1Foreword

Established in 1947 with the mission to “promote the qualitative improvement of higher education
institutions in Japan through the voluntary efforts and mutual assistance of member institutions andto contribute to international cooperation such as educational and research activities in higher
education institutions,” the Japan University Accreditation Association (JUAA) undertakes various
quality assurance (QA) and quality enhancement activities to support Japanese universities. JUAA
carried out self-assessment of its activities regularly between 2012 and 2014, and 2018 and 2019,
under supervision of the Self-Assessment Committee. The results of these reviews were compiled
into a report and published on the JUAA website. To ensure greater objectivity and relevance of theself-assessment process, JUAA invited officials from Japanese and international higher education
institutions and other QA agencies to serve as External Review Committee members who provided
assessments and advice based on objective, independent perspectives. The external review
outcomes are also disclosed on the JUAA website in an effort to actively share the status of JUAA
activities and the challenges it faces with its member institutions and the public at large.
With the progress of globalization, the rapid evolution of digital science, and the global spread of the
COVID-19 pandemic, the environment surrounding higher education around the world is undergoing
dramatic changes. QA agencies must develop new visions for university education and ways to assure
and improve the quality of universities in the post-pandemic world. These tasks cannot be
accomplished on a country-by-country basis, making it essential that QA agencies work in partnership
across international borders.
To demonstrate internationally JUAA’s credibility as a QA agency, the Board of Managing Trustees
decided in September 2021 to undergo a Guidelines for Good Practice (GGP) review, which is anexternal review process conducted by the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies inHigher Education (INQAAHE), an organization of which JUAA is a member. The GGP is a self-reflective
tool designed to help QA agencies enhance the transparency of their operations and improve
performance. Recognition of alignment with the GGP enhances an organization’s credibility andpromotes cross-border cooperation and the potential for mutual recognition of accreditation resultswith overseas agencies. As part of the GGP review process, the JUAA Board of Managing Trustees andSelf-Assessment Committee conducted a self-assessment based on the GGP standards and reported
on the outcomes. The information used for the self-assessment was for the most part as of January
31, 2022. JUAA hopes this undertaking will highlight once more JUAA’s significance and indicate thedirection to aim for, as well as increase the international credibility and society’s understanding of its
accreditation activities.

2

Contents
Foreword ......................................................................................................................................................... 2Contents .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Glossary: Acronyms and abbreviations.......................................................................................................... 4
Part I ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
1. Brief History of the Japan University Accreditation Association (JUAA)............................................... 5
2. Universities in Japan ............................................................................................................................... 5
3. Overview of University Quality Assurance in Japan .............................................................................. 6
3.1
Approval of Establishment ............................................................................................................. 6
3.2
Post-establishment Improvement Status Inspection..................................................................... 7
3.3
Certified Evaluation and Accreditation .......................................................................................... 7
3.4
Evaluation by Specialized Field of Study (not certified evaluation and accreditation) ................ 8
4. JUAA Activities ........................................................................................................................................ 9
4.1
Quality Assurance Activities ........................................................................................................... 9
4.2
Quality Enhancement Activities ................................................................................................... 10
4.3
Research Activities ........................................................................................................................ 12
5. JUAA Internal Quality Assurance.......................................................................................................... 12Part II ............................................................................................................................................................. 14
1. The structure of the External Quality Assurance Agency (EQAA) ....................................................... 14
1.1
The agency’s legitimacy and recognition ..................................................................................... 14
1.2
Mission and Purposes ................................................................................................................... 17
1.3
Governance and Organizational Structure................................................................................... 18
1.4
Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 27
2. Accountability of the EQAA .................................................................................................................. 37
2.1
Quality Assurance of the EQAA .................................................................................................... 37
2.2
Links to the QA Community.......................................................................................................... 49
3. The EQAA’s Framework for the External Review of Quality in Higher Education Institutions ........... 58
3.1
The Relationship between the EQAA and Higher Education Institutions ................................... 58
3.2
Definition of Criteria for External Reviews .................................................................................. 62
3.3
The External Review Process ........................................................................................................ 80
3.4
The Requirements for Self-evaluation ......................................................................................... 97
4. The EQAA and Its Relationship to the Public ..................................................................................... 100
4.1
Public Reports on EQAA Policies and Decisions ......................................................................... 100
4.2
Other Public Reports .................................................................................................................. 103
5. Decision-making ................................................................................................................................. 106
5.1
The Decision-making Process ..................................................................................................... 106
5.2
The EQAA’s Process for Appeals and Complaints ...................................................................... 111
6. The QA of Cross-border Higher Education ......................................................................................... 115
6.1
Criteria for Cross-border Higher Education ................................................................................ 115
6.2
Collaboration between Agencies ............................................................................................... 116
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 121
Appendix 1: References .............................................................................................................................. 123
Appendix 2: Complete list of supporting evidence.................................................................................... 124
3

Glossary: Acronyms and abbreviations
AQPN
CHEA
ESG
GGP
iJAS
INQAAHE
IQA
JUAA
MEXT
MoU/A/CONESQAQA
RIQAHETWAEA

Asia Pacific Quality Network
Council for Higher Education Accreditation
European Standards and Guidelines
Guidelines of Good PracticeInternational Joint Accreditation Standards(Joint Accreditation Project)International Network of Quality Assurance
Agencies in Higher Education
Internal Quality Assurance
Japan University Accreditation Association
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology
Memorandum of Understanding/ Agreement/
Cooperation
Office for National Education Standards andQuality Assessment
Quality Assurance
Research Institute for Quality Assurance ofHigher Education, JUAA
Taiwan Assessment and Evaluation Association

4

Part I
1. Brief History of the Japan University Accreditation Association (JUAA)JUAA is an autonomous organization of universities founded in 1947 by 46 member institutions
modeled after accreditation bodies in the United States. With the stated mission to “promote thequalitative improvement of higher education institutions in Japan through the voluntary efforts andmutual assistance of member institutions and to contribute to international cooperation such as
educational and research activities in higher education institutions,” JUAA has strived to improve thequality of higher education by undertaking such activities as setting and revising the University
Standards and other higher education quality standards, implementing various types of accreditation
programs, conducting research, and engaging in international cooperation.
In 1951, JUAA began accreditation activities based on the verification of membership eligibility, and in1996 began to undertake university accreditation based on self-studies. With the introduction in 2004
of a new national QA framework, or certified evaluation and accreditation, JUAA became Japan’s firstcertified evaluation and accreditation organization authorized by the Minister of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology.
As of January 2022, JUAA’s full membership consists of 313 universities and 8 junior colleges, with anadditional 124 universities registered as associate members. JUAA is an autonomous public interest
incorporated foundation certified by the Prime Minister of Japan and financed solely throughmembership fees and accreditation fees.

2. Universities in Japan
In Japan, approximately 98 percent of the population advances to upper secondary schools after
completing the mandatory primary and lower secondary levels. Of all 18-year-olds, around 57
percent go on to universities and 4 percent to junior colleges, according to 2020 data.
Universities in Japan are defined in the Basic Act of Education as follows: “Universities, as the core ofscholarly activities, are to contribute to the development of society by cultivating advanced
knowledge and specialized skills, inquiring deeply into the truth to create new knowledge, andbroadly offering the fruits of these endeavors to society,” and “University autonomy, independence,and other unique characteristics of university education and research must be respected.”
Other legal regulations for educational institutions include Ministerial Orders stipulating such mattersas the basic organization of education and research, teacher qualifications, student enrolment
capacity, education programs, graduation requirements, facility and equipment, and administrative
structures. These requirements are defined for each type of educational institution. There are, forinstance, the Standards for Establishment of Universities and the Standards for Establishment ofJunior Colleges. Government approval to establish a university in the higher education institution
category is granted after the institution is determined to meet the Standards for Establishment of
Universities and other requirements, as described later.
As of May 2021, there are 803 universities in Japan, of which 86 are national, 98 public, and 619
private. One notable feature of Japanese higher education is the far greater number of private
5universities than other types. The number of universities with graduate schools is 652, of which 86
are national, 86 public, and 480 private. There are 315 junior colleges (14 public and 301 private) as
well. These data are taken from the Basic School Survey of MEXT.
Chart 1. School System in Japan(Source: Website of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology)
3. Overview of University Quality Assurance in JapanThe current QA system for universities and other educational institutions in Japan consists of thefollowing processes.
3.1 Approval of Establishment
In Japan, the establishment of universities and undergraduate/graduate programs requires
authorization from the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT
Minister). The approval process involves the following steps:(1) Upon receiving an application to establish an institution or undergraduate/graduate
program(s), the MEXT Minister asks the Council for University Chartering and School Juridical
Person to deliver an opinion on whether the applicant is compliant with the required
standards.
(2) The Council evaluates the application in areas such as education programs, facultyorganization, school site, school building, financial planning, and management and operation
against the relevant laws and regulations and reports back to the MEXT Minister, who then6

grants approval of establishment based on the Council’s evaluation results.
3.2 Post-establishment Improvement Status Inspection
Until graduation of their first classes, the universities and undergraduate/graduate programs
approved for establishment are required to undergo inspections conducted by the Post-establishment
Improvement Status Inspection Committee under the Council for University Chartering and School
Juridical Person. The inspection process involves submitting a progress report on implementing theestablishment plans for the Committee’s review, based on which the institution receives guidance
and advice from the regulating authorities as appropriate.
3.3 Certified Evaluation and Accreditation
The certified evaluation and accreditation system requires all higher education institutions and some
professional training programs in Japan to undergo periodic assessments by an external QA agency
certified by the MEXT Minister. The system was introduced as part of the deregulation initiatives torelax the regulations on school establishment, shifting the focus of university quality control frompre-establishment screening to post-establishment inspection. Adopted in 2002 as part of the School
Education Act revision, the certified evaluation and accreditation system took effect in 2004.
The target institutions, review cycle, and accreditation standards for each type of accreditation, as
defined in the School Education Act and other regulations, are as follows:a) Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation○ Target: universities, junior colleges, and colleges of technology○ Cycle: every 7 years○ Accreditation standards should cover matters relating to(i) Fundamental education and research organizations(ii) Faculty organizations(iii) Curriculum(iv) Facility and equipment(v) Administrative organizations(vi) Diploma policy, curriculum design and implementation policy, and admission policy(vii) Communication of information related to education and research activities(viii) Mechanisms to consistently carry out improvements in education and research
activities (Item of importance)(ix) Finance(x) Education and research activities not included in (i) through (ix) aboveb) Specialized Certified Evaluation and Accreditation○ Target: professional and vocational universities and junior colleges, professional graduate
schools○ Cycle: every 5 years○ Accreditation standards should cover matters relating to(i) Faculty organizations(ii) Curriculum(iii) Facility and equipment
7

