Exploring Theoretical Opportunities for Post-war Reconciliation within International Exchange Programs at Japanese Universities

Introduction: Opportunities for Reconciliation Generations Apart

Dr. David Bloomfield, who has worked for over three decades in the area of peacebuilding, opens his most recent article on reconciliation with a short, tempered and cautionary statement, “Reconciliation is about rebuilding broken relations and relationships. If that sounds soft, or non-contentious, it most certainly is not” (p.45, 2016). Bar-Tal and Bennink (p.45, 2004) elaborate that reconciliation is a process that goes beyond agreements of formal conflict resolution and solidifies a lasting peace; an effective reconciliation aims to change the motivations, goals, and attitudes of a large portion of society between the parties regarding the conflict(s) that occurred and their lasting impacts. Glucksam (2024) further argues that using a single, restrictive definition for reconciliation is problematic due to the depth and variety of their processes and may be unethical; therefore, the definition and processes for this paper are left flexible and open with these considerations in mind.
 
Relations between Japan and mainland China, while generally peaceful, are still tenuous at times, as visible through mainland China’s military ambitions/investments, territorial disagreements, cross-strait relations, and disagreements regarding the views of past conflicts (Emmott, p.12, 35, 2009; Shirk, p.112, 2007; Christensen, 1999). Within the descriptions laid out by Bar-Tal and Bennink on nations and people that have reconciled, the relationship between Japan and mainland China does not qualify as having reconciled post-conflict at the state, societal, or individual level. As of December 2024, both Japan and mainland China have been polled by a joint opinion polling program, and results showed mutually unfavourable impressions of each other; 89.0% of Japanese had a negative view of mainland China and likewise 87.7% of mainland Chinese with negative views toward Japan (Japan Times, 2024), the negative views of mainland Chinese showing a significant rise correlating to influences of social media. 
 
International exchange programs in Japan offer a unique opportunity for individuals to engage with these conflicting narratives through their experiences and classmates. It is within these (often) English-taught, international spaces created in Japan that international students come into contact, co-exist, and communicate with native Japanese university students, along with other international students across the world who hold many viewpoints and narratives. This is in addition to classes that are often cultural and historical in content in an academic-focused environment. Immersed in this multicultural, academic environment for sometimes up to a year, interacting with other international and domestic Japanese students, and being exposed to views from around the world in a social hierarchy of students face-to-face as equals, short-term international study abroad exchange programs present a unique environment that may theoretically facilitate effective reconciliation. 
 
This paper deals with the theory-based question of how short-term (half-year to a year) international study abroad exchange programs in Japan may create an environment that facilitates effective reconciliation between Japanese students and other international students. To address such a wide-reaching issue, the scope of this paper will look at this question primarily regarding the current Japanese domestic students and mainland Chinese international students. Based on the following proposed four-step model for reconciliation drawn from existing works on reconciliation, a tentative selection of facets of typical international study abroad exchange programs in Japan are proposed for a pilot study for evaluation. This is based on a theory-based model to identify what environment must exist for effective facilitation of reconciliation and to highlight what may be detrimental.

Japanese University Exchange Programs and Reconciliatory Opportunities

During a year-long study abroad exchange in Japan, international students will come face-to-face with the unresolved ghosts of historical disagreements between Japan and its neighbours in some form, whether they understand the situation or not. The students may encounter these issues in a conversation with other international or domestic Japanese students, hear the blaring loudspeakers of ultranationalist black vans, or visit a museum that has shied away from a select few decades of history. While taking part in their respective programs, international students may also take a trip to Hiroshima as part of a course, take a class on history in Asia, or may even pass by the racist, hate-filled shouting of an angry political group outside a nearby busy train station on their way back after class. The above is what I have observed international students experience during their year-long/semester-long study programs in Japan; moreover, I personally experienced several of the above occurrences as a former international student and later as a university faculty member working with study abroad international exchange programs. Students are unlikely fully to understand the encounters at first due to language barriers or cultural differences, making the experiences more difficult to parse at first. Still, the longer one stays in Japan, the odds are near certain that one will have an encounter with the conflicting historical narratives. 
 
Over the past two decades, a significant number of international students in Japan have been from neighbouring countries with which Japan has unresolved historical disagreements (MEXT, 2011, 2024). I argue that for universities to ignore matters related to historical disagreements that may arise during a university study abroad experience is negligent, and it leaves their students ill-prepared when they encounter these issues elsewhere—this argument applies to international students and domestic Japanese students. This matter also includes the staff and university faculty who deal regularly with students, as they need to be aware of how to approach such issues at the program level in an understanding, educational, and productive manner. The university, as an institution of higher education, is a setting in which critical thinking and the truth-seeking process go hand-in-hand, and this paper takes the position that study abroad exchange programs may be one of the better environments to begin walking the delicate path of reconciliation, while also assisting students with the support necessary to handle a nearly unavoidable experience of a year-long/semester-long study abroad exchange program in Japan.

A Meeting Space: International Study Abroad at Japanese Universities

In the early 1980s, Japan drafted what would come to be known as the 100,000 International Student Plan (in Japanese, Ryuugakusei 10 Man Nin Keikaku) to bring the number of international students, as stated, to 100,000 by the 21st century. While the plan fell short, only achieving 78,812 international students, it succeeded in beginning a strong push for international study abroad education in Japan, which continues today (Tsuneyoshi, 2010). In 2010, 141,774 international students studied in Japan, and this number continues to rise steadily, up by 6.8 percent from the previous year. Of these, mainland Chinese students made up 60.8 percent of the total number of international students in Japan, followed by South Korea at 14.2 percent (JASSO, 2010). By 2016, Vietnamese students replaced Korean students as the second largest group of visiting international students, and the total number of students overall was slightly lower at 139,185 students (JASSO, 2015). Currently, the most recent data for 2023 (MEXT, 2024) state 115,493 mainland Chinese students studying in Japan, making up over a third of the 279,274 international students to Japan. Japanese universities continue to expand their international programs, and government initiatives such as the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) Global 30 Program (JASSO, 2012; MEXT, 2024) show that Japan has no intention of changing its goal of increasing the number of international students. The use of the English language has been a significant factor in the push for internationalisation at Japanese universities. As English is one of the most spoken languages internationally, this allows students from around the world to take part in the programs and courses conducted through English-medium instruction (EMI) in related departments.
 
Currently, after they were previously banned from entering the country for an extended period due to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) policy (Japan Times, 2022), MEXT is restoring international student numbers to pre-COVID levels and still aiming to achieve 300,000 international students. Considering that historical disagreements and issues from the Pacific War are still prevalent and impactful, international study abroad exchange programs in Japan may serve in offering a stage for reconciliatory benefits. 
 
During the past three decades, there has been a steady—although at times nonspecific and vague—push by the Japanese government toward internationalisation via Japanese universities. As stated at the outset, the MEXT Global 30 Program was meant to “lead the way to Japan’s internationalisation via the university system;” however, while there were originally supposed to be 30 universities selected for the Global 30 program, due to several criteria for inclusion that were not met by most Japanese universities, only 13 made the first cut (Paterson, 2008). MEXT has since moved on to a multi-tiered system.
 
