology of language policy such as medium of instruction policy and family

206

7  Challenges and Prospects for the EPA Programme: Implications for Japan’s…

language policy, tie-in language policy stands a high chance of providing a renewed perspective to the way LPP scholars used to demarcate what is language policy and what is not. Second, tie-in language policy questions the nature of policy evaluation, especially the simplistic binary of success and failure, requiring us to develop a more contextualised model of evaluation as well as to turn a critical eye to the discourse of policy success and failure in production and circulation. Third, the focus on tie-in language policy directs our attention to public policies in general in search of hitherto discovered language policies. Because tie-in language policy is less visible, buried under an encompassing public policy and thus less likely to be subjected to the formal (language) policy evaluation (see Goto [2015] and Economic Affairs Bureau EPA Negotiating Team [2007] for such an example), it could emerge itself as a viable policy option that fits authorial needs and intentions. When erring on the side of caution, it is assumed that policymakers take advantage of these features to address a daring language policy proposal behind the curtain. The second contribution of this book project is in alignment with the cutting-­ edge concepts developed in the field. As heavily used throughout this book, Hornberger’s (2002, 2005) constructs of ideological and implementational spaces continue to hold LPP scholars’ interest and is expected to evolve in the coming years. LPP researchers have shown that local actors (e.g., language educators, community leaders and language users themselves) can locate and energise the ideological space made available in the policy texts by making best use of their expertise, experiences, beliefs and creativity, in order to wedge open the local implementational space (e.g., Hornberger 2005; Menken & García 2010). This line of LPP scholarship informs us that the capability to open such spaces depends not only on policy texts or policy shifts but also on human agency. For example, Flores and Schissel (2014) pinpointed the dependent relationship between policy actors and policy initiatives. They argued that human agency is further enhanced and better exercised, if policy initiatives support ideological and implementational spaces to transform monolingual into heteroglossic educational practice. Similarly, Choi (2018) demonstrated a case where an individual policy actor’s agency was maximised by taking advantage of policy initiatives and discourses. The case of the EPA programme, on the other hand, has presented a rather pessimistic view. While the exam reform agendas seemed to support the opening of implementational space for multilingualism-in-tests and more equitable assessment on the surface, this apparent opportunity was illusory and such space never existed from the very beginning. Alternative discourses about the examination system, the portrayal of EPA candidates and the role of non-Japanese languages were excluded by most discussants, who were ideologically opposed to bi/multilingualism and equitable assessment for healthcare professionals with varying linguistic/educational backgrounds. While I share Hornberger’s (2002) optimism that multilingual policies are (or should be – an expression that I prefer) essentially supportive of the opening of implementational and ideological spaces, my research permits only guarded optimism, because bi/multilingual policy initiatives may not guarantee the conditions necessary for the opening of these spaces but instead may be created and served by totally different agendas and opposing ideological orientations.