(iv) Learning outcomes (including graduates’ career paths)(v) Education and research activities not included in (i) through (iv) above
The School Education Act sets out regulations for the certified evaluation and accreditation process,requiring, for example, analysis of the self-study results by the institution and site-visit. The process
also includes interviews with stakeholders such as the representatives of high schools, municipalities,
private companies, as well as the opportunity for institutions to file an appeal against theaccreditation results before publication.
The certified evaluation and accreditation agencies need to adopt not only accreditation standards
that meet these requirements but also accreditation methods that ensure effective certified
evaluation and accreditation, along with organizational structures that ensure fair and proper
implementation of the accreditation process. Other requirements include being a corporation withthe financial foundation necessary to carry out certified evaluation and accreditation appropriately
and smoothly, and being free of any risks that could potentially impair the implementation of fair andeffective accreditation.
As of 2021, there are five accreditation agencies in Japan, including JUAA, that undertake institutional
certified evaluation and accreditation, and 13 agencies that carry out specialized certified evaluation
and accreditation, according to the List of Certified Evaluation and Accreditation Organizations for
Universities and the List of Certified Evaluation and Accreditation Organizations for Professional
Graduate Schools posted on the MEXT website. Many of these accreditation agencies were
established to undertake certified evaluation and accreditation, but as described earlier, JUAA wasfounded before the system was introduced. This means that the certified evaluation andaccreditation system, for JUAA, is merely one of its many activities undertaken to achieve the goal ofassisting universities with quality enhancement.
Under the certified evaluation and accreditation system, institutions and programs are free to obtainaccreditation from an accreditation agency of their choice; in other words, in terms of institutional
accreditation, agencies are in a competitive relationship with each other. Nevertheless, factors suchas an institution’s characteristics or university association affiliation largely determine the type ofaccreditation it will undergo as well as the choice of agency. The institutions for which JUAA performs
accreditation tend to be public universities and members of the Japan Association of Private
Universities and Colleges. For specialized certified evaluation and accreditation, there is for mostfields only one accreditation agency offering the service, although this is not the case for law schools,
professional graduate business schools, and professional graduate schools of intellectual property
studies.
3.4 Evaluation by Specialized Field of Study (not certified evaluation and accreditation)
Apart from specialized certified evaluation and accreditation mentioned above, QA frameworks havebeen developed and implemented on a discretionary basis in several fields of study. Some examplesof these programs include◦ Medical education accreditation (Japan Accreditation Council for Medical Education)◦ JABEE accreditation (Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education)8◦ Nursing education accreditation (Japan Accreditation Board for Nursing Education)◦ Midwifery education accreditation (Japan Institute of Midwifery Evaluation)◦ Pharmaceutical education accreditation (Japan Accreditation Board for Pharmaceutical
Education)◦ Veterinary education accreditation (JUAA)◦ Dental education accreditation (JUAA)
While not legally mandated, these accreditations are nonetheless conducted to assure and improve
the quality of education in their respective fields of study with the aim of helping the graduates ofthese educational institutions succeed.

4. JUAA Activities
4.1 Quality Assurance Activities
An overview of JUAA’s QA activities as of 2021 and the numbers of each type of accreditation
conducted over the past seven years are summarized in the table below.
a) Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation
Table 1. Institutional accreditation conducted over the past seven years
Type/year

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Total

University

53(52)

56(56)

48(45)

27(25)

30(30)

39(39)

49

302(292)

Junior college

5(5)

3(3)

4(4)

1(1)

1(1)

3(3)

2

19(17)

Note: Bracketed numbers indicate the number of institutions accredited.

b) Specialized Certified Evaluation and Accreditation
Table 2. Professional graduate school accreditation conducted over the past five years
Field of study/year

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Total

Law

2(1)

4(3)

1(1) *007(5)Business

1(1)

10(9)

8(8) *

7(7)2

28(25)

Public Policy

1(1)

2(2)

1(1)

1(1)

1

6(5)

Public Health

0

2(2)

0

1(1)

1

4(3)

0

1(1)

0

0

0

1(1)

1(1)

0

0

0

1

2(1)

1(1)

0

0

0

1

2(1)

1

1

1

1

Intellectual
Property Studies
GlobalCommunication
Digital Contents

Global Legal――――
StudiesPublic Relations――――
Note 1: Bracketed numbers indicate the number of institutions accredited.
Note 2: Accreditation for global legal studies and public relations began in FY2021.
Note 3: The asterisk indicates that the number includes additional reviews.

9c) Evaluation by Specialized Field of Study (not certified evaluation and accreditation)
Table 3. Evaluation by specialized field of study conducted over the past five years
Field ofstudy/year
Veterinary
Medicine

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Total

1(1)

4(4) *

2(2)

0

2*

(7)

Dentistry
―
―
―
―
0
0
Note 1: Bracketed numbers indicate the number of institutions accredited.
Note 2: Dentistry accreditation began in FY2021, and applications are expected starting in FY2022.
Note 3: The numbers are the number of institutions that have applied for accreditation. The asterisk indicatesthat the number includes applications from joint degree programs.

d) International Joint Accreditation
In addition to the domestic QA activities listed in a) through c) above, JUAA engages in international
accreditation activities. In 2018, JUAA and the Taiwan Assessment and Evaluation Association(TWAEA) launched a joint accreditation project (International Joint Accreditation Standard: iJAS
project) for universities in Japan and Taiwan with the goal of deepening the mutual understanding of
the environment surrounding higher education in each other’s country and promoting international
cooperation. The project has accredited two universities to date, one from each country. With theaddition of the Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA), Thailand
in 2021, the joint accreditation project is set to operate as a three-country partnership.
All these QA activities are carried out with the goal of achieving JUAA’s mission to “promote thequalitative improvement of higher education institutions in Japan and to contribute to international
cooperation such as educational and research activities in higher education institutions.” JUAA set up
many of its specialized accreditation programs in response to requests from education organizations
specializing in these fields. The decision to launch the programs was made by the Board of Trustees,comprised of Trustees selected by JUAA member institutions, based on discussions on whether these
activities would benefit JUAA member institutions and contribute to improving the quality ofuniversities in Japan.
4.2 Quality Enhancement Activities
In addition to QA in higher education, JUAA undertakes activities designed to support universities inquality improvement through various events for university staff and personnel. The table below
summarizes the events established as part of JUAA’s official activities as of 2021.

10

Table 4. Events for university staff and personnel
Event
Practical Guidance on
University Accreditation

TargetStaff of institutions
planning to apply foruniversity accreditation
the following year

Description
Information on the
University Standards,
policy of IQA,
application preparations
and schedules, reports
of institutions that
underwent the previous
year’s accreditation
review

Schedule/format
One session a year (until
2019, sessions held on
average twice in Tokyoand once in Kansai-area;from 2020 onwards,
sessions held on an ondemand basis andjointly with juniorcolleges)

Practical Guidance on
Junior College
Accreditation

Staff of institutions
planning to apply for
accreditation thefollowing year

Information on juniorcollege standards, policyof IQA, application
preparations andschedules

One session a year (from2020 onwards, sessions
held on an on-demandbasis and jointly with
universities)

JUAA Staff Visits

Visits made in responseto requests frominstitutions planning toapply for accreditation
or wanting to conduct
FD/SD

JUAA caters to individual
requests, sessions
generally cover topics
discussed in thepractical guidance
sessions

20-30 sessions a year
(mostly virtual since
2020)

University Accreditation
SymposiumMembers of the
University Accreditation
Committee, registeredmembers of the
University Review
Subcommittee andFinancial Affairs
Subcommittee

Lectures and panel
discussions with themes
designed to develop theknowledge and skills of
accreditation evaluators

One session a year (heldonline since 2020)

University and JuniorCollege Study Program

Faculty and staff ofmember universities andjunior colleges

Two sessions a year
(held online since 2020)

Presidents’ Seminar

Presidents and Vice
Presidents of fullmember universities

Workshop focusing on
QA themes tailored toparticipating institutions
and featuring group
work
Lectures and panel
discussions for
Presidents to shareleadership initiatives

General Assembly/
Symposium

Staff and personnel offull-member andassociate-member
institutions

Reports on JUAA
activities and financial
status, lectures, andpanel discussions on thelatest topics in higher
education

One session a year (heldonline and on an ondemand basis since2020)

One session a year (heldonline since 2020)11

4.3 Research Activities
JUAA undertakes various research activities to raise the level of its QA and quality enhancement
activities. The research findings are published as appropriate for use by member institutions andJapanese universities in general. The table below summarizes JUAA’s research activities.
Table 5. Research activities
Activity
Research projects of the ResearchInstitute for Quality Assurance ofHigher Education

Description
Research is conducted on specific themes considered important for
QA in higher education. Themes are proposed by the Board ofTrustees, Board of Managing Trustees, and the Institute’s
researchers, discussed by the Institute’s steering committee, anddecided by the Board of Managing Trustees. The maximum research
duration is normally two years. Research reports are distributed tomember institutions and partners, and published on the JUAA
website.

Periodic research seminar of the
Research Institute for Quality
Assurance of Higher Education

An open research seminar mainly for the Institute’s researchers
generally held twice a year. Themes are discussed and decided by
the steering committee. (The two most recent themes were
“Revisiting Learning Outcomes of Universities” and “Contemplating
the Future Directions of University Quality Assurance.”) Seminarmaterials are published post-event on the JUAA website.

Research Institute for Quality
Assurance of Higher Education
Annual Conference

Targeting mainly member institution staff, the annual conference isa public forum where the Institute’s research findings are presented
and discussed. Topics are discussed and determined by the steeringcommittee. The conference often serves as a forum to present theInstitute’s research project results. The two most recent themes
were “Contemplating Online Education” and “Learning Outcomes:
Now and the Future.” Conference materials are published postevent on the JUAA website.

University Accreditation
Effectiveness Survey

Annual written and interview surveys of institutions that havereceived their university accreditation results. The survey results are
published on the JUAA website.

Publication of the Academic
Bulletin and articles

JUAA publishes and distributes to member institutions and relatedorganizations the annual peer-reviewed academic journal“University Evaluation Review” as well as a collection of articles
intended to help develop university staff skills. These publications
are made available on the members-only webpage after a certain
period of time.

5. JUAA Internal Quality Assurance
JUAA establishes five-year medium-term goals and a five-year medium-term plan for each area ofactivity, for example, accreditation, research, internationalization, and corporate operation, with thecurrent five-year block running from 2020 to 2024. In addition, based on the medium-term plan,
JUAA develops an action plan that is annually assessed for attainment and revised as necessary.
12

To assess the attainment and effectiveness of each, JUAA has established a Self-Assessment
Committee responsible for conducting a self-assessment every five years. JUAA also undergoes anexternal review based on the self-assessment results. The outcomes of these reviews are reported to
the Board of Trustees to ensure that the current status and challenges of JUAA’s activities are sharedby all relevant people.
In accordance with the revised Ordinance on Details in Applying the Standards Established in Article
110 (2) of the School Education Act (Ordinance on Details) issued by MEXT, which required from 2018
onwards that all accreditation agencies conduct self-assessment and publish the results, JUAA posts
its self-assessment and external review reports on its website.
Furthermore, JUAA conducts evaluation surveys after the completion of seminars and workshops,
and uses the participants’ feedback to improve the planning and organization of future events. The
details are discussed in 2.1.2 of Part II.