Considering the frequent rhetoric that Japan has put on internationalising Japanese higher education (Eades et al., 2010; MEXT, 2011, 2024; Study in Japan, 2022) in creating special programs for short-term international study programs to draw students from around the world, it begs the question of whether such an internationally focused, multicultural environment within an institution of higher education may have also had a beneficial impact on providing an environment for reconciliation between Japan and nearby nations. To date, while there has been research and critique on the state of internationalisation in Japan over the past few decades (McVeigh, 2002, 2006; Yonezawa, 2010; Paterson, 2008; Eades et al., 2010; Brown, 2015; Bradford, 2015, 2016), there has been no peer-reviewed, published research measuring the long-term effects of the efforts on creating an environment that could facilitate reconciliation over post-conflict issues between Japan and East Asian nations either at the state or individual levels. Moreover, there has been further criticism that research conducted on Japanese universities needs to be better connected with the global research community (Yonezawa, 2015).
 
While there have been several exchanges between Japanese educational institutions and its neighbouring nations, these include vague references to the possibility of reconciliation while using terms such as “mutual understanding” or “intercultural competency” as a component, not reconciliation as defined in this paper based on existing theory used in other reconciliatory situations elsewhere in the world. The instances that were examined appear to be largely ad-hoc in design, lacking consideration of reconciliation practices and theory used globally, often focused on specific meetings or classes only, and almost exclusively limited to interactions between participants with no longitudinal considerations. The Sakura Science Program funded by the Japanese government, for example, is limited to 7-, 10-, or 21-day-long events, and the program is not stated or designed to be for reconciliation (Sakura Science Exchange Program Reports, 2023); rather it is focused on creating global leaders from a select, elite group of students. Such bias in selection also goes against democratic representation—not just the perceived elite—from all members of society in the process of reconciliation (Bloomfield, p.10–11, 2003). There are papers and reports written based on the Sakura Science Exchange Programs as well as on Campus Asia, but they are notably insufficient regarding the process and applications of reconciliation concepts, the absence of worldwide research on reconciliation, and avoidance of addressing the historical controversy directly. Instead, the short reports and papers that do exist—at times sparse on literature references on reconciliation or international education research—prioritise cultural understanding, group projects, and friendly cooperative work, rather than directly dealing with process of reconciliation (Arcinas et al., 2020; Hanada & Horie, 2021; Kazama et al., 2020; Koyama, 2024; Yamane, 2013). While those papers and book chapters include elements that are important for reconciliation to take place, they fall short of examining whether these educational programs are successful for reconciliation to occur as defined in this paper, and it would be problematic to conflate long reconciliation equating to intercultural competency skills in projects that may only take place for several weeks. Without a strong theoretical framework and long-term structure, the application and reproducibility of such research are questionable. 
 
Thus, theoretically based, longitudinal research on international exchange programs and the opportunities for reconciliation at the individual level is lacking. Yet, universities in Japan may have inadvertently created a unique environment for individuals to reconcile narratives and work toward forgiveness and coexistence for those involved in the programs, but proper research requires a sound foundation in reconciliation practices and must directly address the sensitive issues at hand in a deeper, more academic manner.

Trans-generational Scars Remain Prevalent

Since the end of World War II, Japan and mainland China—along with other neighbouring nations in Asia—have remained at odds over the legacy of the events during the Pacific War. Divisive nationalistic narratives, disputed territorial borders, and political disagreements exist between mainland China and Japan within state-level relations, but even more complex are the views, opinions, and narratives held by individuals. While the Chinese Communist Party maintains narratives of anti-Japan resistance to bolster support for the historic legitimacy of their rule (Shirk, 2007), common historical narratives in Japan instead stress messages of peace mixed with reminders of its victimisation by the United States’ atomic weaponry (Orr, 2001). Such divergent narratives of the war inevitably lead to clashing postwar narratives and disputes, which may fuel threats to regional security within East Asia and fluctuate in terms of precarity (Christensen, 1999). 
 
While there continue to be vocal concerns within academia about the agenda of hard-right revisionism, especially regarding the matter of comfort women in East Asia (Morris-Suzuki, 2012), in mainland China the anti-Japan narratives can also be particularly potent and pervasive. The ways in which the narratives about the above issues are portrayed within the respective education systems, news media, and memorials can be highly persuasive in isolation. (Emmott, p.196, 2008; Shirk, p.154, 2007; Shan, 2002). These historically rooted issues extend beyond disagreement over historical matters and individual memory into the political realm and present serious difficulties for political-level reconciliation in East Asia (Tanaka, 2007), let alone reconciliation among individuals.

Building a Conceptual Framework for a Reconciliation Model

This section establishes the theoretical and conceptual framework for use in analysing the facilitation of reconciliation within the context of short-term international study abroad exchange programs at Japanese universities. To this end, it will first provide a basic working definition of reconciliation based on existing studies and works on reconciliation in practice and theorisation based upon a widespread literature review of reconciliatory concepts, works, and theory. This includes works focusing on providing an explanatory background of reconciliation within intergroup reconciliation and reconciliation theories that have been of use in the world and published in English. This plays an essential role in the framing of this paper, as varying definitions of “reconciliation” abound. Therefore, the backgrounds of current arguments within the reconciliation debate that are of acute pertinence to the understanding of this study’s working definitions are detailed below.

Reconciliation by Definition

The first step in this discussion on reconciliation is the clear definition of the word reconciliation itself. In his introduction to the concept of reconciliation in From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation, Bar-Siman-Tov summarises the definition shared between a compilation of works from various authors, such as Ackerman, Arthur, Gardner-Feldman, Kriesberg, Phillips, Bar-Tal and Bennick, and defines the core concept of reconciliation as “restoring friendship and transforming relations of hostility and resentment to friendly and harmonious ones” (Bar-Siman-Tov, p.4, 2004). Huyse (p.19, 2003) expands on this basic definition by explaining what reconciliation idealistically seeks to provide at a larger, conceptual level, in that it “prevents, once and for all, the use of the past as the seed of renewed conflict. It consolidates peace, breaks the cycle of violence, and strengthens newly established or reintroduced democratic institutions.” Reconciliation is not only the ideal goal; the term also refers to the difficult, hard wrought process that is entailed to reach that goal (Bloomfield, p.45, 2016).
 
Thus, reconciliation is a movement toward the achievement of a cooperative and amicable relationship in which one or both parties have previously inflicted serious harm on the other (Kriesberg, 2007). This definition summarises many overlapping definitions of reconciliation that fit within the context of this paper in that reconciliation is a process requiring the change of beliefs, attitudes, and emotions of individuals (Kelman, 2008; Bar-Tal and Bennink, 2004). The process of reconciliation requires a willingness to address painful questions of the past to build trust, and this implicitly requires mutual acknowledgment of the other’s identity and a mutual move toward a change in views (Kelman, 2004). Furthermore, it is important to view reconciliation as a type of umbrella term for connected processes, including justice, truth-telling, forgiveness, and, ultimately, healing (Huyse, 2003; Bloomfield, 2006). In this respect, reconciliation should bring about personal healing and the rebuilding or building of non-violent relationships. For this reason, the term “reconciliation” refers to both “a process as well as outcome,” as argued by Bar-Tal and Bennick (2004).
 