7.5  The Future of Language Policy Studies: Tie-in Language Policy and Language…

207

Although policy texts or shifts supportive for bi/multilingualism may not be absolute prerequisites for opening up ideological/implementational spaces, human agency seems indispensable. Johnson (2010) demonstrated educators’ active creation of implementational space for bilingual education in the face of restrictive monolingual policy. To follow up, Johnson and Johnson (2015) placed an emphasis on these key individuals and theorised language policy arbiter who employs oversized leverage in impacting language policy and practice. I believe that the case of the EPA programme could present empirical evidence to support and elaborate this concept, which is still in progress and open for further scrutiny. In the light of the definition provided by Johnson and Johnson (2015), the healthcare sector is identified as language policy arbiters of the EPA programme. Although the original definition applies to a single individual, Weinberg (2021) added that language policy arbiter is not necessarily one powerful autonomous figure, but collectives who take orchestrated effort and actions. This contribution corresponds well to Ricento’s (2000, p. 206, emphasis mine) call that language policy research should look at “the role(s) of individuals and collectives in the processes of language use, attitudes and ultimately policies” and Bochard & Galsgow’s (2018, p. 62) call to a collective agency, which facilitates “the forces of structure and culture and influence[s] the different approaches to individual reflexivity deployed within its boundaries”. The current study follows up these claims and argues that language policy arbiters could be multiple in number and well-coordinated in relationship, as represented by a dedicated group of advocates in the healthcare industry who have been shaping the language policy from the early planning stage to the exam reform debates. The concept of language policy arbiter shifts our attention from the oft-used vertical metaphors of “top” and “bottom” in thinking about the creation and implementation of a given language policy. As critical LPP scholars have shown for long that policymaking is often heavily connected with the political and economic interests of powerful, dominant and vocal groups (e.g., Tollefson 1991), the concept of language policy arbiter maintains that policy creation at the “top” is not always geared toward the interests of those at the “bottom”. In the case of the EPA programme, the healthcare sector including MHLW is the most powerful policy actors, i.e., language policy arbiters. The MHLW-affiliated JICWELS pursues its own interest through advertising EPA candidates’ good Japanese competence to attract prospective host institutions and enriching Japanese learning projects to ensure current host institutions’ (i.e., customers’) satisfaction and avoid further criticism and complaints from the institutions (see Sect. 5.5.3). Of more prominence is the concerted effort of the healthcare sector at the exam advisory panels and their subsequent inaction. In view of these arbiters, any changes that could threaten the current standing of the healthcare industry must be avoided. Therefore, it was a foremost important agenda for them to position themselves as professional and thus to display their comments as legitimate, while treating other discussants as irrelevant (e.g., the absence of language experts in Nursing Exam Panel 2) and their input negligible (e.g., the disregard of translatability of exams) and illegitimate. Based on the biased selection of panel members right from the beginning, the series of panel

208

7  Challenges and Prospects for the EPA Programme: Implications for Japan’s…

discussions helped to create and highlight the boundary between “top” (i.e., arbiters, including policymakers) and “bottom” (i.e., mere implementers and receivers such as test-takers). As Johnson and Johnson (2015) and Weinberg (2021) pointed out, the very concepts of “top” and “bottom” themselves may be (re)produced and/ or sustained by language policy arbiters to further their own interests. While Johnson and Johnson (2015) stated that the concept enables us to achieve a fuller understanding of how language policy gets implemented and appropriated, another, possibly more important purpose of identifying these individuals/collectives should be added. I believe the identification of language policy arbiter can help determine to whom researchers should make a targeted appeal to influence the language policy process. As presented in Chap. 6, emphasising the presumed educational benefit for Japanese test-takers (obviously non-language policy arbiters) resulted in the partial introduction of English in the national licensure examination. This case teaches us that appealing to non-language policy arbiters seemed to bring about only a minimal change. In other words, identifying language policy arbiter can be useful for critical language policy scholars committed to social change (Tollefson 2006). Although some language policy researchers combine their research and activism (Gegeo & Watson-Gegeo 2002, 2012; McCarty 2002a, 2002b, 2012, 2014; McCarty et al. 2011; Ruiz 1991/2016), social activism is by and large a thorny and challenging venture for many researchers. To me, the analysis of the exam advisory panels, their final reports and the subsequent silence left not only a sour and unsatisfactory aftertaste but also a sense of pure frustration that the language policy discussions were beyond the reach of language researchers. This bitter experience perhaps results not only from the failure of identifying language policy arbiters accurately, but also from the incapacity to reach out to them. Tollefson (2008) marshalled three reasons why researchers have failed to exert their influence in making changes in real-world language policies: 1. The policymaking culture tends to celebrate and readily accept objective and non-biased research evidence that is hostile to researchers’ direct involvement in policymaking; 2. Common beliefs about language, instead of rational analysis based on research evidence about language and education, often roam at will in language policy debates; and. 3. Language scholars are studiously ignored and thus made irrelevant. In the context of the exam advisory panels, the first factor was less pronounced, because the panels housed a far more fundamental problem, that is, they did not take into account or reflect on research evidence fully into the discussion. The disregard of the research evidence, that is, the second factor, was what the panels occasionally displayed, for example, in the discussion of what constituted a fair examination when the conservatives attempted to minimise the scope of modification by relying on a doubtful research experiment or on the discourses of overaccommodation and