13

Part II
1. The structure of the External Quality Assurance Agency (EQAA)
1.1 The agency’s legitimacy and recognition
1.1.1 EQAA has an established legal basis and is recognized by competent external body.
JUAA is an autonomous member-based organization founded in 1947 modeled
after accreditation agencies in the United States. Since acquiring the status of anincorporated foundation in 1959, JUAA has carried out activities of public interest,
including setting and revising higher education standards, implementing various
accreditation programs, conducting research, and engaging in international
cooperation.
In Japan, incorporated foundations established on the basis of the Act on General
Incorporated Associations and General Incorporated Foundations whose activities
are important and a benefit to society can be certified as public interest
incorporated foundations pursuant to the Act on Authorization of Public Interest
Incorporated Associations and Public Interest Incorporated Foundations. As JUAA
considers its QA and other activities to be of significant benefit to Japan’s higher
education institutions and society as a whole, it applied for and was granted thestatus of a public interest incorporated foundation by the Prime Minister in 2012.
To gain this status, an entity must not only objectively demonstrate that its
activities serve the public good but also meet all 18 of the stringent criteria,
including a solid financial foundation and technical capabilities required tomaintain its activities. In other words, certification as a public interest incorporated
foundation is a testament to the public interest nature of the entity’s activities aswell as its commitment to the transparency and integrity of its operations.

Act on General
Incorporated
Associationsand General
Incorporated
Foundations
Act onAuthorization of
Public Interest
Incorporated
Associations
and Public
Interest
Incorporated
Foundations

JUAA was authorized by MEXT Minister as a certified evaluation and accreditation
agency for universities in 2004, when its university accreditation system wasapproved as compliant with the required standards in terms of university
accreditation standards, accreditation review methods, and other factors. Later,
JUAA also acquired the status of a certified evaluation and accreditation agency forjunior colleges and professional graduate schools.
1.1.2 The EQAA takes into consideration relevant guidelines issued by international networks andother associations in formulating its policies and practices.
To ensure that its higher education QA is compatible with international standards,
JUAA refers to the guidelines and accreditation standards issued by international
networks when reviewing and improving its operations and activities. Specifically,
before launching cycle two of its certified evaluation and accreditation, JUAA
consulted the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European
Higher Education Area (ESG) to develop an accreditation system that emphasizes
IQA. JUAA also used INQAAHE GGP as a reference in drawing up its self-assessment
14

report released in January 2014.
Furthermore, JUAA implements the iJAS Project with TWAEA and ONESQA (see6.2.1) in line with OECD’s Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher
Education. The cross-border QA project, including the joint accreditation systemwith Taiwan, was developed based on the OECD Guidelines, which recommends
that QA and accreditation bodies “undertake joint assessment projects to increase
the comparability of evaluation activities of different QA and accreditation bodies.”
JUAA also takes into consideration the Guidelines’ recommendation that QA andaccreditation bodies should “ensure that QA and accreditation arrangements
include cross-border education provision in its various modes,” and adopt
accreditation standards that do not discriminate against institution type and apply
to institutions offering double degree programs in partnership with overseas
institutions.

OECD’sGuidelines for
Quality
Provision in
Cross-border
Higher
Education

In addition, JUAA has consistently collected and analyzed information on overseas
QA agencies to improve its own accreditation system. As a member of INQAAHE,
the Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN), and the CHEA International Quality
Group, organizations under the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEACIQG), JUAA attends annual meeting, conferences, and workshops of these
networks to stay informed.
JUAA was commissioned by MEXT in 2004 to undertake an international research
project on evaluator training, and in 2008 conducted research on the practices of
IQA systems of universities in Japan and abroad. Using the information andknowledge gained through its research activities on overseas accreditation trends
and connections with international networks, JUAA was one of the early Japanese
accreditation agencies to adopt and implement the concept of IQA in its
accreditation procedures. This was made possible because of JUAA’s engagement
in various activities requiring international trends to be closely observed.
JUAA’s another globally-focused initiative is the research project to monitor
overseas trends launched in 2018 by a study group of JUAA staff. Group members
keep watch on the developments of QA agencies in the countries they are
assigned, such as the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Thailand,
Malaysia, Australia, and Taiwan, and give reports at presentation sessions to ensure
the information is shared across JUAA. At one session, for example, the staff
deepened their understanding about the Quality Code, the core reference pointfor UK quality standards. The session also included a report on the features of the
UK QA system that differ from JUAA’s, such as student representation on thereview panel and its risk-based approach requiring QA agencies to intervene whenrisks inhibiting student learning become apparent. The session concluded with a
discussion on ways to make QA more effective. In 2021, as part of this voluntary
initiative, the team conducted a survey targeting overseas QA agencies on the use
15

of ICT with the aim of learning how they are coping amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
The survey results are being examined by various departments, with teammembers involved in the survey serving as leaders, and this undertaking has
proved a timely exercise to review how JUAA uses ICT. These initiatives haveincreased its staff’s skills and knowledge, which are utilized in accreditation workand helping JUAA maintain consistency with domestic and international
developments in higher education QA practices.
It should be noted that the requirements for conducting certified evaluation andaccreditation in Japan are established in the Ordinance on Details issued by MEXT,
and that JUAA’s accreditation activities adhere to these requirements.
1.1.3 The EQAA has a clear and published policy for the prevention of conflicts of interest that applies
to its staff, its decision-making body, and the external reviewers.
To ensure the impartiality and integrity of the accreditation process, JUAA has
adopted and published on its website the Regulations on the Fair Implementationof Third-Party Evaluation that sets out the requirements for accreditation
evaluators, JUAA staff, and parties related to the institutions under review. The
regulations clearly state that the evaluators’ missions are to fully understand the
purpose and meaning of third-party evaluation, contribute to quality improvementof universities, and engage in accreditation activities with fairness and integrity.
They also outline the responsibility of JUAA staff to assist, coordinate, and perform
duties necessary to ensure smooth and fair implementation of third-party
evaluations; parties related to the institutions being reviewed are required toperform self-studies with integrity, create or prepare accurate and factual selfstudy reports and other relevant documents, and cooperate with evaluators byfacilitating site-visits and making arrangements as necessary for effective
implementation of evaluations.
Furthermore, the Regulations on the Fair Implementation of Third-Party Evaluationprohibits any party related to the institutions under review from offering cash or
gifts of any kind to accreditation evaluators or JUAA staff; nor can accreditation
evaluators or JUAA staff demand cash or gifts from the institutions being reviewed.
The regulations also explicitly require that evaluators and JUAA staff obtain
permission from the Executive Director before accepting paid work from theinstitution being reviewed. This includes giving lectures, participating in debates,
conducting workshops, instructing at training programs, or writing on the topic ofaccreditation reviews.

Regulations on
the Fair
Implementationof Third-Party
Evaluation[WEB-JP]

Regulations on
the Fair
Implementationof Third-Party
Evaluation[WEB-JP]The regulations also prohibit the use of accreditation-related information for
purposes other than the original intent. The confidentiality provision prohibits
evaluators from disclosing to third parties any information provided by institutions
being reviewed or obtained through site visits, and requires documents and16materials submitted for the purpose of accreditation be collected by JUAA after theaccreditation is completed.
As well as publishing the Regulations on the Fair Implementation of Third-Party
Evaluation on its website, JUAA has summarized its key points in the Guidelines for
Maintaining Ethical Conduct and Confidentiality for Evaluators and Institutions,based on which information sessions are conducted for evaluators and institutions
separately (Evaluator Training Seminar and Practical Guidance Sessions aredescribed later) with the aim of maintaining ethical accreditation practices.
In addition, as part of an effort to prevent conflicts of interest for decision-making
bodies, the JUAA Articles of Incorporation requires the Boards of Councilors andTrustees to exclude from the relevant board meetings any members who haveconflicts of interest with the matters being deliberated. All accreditation policies
have a provision on the exclusion of individuals with conflicts of interest fromaccreditation discussions, stating that members of the Boards of Councilors andTrustees, Accreditation Committee, and review subcommittee should not sit in on
deliberations concerning the institutions to which they belong.
To manage conflicts of interest involving JUAA staff, the Employment Regulations
sets out a code of conduct banning such behaviors as “using the Agency’s name or
job title for improper personal purposes, or taking advantage of one’s duties for
personal gain,” and “disclosing confidential information obtained on the job.”

Regulations on
the Fair
Implementationof Third-Party
Evaluation[WEB-JP]
Guidelines for
Maintaining
Ethical ConductandConfidentiality
for Evaluators
and Institutions[WEB-JP]

Employment
Regulations[SD-JP01]

As described above, JUAA has appropriate policies in place to prevent conflicts ofinterest that apply to evaluators, staff, and parties related to the institutions underreview, and to ensure the transparency of accreditation by disclosing the policies tothe public.

1.2 Mission and Purposes
1.2.1 The EQAA has a written mission statement and a set of objectives that explicitly provide thatexternal quality assurance of higher education is its major concern, describe the purpose andscope of its activities and can be translated into verifiable policies and measurable objectives.
JUAA’s Articles of Incorporation states JUAA’s purposes are to “conduct research on Articles ofIncorporation
universities in Japan and abroad, improve the quality of Japanese universities, andcontribute to the advancement of international cooperation in university education
and research activities through voluntary efforts and mutual support of its members.
In accordance with the Articles of Incorporation, JUAA
1. undertakes third-party evaluation of universities’ education and research
activities;
2. develops, updates, and utilizes the University Standards and other tools
designed to contribute to quality enhancement of universities;173. collects information and undertakes surveys and research on universities inJapan and abroad;
4. provides guidance, assistance, and information to universities for
improvement of education and research activities;
5. organizes seminars, conferences, and other events aimed at quality
improvement of universities;
6. engages and cooperates in the international exchange of information on
education and research activities of universities; and7. publishes resources on education and research activities of universities.
JUAA prepares an annual activity plan and income and expenditure budget for theactivities listed above, and at the end of each fiscal year looks back at the year’s
results in its activity report and financial statements.
The JUAA’s 2018 self-assessment identified the need to develop goals and plans on
a medium-term basis. As such, the medium-term goals and medium-term plan for
the five years from April 2020 were adopted at the Board of Managing Trustees
meeting held on January 28, 2020. Given the importance of reflecting on the levelof goal achievement each year, JUAA formulated a five-year action plan road map
at the Board of Managing Trustees meeting held on September 22, 2021. The
JUAA’s current operation is guided by its medium-term goals, medium-term plan,
and action plan. (Details are provided in 1.3.4.)

Activity Plan
and Budget[WEB-JP]
Activity Report
and Financial
Statements[WEB-JP]
Self-Asseemsent
Report(September 27,
2019)[WEB-JP]
Medium-term
Goals andMedium-term
Plan[SD-JP02]
Action Plan
[SD-JP03]

1.3 Governance and Organizational Structure
1.3.1 The EQAA has a governance structure consistent with its mission and objectives, and, adequate
mechanisms to involve relevant stakeholders in the definition of its standards and criteria.
JUAA’s organizational structure consists of the Board of Councilors, Board ofTrustees, Research Institute for Quality Assurance of Higher Education (RIQAHE),
various committees, and the Secretariat.
The Board of Councilors is the highest decision-making body of a public interest
incorporated foundation; its responsibilities include making decisions on thecorporation’s basic governing structure (e.g., appointment and removal of directors
and auditors), establishing and revising the general rules of operation (e.g., theArticles of Incorporation), and ensuring that the corporation operates
autonomously in accordance with laws, regulations, and the Articles ofIncorporation.
The Board of Trustees makes decisions on the execution of activities and supervises
the directors in carrying out their duties. The board develops an annual activity
plan and budget, monitors the execution of the planned activities and budget

18

through activity implementation reports, and presents the results in the yearend
activity report and financial statements.
JUAA has two Auditors whose roles are to verify that JUAA undertakes activities ofpublic interest as expected of a public interest incorporated foundation, and to
inspect whether JUAA maintains the optimal operational structure and financial
status. The Auditors scrutinize the execution of duties by the Board of Trustees aswell as attend board meetings to offer opinions and present audit reports (SeeChart 2.).
JUAA operates under the leadership of the Boards of Trustees and Councilors,
which are supported by the Secretariat. JUAA also has committees responsible for
implementing the activities described in Section 1.2.1 (see Chart 3.).