Justice, in some sense, is inevitably involved within the process of reconciliation, but when referring to the concept of justice, the definition considered for this paper is that of restorative justice. In restorative justice, the main priority is not that of classical, legal, punitive justice as handled by the state; but instead, it is the restoration of the relationships between victim and offender communities (Bloomfield, 2006). Thus, justice in the context of grassroots-level reconciliation will refer not to the punitive form but rather to acts of addressing the evaluation of blame, guilt, and the recognition of past wrongs. While state and group leaders often seek legal and punitive justice after large-scale conflicts—such as those that occurred in Bosnia and South Africa—it is difficult to apply legal-based justice to every individual in the entirety of a population after grave human rights violations (Hart, 2001; Huyse, 2003.; Bloomfield, 2006; De Gruchy, 2002). In this sense, justice focuses on the recognition of past wrongs, promotes acceptance of guilt, and fosters learning from the horrors that occurred to prevent the reoccurrence of such atrocities. This specific element of justice, however, is categorised within the realm of “emotional justice” that is used in social psychology: emotional justice refers to justice that is “achieved through the sense that the negotiations have seriously sought and to a significant degree shaped a just outcome” (Kelman, 2008). While punitive justice is argued still to play a role within reconciliation (Crocker, 2003), it inherently requires functional state-level legal structures, and, as this research is primarily focused on the grassroots individual level, it does not apply to the topics within this paper. 
 
Truth-telling, a concept used frequently within the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRC) in South Africa, involves mutual confrontation of historical narratives that address acute disagreement and conflict (Gibson, 2004). In this regard, it is argued by Kelman that it is unrealistic to expect or attempt to create a single, objective truth within these historical narratives but rather work towards a “negotiated truth,” an understanding and recognition that different narratives of different groups reflect different historical “experiences that may or may not relate to the same facts and figures” (Kelman, 2004). It is important to note that this does not mean that recorded history may be modified or disregarded at a whim, but rather the priority within reconciliation is placed primarily on the recognition of the other’s different weighing of the importance of certain narratives above others, or reinterpretation as to the meaning of such events within their own experiences. For there to be reconciliation, there must be, at least to some degree, a consensus of understanding of the events being reconciled, understanding of the narratives, and an agreement as to what occurred (Crocker, 2003).
 
Finally, there is the complex matter of forgiveness. Forgiveness is defined in this paper as a “means to effect change through a process of psychological and social healing and to restore broken relationships through just means” (Hart, 2001). Because this research is within the realm of trans-generational reconciliation, it lies within a unique situation where the perceived original perpetrators have died years past. Furthermore, forgiveness will also depend upon whether the individuals feel they have a right to represent the memories or speak for individuals of the past and whether they might hope for an apology or not. The process and goal of healing are often connected with forgiveness and are discussed later in this paper.

Considering the Identity of the Other and Self

There is an important distinction between the concept of identity and the recognition of the identity of the other for reconciliation; as Kelman (2004) states, “The primary feature of the identity change constituting reconciliation is the removal of negation of the other as a central component of one’s own identity.” Kelman further clarifies the outcomes, stating that “changing one’s collective identity by removing the negation of the other from it implies a degree of acceptance of the other’s identity... the change in each party’s identity may go further by moving toward the development of a common, transcendent identity—not in lieu of, but alongside of each group’s particularistic identity” (2004). Thus, before any move toward the recognition of identities, there must be an acknowledgment of the other’s nationhood and humanity; such acknowledgment is implicit in the definition of reconciliation, and it is essential to the process that each party can revise their own identity just enough to accommodate the identity of the other. This all implies that the process of reconciliation has a necessary negotiation with identity and moves from negation and exclusion of the other to acceptance and inclusion within one’s moral community (Kelman, 2004). In this manner, the process of reconciliation itself requires a change of perception for both the other group as well as one’s own group (Bar-Tal and Bennink, 2004).
 
Successful reconciliation—in this case between short-term international students from mainland China and Japanese students—is said to occur on the individual level when there exists “mutual recognition and acceptance, invested interests and goals in developing peaceful relations, mutual trust, positive attitudes, as well as sensitivity and consideration for the other party’s needs and interests” (Bar-Tal and Bennink., p.15, 2004). However, this definition is not to be confused with simple co-existence, nor is it specifically focused exclusively on forgiveness (Crocker, 2003). Finally, it is important to stress that reconciliation between individuals and among parties, like educational knowledge and the motivation to learn, cannot be forced. For reconciliation to take place, both parties must work towards it in a mutual and consensual manner (Cole, 2007). While it is ultimately up to the individuals whether they wish to reconcile, there can be much done in an attempt to provide an environment for such reconciliation to take place and increase the odds and chances of this occurrence (Hart, 2001).

Opportunities within Trans-generational Reconciliation

One of the key questions regarding any reconciliatory situation is that of what is being reconciled. However, prior to this question, Elizabeth Cole (2007) points out that there must be consideration of the “re-” within the structure of the word “reconciliation,” stating that reconciliation “seeks not to restore an imagined moral order that has been violated but to initiate new relations between members of a polity” (Cole, 2007). There has been a significant benefit in communities from the application of reconciliation concepts throughout the world, which is arguably most observable via direct application through TRCs. With Japan and China specifically, despite the Pacific War, there has been a long history of peaceful cultural exchanges over centuries (Hane, 1990). In this sense, the “re-” in reconciliation may be especially applicable, both with state-level relations and the individual-level in the past. 
 
However, what of the individual relations between mainland Chinese and Japanese in recent times? What of other individual relations between Japan, such as with those from South Korea? Most work on reconciliation has been on post-conflict reconciliation immediately after violent conflict, whereas there exists significantly less work on research pertaining to reconciliation between generations decades later that did not experience conflict directly. That is not to say that there does not remain a strong connection between individuals and that memories and narratives do not carry forward to successive generations, as there exists research within psychology that the negative effect of violent, traumatic events can carry through multiple generations through disruption and break down of aspects of a functional society (Atkinson et al., 2010).

A Baseline for a Four-Step Model of Grassroots Reconciliation

The following four-step model is proposed for reconciliation at the grassroots level and is structured on concepts and theories developed in existing research on reconciliation. There are also considerations from handbooks created for post-conflict reconciliation and previous scenarios in which reconciliation has gone forward effectively, although not without illuminating difficulties. The model proposed below is partly based on a model proposed by Ketterer for her investigations into grassroots-level reconciliation between members of South Korean and Japanese Christian churches (2011); however, the model has been modified and expanded, and connections to religious belief systems are not a mandatory part of this model. I have previously implemented a preliminary model (Berry, 2011), though this paper uses an updated, revised version.
 
The four-step theory-based process used within this paper is as follows: (1) contact, (2) co-existence, (3) conversation, and (4) healing/forgiveness. These are generalised categorical terms that depend on definition and an understanding of existing reconciliation research concepts. Reconciliation itself is a deep, broad, and often long-term process (Bloomfield et al., 2003); therefore, this four-step process views reconciliation as both a process and an outcome in accordance with the work by Bar-Tal and Bennick; furthermore, this coincides with the definition of reconciliation given at the beginning of this paper by Bar-Simon-Tov (2004) as “restoring friendship and transforming relations of hostility and resentment to friendly and harmonious ones” (Bar-Tal and Bennink, 2004). 
 