7.5  The Future of Language Policy Studies: Tie-in Language Policy and Language…

209

by glorifying EPA candidates who take on difficult challenges (i.e., taking the examination in the medium of the Japanese language). The last factor was a case in point for the exam advisory panels. In Nursing Exam Panel 2, no seat was prepared for language researchers. Even if language scholars secured the seats as in Nursing Exam Panel 1 and Caregiving Exam Panel, they occupied a marginal position. Similarly, contributors in Nursing Exam Panel 2 who provided sane reasons why making linguistic as well as stylistic modifications to the examinations were necessary were met with complete silence in the absence of language scholars. Based on the reflections on the role of language researchers, I believe three kinds of research angles will inform the future research of the EPA programme as a language policy. First, researchers are required to keep accumulating further research evidence to show that there is much room left for improvement in the current operation of the EPA programme, including the licensure examinations. Second, it is equally important to collect counterevidence that multiple languages play a role in Japan’s healthcare workplace to narrow the gap between normalised monolingual ideology and multilingual reality at the workplace. While some (anecdotal) accounts were provided and distributed in academia (Asato 2009; Otomo 2017, 2020; Shima 2014; Takeuchi 2009; Ueno 2012), they must be re-packaged in a communicable and digestible manner to reach to the wider community. This issue concerns the third angle that LPP researchers are now encouraged to put themselves forward a little more in multiple layers of language policy processes not only to do research but to initiate a change. In retrospect, the vocal healthcare sector’s impregnable position may have resulted from their active intervention represented by, for example, JNA’s avid lobbying activities for the four conditions on EPA candidates’ Japanese abilities (see Sect. 4.2.3). On the other hand, while Garuda Supporters, BIMACONC and WNCJE took initiatives in conducting language policy advocacy (see Sect. 4.2.4), almost no effectual appeals or actions to political leaders and relevant ministries/agencies were performed by language study researchers in general. Whether LPP scholars can be active and successful in policy advocacy and act as relevant players and spokespersons who can get their message across well and shape the public opinion about language issues is a question to competence. They generally fail to familiarise themselves with the techniques and practices of policymaking or policy discourse more broadly (Lo Bianco 2001, 2010, 2014; see also Williams 1992). However, I argue that the deficit in know-how and its unavailability and inaccessibility may well be an issue, too. In this regard, as Pérez-Milans and Tollefson (2019) foresees, it is increasingly important for LPP scholars to learn from (language) activists and double-jobbers (researchers/activists) in other fields from far and wide about their experiences, strategies, and tactics to formulate their appeal and to approach relevant individuals and/or collectives. Such experience-based knowledge should also be documented so that the next generation of researchers will be better equipped with the skills needed for reaching out to language policy arbiters and initiating change.