Chart 2. JUAA’s Governance Structure

Board of Councilors

Highestdecisionmaking body
Provides explana ons
on request

Makes decisions on
the execu on ofac vi es/monitors
the execu on ofdu es by trustees

Execu on ofdu esProvides explana ons
on request

Appointment/removal

Board ofTrustees

Auditors
Audit

ReportAudits theexecu onof du es bytrustees

Appoint

President
Managing Trustees

19Chart 3. Organizational Chart
Board ofCouncilors

Board of Trustees

Councilors Selection
Committee

Auditors

Board of Managing
TrusteesStandards Committee
University Accreditation Committee

University Review Subcommittee
University Finance Review Subcommittee

Junior College Accreditation Committee

Junior College Review Subcommittee
Junior College Finance Review Subcommittee

Accreditation Committee for Law Schools

Accreditation Subcommittee for Law Schools
Accreditation Subcommittee for Professional
Graduate Schools of Global Legal Studies

Accreditation Committee for Business Schools

Accreditation Subcommittee for Business Schools

Accreditation Committee for Schools of Public Policy

Accreditation Subcommittee for Schools of Public
PolicyAccreditation Committee for Schools of Public HealthAccreditation Subcommittee for Schools of Public
HealthAccreditation Committee for Schools of Intellectual
Property

Accreditation Subcommittee for Schools ofIntellectual Property

Accreditation Committee for Schools of Global
Communications

Accreditation Subcommittee for Schools of Global
Communications

Accreditation Committee for Schools of DigitalContents

Accreditation Subcommittee for Schools of DigitalContents

Accreditation Committee for Schools of Public
Relations

Accreditation Subcommittee for Schools of Public
Relations

Accreditation Committee for Veterinary Medicine

Accreditation Subcommittee for Veterinary Medicine

Accreditation Committee for Dental Education

Accreditation Subcommittee for Dental Education

Member Eligibility Committee
International Joint Accreditation Committee
Public Relations Committee
Research Institute for Quality Assurance of Higher
Education

Secretariat

Accreditation Department"University Evaluation Review" Editorial Committee

Institutional Accreditation Division
Program Accreditation Division

Evaluation Research
Department

Research & Planning Division
Office for International Planning

General Affairs Department

General Affairs Divison
General Affairs & Planning Divison

20

JUAA considers its stakeholders to include not only university personnel but alsoteachers and staff of high schools, which have a strong connection with university
entrants, as well as people in industries that are the main career destinations ofuniversity graduates. Therefore, while its decision-making bodies, including various
committees, are comprised primarily of university stakeholders, JUAA ensures that
positions in these organizations are open to people associated with high schools
and industry as well.
To secure a broad range of perspectives, JUAA appoints to its Board of Councilors
university representatives (mostly presidents) who are academic officers withexpertise in university management. The minimum number of Councilors is 15 andthe maximum is 30. There are currently 30 Councilors serving on the board, ofwhom 27 are university representatives; the remainder include an accountant, abusiness owner, and a high school principal. The Councilors are selected andappointed by the Councilor Selection Committee from a field of candidates
nominated by either the Board of Trustees or the Board of Councilors. In selecting
the candidates from university representatives, consideration is given to suchfactors as institution type and size (national, public, or private), geographic
location, and gender balance.

Articles ofIncorporation

The Board of Trustees consists of representatives (mainly presidents) of Japan’s
leading universities who are academic officers with expertise in university
management. The number of trustees is set at 15 to 30, and there are 28 members
at present. The board comprises a President, two Vice Presidents, a Senior
Managing Director, and a maximum of four Managing Trustees. As a member of theboard, the roles of the Trustees are to participate in the decision-making process of
JUAA’s activities and to oversee the execution of duties by the President and otherpersonnel. In selecting the Trustees and Auditors, the Selection Committee
established in accordance with the Agreement on the Selection of Trustee andAuditor Candidates prepares a short list of candidates, with consideration given tosuch factors as institution type and size (national, public, or private), geographic
location, and gender balance. The list of candidates is forwarded to the Board of
Councilors, which then discusses and determines whether to appoint thecandidates as Trustees and Auditors. Table 6 shows the organizational structure of
the Boards of Trustees and Councilors.

21

Table 6. Number of Trustees and Councilors by institution type
Institution
type

Trustees

Councilors

National

9

Public(Reference) Number of full-member institutions
university

junior college

5

16

―

5

5

29

4

Private

14

17

268

4

Others

０

3

―

―

Total
28
30
313
8
Note: Number of full members as of December 1, 2021. The number of private member universities includes
two institutions established by incorporated companies.

In accordance with the Regulations on Establishment and Revision of theStandards, the creation of the accreditation system and the definition and revisionof the accreditation standards are discussed by the Standards Committee before
being forwarded to the Board of Trustees for recommendation for approval. Of the
20 members of the Standards Committee, 13 members belong to, and arerecommended by, full-member institutions that are a university or junior college.
When recommending committee members, JUAA asks the institutions to selectcandidates who (a) fully understand JUAA’s activities and QA, (b) possess expert
knowledge about higher education, and (c) expect to remain with the institution
for the duration of their two-year tenure. Five of the Standards Committee
members were selected from accreditation committees that perform accreditation
and all are university teachers. The current Standards Committee also includes
three people – a member of the media, a high school teacher, and a businessowner – none of whom is a teacher or staff member of a university or juniorcollege.

Regulations on
Establishment
and Revision of
the Standards

To promote efficient and effective committee deliberations, subcommittees are
established. The Working Group on University Accreditation System, for example,
was established to discuss the university accreditation system and the revised
standards scheduled to take effect in April 2025. University personnel deeply
involved in university accreditation serve on this subcommittee.
Furthermore, the Regulations on Establishment and Revision of the Standards
requires a public hearing process to extensively collect opinions when establishingand revising the Standards. The purposes of this process are to ensure fairness,
improve the transparency of reviews, and help protect the rights and interests of
the institutions being reviewed by soliciting and examining comments from a broadbase of contributors, rather than a limited group of stakeholders. In 2021, JUAA
solicited public feedback on the draft revision of the standards for Professional
Graduate Business Schools and the standards for Professional Graduate Schools ofIntellectual Property Studies through its website.

Regulations on
Establishment
and Revision of
the Standards

Based on the above explanations, JUAA considers its governance structure to be22

consistent with its purposes and goals, with effective mechanisms in place toinvolve not only university personnel, whom JUAA considers as stakeholders, butalso members of high schools and industries that have strong connections with
universities in developing its standards.
[Areas for Improvement]
It has come to JUAA’s attention that it lacks a mechanism to allow direct
involvement of students as university stakeholders. Going forward, JUAA will needto consider building a process that reflects student perspectives in developing its
standards and accreditation systems.
1.3.2 The composition of the decision-making body and/or its regulatory framework ensure its
independence and impartiality.
JUAA’s decision-making bodies are the Boards of Councilors and Trustees. The
Board of Councilors is the highest decision-making body of a public interest
incorporated foundation, while the Board of Trustees makes decisions on thefoundation’s execution of activities. The two bodies are independent of each other,and as such, have different agendas, member selection processes, and terms ofoffice. As provided by the Articles of Incorporation, each body considers mattersunder its scope of authority and makes decisions by consensus (see Table 7.). The
Articles of Incorporation and the current rosters of the Boards of Councilors andTrustees are available on the JUAA website.

Articles ofIncorporation
Board ofTrustees andAuditors
Boards ofCouncilors[WEB-JP]

Table 7. Difference between the Board of Trustees and the Board of Councilors
Meetings
Composition

QuorumItems forconsideration

Board of Trustees
January, February, May, September
Trustees[Term of office] Two years withreappointment possible[Appointment] Board of Councilors
Attendance of a majority of Trustees,
excluding board members with conflictsof interest with the matters underconsideration
The board makes decisions on theexecution of activities by the corporation,and oversees the execution of duties by
Trustees as required by laws andregulations and the Articles ofIncorporation, such as
・Select Trustee candidates
・Make Councilor candidate
recommendations
・Select the Board of Councilors
Selection Committee members

Board of Councilors
March, May
Councilors[Term of office] Four years[Appointment] Councilors Selection
Committee
Attendance of a majority of Councilors,
excluding board members with conflicts ofinterest with the matters under consideration
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

Appoint and remove Trustees andAuditors
Determine compensation and expensesof the Trustees and Councilors
Revise the Articles of Incorporation
Approve the balance sheet and the
profit and loss statement (statement of
net assets)
Make decisions regarding long-term
debts, acquisition, and disposal ofimportant assets

23

・Call board meetings and propose
meeting agendas
・Establish committees
・Revise rules and regulations
・Select committee members
・Handle JUAA membership withdrawals
・Report on work status

Resolution

Resolutions are considered passed when
all Trustees, excluding those with conflictsof interest with the matters underconsideration, indicate their agreementwith the proposal, either in writing or
magnetic recording (except when an
Auditor objects to the proposal).

6.