Truth-seeking and justice in the form of non-punitive justice are included; however, it favours the process of healing, which may or may not include concepts of forgiveness. In this sense, justice is neither punitive nor a systematic tool for legal reparation, but rather for addressing guilt and blame, and seeking out recognition of past wrongs in line with previous TRCs (Hart, 2001; Gibson, 2004; De Gruchy, 2002). While the topic of legal systems addressing such wrongs may arise in conversations, the focus of this paper is between individuals, not between the individual and state enforcement of justice in connection with reconciliation. 
 
Reconciliation in this model does not respect the concepts of vengeance or the movement to disregard the past in favour of the future in any way (see Crocker, 2003), nor is it seen as a model to push forward enforced forgiveness and forgetting—something which would be detrimental to the process (Bloomfield, 2003; Huyse, 2003). While at times associated, reconciliation is not a concept restricted to religious belief as a prerequisite or condition. While forgiveness has been referred to as a reflection of Western values (Hart, 2001), this research is not intended to address whether theories are Western-based or not, but rather whether the existing concepts that have been previously effective can be applied to the context of international exchange programs at Japanese universities.
 
Furthermore, the title above is that of ‘a’ four-step model, not “The” Four-Step Model, for an explicit reason: reconciliation is a considerably personal process, and while there is significant work on the process as well as considerable debate, there is no universally applicable “perfect reconciliation” method that exists, as there are too many variables between the situations and context (Bloomfield, 2003, 2016; Glucksam, 2024; Huyse, 2003). This is another reason the presented four-step model is generalised regarding each step and will focus heavily on the qualitative. These steps are flexible and more guidelines than strict steps, as reconciliation is accepted to be a long-term process that must remain inherently broad and flexible (Bloomfield, 2003, 2016; Huyse, 2003). What is proposed in this paper is one method based on a culmination of existing theories and methodologies and has been specifically designed for reconciliation at the grassroots level to allow for the examination of short-term international study abroad programs at Japanese universities. Note that it does not presume the process of reconciliation to be completed during the student’s participation in the program, but rather, the program is a foundation from which research may move through to each step.
 
In the following sub-sections, each of the four steps will be defined for this research to indicate how each is supported by existing literature on reconciliation. This is necessary not only for the sake of defining each term but also to justify which conceptualised statement of reconciliation was chosen for this research and why.

Contact

The first step of contact refers to three different elements: (1) the existence of non-violent contact between individuals or groups; (2) individual contact with the narratives and knowledge of disagreements; (3) a move away from isolation and rebuilding of communication ties and community between the perceived victim and offender within a safe environment (Bloomfield, 2003; Huyse, 2003; Bar-Tal and Bennink, 2004). There can be no effectual progression towards reconciliation if fear reigns and there exists a perpetual threat of danger. There must be no violence and an assurance of safety (Huyse, 2003).
 
There must be contact between individuals; De Gruchy argues that reconciliation cannot take place without meeting face-to-face on equal terms (2002). Contact is especially critical for reconciliation between generations who were not alive or actively involved in the conflict, which is pertinent to this research as Japanese students and mainland Chinese international students are of generations past the years following the conflict between Japan and China during the Pacific War. This could be extended also to stress that reciprocal contact is mandatory. In the day and age of the Internet, it can be difficult to quantify this contact, but in general, De Gruchy (2002) stresses first-hand, face-to-face contact as critical, but that is not to say that video, audio, or text conversations via the Internet or other forms of interaction would not have an impact or play a role; however, these other forms are not considered within this model at this time. Furthermore, this contact must take place within a place where both parties’ basic feelings of recognition, respect, acceptance, and security are met (Stephan, 2008). Optimally, such contact must take place in a setting where both groups maintain a status of equality (Bar-Tal and Bennink, 2004). At times, encouraging groups and individuals to interact can be difficult. There is also the risk that such individuals who do participate in such contact may be shunned or scolded by their in-groups after completion of such activities, posing a possible threat to these individuals for making the initial efforts toward reconciliation and contact (Bar-Tal and Bennink, 2004).
 
Furthermore, each must move beyond fear and avoidance to move towards the next step of co-existence and beyond isolation (Huyse, 2003). Opportunities for such contact can be facilitated in a variety of ways through outside organisations, both governmental and non-governmental, but these environments must be perceived as safe and provide a minimum of physical safety. Reconciliation cannot take place if there is still fear for physical safety due to threats or harm from the other party to be reconciled (Huyse, 2003).
 
Contact also fosters a starting point for a move beyond stereotyping of the identity and narratives of the other. Because reconciliation involves a strong connection with the identity of both the self and the other, contact is necessary for this process to begin. Even if such contact is between a few individuals, it is often the case that work toward reconciliation begins with a small minority. Thus, even if the numbers are small, this does not indicate a lack of possibility and potential (Bar-Tal and Bennink, 2004).

Co-Existence

Once contact has been made, the next step is co-existence: continued peaceful contact between individuals or groups. This goes beyond simple intermittent contact between individuals or groups and explicitly implies that a foundation of trust has been forged, and is being forged, between the perceived victim and offender (Huyse, p.20, 2003). Co-existence in the context of this model does not refer to the simple existence of both individuals or groups living within the same world but rather peaceful co-existence within proximity and direct contact within a local environment. While there have been arguments that co-existence can be the goal for reconciliation, this is generally not the accepted definition and is not appropriate for this research as it does not address issues that have yet to be reconciled (Bloomfield, 2006). It is, however, an easier expectation to meet by individuals than addressing or referencing the sometimes-sensitive word “reconciliation,” which can have a weighted meaning depending on the individual’s interpretation of the meaning (Bloomfield, 2006). According to Kriesberg’s definition, “coexistence generally refers to an accommodation between members of different communities or separate countries who live together without one collectively trying to destroy or severely harm the other,” but he adds that “coexistence, however, is also understood to go beyond this minimal level, to include a sense of mutual tolerance and even respect” (Kriesburg, 2001). It is this expanded definition, beyond the minimal expectation of the absence of violence in shared space, that is considered for this paper’s research model. 
 
Through co-existence, groups slowly build up and define a sense of place and relationship between each other. The process of reconciliation is not a process centred on distance and avoidance of building a relationship but rather the opposite; reconciliation involves the building of human co-existing within formed relationships (Lederach, 1997). In this sense, co-existence continues to assist in redefining identity as well as combating stereotypes of each group and allows for the understanding of everyone in the group as a unique human being. This is not to be confused with the concept of all involved groups within proximity, which may break down into violent conflict or arguments and attacks, but rather peaceful interaction between individuals toward common goals in the local environment. Co-existence is inherently bound to the recognition and respect for each group to exist in the eyes of the other (Bar-Tal and Bennink, 2004). In this manner, co-existence expands on the concept of the recognition of their identity in the realm of the other, a process that began in the first step of contact..

Communication

Once contact and co-existence exist, the next step is communication. In this research, this step of communication refers to direct conversation and interaction between individuals or groups concerning past wrongs that have been committed and that are recognised and approached constructively and critically. 
 
