Who are the “Global Human Resources”?:

From the Perspective of Symbolic Boundaries

Abstract

The aim of this study is to unveil the self-perception and group dynamics of individuals identified as “global human resources,” shedding light on the criteria they use to define their group affiliations from the perspective of Symbolic Boundaries.

In recent studies, studying abroad has been characterized as a reproductive strategy for the elite class during this age of globalization. As higher education is evaluated through university rankings in the global education arena, those who attend “world class” universities are cast as “global elites,” capable of seamlessly traversing the world and reaping the maximum benefits from the global economy. Japan is also ardently pursuing the development of “global human resources.” In response to this trend, numerous criticisms have emerged concerning the definitions and requirements for “global human resources,” primarily focusing on objective aspects such as the presence or absence of study-abroad experience, language proficiency, and nationality. However, the subjective aspect of how those designated as “global human resources” perceive the question “Who are the global human resources?” has not been clarified.

In this regard, 44 participants in the “Tobitate Study Abroad Program,” the largest benefit-type scholarship project implemented by the Japanese government, were interviewed. These students can be considered a classic example of “global human resources” in Japan. The findings are as follows:

First, “global human resources” delineate their identity through their study abroad experiences and form a boundary of “what one wants to do” between themselves and “university students” or “classmates.” This boundary of “what one wants to do” functions as a cognitive framework that acknowledges their distinctiveness while contrasting with “academic background” and “elites.” Second, when the boundary of “what one wants to do” is directed toward Tobitate students, it assumes a certain desirability and frequently becomes a criterion for determining superiority or inferiority. They refer to “going outside the orthodoxy” as desirability, contrasting “exchange students” and “the standard route.” Third, when studying abroad as “global human resources,” the emphasis is on making the connection between “going outside the orthodoxy” and “contributing to society.” These perceptions are shaped by the institutional context of the Tobitate program. Fourth, there are differences in the way these boundaries are experienced by different classes and genders.

Based on the results, it is evident that their collective identity can play a role in promoting disparities and inequalities within their study abroad experiences. As the number of Japanese students studying abroad increases, it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to stand out solely due to their study-abroad experience. In such circumstances, they establish their own distinctiveness by forming a symbolic boundary of “what one wants to do.” Such findings are part of the mechanism that generates and reinforces disparities among those who hold a relatively advantageous position within the social hierarchy, especially in comparison to other university students and those who have studied abroad. In addition, such perceptions are formed based on a logic distinct from the global pecking order of knowledge as indicated by university rankings.