210

7  Challenges and Prospects for the EPA Programme: Implications for Japan’s…

7.6 Conclusion Unlike a decade ago, the EPA programme is beginning to be adorned with positive remarks as a successful programme which manages and improves EPA candidates’ professional qualities and Japanese language ability through several monolingual training and testing devices. However, this book has squarely questioned what has been perceived as successful or well-achieved. I have maintained a critical focus on the ideologies and practices implicit in policy discourses and policymaking activities, particularly their connection with dominant socioeconomic, political and sectoral interests. The EPA programme was found to maintain the monolingual Japanese policy by tightly closing the ideological space, thereby limiting opportunities for creating, locating, widening, and actualising the implementational space where languages other than Japanese can play a role and realise their potential value. The analysis of the exam reforms provided a prime example in which the ideological space for multilingualism-in-test is violently closed in the national policymaking, and the implementational space is merely used as political bluff rather than as a serious opportunity to address issues of language use, education and assessment affecting EPA candidates and the healthcare sector more broadly. This closure was facilitated by the language policy arbiters, namely the vocal healthcare industry, who cling to Japan’s national identity as a linguistically unified nation and a humane country with advanced knowledge, technology and economic resources. The vested interests of the potent group are maintained through blind faith in Japan’s monolingualism, standard language ideologies, popular myths of language teaching, learning and assessment, and ideological constructions of a fair examination and the need for an unchangeable national licensure examination. Conversely, EPA candidates were expected to assume a submissive position: as receivers of Japan’s benevolence, as socially disadvantaged individuals hungry for Japan’s economic and knowledge capital, as a thorn in the existing and stable Japanese system, and as potential intruders in the comfortable monolingual workplace. Since the ideological space in the exam reform debates remained closed and the implementational space stood idle, only certain options were made available, whereby the status of Japanese as a medium of examination is unquestioned and unchallenged. Because of the powerful advocacy from the healthcare sector as well as the ideological construction of EPA candidates, the candidates’ lack of Japanese language proficiency has been used as the main excuse for the problems of the EPA programme up until now. In other words, language is used as a scapegoat to avoid addressing the structural and programmatic issues of the EPA programme in particular and Japan’s healthcare and labour migration system more broadly. This book concludes that the EPA programme is expected to bring little fundamental change to Japan’s immigration policy (Akashi 2014; Vogt 2013, 2018) or to its language policy in the near-term future. The rapid social aging and the pressing need for (workforce) migration spells an abundance of opportunities for multilingual human encounters as well as ideological negotiation and shifts. In this regard,

7.6 Conclusion

211

the EPA programme could have provided a good opportunity to subvert the dominance of standard Japanese and to disrupt/challenge the inherent ideologies such as monoglot ideology (Silverstein 1996) as a primary means of exclusion. However, this book has shown otherwise. The EPA programme is found to reinforce or capitalise on the existing ideologies rather than to enhance multilingualism as well as sociolinguistically fair assessments for the benefit of the migrant population, based on the assumptions that changes are fundamentally problematic and threatening. It is only possible to draw a pessimistic scenario that a profound change, such as another exam reform for multilingual testing, will not happen, largely because of little prospect for a substantial discursive transformation in Japanese society (e.g., quitting hold of a monolingual self-image and a world-class leader in medicine and carework). As Sect. 7.2 has demonstrated, the skilling discourse within the caregiving sector as well as the changing discourse about the EPA programme per se further contribute to the consolidation of the untouchable national licensure examinations, which generate an emerging cohort of migrant healthcare workers who will embody and guard the canonical Japanese language and entrenched ideologies about language/professional testing. More importantly, it is considered very much likely that expedient multilingualism persists in the least disruptive format, for example, in the renewal of pre-screening language tests and that all language problems identified in the EPA programme continue to be attended solely through intervening in the EPA candidates’ Japanese language learning. In other words, the EPA programme is on the verge of becoming impossible to allocate a fair amount of ideological space for meaningful bi/multilingualism in the policy discourse. While the EPA programme is expected to do very little to the Japan’s language policy landscape, a language policy like the EPA programme can imply the dawn of new LPP research in Japan and beyond. The EPA programme is formed and structured very differently from the existing language (education) policies and its characteristics cannot be fully explained by the long-established explicit/implicit or over/covert distinctions or the top/bottom metaphors. This study suggests that one must inquire into an emergent type of language policy, or what can be labelled as a tie-in language policy in order to analyse an ever-changing policy climate which enables language problems disappear from critical gazes of LPP researchers. Furthermore, the current study has emphasised that identifying language policy arbiters (Johnson & Johnson 2015) helps us not only understand why policy imperatives almost always lose touch with practice and real-world contexts but also create a condition necessary for social action that can go hand in hand with research. LPP researchers’ lack of relevant knowledge and experience in fulfilling their social responsibility cannot be overcome overnight. Yet, there is no alternative but for every (critical) language policy researcher to face up to this tremendous homework. I strongly believe that the LPP research community will value and embrace such endeavours and engagement more than ever. Acknowledgement This work was supported by MEXT/JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 20 K13021.