This step shares elements with processes followed by the TRCs (Gibson, 2004). Paramount is the promotion of truth-seeking between individuals; recognising the importance of providing a forum for the perceived victims, as well as perpetrators, to interact and speak out about their experiences and views, and to gain acknowledgment (Crocker, 2003). While the use of the word ‘truth’ here is somewhat idealistic, it refers to the goal of providing a general understanding between populations concerning the events that occurred. While the causal connection between truth-telling and reconciliation has yet to be shown beyond the works of Gibson (2004), there is generally an agreement that for truth-seeking to take place, direct discussion is a critical step of the reconciliation process. Conversation must take place in a critical manner, along with considerations and negotiations for each narrative, so that a new shared narrative may start to form (Bar-Tal and Bennink, 2004). Therefore, communication must be done in good faith by all involved parties.
 
Through communication, there exists an opportunity for empathy, and this originates from the willingness of the victim and offenders to listen to the reasons for existing hatred, pain, and suffering, but does not exclude feelings or continuation of anger (Bloomfield, 2003). This consideration for truth-telling can be particularly applicable to a classroom discussion or academic forum. Karahassan and Zembylas (2006) theorise that three steps can be taken within the realm of a pedagogical approach for reconciliation applicable to this communication step: (1) there must be the encouragement of empathy for the other’ thinking and feeling; (2) there should be a focus on problem-solving from multiple perspectives in a critical manner; and (3) there must be consideration of the acceptance of difference and the notion of hybrid identities. Critically addressing issues between the perceived victim and perpetrators directly in a forum of open and reciprocal communication is a critical step for reconciliation. As identity is a fundamental concept for grassroots reconciliation regarding the identity of the other in relation to the self, a move towards transcendent identity via communication, or at least recognition of the humanity of the other by moving past demonisation and dehumanisation of the other towards humanising, is provided via communication (Kelman, 2004). While it is accepted that feelings of anger and other strong emotions may exist, rather than expounding one’s views and beliefs exclusively, there must be a willingness to listen to the perceived perpetrator as well as the victims’ side. This direct discussion of experiences, views, and personal emotions can be difficult, as is evident through the TRCs (Gibson, 2004), but it is a critical component of the communication process. Without direct communication over such matters, reconciliation cannot proceed. Honest communication and empathy are critical, but it is important to note that, like trust, empathy cannot be enforced by authority; it can, however, be encouraged by creating a safe environment in which it is fostered (Huyse, p.21–22, 2003).
 
The completion of this step is possibly the most volatile and sensitive of this process, as each group moves beyond contact and co-existence with each other and more directly confronts each other’s narratives, disagreements, and mutually addresses memories past that neither may feel comfortable revisiting. Communication allows both parties to learn and know the thoughts and narratives of the other and provides the opportunity for acknowledgment that is decisive within the reconciliation process (Lederach, 1997). Effective and objective communication is critical for working towards reconciliation, and this step especially cannot be neglected if the goal is long-term, lasting reconciliation.

Healing/Forgiveness

Within this model, forgiveness is closely connected with 1) restorative justice, 2) the recognition of guilt, 3) movement towards considering the issue settled, and 4) acceptance of forms of apology if deemed necessary by the individuals themselves. In the case of the actions—or lack thereof—of Japan at the government level, it is dependent on the individuals’ perceptions and narratives. What is most critical is that everyone arrives at a state of general agreement regarding a “mutual recognition and acceptance invested interest and goals in developing peaceful relations, mutual trust, positive attitudes, as well as sensitivity and consideration for the other party’s needs and interests” (Bar-Tal, p.15, 2004). 
 
This is the final step in the process and result of reconciliation and is often the most difficult, but it is mandatory for reconciliation and restorative justice to take place. As mentioned previously, this does not refer to justice in the punitive sense but rather a recognition of wrongs committed and admission of guilt (Hart, 2001), and the aim is similar to that of TRCs that are aimed at individual and state level to achieve personal and national healing (De Gruchy, 2002). For reconciliation there is an inherent process for justice being sought, though it is not expected to be ideal (Bloomfield, 2016).
 
Cohen emphasises that both parties must undergo a change and make an effort toward reconciliation (2001). There must be a recognition by the parties involved that a “wrong has been committed, and who has the right to represent memory” (Cohen, 2001). In a trans-generational situation, this is critical because the perceived guilty parties may no longer be alive, as is often the case between young Japanese and mainland Chinese. If either side is not viewed, or views themselves, as holding the right to represent the memories of the victims of past atrocities and wrongdoings in some form, then it cannot be said theoretically that actions such as apologies or acceptance of responsibility are effectual. In addition to Cohen’s statement, Hayner (1999) adds that the existence of two opposing narratives must be recognised and addressed (1999); again, the requisite of involved parties acting in good faith is critical. This is the beginning of a process towards acceptance and acknowledgment of responsibility for wrongs committed. At the very least, there must first be acceptance of the concept that a wrong has been inflicted on a group for the acknowledgment of the need for reconciliation. 
 
It is important to state that this step is titled “Healing/Forgiveness” for an important reason. It has been argued that for reconciliation to take place, forgiveness is not necessarily required as an essential component due to post-conflict trauma at times being too prevalent for forgiveness to occur (Crocker, 2003; Dwyer, 2003; Huyse, p.31, 2003; Bloomfield, 2006). There is also the matter that the expectation that the victim must forgive can cause real issues with reconciliation by putting pressure on the victim to forgive when forgiveness itself remains one of the few elements of power that victims hold (Bloomfield, 2006). There have been cases where, while reconciliation may be pursued by individuals, forgiveness is withheld and not sought as a goal (Bloomfield, 2006), and in this sense, the process of pursuing healing is equally valid. Forgiveness is one option within reconciliation toward healing, but it is not exclusive. It is entirely within the rights of the victim to “not forgive,” which is distinctly separate in the minds of some from the right to “not reconcile” (Bloomfield, 2006).
 
It is dependent on the individual concerning the path and rate at which healing takes place or whether forgiveness plays a role in the process and/or outcome. Because reconciliation is inherently a deeply individualistic process, for some individuals, healing is via forgiveness, while for others, healing can take place without forgiveness. Most importantly, this process, like all involved above, is consensual and cannot be imposed by others or via authority (Huyse, 2003).

Research Application and Methodology

The above was the theoretical framework and steps for reconciliation to be considered for research conducted at Japanese university study abroad programs. Before continuing forward, a word of warning: these steps have summarised large concepts and varied discussions on reconciliation, and prior to any application of this framework it is highly recommended that one familiarise oneself with the sources used, as the concepts and application can be deep, overlap in organic and complex ways, and proper application necessitates comprehension rather than an ad hoc, partial inclusion. This warning applies doubly so when considering the ethical implications of whichever methodological approaches are chosen for evaluation, as this research involves human subjects who are in a vulnerable position. 
 
Next, it is necessary to explain how some elements may be connected to the methodology for the research itself; however, as each research is different, this is one proposal among many that may be effective with the above framework. Qualitative methodologies are critical for effectively evaluating how individuals correlate between the model and the facets proposed. Due to reconciliation being a highly personal and individual-specific affair, it is not possible effectively to judge the fourth step within the model presented with an examination of an exchange program only, as this necessitates an examination of the individual level of relationships between students longitudinally for any conclusive results.  
 