Make decisions on donations or disposalof the remaining property acquired for
public interest purposes
7. Approve the disposal or exclusion ofbasic property
8. Consider matters forwarded by the
Board of Trustees to the Board of
Councilors
9. Consider any other matters as requiredby laws and regulations and the Articles
of Incorporation
Resolutions are passed by a majority ofCouncilors, excluding those with special
conflicts of interest with the matters underconsideration. Resolutions on the following
matters, however, require a two-thirds
majority of Councilors, excluding those withspecial conflicts of interest with the mattersunder consideration.
1. Removal of Trustees and Auditors
2. Remuneration payment standards for
Trustees and Councilors
3. Revisions to the Articles ofIncorporation
4. Approval or exclusion of basic property
5. Long-term debts, acquisition, anddisposal of important assets
6. Mergers with other entities establishedbased on the Act on General
Incorporated Associations and General
Incorporated Foundations, transfer all orpart of the business, and termination of
all business for public interest purposes
7. Other matters defined by laws andregulations

The President, Vice Presidents, Senior Managing Director, and Managing Trustees
are selected from among the Trustees to form the Board of Managing Trustees,
which is responsible for deliberating on matters forwarded to it by the Board ofTrustees. The Board of Managing Trustees holds meetings six times a year for
discussions before board deliberations and reporting.
The Trustee and Councilor positions are part-time roles, and JUAA’s day-to-day
duties are performed by full-time staff. Under the Executive Director, theSecretariat consists of three departments and six divisions (see Chart 3.), with eachdivision headed by Director, Associate Director, and Assistant Director. In addition
to adopting a layered decision-making process, the Secretariat holds cross24

functional meetings for exchanging opinions. There is, for example, a weekly
directors’ meeting for management personnel that serves as a forum for sharing
information on individual divisions as well as the organization as a whole. JUAA
also establishes task forces for specific activities or projects to quickly resolve
issues that arise.
Based on the above, JUAA considers the composition of its decision-making bodies
to ensure independence and impartiality.
1.3.3 The EQAA’s organizational structure makes it possible to carry out its external review processes
effectively and efficiently.
JUAA’s accreditation is a layered process involving deliberations by the review
subcommittees, the Accreditation Committee, and the Board of Trustees.
Accreditation Committee members are selected from a list of candidates.
Chart 4. Accreditation Schedule

The accreditation procedures are carried out by the Accreditation Committee, thetop recommendation-making body, and the review subcommittees underneath it.
One review subcommittee is established for each institution under the
Accreditation Committee. Committee members who serve as evaluators undergo
evaluator training and receive an evaluator manual prepared and distributed by
JUAA to ensure the integrity and fairness of accreditation. After completing its
document analysis and site visit, the review subcommittee draws up and forwards
a draft accreditation report to the Accreditation Committee for review. The
Accreditation Committee considers the draft subcommittee report from various
perspectives, then prepares and forwards the committee’s draft report to theBoard of Trustees for a final decision.
To ensure a smooth accreditation process, academic or administrative staff
members recommended by universities are registered as Accreditation Committee
25

member candidates every two years. When soliciting a candidate’s
recommendation, JUAA presents a number of qualification requirements, such as
fully grasping all of the institution’s activities and being well-versed in self-study
activities. JUAA accepts and registers only recommended candidates who meet one
or more criteria. The review subcommittee members are chosen from registeredcandidates to ensure consistency in accreditation. For the accreditation of
professional graduate schools and specialized fields of study, JUAA invites
specialists from relevant fields to serve as Accreditation Committee members. This
allows for expert input in the evaluation process.
There is an appeal policy in place for institutions denied accreditation by JUAA, and
it is the responsibility of the Appeal Committee to review the appeals filed byuniversities against an accreditation decision. The Appeal Committee is establishedunder the Board of Trustees and is independent of the Accreditation Committee toensure the appropriateness of the review process. Until the accreditation result isfinalized, the opinions of the institution under review are respected.
As described above, JUAA’s organizational structure makes it possible to carry out alayered accreditation review effectively and efficiently.
1.3.4 The EQAA has a strategic plan that helps assess its progress and plan for future developments.
JUAA regularly monitors the progress of its activities. A monthly operational status
report is drawn up under the direction of the Vice Presidents in charge ofsupervising operations and the Managing Trustees. Of the two Vice Presidents, one
manages general affairs and finance and the other oversees individual activities.
Each of the four Managing Trustees supervises one of four areas of responsibility:(a) general affairs and finance, (b) accreditation, (c) public relations, and (d)research and internationalization. Other tools to monitor progress include a duty
status report prepared every six months and the activity report and financial
statements produced yearly. To improve its organizations and activities, JUAA
conducts periodic self-assessments and presents the results in a report.
Upon completing its 2018 self-assessment, JUAA recognized the importance ofuniversity stakeholders in formulating and implementing its goals and strategies
with a medium-term vision for each of its activities to enhance the quality ofJapan’s universities and lead the accreditation system in Japan. With thisrealization, the Board of Managing Trustees developed, at the January 2020
meeting, a set of medium-term goals and plans outlining the issues to beaddressed in each area of JUAA’s activities (e.g., accreditation, research,
international cooperation, and corporate operation) over the next five years
starting April 2020. Furthermore, at its September 2021 meeting, the Board ofManaging Trustees also developed an action plan based on the medium-term plan
to ensure proper implementation.

Self-Assessment
Report(September 27,
2019)[WEB-JP]
Medium-term
Goals andMedium-term
Plan[SD-JP02]
Action Plan
[SD-JP03]

26

The action plan clearly sets out the actions to be considered and implemented, thedeadlines or timelines for decision and implementation, the point at which theresults should be assessed, and the organization(s) responsible for all theseactions. The action plan for institutional accreditation, for example, establishes
four goals that include enhancing the effectiveness of accreditation and raising thesocial awareness of accreditation. To meet these goals, JUAA has been developing
strategies to train accreditation evaluators, inspect the accreditation system for
improvement, and strengthen the capacity of the Secretariat, among other actions.
As described above, JUAA is rigorously performing accreditations and otheractivities in accordance with the medium-term goals and action plan.
1.4 Resources
1.4.1 The EQAA has a well-trained, appropriately qualified staff able to conduct external evaluation
effectively and efficiently in accordance with its mission statement and methodological approach.
As described under Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2, the operation of JUAA is managed by
Trustees, Councilors, and committee members selected mainly from university
stakeholders such as academic and administrative staff. As these people work for
JUAA on a part-time basis, JUAA Secretariat is responsible for the day-to-day
operations to ensure smooth and effective execution of its activities. The
Secretariat, under the Executive Director, consists of the departments of
Accreditation, Evaluation and Research, and General Affairs, with each department
divided into divisions (see Chart 5.). JUAA’s functional organizational structure
ensures that its operations are systematically conducted, with each department
headed by director responsible for overall management of the departments, andassociate director who supports the director and supervises the daily operations of
their division. Each division also has an assistant director whose role is to assist theassociate director and execute day-to-day operations.

Secretariat
Organization
Regulations[SD-JP04]

27

Chart 5. Organizational Chart of the Secretariat
Executive Director

Accreditation Dept.

Evaluation Research
Dept.

General Affairs Dept.

Director（Executive Director serves
as Director）

Director

Institutional
Accreditation
Division

Program Accreditation
Division

Office forInternational
Planning（D serves as Associate
Director）

Associate Director (1)Research & Planning
Division

General Affairs
Division

General Affairs &Planning Division

Associate Director (1)Associate Director (1)Associate Director (1)Associate Director (1)Assistant Director (1)Assistant Director (1)Assistant Director (1)Assistant Director (1)Full-time staff (5)Full-time staff (3)（One contractor who also
works for Research &Planning Division)（One Assistant Director
who also works Office forInternational Planning.)
Full-time staff (1)Full-time staff (1)Full-time staff (1)Temporary staff (3)Contract staff (1)Contract staff (4)Contract staff (1)Contract staff (1)Assistant Director (2)Interns (5)Temporary staff (1)Note: The supervisory positions (Executive Director, Director, Associate Director, Assistant Director) are fulltime positions. Numbers in brackets indicate the number of persons in January 2022.

Table 8. Roles and responsibilities of departments
Accreditation⚫ Plan and develop organizational
structures and staffing foraccreditation⚫ Coordinate accreditation
procedures⚫ Plan and develop organizations
and activities necessary for
accreditation⚫ Organize seminars,
conferences, and other events⚫ Handle other matters related toaccreditation activities

Evaluation Research⚫ Plan and develop accreditation
standards, staffing, methods,
etc.
⚫ Handle matters related to HE
research⚫ Plan and develop organizations
and activities necessary to
conduct research⚫ Organize seminars,
conferences, and other events⚫ Handle matters related tointernational cooperation in HE
QA⚫ Prepare and publish research
periodicals⚫ Handle other matters related toresearch activities

General Affairs⚫ Manage documents⚫ Handle matters related to- the Boards of Trustees andCouncilors-activity plans and activity
reports-accounting, budget, andsettlement-personnel affairs, hiring, labor
management, and welfare
packages-facility and equipment
maintenance, control, and fire
safety measures-procurement andmanagement of goods-service contracts-public relations-management of membershipand membership fees
⚫ Handle other matters related to
management and operation

In January 2022, the Secretariat operated with twenty-five full-time employees, 7
contract employees, and 4 temporary employees. The full-time positions have job
28rotation opportunities and require an understanding of the duties of all
departments, along with the basic skills and ability to work flexibly and apply theseskills in new situations. To recruit full-time staff with these qualities, JUAA accepts
job applications from candidates who have graduated from a four-year university
or higher, and emphasizes demonstrated writing skills, a critical competency for
accreditation staff and other full-time staff, in the screening process. After joining
JUAA, staff are provided opportunities to develop the knowledge and skills
required to perform their duties through ongoing training. (Details on staff training
are provided in 1.4.3.)
JUAA has established a list of competencies required of each full-time position by
department. The list lays out the skills and abilities expected of QA agency staff,
not to mention the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of a working professional.
These skills are taught mainly through on-the-job training. As the list ofcompetencies is several years old, JUAA is in the process of updating thecompetencies to make them more relevant to changing social conditions and theenvironment surrounding JUAA.
As described above, JUAA has worked to enhance the knowledge and skills of its
staff so they can conduct accreditation effectively and efficiently, but the recent
expansion of our specialized accreditation programs and the development ofresearch activities have resulted in the need for more staff members. To address
this issue, JUAA plans to secure the necessary human effort by recruiting skilled
staff over the next few years. At present, JUAA manages to carry out its activities asplanned through the use of interns (details on interns are provided later) frommember universities and contractors.
As mentioned above, JUAA has an Internship Program under which it accepts
several employees from full-member universities every year as interns. Since its
launch in 2002, the Internship Program has as of 2021 accepted 123 interns from70 institutions. (In the early years, the program also accepted interns from nonmember institutions, but currently intern positions are open only to full-member
universities.)
Interns, under the guidance of JUAA staff in charge of accreditation, perform
Secretariat duties for the institutions undergoing certified evaluation andaccreditation. After completing their training, interns are expected to put theirtraining experience to use in the self-study activities of their home institutions.
University Staff Journal, a collection of articles on university staff published by
JUAA, features the comments of interns who have completed their training, such as“I gained knowledge and experience in accreditation and a deeper understanding
about IQA,” and “I acquired the ability to view my university from acomprehensive, objective perspective.” For JUAA, the internship program not only
provides human effort but also represents a valuable opportunity to develop
29mutual understanding with our member institutions regarding QA in higher
education. To ensure that this occurs, JUAA invites past and present interns forjoint training sessions with JUAA staff.
The Internship Program is widely advertised to all full-member universities toensure the fairness of opportunity. It should be noted that rules are in place toprevent conflicts of interest. Interns are not authorized, for example, to accessmaterials and data related to accreditation of the institution to which they belong,
nor are they allowed to attend accreditation discussions concerning their homeinstitutions.
JUAA also operates RIQAHE to conduct research on accreditation of institutions inJapan and abroad for the benefit of its various activities and share the researchfindings with member institutions. Some Research Institute staff members serve
concurrently in the Secretariat, playing an organic role in returning the research
results to JUAA’s activities. At present, four employees hold such concurrent posts.
1.4.2 The EQAA has the physical and financial resources needed to fulfill its goals and carry out theactivities that emerge from its mission statement and purposes.
[Physical Resources]
JUAA Building
JUAA’s office is located in Ichigaya, a highly accessible area in central Tokyo. Its
Photographproximity to the government district ensures convenient access to government
ministries and agencies. The JUAA building of five floors above ground and one
basement level is fully owned and occupied solely by JUAA. The building features
three office floors, three private office rooms (two of which are occasionally used
as reception rooms), four meeting rooms, a library, and storage areas (see Table 9.).
Table 9. Overview of the JUAA building
Floor

