Language tests and neoliberalism in “global human resource” development: A case of Japanese Universities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study looks into the increasing emphasis on the use of language tests for global workplace preparation in Japan. It presents particular usages of English language tests in higher education curricula designed to foster “Global Human Resources” (GHRs), a special global workforce with high levels of English proficiency deemed necessary by the Japanese government. Focusing on a government-initiated five-year funding program, “The Project for Promotion of Global Human Resources”, government documents and the project planning sheets of 11 universities are analyzed to trace how language tests act as a form of governmentality (Foucault. 2007 [1977]. Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (Trans. by Graham Burchell). New York: Palgrave Macmillan) to maximize the number of GHRs. I describe how language tests are used to portray a reality about the lack of English proficiency among Japanese youth, how they work as a powerful accountability measure for universities, and how these tests are incorporated into language education curricula with the goal of increasing students’ language capital. Three functions of language tests are then identified in the universities’ proposed curricula: motivating, categorizing, and prioritizing through testing. These governing techniques represent how language tests can work to promote neoliberal forms of international education that instrumentalize language learning, stimulate inequitable competition, and (un)reward certain global subjectivities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it