The theoretical considerations proposed in this paper are viable for a variety of research, but I limit the examination of the Japanese exchange program to within the context of that Japanese university using data acquired through the experience of students and the design of the program content. Such research could examine a variety of research questions, from whether programs are an effective space for reconciliation, to questions building upon the previous and examining best practices for reconciliation between individuals in an exchange program. Mixed methods could be especially useful for combining the examination of ethnographic data on student experiences with the curriculum and program design. While this paper proposes an initial focus on exchange programs, it is understood that research naturally would expand beyond this scope in the future upon a solid foundation being established.
 
The subjective and personal nature of reconciliation necessitates a qualitative methodological approach at its core. Yet, as long as ethical considerations are adhered to, methodology and data collection are flexible. As measuring reconciliation requires a measure of progress and reflective thinking, research done by Savicki & Price (2017) on study abroad student blog posts and reflection that took place is of note. Bennet, Bennet, and Stillings, in their study on Description Interpretation Evaluation (DIE) by (1977), and Deardorf, in his work on Observe State Explore Evaluate (OSEE)  (2021), analysed, codified, and evaluated whether students had effectively reflected on their experiences while studying abroad. Such methods of evaluation are useful for the third and fourth steps of reconciliation.
 
There must also be methodological considerations for longitudinal study, such as follow-up interviews for students in the future whether they remain in their country of origin, journey elsewhere, or return later to Japan. Furthermore, due to the complex nature of narratives and experiences that students face, qualitative research is especially important to evaluate this process. This paper  hypothesises that the international study abroad exchange programs would be a beneficial stage for reconciliation but does not assume that the process can be completed during such a short period; rather, it might set a strong, positive foundation as part of the initial stages of pilot research for a longer project.
 
There are international exchange programs in Japan that include courses and selective content taught in English; however, the reason for study abroad exchange programs is that these programs offer a much longer term than other programs during which the four steps can take place compared to other short excursion programs—sometimes only a week or two in length. Reconciliation takes time, not tour programs. Study abroad exchange programs typically offer at least one or two semesters of study in Japan, the maximum length being approximately 10–12 months. These programs enroll visiting students from universities worldwide, often based upon agreements between signatory universities or departments within the university partners. Some waive tuition for incoming exchange students (students pay their home tuition instead) and often include some consideration for university credit transfer. Class content that covers regional history and cultural understanding in some form is common during exchange programs, but still must be approached in an academic and sensitive manner.
 
The programs typically provide a structured environment for each incoming student and opportunities for domestic Japanese students to interact in a variety of situations on and off campus. Exchange programs for a worldwide pool of incoming students often use existing English Medium Instruction (EMI) courses, although in some situations, students may be allowed to take courses from full English-medium Degree Programs (EMDP) if available or join classes conducted in Japanese language depending on their language proficiency. There must also be given consideration and support for linguistic obstacles, as the language medium is a significant factor in communication. Participants would need to know that they can convey what they wish to express, as well as that such expressions are understood when received. Translation, interpretation, or sufficient skill in the language used by both parties is critical and how communication would continue post-exchange must be considered as well.
 
Ethical considerations for research on this topic vary depending on the methodology and approach chosen by the researcher; however, regardless of whichever is selected, ethical considerations are heavy and numerous—especially so for longitudinal research when political attitudes and relations between nations are ever-changing. There are multiple concerns about maintaining ethical standards during this research due to the personal nature and human interaction of surveys, interviews, and class observation using the proposed framework. Thus, caution must be taken during this research while gathering information, especially due to the sensitive nature of the interviewees. Special consideration must be taken regarding the anonymity of faculty and students regarding interviews. 
 
Beyond the anonymisation of students, because of the politically sensitive nature surrounding historical disagreements that exist within education systems and in Japan, the publication of identifying factors could pose a risk to the employment of faculty if information or statements were given that were judged to be unacceptable by individuals in positions of power; as well as the risk of harassment. It is critical to speak closely with individuals and faculty regarding any interviews or group interviews that might be done that put individuals in an uncomfortable situation. All individual students, faculty, staff, and otherwise identifiable individuals, should be kept anonymous regardless of their assumed safety by the interviewee.

Proposed Facets for Application of a Model for Research on Reconciliation

The following is a tentative, foundational proposal for structuring research on reconciliation at Japanese universities with exchange programs that involve Japanese domestic students and exchange students from mainland China. It proposes separation of the approach through six facets, and outlines several considerations that must be considered for effective research of this topic, while not interfering with the reconciliation process. These six distinct facets are aspects with which every international student in a program experience will likely come into contact in some manner, whether they be mainland Chinese or other nationalities. While the way students approach each situation and their individual experience will differ, at the program level students are typically offered similar opportunities. It is understood that in some cases there will be aspects that may be outside these facets; this is intended to gather most of the aspects of the exchange programs that need to be considered for research, and primarily for a pilot research project to encompass many of the facets of a study abroad experience. 
 
The facets of most international study abroad program experiences in Japan include the following: (1) university campus and resources, (2) university classes, (3) living conditions, (4) domestic students, (5) international students, and (6) program activities. They are a tentative, amalgamated categorisation based on the areas of examination conducted in research by Tsuneyoshi (2004), Bradford (2015, 2016), Brown (2015), Rakhshandehroo (2017), and my previous research as well (2011). These proposed six facets include core aspects of the international study abroad exchange program experience. The ‘university campus and resources’ facet refers to the space of the university campus itself, such as student lounges, placement of international students, and locations of classes. The ‘university classes’ facet includes any content regarding classes and how they are taught, teaching methods, and subject matter. ‘Living conditions’ refers to the living conditions and spaces within which students live during their participation in Japan. The ‘domestic students’ and ‘international students’ facets refer to the students themselves as part of the program. Finally, the ‘program activities’ refer to the various trips, internships, and opportunities provided to international students from the program, which sometimes involve domestic Japanese students as part of the participants. 
 
While interaction with Japanese students and other international students are aspects within the individual level, these exchange programs frequently consider the interaction between Japanese students and other international students as a core purpose of the program to open opportunities through events or shared classes for the domestic students to interact with the non-Japanese students. Cultural exchange and exposure are inherent parts of the program, and each international student will encounter Japanese students on campus, their assigned living arrangements, an assigned tutor/supporter, and other areas that are common elements of international programs. The same goes for international students as a facet, as interaction with students from other countries is also an inherent and core part of the programs. 
 
Within each facet, there must be consideration as to how and to what extent each serves toward the reconciliatory processes. Contact within a peaceful environment, along with general coexistence within a host country’s program set solid foundations for the first initial steps of reconciliation—though these are foundations, not guarantees. Longitudinal research and contact over time are aspects of these initial two steps that appear often to be neglected when looking at short-term excursions. Even with a year-long international exchange program, the length of time that students are in proximity to each other, working together, and coexisting in a space are factors that must be included within measurements. The process of reconciliation takes time (Bar-Tal & Bennink, 2004; Bloomfield, 2006; De Gruchy, 2002), and individuals must be allowed that time within program design.
 
Finally, there must be existing training and education in some form, along with awareness of the relationship dynamics between faculty/staff and students. In research by Tupper and Omoregie (2024) on reconciliation involving indigenous peoples and teacher education in Canada, it was stressed that the historical education teachers received could significantly impact the process. Furthermore, pre-service teachers’ effective historical understanding was assisted with involvement and connection to local communities, which allowed for a more effective approach. This indicates that faculty involved in such reconciliation-based projects likely require unique preparation and training prior to involvement for reconciliation to be effectively facilitated.