Use

Area

5

1 meeting room, 2 private office/reception rooms

208.53 ㎡

4

3 meeting rooms

217.71 ㎡

3

Office space

217.71 ㎡

2

Office space, private office, library

252.57 ㎡

1

Office space

232.17 ㎡

4 storage areas, parking lot

253.99 ㎡

Basement

The first floor is occupied by the General Affairs Department, the second floor by
the Evaluation Research Department, and the third floor by the Accreditation
Department. The seating capacity and office space per person are sufficient for
now, but as JUAA plans to increase the number of employees in the future,solutions to prevent overcrowding will need to be considered.
30

The three meeting rooms on the fourth floor are divided by sliding walls that canbe removed to create a large conference room when needed. The annual
accreditation schedule is such that there are times when the demand for meetingrooms exceeds the capacity, and external meeting rooms have to be rented
temporarily. But these cases are not the norm, and overall, JUAA has sufficientspace and meeting rooms throughout the year.
JUAA has over the years introduced various ICT infrastructure to make operations
more efficient, and since 2020 it has invested in additional devices and systems in
response to the new demand for remote working and online meetings that became
inevitable with the COVID-19 pandemic. To meet the greater demand for ICT tools,
JUAA will further upgrade and expand the ICT infrastructure in its offices andmeeting rooms.
[Academic Resources]
The JUAA library houses books and journals on higher education and valuable
archival materials on Japan’s university reform during and after the postwar reformperiod. The library’s collection of domestic books on higher education is updated
through bulk-purchases twice a year. Japanese and international books requested
by staff are also purchased on an as-needed basis. The library subscribes toJapanese and international journals on higher education to stay up-to-date withthe latest information and research.
The archival materials include publications released after JUAA’s establishment(e.g., newsletter, public relations magazines, various standards, and reports) andcorporate documents (e.g., minutes of the board and committee meetings,
resources, and notifications). These are historically valuable resources that provide
information on the Japanese government’s higher education policies since the endof World War II. JUAA is in the process of converting these materials into anelectronic data format for lasting preservation and more effective use, and somematerials are made public on JUAA’s website with access limited to member
institutions.

JUAA website(Research>Archives[WEB-JP]
Regulations on
Inspections ofArchival
Documents[WEB-JP]As for the materials that are not in a digital format, JUAA provides member
university staff with access under its regulations on resource use. JUAA makesthese valuable materials available not only to its staff but also member universities
and researchers as part of its efforts to meet one of its overall goals, which, as
stated clearly in the relevant regulations, is to “provide guidance, assistance, andinformation for improvement of university education and research.”[Financial Resources]
As an independent private entity, JUAA is not dependent on subsidies or otherpublic financial support for its operation. Its income is derived almost entirely fromStatement of
Net Assets(FY2016FY2020)[WEB-JP]31

membership fees and accreditation fees, which make up the financial resources
necessary to carry out its various activities.
There are two types of membership fees collected annually: the full-member fee
and the support-member fee. The full-member fee is classified into ten grades
according to the institution’s student capacity (see Table 10.), while the supportmembership fee is a flat 100,000 yen regardless of the institution’s size.

Regulations on
FullMembershipand Support
Membership[WEB-JP]

Table 10. Full-member fees
Student Capacity

Annual Fee

Membership Fees Collected in 2021

Less than 1,000

200,000 yen

51 universities, 6 junior colleges

Less than 2,000

350,000 yen

55 universities

Less than 3,000

500,000 yen

47 universities

Less than 5,000

600,000 yen

36 universities

Less than 8,000

700,000 yen

49 universities

Less than 10,000

800,000 yen

18 universities

Less than 15,000

900,000 yen

22 universities

Less than 20,000

1,000,000 yen

8 universities

Less than 30,000

1,100,000 yen

11 universities

30,000 or more

1,200,000 yen

8 universities

There are three types of accreditation fees: institutional certified evaluation andaccreditation, certified evaluation and accreditation for professional graduate
schools, and specialized accreditation.
The institutional accreditation fee comprises the basic fee of 2 million yen, plus avariable component depending on the number of undergraduate and graduate
schools for universities and the number of departments for junior colleges. The
variable component is 350,000 yen per undergraduate or graduate school foruniversities and 200,000 yen per department for junior colleges. Non-full-member
institutions are charged an additional amount equivalent to five years of full
membership fees.
The fee for certified evaluation and accreditation for professional graduate schools
is a flat 3.5 million yen for each field of study, with no additional charges for nonmember institutions.
The specialized accreditation fee varies depending on whether the program being
reviewed is offered by a single institution or multiple institutions. The fee for a
program offered by a single institution is 2.2 million yen, while a program available
at multiple institutions is 1.3 million yen per institution.
JUAA maintains a stable financial position and generates an operating surplus mostyears, even if revenue and expenditure fluctuate from year to year depending on
the number of accreditations performed and the size of the accreditation

Accreditation
Fees
Regulations[WEB-JP]
Statement of
Net Assets(FY2016FY2020)[WEB-JP]32

applicants (Table 11.).
Table 11. Financial status over the past five years (JPY)
2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

474,182,696

473,801,403

423,194,158

390,202,856

511,333,015

193,500,000

191,800,000

192,750,000

193,950,000

189,600,000

274,470,332

268,416,163

221,146,065

191,627,889

286,142,048

Expenditure422,323,335

419,431,520

416,598,763

399,196,519

323,775,234

Balance

51,859,361

54,369,883

6,595,395-8,993,663

187,557,781

Revenue
Membership fee
Accreditation
fee

Note: The surplus was exceptionally large in FY2020 as a result of pandemic-induced changes in operations(especially reduced expenses for transportation and overseas travel).

As JUAA’s revenue and expenditure fluctuate depending on the number ofaccreditations performed and the size of the accreditation applicants, asmentioned above, JUAA retains specified assets, or Operation Assets for University
Accreditation and Other Programs, which it uses to balance its finances.
Specifically, during the seven-year cycle, a surplus is deposited into the specified
assets in the years when a large number of accreditations generate higher revenue,
while in the years when the number of accreditation applications is small, andrevenue is low with high expenses, the specified assets are used to make up theshortfall. This procedure allows JUAA to effectively balance its revenue andexpenditure.

FY2020 Balance
Sheet[WEB-JP]As stated in 1.1.1, JUAA is a public interest corporation. JUAA operates incompliance with the stringent financial requirements imposed by laws andregulations under Japan’s public interest corporation system, and is certified andperiodically audited by the Cabinet Office. These facts clearly demonstrate JUAA
has the financial capacity required to carry out its activities.
If there is a challenge that JUAA needs to address, it is how JUAA’s sound andappropriate operations tend to leave it with a larger surplus than projected. The
stringent financial requirements under the public interest corporation system do
not allow entities to generate excessive surpluses. JUAA therefore has had to takecare in recent years not to let this happen. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a
growing or possibly permanent shift to online meetings and events, and with the
expected drop in transportation and overseas travel costs, JUAA needs to consider
more effective ways to use its financial resources by, for example, actively building
up its human resource capacity, which has long been an area of improvement for
JUAA, and investing in optimal ICT facilities.

33

1.4.3 The EQAA provides systematic opportunities for professional development of its staff.
JUAA offers the following training programs to improve the knowledge and skills of its
staff (see Table 12.).
1. New employee and new intern training
2. Group training for the entire staff⚫ Training to acquire knowledge on university accreditation and higher education⚫ Training to develop basic skills and all-purpose skills⚫ Joint training of university staff and JUAA staff (training for past and current
interns and JUAA staff)
3. Individual training⚫ Training for university staff offered by external training providers
Individuals can participate in the program of their choice from a lineup of programs
offered. (The training programs focus on one of three topics: practical skills, genericskills, and management skills, with each topic having set target levels from new
employees to managers.)
Table 12. FY2018-FY2021 Staff training over the past four years
FY2018

TargetNew employees
and new interns

All staff andinterns

2019

All staff, current
and former
interns
New employees
and new interns

All staff andinterns
New employees
and new interns
2020

New employees
and new interns

Training content/topics●History of JUAA, committee activities, organizations, outline andcharacteristics of accreditation, tasks of university accreditation●Explanations on the Standards for Establishment of Universities●University Standards●Finance and future challenges of private universities●Direction of certified evaluation and accreditation: Focusing on the
preliminary draft of the Vision of the Central Council for Education●Desired competencies of future university staff●Compliance and risk management training
Joint training for university and JUAA staff●Challenges and vision for the third cycle: Lessons to draw on from thesummary of the second cycle of university accreditation●History of JUAA, committee activities, organizations, outline andcharacteristics of accreditation, tasks of university accreditation●Explanations on the Standards for Establishment of Universities●University Standards●Staff training on professional graduate schools●Realities of high school-university transition●Business management training
Joint training for university and JUAA staff●Summary of the first year of the third cycle of university accreditation(certified evaluation and accreditation)●History of JUAA, committee activities, organizations, outline andcharacteristics of accreditation, tasks of university accreditation●Explanations on the Standards for Establishment of Universities,
Graduate Schools, and Professional Graduate Schools●University Standards and Internal Quality Assurance

34

2021

All staff, current
and former
interns
New employees
and new interns

Joint training for university and JUAA staff●Reflecting on international recognition of quality assurance●History of JUAA, committee activities, organizations, outline andcharacteristics of accreditation, tasks of university accreditation●Explanations on the Standards for Establishment of Universities,
Graduate Schools, and Professional Graduate Schools●University Standards and Internal Quality Assurance
Joint training for university and JUAA staff●Reflecting on the quality of online education

All staff, current
and former
interns
Note: The number of training opportunities decreased in FY2020 and FY2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition to the above staff training, staff in charge of accreditation are required
to attend the training program for accreditation staff offered by the Japan Networkof Certified Evaluation and Accreditation Agencies, a network comprising 14
certified evaluation and accreditation agencies in Japan. This training program
targeting staff of the network’s member agencies is offered at two levels, beginners
and experienced, and features lectures on higher education policies by MEXT
senior officials and lectures on QA by accreditation agency senior officials as well asworkshops conducted by the participants themselves. Furthermore, theAccreditation Department holds a yearend training session where participants lookback on their year’s work, study and give presentations on a topic of their choice,and exchange opinions.
JUAA also encourages its staff to attend symposiums and seminars offered by otherorganizations and universities, and actively provides training information.
Furthermore, to stay current with higher education policy developments, staff fromthe Accreditation Department and the Research & Planning Division take turns
attending the meetings of the Central Council for Education; they later write upreports on what they learned at these meetings and share the information with theentire organization. JUAA also holds joint training with partner QA agencies abroadwith the aim of helping staff develop international perspectives. (See 2.2.2 formore details.)
Apart from these training programs, JUAA supports the self-directed efforts of staff
to improve their skills by providing a financial incentive program for professional
development.
[Future Challenges]
JUAA offers numerous training opportunities for staff as described above, but has
yet to develop a job-level-specific systematic training framework linked to thecompetencies mentioned in 1.4.1. This issue needs to be addressed by linking its
training programs to specific competencies. Moreover, while JUAA conducts postinternal training surveys to help plan future events, another area requiring
improvement is the lack of sufficient mechanisms to measure the effectiveness of35

training, such as monitoring improvements in staff knowledge and skills orassessing how this learning is put to use on the job. To ensure the effectiveness of
training, JUAA needs to devise better post-training follow-up strategies anddevelop a systematic training framework.