212

7  Challenges and Prospects for the EPA Programme: Implications for Japan’s…

References Akashi, J. (2014). New aspects of Japan’s immigration policies: Is population decline opening the doors? Contemporary Japan, 26(2), 175–196. Asato, W. (2009). シンガポールの外国人看護師･介護士の実態 [the current status of foreign nurses and caregivers in Singapore] [symposium report](国際ワークショップ報告書: 始 動する外国人材による看護･介護 受け入れ国と送り出し国の対話 [international workshop report: Nursing and caregiving by foreign human resources  - a dialogue between host and receiving countries], Issue. Sasakawa Peace Foundation. https://www.spf.org/publication/ upload/4789184c86d.pdf. Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Pearson Education. Bouchard, J., & Glasgow, G. P. (2018). Agency in language policy and planning: A theoretical model. In J.  Bouchard & G.  P. Glasgow (Eds.), Agency in language policy and planning: Critical inquiries (pp. 22–76). Routledge. Choi, T.-H. (2018). Structure, agency and the “teaching English in English” policy: The case of South Korea. In J. Bouchard & G. P. Glasgow (Eds.), Agency in language policy and planning: Critical inquiries (pp. 214–236). Routledge. Economic Affairs Bureau EPA Negotiating Team (Ed.). (2007). 解説 FTA･EPA交渉 [description: Negotiation for FTAs and EPAs]. Nihon Keizai Hyōronsha. Prime Minister says, "We need to quickly create a mechanism" for five industries, including construction and agriculture, Maintaining expansion of employment of foreigner in the face of challenge for being a country of choice. (2018, 6 June). [外国人就労 拡大を表明 首相「仕 組み早急に」 建設や農業など5業種 「選ばれる国」へ課題]. Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 1. Flores, N., & Schissel, J. L. (2014). Dynamic bilingualism as the norm: Envisioning a heteroglossic approach to standards-based reform. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 454–479. Gegeo, D.  W., & Watson-Gegeo, K.  A. (2002). The critical villager: Transforming language and education in Solomon Islands. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 309–325). Lawrence Erlbaum. Gegeo, D. W., & Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2012). The critical villager revisited: Continuing transformation of language and education in Solomon Islands. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (2nd ed., pp. 233–251). Routledge. Goto, J. (2015). EPA 看護師･介護士受入れ政策の課題 [challenge for the acceptance policy of EPA nurses and caregivers]. 労働法令通信 [Labor Law News], 2–6. Gottlieb, N. (2008). Japan: Language policy and planning in transition. Current Issues in Language Planning, 9(1), 1–68. Hornberger, N. H. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approach. Language Policy, 1(1), 27–51. Hornberger, N. H. (2005). Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces in heritage language education. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 605–609. Japan Association of Certified Care Workers. (2007). 社会福祉士及び介護福祉士一部改正法 案に関する発言趣旨 [The purport of JACCW’s president input with regards to the revision bill for the certified social workers and certified care workers act]. Retrieved 16 Sept 2009, from http.//www.jaccw.or.jp/news_imp/20070426_sangin.pdf Japan Association of Certified Care Workers. (2021). 准介護福祉士の取扱に関する要望書 [A petition for the treatment of assistant caregiver]. Retrieved 2 Aug 2022, from https://www. jaccw.or.jp/wp-­content/uploads/2021/12/jun_kaigofukushishi20211217.pdf Japan Bank for International Cooperation. (2019). インドネシアの投資環境 2019 [The 2019 Indonesia’s investment climate]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www.jbic.go.jp/ja/information/investment/images/inv_indonesia201912.pdf Japan Nursing Association. (n.d.). 准看護師制度について [Assistant nurses]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www.nurse.or.jp/aim/jyunkan/index.html Johnson, D. C. (2010). Implementational and ideological spaces in bilingual education language policy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(1), 61–79.