Closing

In many respects, through the structure and design alone, international study abroad exchange programs appear to set the stage for reconciliation through the third step of reconciliation to begin. International study abroad and multicultural classroom settings inherently involve many encounters with the self and the other, repositioning and questioning long-held identities and narratives, shining a light on both differences and similarities. Such environments strongly correlate to key concepts of the identity of others, and to the wider range of societal beliefs in which reconciliation concepts are situated based; social-psychology (Kelman, 2004, 2008, 2010; Nadler and Nurit, 2006; Bar-Tal, 2019). With deeper, more stringent academic rigour in comparison to existing reconciliation theory as listed in this paper, along with longitudinal examination considerations, proper research may prove to be beneficial for both improving international study abroad exchange program content for students as well as helping generations past work toward reconciling.
 
Thus, I argue that with the above theoretical considerations, proposed framework, and an ethical methodological approach that includes the context in which international study abroad programs function, effective and measured research on reconciliation can take place. Until now, efforts in Japan have been, at best, fragmented and isolated; missing major theory/discourse on reconciliation for decades. These elements must be included in order to move the academic research on this topic forward in Japan, as well as better the program opportunities for participating students, international and domestic alike.

References

Arcinas, M.M., Tolentino, M.P., Lituañas, C.A., Cadeliña, J.S. and Obayashi, Y. (2020) ‘E-health and healthy aging among the participating countries in JST Sakura Science Exchange Program 2019’, Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 20(2), pp.149–157. Available at: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/faculty_research/213 (Accessed: 6 February 2023).
 
Atkinson, J., Nelson, J. and Atkinson, C. (2010) ‘Trauma, transgenerational transfer and effects on community wellbeing’, in Dudgeon, P., Walker, R. and Purdie, N. (eds.) Working Together: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Mental Health and Wellbeing Principles and Practice. Kulunga Research Network, Australia, pp.135–144.
 
Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (2004) ‘Introduction: Why reconciliation?’, in Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (ed.) From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation. Oxford University Press, USA, pp.3–9.
 
Bar-Tal, D. and Bennink, G. (2004) ‘The Nature of Reconciliation as an Outcome and as a Process’, in Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (ed.) From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation. Oxford University Press, pp.11–38.
 
Bar-Tal, D. (2019) ‘The Challenges of Social and Political Psychology in Pursuit of Peace: Personal Account’, Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 25(3), pp.182–197.
 
Bloomfield, D. (2003) ‘Reconciliation: an Introduction’, in Bloomfield, D., Barnes, T., and Huyse, L. (ed.) Reconciliation After Violent Conflict: A Handbook. International IDEA, pp.10–18. Available at: https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/reconciliation-after-violent-conflict-handbook.pdf (Last Accessed: 21 February 2025)
 
Bloomfield, D. (2006) ‘On good terms: clarifying reconciliation’. Available at: https://berghof-foundation.org/library/on-good-terms-clarifying-reconciliation (Accessed: 28 August 2022).
 
Bloomfield, D. (2016) ‘Rehabilitating reconciliation’. in Salter, M. & Yousuf, Z. (ed.) Accord: an international review of peace initiatives. INSIGHT 3. Conciliation Resources, UK. pp.45–47. Available at: https://rc-services-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Transforming_broken_relationships_Making_peace_with_the_past_Accord_Insight_3.pdf (Accessed: 20 February 2025).
 
Bradford, A. (2015) Internationalisation policy at the genba: Exploring the implementation of social science English-taught undergraduate degree programs in three Japanese universities. Ph.D. dissertation.
 
Bradford, A. (2016) ‘Toward a typology of implementation challenges facing English-medium instruction in higher education: Evidence from Japan’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(4), pp.339–358.
 
Brown, H. (2015) ‘Painting a picture of EMI in Japan: Extent of, rationales for, and implementation of undergraduate English-medium instruction classes at universities in Japan, Module 2 findings from a nationwide survey’ (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Available at: https://unii.academia.edu/HowardBrown/Thesis-Chapters (Accessed: 19 January 2019).
 
Christensen, T. (1999) ‘China, the U.S.-Japan alliance, and the security dilemma’, International Security, 33(4), pp.49–80.
 
Cohen, S. (2001) States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
 
Cohen, S. and Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (2004) ‘Apology and reconciliation in international relations’, in Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (ed.) From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation. Oxford University Press, USA, pp.176–195.
 
Cole, E. (2007) ‘Introduction: Reconciliation and history education’, in Cole, E. (ed.) Teaching the Violent Past: History Education and Reconciliation. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
Crocker, D. (2003) ‘Reckoning with past wrongs: A normative framework’, in Prager, C. and Govier, T. (eds.) Dilemmas of Reconciliation: Cases and Concepts. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, pp.39–63.
 
De Gruchy, J.W. (2002) Reconciliation: Restoring Justice. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
 
Dwyer, S. (2003) ‘Reconciliation for realists’, in Prager, C. and Govier, T. (eds.) Dilemmas of Reconciliation: Cases and Concepts. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, pp.91–110.
 
Eades, J. (2005) ‘The “big bang” in Japanese higher education: The 2004 reforms and the dynamics of change’, in Eades, J., Goodman, R. and Hada, Y. (eds.) The ‘Big Bang’ in Japanese Higher Education. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.
 
Emmott, B. (2009) Rivals: How the Power Struggle Between China, India and Japan Will Shape Our Next Decade. United States: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
 
Gibson, J. (2004) ‘Does truth lead to reconciliation? Testing the causal assumptions of the South African truth and reconciliation process’, American Journal of Political Science, 48(2), pp.201–217.
 
Gibson, J. (2006) ‘The contributions of truth to reconciliation: Lessons from South Africa’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(3), pp.409–432.
 
Glucksam, N. (2024) ‘The many conceptions of post-conflict reconciliation: learning from practitioners’, Peacebuilding, pp.1–19.
 
Hanada, S. and Horie, M. (2021) ‘Impact of the CAMPUS Asia initiative for developing Japanese students’ attitude toward mutual understanding: A case study of the Japan–China–Korea trilateral exchange program’, Research in Comparative and International Education, 16(3), pp.276–294.
 
Hane, M. Premodern Japan: A Historical Survey. Westview Press.
 
Hart, B. (2001) ‘Refugee return in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Coexistence before reconciliation’, in Mohammed Abu-Nimer (ed.) Reconciliation, Justice, and Coexistence: Theory and Practice. Annotated edition. Lexington Books, pp.291–307.
 
Hayner, P. (1999) ‘In pursuit of justice and reconciliation: Contributions of truth telling’, in Arnson, C. (ed.) Comparative Peace Processes in Latin America. 1st ed. Stanford University Press, pp.363–383.
 
Huyse, L. (2003) ‘The Process of Reconciliation’, in Bloomfield, D., Barnes, T., and Huyse, L. (ed.) Reconciliation After Violent Conflict: A Handbook. International IDEA, pp.19–33. Available at: https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/reconciliation-after-violent-conflict-handbook.pdf (Last Accessed: 21 February 2025)
 
International Students in Japan 2010-JASSO (2010) ‘International students in Japan 2010’. Available at: http://www.jasso.go.jp/statistics/intl_student/data10_e.html (Accessed: 26 June 2011).
 