36

2. Accountability of the EQAA
2.1 Quality Assurance of the EQAA
2.1.1 The EQAA operates with transparency, integrity and professionalism and adheres to ethical andprofessional standards.
[Management transparency]
JUAA actively discloses information on its activities through its website,
publications, and other media to ensure the transparency of its QA.
First, on its website, JUAA publishes the results of all certified evaluations andaccreditations as well as the program accreditations it has implemented. In
addition, JUAA releases information on its corporate management and activities tothe public, including (1) Articles of Incorporation and regulations relating toaccreditation and research activities, (2) annual activity plans and reports, andfinancial information, (3) lists of the Board of Trustees and committees involved inaccreditation and research activities, and (4) reports on various events such as
symposiums.
Second, JUAA produces an annual newsletter to report information on its
corporate management and activities to member universities and relevant parties,
and publishes a biannual public relations magazine in print media and on its
website to provide stakeholders with information on its certified evaluation andaccreditation and other QA activities.

JUAA website[WEB-JP][WEB-EN]
Articles ofIncorporation
Activity Plan
and Budget[WEB-JP]
Activity Report
and Financial
Statements[WEB-JP]

Newsletter[SD-JP05]
Public Relations
Magazine“JUAA”[WEB-JP]

Through these proactive information disclosures, JUAA is committed to operatingwith transparency as a QA agency.
[Management integrity]
JUAA transitioned from an incorporated foundation to a public interest
incorporated foundation in 2014 after authorization by the Cabinet Office. Thismeans the national government has recognized the importance of JUAA’sconsistent QA activities conducted since its establishment as an incorporated
foundation of high public interest.

Website for
Public Interest
Corporation
Information[WEB-JP]To obtain the status of a public interest corporation, foundations must meet thestandards stipulated in the Act on Authorization of Public Interest Incorporated
Associations and Public Interest Incorporated Foundations (Authorization Act) withrespect to the public interest of businesses and corporate governance. JUAA’s
Articles of Incorporation, regulations on accreditation and research, and financial
status satisfy these standards. JUAA has maintained its authorization since first
granted in 2014 by submitting its annual activity plans and reports, and financial
information to the Cabinet Office, and undergoing periodic on-site inspections.

37

JUAA also periodically collects the opinions of such stakeholders as member
universities and relevant parties, and draws up and reviews its activity plans basedon their views and other findings.
For example, to exchange views with member universities, JUAA holds an annual
general meeting to explain its activity reports and plans, and financial status, andto solicit opinions on the appropriateness of its management. In early 2022, JUAA
conducted a questionnaire survey of higher education institutions regarding its
member services, aimed at further improvements by exploring more effective ways
to provide services as a QA agency.
As another example, JUAA disseminates information in response to the needs ofmember universities by holding various events, including briefing sessions on
application procedures for its certified evaluation and accreditation, and university
and junior college study programs for relevant parties to exchange opinions on QA
activities. JUAA also offers public study groups at the RIQAHE, as described later,and has established a system to dispatch its administrative staff as lecturers touniversities upon request. These initiatives help JUAA understand the current
status of universities’ QA activities through opinion exchanges with relevant
parties, while providing universities with information on JUAA’s certified evaluation
and accreditation procedures as well as updates on its QA activities. In addition,
JUAA conducts a questionnaire survey of participants after each event to keep up
with the needs of the participants and participating universities, and to further
enhance its QA activities based on feedback and other findings.
Furthermore, to promote opinion exchanges with other certified evaluation andaccreditation agencies, JUAA and other accreditation bodies have jointly
established the Japan Network of Certified Evaluation and Accreditation Agencies(JNCEAA). The agencies periodically meet to discuss their QA activities and to
jointly publish their evaluation results and conduct staff training sessions.

JNCEAA website[WEB-JP]As described above, JUAA has consistently engaged in QA activities for higher
education since its establishment, and constantly reviews and improves its
activities to meet the needs of society and its stakeholders with the changing
times.
[Management professionalism]
JUAA operates with sufficient professionalism in performing its higher education
QA activities.
First, JUAA’s Board of Trustees, responsible for decision-making in all its activities,
comprises the representatives of Japan’s leading universities (mainly presidents)
and academic staff with a high level of expertise in university management. In
addition, Trustees are selected based on various elements that include the types ofuniversities (national, public, and private), their locations, and gender balance.

Board ofTrustees andAuditors
Board ofCouncilors[WEB-JP]
Webpage for
the ResearchInstitute for
Quality38

Next, JUAA has organizations conducting advanced research on QA in higher
education. Specifically, the Research Group on Higher Education was formed
between 2012 and 2017, and RIQAHE was set up in 2018 and beyond to conduct
surveys on key topics related to QA of the times by inviting such experts asuniversity faculty and staff in accreditation-related fields (Table 13.). The outcomesof these surveys are returned appropriately to JUAA’s accreditation activities, forexample, presenting the outcomes at RIQAHE conferences, open workshops, andother meetings, sending them to universities and other institutions in the form ofreports and publications, and using them as references when revising its evaluation
criteria.

Assurance ofHigher
Education

Table 13. List of surveys
Title
Survey for Systematizing University Accreditation Theories
Survey on the Expected Role of Internal Quality Assurance
Survey on Articulation in Higher Education
Survey on International Quality Assurance
Survey on Student Learning Outcomes
Survey on Quality Assurance and Enhancement Initiatives in
Teaching Programs
Survey on the Expected Role of Educational Program Evaluation*Survey for Promoting Quality Assurance and Enhancement
Initiatives in Teaching Programs*Survey on the Expected Role of Achievement Level Evaluation*Survey on Effective Online Education and Evaluation Criteria andPerspectives*Survey on Teaching and Learning Management*Survey on Developing Skills in Bachelor’s Degree Education to
Meet the Challenges of Contemporary Society

PeriodNovember 2011-March 2014
September 2013-March 2015
September 2013-March 2015
September 2015-March 2017
June 2016-March 2018
May 2017-March 2018
June 2018-March 2019
July 2018-March 2019
August 2019-July 2021
July 2019-March 2022
October 2021-March 2023
October 2021-September 2023
*Surveys by RIQAHE

Furthermore, JUAA strives to improve its QA activities by constantly reviewing its
evaluation criteria and processes. JUAA’s accreditation standards are revised
periodically, every five or seven years, based on the outcomes of the abovementioned research and other activities, to reflect the universities’ roles that meetthe needs of the times. JUAA also ameliorates its evaluation processes, including
evaluator training and site visits, every fiscal year within the range of its specified
regulations, based on the Survey on the Effectiveness of University Accreditationand questionnaire surveys of evaluators after their evaluations are completed.
Lastly, JUAA staff play an indispensable role in carrying out evaluation activities,
and possess advanced knowledge and experience in higher education and QA, as
described in 1.4.1.

Survey Reporton theEffectiveness of
University
Accreditation(1st Cycle)[WEB-JP]
Survey Reporton theEffectiveness of
University
Accreditation(2nd Cycle)[WEB-JP]
University
Accreditation
Handbook39All the above descriptions demonstrate that JUAA performs its activities with a highlevel of professionalism.
[Compliance with ethical and professional standards]
As mentioned earlier, authorized as a public interest incorporated foundation,
JUAA operates in compliance with the Authorization Act and other relevant laws
and regulations. In addition, certified as an accreditation agency by the MEXT
Minister, JUAA conducts its evaluation activities in accordance with the stipulationsof the Detailed Ministerial Order issued by of the MEXT.
To carry out fair and unbiased evaluations, JUAA has established rules andregulations for evaluators, staff, and related parties of universities applying foraccreditation, and especially ensures that evaluators are thoroughly aware of thecontent through training and other means to prevent conflicts of interest.
In addition, JUAA operates under the rules and regulations established to handle
personal information and prohibit all types of harassment for its Board members,
administrative staff, and other personnel engaged in its operations (committee
members, evaluators, etc.). JUAA also requires its staff to comply with its code of
conduct, including the handling of confidential information, as stipulated in its
employment regulations.

Regulations on
the Fair
Implementationof Third-Party
Evaluation[WEB-JP]
Regulations on
the Protectionof Personal
Information[WEB-JP]
Specific
Personal
Information
Handling
Regulations[SD-JP06]
Regulations on
the Preventionof Harassment[SD-JP07]
Employment
Regulations[SD-JP01]

The establishment and appropriate dissemination of these necessary rules andregulations have resulted in no cases of ethical misconduct to date, which
demonstrates that JUAA is conducting its operations smoothly, including theimplementation of strict and rigorous evaluations.
Lastly, as is the case with the GGP application, JUAA considers the internationalrecognition of its accreditation as an opportunity to expand its QA activities
globally, and aims to meet globally accepted ethical and professional standards.
2.1.2 The EQAA has in place mechanisms that enable it to review its own activities in order to respondto the changing nature of higher education, the effectiveness of its operations, and its
contribution towards the achievement of its objectives.
JUAA operates the following improvement cycle based on its Articles ofIncorporation, Self-Assessment Committee Regulations, External Review
Committee Regulations, and other regulations as a mechanism for reviewing its QA
activities.
[Formulating the activity plan and budget]
First, to set JUAA’s activity goals, the Board of Trustees formulates an annual
activity plan and budget in accordance with Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Articles ofIncorporation. The activity plan specifies the fiscal year’s goals for four activities –
accreditation, research, international cooperation, and corporate management.
The budget provides the fiscal year’s estimated membership and accreditation fees

Self-Assessment
Committee
Regulations[SD-JP08]
External Review
Committee
Regulations[SD-JP09]
Articles ofIncorporation
Activity Plan
and Budget40

as the main sources of revenue; projected operating expenditures for its
accreditation, research, and international cooperation activities; operating
expenses allocated to part of its corporate management activities; andadministrative expenses allocated to the remaining part. JUAA undertakes activities
based on the activity plan and budget as a general principle.
JUAA’s annual activity plan and budget are formulated based on a medium-termplan drawn up roughly every five years. The Board of Trustees or a working group
set up under the Board discusses the medium-term plan in light of JUAA’s selfassessment (as described later), with the “Medium-term Outlook – Roadmap forAchieving the Goal of Establishing an Organizational Structure” drawn up in 2014
and the medium-term goals and plan in 2019. The FY2021 action plan sets out
specific measures to achieve the medium-term goals and plan, and is reviewed ona yearly basis.