References

213

Johnson, D.  C., & Johnson, E.  J. (2015). Power and agency in language policy appropriation. Language Policy, 14(3), 221–243. Kawauchi, Y. (2012). 日本EPAのアジア展開と看護･介護労働の国際化(1) [the development of Japan’s Economic partnership agreements in Asia and the internationalization of nursing/ caregiving work (1)]. 共立国際研究 [The Kyoritsu Journal of International Studies], 29, 1–31. Kawauchi, Y. (2013). 日本EPAのアジア展開と看護･介護労働の国際化(2) [the development of Japan’s Economic partnership agreements in Asia and the internationalization of nursing/caregiving work (2)]. 共立国際研究 [The Kyoritsu Journal of International Studies], 30, 63–96. Lie, J. (2000). The discourse of Japaneseness. In M.  Douglass & G.  S. Roberts (Eds.), Japan and global migration: Foreign workers and the advent of a multicultural society (pp. 70–90). University of Hawaiʻi Press. Lie, J. (2001). Multiethnic Japan. Harvard University Press. Lo Bianco, J. (2001). Policy literacy. Language and Education, 15(2–3), 212–227. Lo Bianco, J. (2010). Language policy and planning. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 143–176). Multilingual Matters. Lo Bianco, J. (2014). Language planning as applied linguistics. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 738–761). Blackwell. Lopez, M. (2012). Reconstituting the affective labour of Filipinos as care workers in Japan. Global Networks, 12(2), 252–268. McCarty, T. L. (2002a). Between possibility and constraint: Indigenous language education, planning, and policy in the United States. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 285–307). Lawrence Erlbaum. McCarty, T. L. (2002b). A place to be Navajo: Rough rock and the struggle for self-determination in indigenous schooling. Routledge. McCarty, T.  L. (2012). Language planning and cultural continuance in native America. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (2nd ed., pp. 255–277). Routledge. McCarty, T. L. (2014). Negotiating sociolinguistic borderlands: Native youth language practices in space, time and place. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 13, 254–267. McCarty, T. L., Collins, J., & Hopson, R. K. (2011). Dell Hymes and the new language policy studies: Update from an underdeveloped country. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 42(4), 335–363. Medalla, E.  M., Balboa, J.  D. A., & Vidar-Vale, C. (2010). Japan-Philippines Economic partnership agreement (JPEPA): Toward a framework for regional economic integration [discussion papers]. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. https://eaber.org/wp-­content/ uploads/2011/05/PIDS_Medalla_2010_1.pdf. Menken, K., & García, O. (Eds.). (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers. Routledge. Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry. (n.d.). 日フィリピンEPA [Japan-Philippines EPA]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/trade_policy/epa/epa/ph/ Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2010). (社)国際厚生事業団の改革案について [JICWELS’s reform proposal]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/jigyo_ shiwake/dl/jicwels_6.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2013). 介護福祉士国家試験の出題範囲等の今後の在 り方について [The report on the range of questions on the national caregiving examination for the future]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/05-­Shingikai-­12201000-­ Shakaiengokyokushougaihokenfukushibu-­Kikakuka/0000032221.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2015). 介護キャリア段位制度の概要 [An overview of the career-stage assessment system]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/ file/05-­Shingikai-­12301000-­Roukenkyoku-­Soumuka/0000100169.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2016). 保健師助産師看護師国家試験制度改善検討部 会報告書 [Report of the subcommittee for the improvement of the national examination system