International Students in Japan 2014-JASSO (2015) ‘International students in Japan 2014’. Available at: http://www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_student/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/11/24/data14_brief_e.pdf (Accessed: 26 February 2016).
 
Japan Times (2022) ‘Japan aims to get international student numbers to pre-COVID level in five years’. Available at: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/07/27/national/international-student-numbers/ (Accessed: 30 August 2022).
 
Japan Times (2024) ‘Nearly 90% in Japan and China have negative views of other’. Available at: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/12/03/japan/society/japan-china-negative-views/ (Accessed: 19 February 2025).
 
Karahassan, H. and Zembylas, M. (2006) ‘The politics of memory and forgetting in history textbooks: Towards a pedagogy of reconciliation and peace in divided Cyprus’, Citizenship Education: Europe and the World. London: CiCe, pp.701–712.
 
Kazama, T., Aizu, Y., Sekine, C., Hanajima, N., Teramoto, K. and Chaijruwanich, A. (2020) ‘A case study of a short-term student exchange program using Sakura Science Plan’, JSEE Annual Conference International Session W-06.
 
Kelman, H. (2004) ‘Reconciliation as identity change: A social psychology perspective’, in Bennink, G. and Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (eds.) From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation. Oxford University Press, pp.111–124.
 
Kelman, H. (2008) ‘Reconciliation from a social-psychological perspective’, in Nadler, A., Malloy, T. and Fisher, J.D. (eds.) Social Psychology of Intergroup Reconciliation. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp.15–32.
 
Kelman, H. (2010) ‘Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation: A Social-Psychological Perspective on Ending Violent Conflict Between Identity Groups’ Landscapes of Violence: An Interdisciplinary Journal Devoted to the Study of Violence, Conflict, and Trauma, 1(1), pp.1–9
 
Ketterer, S. (2011) Grassroots reconciliation: A Christian approach to improving the postcolonial relationship between Japan and South Korea. International Christian University Graduate School Thesis, Japan.
 
Koyama, Y. (2024) ‘和解学の教育手法—キャンパス・アジア ENGAGE の教育実践からの考察’, in Umemori, N. (ed.) アポリアとしての和解と正義 -歴史・理論・構想. Akashi Shoten, pp.121–154.
 
Kriesberg, L. (2001) ‘Changing forms of coexistence’, in Mohammed Abu-Nimer (ed.) Reconciliation, Justice, and Coexistence: Theory and Practice. Annotated edition. Lexington Books.
 
Kriesberg, L. (2007) ‘Reconciliation: Aspects, growth, and sequences’, International Journal of Peace Studies, 12(1), pp.1–20.
 
Lederach, J. (1997) Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. United States Institute of Peace.
 
McVeigh, B. (2002) Japanese Higher Education as Myth. Routledge.
 
———(2006) The State Bearing Gifts: Deception and Disaffection in Japanese Higher Education. Lexington Books.
 
MEXT (2011) ‘Launching the project for establishing core universities for internationalisation Global 30, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology-Japan’. Available at: http://www.mext.go.jp/english/highered/1302274.htm (Accessed: 17 July 2011).
 
MEXT (2024) ‘外国人留学生在籍状況調査」及び「日本人の海外留学者数』等について’. Available at: https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20240524-mext_kotokoku02-000027891.pdf (Accessed: 30 August 2024).
 
Morris-Suzuki, T., Low, M., Petrov, L. and Tsu, T. (2012) East Asia Beyond the History Wars: Confronting the Ghosts of Conflict. London and New York: Routledge.
 
Nadler, A. and Nurit, S. (2006) ‘Instrumental and socio-emotional paths to intergroup reconciliation and the needs-based model of socio-emotional reconciliation’, in Malloy, T. and Fisher, J.D. (eds.) Social Psychology of Intergroup Reconciliation: From Violent Conflict to Peaceful Co-Existence. 1st ed. Oxford University Press, USA, pp.37–53.
 
Orr, J. (2001) Victim as Hero: Ideologies of Peace and National Identity in Postwar Japan. University of Hawaii Press.
 
Rakhshandehroo, M. (2017) ‘EMI and internationalisation: The experience of Iranian international students in Japanese universities’, electronic journal of contemporary japanese studies, 17(3), at https://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/ejcjs/vol17/iss3/rakhshandehroo.html.
 
Paterson, R. (2008) ‘Education in Japan: The schools as business, teachers and students as commodities’, Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 4(2), pp.89–103.
 
Sakura Science Exchange Program (2023) ‘Sakura Science Exchange Program Reports’. Available at: https://ssp.jst.go.jp/media/files/pdf/pamph/pr_pamph_en.pdf (Accessed: 30 August 2023).
 
Savicki, V. and Price, M.V. (2017) ‘Components of reflection: A longitudinal analysis of study abroad student blog posts’, Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 29(2), pp.51–62. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v29i2.392.
 
Seraphim, F. (2008) War Memory and Social Politics in Japan, 1945-2005. Harvard University Asia Center.
 
Shan, Z. (2002) The Picture Collection of Nanjing Massacre and International Rescue. Jiangsu Ancient Book Publishing House.
 
Shirk, S. (2007) China: Fragile Superpower. Oxford University Press.
 
Stephan, W. (2008) ‘The road to reconciliation’, in Nadler, A., Malloy, T. and Fisher, J.D. (eds.) Social Psychology of Intergroup Reconciliation: From Violent Conflict to Peaceful Co-Existence. 1st ed. Oxford University Press, USA, pp.369–394.
 
Study in Japan (2022) ‘Result of an annual survey of international students in Japan 2021’. Available at: https://www.studyinjapan.go.jp/ja/statistics/zaiseki/data/2021.html (Accessed: 30 August 2022).
 
Tanaka, A. (2007) ‘Introduction’, in Cossa, R. and Tanaka, A. (eds.) An East Asian Community and the United States. Washington, D.C.: The Center for Strategic and International Studies, pp.1–13.
 
Tsuneyoshi, R. (2004) ‘Internationalisation strategies in Japan: Study abroad programs using English and the dilemmas of an Asian nation’, Multilateral Comparative Research of Short-term Study Abroad System - A Solution for a Global Standard of Japanese Language Education. University of Tokyo, pp.11–31.
 
Tupper, J. and Omoregie, A. (2024) ‘Challenges and Possibilities for Truth and Reconciliation In Teacher Education: An Engagement with the Literature’, Canadian Journal of Education, 47(2), pp.492–521.
 
Yamane, K. (2009) Grassroots Museums for Peace in Japan: Unknown Efforts for Peace and Reconciliation. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag.
 
Yamane, K. (2013) ‘Case study for peace and reconciliation education: Japanese and Korean student exchanges in Kochi, Japan’, Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies, 26(1), pp.115–126.
 
Yonezawa, A. (2010) ‘Much ado about ranking: Why can’t Japanese universities internationalise?’, Japan Forum, 22(1–2), pp.121–137.
 
Yonezawa, A. (2015) ‘Connecting higher education research in Japan with the international academic community’, Higher Education Policy, 28(4), pp.477–493.

Article copyright Brian Berry.

Back to top