214

7  Challenges and Prospects for the EPA Programme: Implications for Japan’s…

for public health nurses, midwives, and nurses]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www. mhlw.go.jp/file/05-­Shingikai-­10803000-­Iseikyoku-­Ijika/0000115632.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2020a). 介護技能評価試験: 試験実施要領 [Procedure for the nursing care skills evaluation test]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from http://www.saitogyosei.jp/la/CareSkillExaminationConductPoint.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2020b). 介護日本語評価試験: 試験実施要領 [Procedure for the nursing care Japanese language evaluation test]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www.moj.go.jp/isa/content/930005133.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2020c). 介護福祉士国家試験の出題範囲等の今 後の在り方について [The report on the range of questions on the national caregiving examination for the future]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/12004000/000611321.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2021). 保健師助産師看護師国家試験制度改善検討部 会報告書 [Report of the subcommittee for the improvement of the national examination system for public health nurses, midwives, and nurses]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www. mhlw.go.jp/content/10805000/000763772.pdf Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (n.d.). Nursing care Japanese evaluation test: Example. Retrieved 21 July 2022, from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/12000000/000503364.pdf Minoda, S., Aono, J., Higuchi, S., Kitagawa, C., Hiruma, Y., Aoki, M., & Kusakabe, K. (2020). Analysis of the Japanese national nursing examination completed for the first time by Vietnamese Economic partnership agreement nurse candidates: A true/false comparison with Japanese examinees. 愛知県立大学看護学部紀要 [Bulletin of Aichi Prefectural University School of Nursing and Health], 26, 83–94. Mizutani, Y. (2019). ｢准看のみ在留期間4年｣は不合理 江澤日医常任理事 ["4-year residency limitation only for assistant nurses is unreasonable", Mr. Ezawa, executive director of JMA, said]. m3.com. Retrieved 2 Aug 2022, from https://www.m3.com/news/open/iryoishin/66934 4?category=research Navarrete, A. F. C., & Tatlonghari, V. M. (2018). An empirical assessment of the effects of the Japan–Philippine Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) on Philippine exports to Japan: A gravity model approach. Journal of Economic Structures, 7, Article 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40008-­018-­0129-­8, 1, 20, An empirical assessment of the effects of the Japan–Philippine Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) on Philippine exports to Japan: a gravity model approach. Niki, I. (2020). Policymaking process for foreign care workers in contemporary Japan: Changes and continuations. New Sociology: Journal of Critical Praxis, 1(1), 1–20. NINJAL committee on Language of Hospitals. (2009). ｢病院の言葉｣を分かりやすくする提案 [proposals to make the language of hospitals easier to understand] [committee report]. https:// www2.ninjal.ac.jp/byoin/pdf/byoin_teian200903.pdf. Nunō, K. (2016). 迷走する外国人看護･介護人材の受け入れ [problematic acceptance of foreign nurses and care workers: What should we learn from our experiences?]. Hitsuji Shobo. Ohno, S. (2012). Southeast Asian nurses and caregiving workers transcending the national boundaries: An overview of Indonesian and Filipino workers in Japan and abroad. Southeast Asian Studies, 49(4), 541–569. Organization for Technical Intern Training. (2021). 令和2年度業務統計職種別技能実習計 画認定件数 [The 2020 statistics: Number of approved technical intern training program trainees, by occuaption]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www.otit.go.jp/files/user/ toukei/211001-­1-­4.pdf Organization for Technical Intern Training. (2022). 外国人技能実習制度について [Technical intern training program]. Retrieved 25 Aug 2022, from https://www.otit.go.jp/files/ user/220425-­511.pdf Otomo, R. (2017). Japan’s economic partnership agreement as language policy: Creation, interpretation, appropriation [unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of Hong Kong]. PRC.

References

215

Otomo, R. (2020). Healthcare, language and a free-trade agreement: Institutional logics of on-the-­ job Japanese language training for migrant healthcare workers. Multilingua, 39(3), 343–367. Otomo, R. (2021). The policy and institutional discourse of communication ability: The case of (migrant) eldercare workers in Japan. In K. Gonçalves & H. Kelly-Holmes (Eds.), Language, global mobilities, blue-collar workers and blue-collar workplaces (pp. 147–163). Routledge. Pérez-Milans, M., & Tollefson, J. W. (2019). Language policy and planning: Directions for future research. In J.  W. Tollefson & M.  Pérez-Milans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 727–741). Oxford University Press. Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 4(2), 196–213. Roberts, G. S. (2013). Vocalizing the ‘I’ word: Proposals and initiatives on immigration to Japan from the LDP and beyond. Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies, Waseda University, 19, 201–219. Roberts, G. S. (2018). An immigration policy by any other name: Semantics of immigration to Japan. Social Science Japan Journal, 21(1), 89–102. Ruiz, R. (1991/2016). The empowerment of language-minority students. In N.  H. Hornberger (Ed.), Honoring Richard Ruiz and his work on language planning and bilingual education (pp. 259-269). Multilingual matters. (reprinted from empowerment through multicultural education, pp. 217–227, by C.E. Sleeter, Ed., 1991, SUNY Press). Sasaki, A., & Ogawa, R. (2019). Social stratifications of migrant care workers in Japan. ASEAN Social Work Journal, 7(1), 15–34. Schiffman, H. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy. Routledge. Shima, C. (2014). Language socialization process of Indonesian and Filipino nurses in Japan [unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison]. The United States. Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Longman Pearson. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Routledge. Silverstein, M. (1996). Monoglot “standard” in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In D. Brenneis & R. Macaulay (Eds.), The matrix of language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology (pp. 284–306). Westview Press. Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language. (2017). 日本語教育推進議員連盟につい て [The bipartisan group for the promotion of Japanese language education]. Retrieved 21 Jan 2022, from http://www.nkg.or.jp/wp/wp-­content/uploads/2017/02/20170224giinrenmei.pdf Takeuchi, M. (2009). 外国人看護師との協働の可能性: ベトナム人看護師の受け入れ経験 から [possibility of collaboration with foreign nurses: Experience of accepting Vietnamese nurses] [symposium report](国際ワークショップ報告書: 始動する外国人材による看護･ 介護 受け入れ国と送り出し国の対話 [international workshop report: Nursing and caregiving by foreign human resources - a dialogue between host and receiving countries], Issue. . https://www.spf.org/publication/upload/4789184c86d.pdf. Takeuchi, M. (2016). Transformation of discourse: Multilingual resources and practices among Filipino mothers in Japan. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(3), 235–248. Thränhardt, D. (1999). Closed doors, back doors, side doors: Japan’s nonimmigration policy in comparative perspective. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 1(2), 203–223. Tollefson, J.  W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. Longman. Tollefson, J. W. (2006). Critical theory in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 42–59). Blackwell Publishing. Tollefson, J. W. (2008). Scholarship and activism on language. 語学研究 [ICU Language Research Bulletin], 22, 1–10. Ueno, M. (2012). EPAによるインドネシア人介護福祉士候補者の受け入れ現場の現状 と求められる日本語教育支援: 候補者と日本語教師への支援を目指して [the practical issues and necessary support in teaching Japanese to Indonesian care worker candidates under the EPA scheme in a Japanese care facility: Aiming to support to the candidates and

216

7  Challenges and Prospects for the EPA Programme: Implications for Japan’s…

Japanese language teachers]. 国際協力研究誌 [Journal of International Development and Cooperation], 18(3), 123–136. Vogt, G. (2013). When the leading goose gets lost: Japan’s demographic change and the non-reform of its migration policy. Asian Studies: Journal of Critical Perspectives on Asia, 49(2), 14–44. Vogt, G. (2018). Population aging and international health-caregiver migration to Japan. Springer. Weinberg, M. (2021). Scale-making, power and agency in arbitrating school-level language planning decisions. Current Issues in Language Planning, 22(1–2), 59–78. Williams, G. (1992). Sociolinguistics: A sociological critique. Routledge. Yagi, N., Mackey, T.  K., Liang, B.  A., & Gerlt, L. (2014). Policy review: Japan-Philippines Economic partnership agreement (JPEPA): Analysis of a failed nurse migration policy. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51(2), 243–250.