[WEB-JP]
Roadmap[WEB-JP]
Medium-term
Goals andMedium-term
Plan[SD-JP02]
Action Plan
[SD-JP03][Checking the achievement level of objectives and the effectiveness of activities]
To check its activities in terms of achievement level and effectiveness, JUAA adopts
such methods as monitoring the execution status of its activity plan and budget on
a monthly, multi-month, and annual basis, and implements a self-assessment andexternal review (described below) every several years.
As a mechanism for monitoring the progress of its activities, JUAA first prepares anoperational status report on a monthly basis. The directors and assistant directors
draw up a report on the implementation status of each activity specified in theactivity plan, and briefs the Managing Trustees in charge, depending on thecontent. After receiving the report, the Managing Trustees check the progress ofactivities under their respective departments every month, and brief the Board ofTrustees in the form of a duty status report.
Next, the Managing Trustees’ duty status report to the Board of Trustees takes
place on a multi-month basis, in accordance with Article 25, Paragraph 4 of JUAA’s
Articles of Incorporation, which stipulates that the President, Vice Presidents,
Senior Managing Directors, and Managing Trustees must report on their duty
status at least twice each fiscal year, at an interval exceeding four months.
Accordingly, the Managing Trustees, who are briefed on the above-mentioned
operational status, present the execution status of the activity plan and budget andother information at the Board of Trustees meeting held semi-annually.

Articles ofIncorporation

Then, the Board of Trustees prepares an annual activity report and financial
statements in accordance with Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Articles ofIncorporation. This document outlines JUAA’s monthly and multi-monthly activities
conducted on a yearly basis, and consists of (1) an activity report, (2) annexed
detailed statements of the activity report, (3) balance sheet, (4) income statement(statement of net assets), (5) income and expenditure statement, (6) balance
sheet, (7) annexed detailed statements of the income statement (statement of net

Articles ofIncorporation
Activity Report
and Financial
Statements[WEB-JP]41

assets), and (8) inventory of assets. The (1) activity report provides the fiscal year’s
implementation status of the four accreditation, research, international
cooperation, and corporate management activities. Financial statements (2)through (8) present the status of income and expenditures, cash flow, and asset
holdings for the fiscal year.
JUAA strives to keep abreast of the progress of its activities through the above
monitoring process.
[Periodic self-assessment]
After confirming the implementation status of its four activities (accreditation,
research, international cooperation, and corporate management) described above,
JUAA carries out a self-assessment every five years, and an external review basedon the results, as ways to assess the achievement of each goal, the effectiveness of
the activities, and its response to the changing needs of higher education.
JUAA’s self-assessments are implemented by the Self-Assessment Committee set
up internally based on the Regulations on the Self-Assessment Committee. The
Committee consists of (1) Managing Trustees, (2) an Auditor, (3) one current or
previous Standards Committee member, (4) one current or previous member orsecretary of the committees in charge of the Institutional Certified Evaluation andAccreditation, (5) one current or previous member or secretary of the committees
responsible for the Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate
Schools, and (6) several personnel involved in other committees formed by JUAA,
all of whom boast years of experience in JUAA’s activities. Under the regulations,
the Self-Assessment Committee specifies the evaluation criteria and items to carryout self-assessment, but the criteria must focus on assessing the status of legal
compliance, including the Detailed Ministerial Order, and the effectiveness of
JUAA’s IQA in order to ensure its appropriateness as a certified evaluation andaccreditation agency.

Self-Assessment
Committee
Regulations[SD-JP08]

The results of the self-assessment conducted by the Self- Assessment Committee
are compiled into a report that presents the current status, strengths, issues to beaddressed, measures for improvement and enhancement, and other findings ineach evaluation category. The report is eventually given to the Board of Trustees
and made public on the JUAA website. The Committee has implemented acomprehensive self-assessment covering JUAA’s activities twice so far in FY2014
and FY2019.

Self-Assessment
Report (January
17, 2014)[WEB-JP][Periodic external reviews]
JUAA’s external reviews are conducted based on the results of the above selfassessments. Under the Regulations on the External Review Committee, theExternal Review Committee is commissioned by the Board of Trustees to carry out
the task aimed at enhancing the objectivity and validity of JUAA’s self-assessments
and contributing to the improvement of its structure and activities. The Committee

Self-Assessment
Report(September 27,
2019)[WEB-JP]

External Review
Committee
Regulations[SD-JP09]
External Review
Report42

comprises (1) up to three members who belong to Japanese universities, (2) up to
three members who are currently working or previously worked for university
accreditation agencies in Japan or overseas, and (3) several other external experts,
to ensure that the Committee excludes JUAA’s Board of Trustees, Councilors,committee members, and other staff.
Under the regulations, the External Review Committee conducts an external reviewby (1) examining the self-assessment results report and equivalent documents, (2)interviewing JUAA’s Board of Trustees, staff, committee members, and otherpersonnel, and (3) taking other necessary measures to assess the appropriatenessof the self-assessment. The Committee briefs the Board of Trustees on the external
review results report outlining the distinctive features, issues to be addressed, andfuture expectations regarding JUAA’s activities. The Board of Trustees then carefully
considers which improvements and other measures based on the results to reflectin the medium-term and annual activity plans.

(September 30,
2014)[WEB-JP]
External Review
Report(February 26,
2021)[WEB-JP]

Starting in FY2018, the revised Detailed Ministerial Order requires certified
evaluation and accreditation agencies to implement and publish their selfassessments. In response, JUAA brought forward by one year part of its selfassessment scheduled for every five years.
[Future challenges of review system]
As mentioned above, JUAA has a mechanism in place for appropriately assessing
and improving its own activities through periodic self-assessment and external
reviews. However, to systematically enhance this IQA system, JUAA must work to
make improvements by presenting more concrete measures based on the resultsof these reviews in its medium-term goal plans and action plans.

Regulations on
Internal Quality
Assurance[SD-JP10]

To this end, JUAA newly established the Regulations on Internal Quality Assurancein January 2022 to set out the purpose, structure, and procedures of its IQA, andhas recently built IQA system. The regulations define IQA as an appropriately
managed mechanism based on systems and procedures to constantly operate an
improvement cycle of regularly conducting self- assessment, linking the results toimprovements and reforms, and formulating and implementing new goals andplans. The Board of Managing Trustees plays a central role in creating a newverification system. In order to establish an organic verification system, JUAA is
currently in the process of creatin a framework to more effectively formulate its
medium-term goal and plans and action plans based on the results of its selfassessments and external reviews. The specific efforts include specifying a five-year
cycle of self-assessments in the regulations, and upgrading the Self-Assessment
Committee. Previously set up only when conducting a self-assessment, this bodywill serve as a standing committee to monitor the achievements of the action plans
every fiscal year.

43Chart 6. JUAA’s IQA system

Board of Trustees

Board of Managing Trustees

A

Deciding on the direction of
improvements and reforms basedon the self-assessment andexternal review results

P

Formulating medium-term goals
and plans, and action plans

Management
and support

Other Committees

External Review
Committee

Activities of the Standards Committee,
University Accreditation Committee, andother committees

Self-Assessment Committee
Formulating self-assessment methods,
implementation systems, and schedules,
preparing self-assessment report,
considering improvement measures, andmonitoring the action plan achievements

D

C
Working Group for self-assessment

Secretariat(General Affairs &Planning Division)

Preparing draft self-assessment report[Verification of each activity]
JUAA internally examines its activities in addition to implementing a verification
system for the entire organizational management.
First, JUAA assesses its accreditation activities through the Survey on the
Effectiveness of University Accreditation released to the public after completing
each university accreditation cycle. The survey is aimed at assessing JUAA’s overall
evaluation system through questionnaires and interviews with evaluateduniversities. The Standards Committee reflects the results in the system operation
for the next university accreditation cycle. All the survey results are released on the
JUAA website.

Survey Reporton theEffectiveness of
University
Accreditation(1st Cycle)[WEB-JP]
Survey Reporton theEffectiveness of
University
Accreditation(2nd Cycle)[WEB-JP]

Next, as mentioned in 2.1.1, JUAA revises its accreditation standards every five orseven years based primarily on the outcomes of surveys and research activities by
RIQAHE and other institutes, as well as the results of the Survey on the
Effectiveness of University Accreditation. JUAA is also establishing systems to
improve its evaluator training, site visits, and other procedures based on the
results of the questionnaire surveys of evaluators conducted after the accreditationis completed every fiscal year. For example, JUAA has improved evaluator training
by streaming videos outlining its accreditation and reviewing the content and time
allocation of practical training workshops. Site visits are reviewed to ensure that44

surveys are conducted appropriately in line with the revised evaluation criteria andother changes.
Furthermore, JUAA regularly conducts questionnaire surveys of people attending
its briefing sessions and other events to better understand the needs of theparticipants and participating universities. Reflecting this feedback in futureplanning and management, JUAA is working to create an improvement cycle thatcan provide participants with useful information.
In addition, the Member Eligibility Committee carries out a questionnaire survey ofhigher education institutions to examine JUAA’s membership policies, andconsiders what kind of services are effective. JUAA will continue to review andfurther enhance its services as needed.
[Response to the changing nature of higher education]
It is important to pay careful attention to the changing nature of higher education,
especially in terms of QA activities. JUAA formed the Research Group on Higher
Education between 2012 and 2017, and set up RIQAHE from 2018 onward, tomonitor trends and undertake surveys on key topics related to higher education
QA. (See Table 13 in 2.1.1 for specific survey topics.)
2.1.3 The EQAA periodically conducts a self-study of its own activities, including consideration of its
own effects and value. The review includes data collection and analysis, to inform decisionmaking and trigger improvements.
JUAA conducts periodic self-assessments based on its IQA system as indicated in
2.1.2.
JUAA prepares a monthly operational status report, a semi-annual duty status
report, and an annual activity report and financial statements. Through these
documents, JUAA monitors the progress of its activities and carries out a selfassessment every five years to examine the effectiveness and value of its activities.
In the 2014 self-assessment, the Self-Assessment Committee established thefollowing standard items and evaluated the “current status,” “distinctive features,”“issues to be addressed,” and “future development policies”.

Self-Assessment
Report (January
17, 2014)[WEB-JP]

Table 14. List of evaluation items in the FY2014 self-assessment report
Key item
1. Basic characteristics

Secondary item
(1) Purpose(2) Membership2. Activities(1) Standards setting, revision or abolition(2) Accreditation(3) Research(4) Archiving

45

(5) International cooperation(6) Public relations
3. Management base(1) Administration and management(2) Secretariat structure(3) Facilities and equipment(4) Financial affairs

4. Review and information disclosure

JUAA has corrected the issues identified in the 2014 self-assessment report. For
example, the Board of Councilors addressed the challenge of speeding up
management decision-making by revising the Articles of Incorporation to hold abimonthly meeting of the Board of Managing Trustees, starting in September 2015.
The Board of Managing Trustees comprises a President, Vice Presidents, Senior
Managing Director, and Managing Trustees.

Self-Assessment
Report(September 27,
2019)[WEB-JP]A meeting of the Board of Trustees requires the attendance of more than half theBoard members, as stipulated in the Authorization Act. However, considering thedifficulty in scheduling meetings that gather all the members who are presidents ofuniversities across the nation, JUAA has introduced an online meeting system using
information and communications technology. This change has enabled the Trustees
to attend meetings without physically travelling, leading to a significantly higher
attendance rate.
In the 2019 self-assessment, the Self-Assessment Committee renewed thefollowing standard items to evaluate “descriptions of the current status,” “strengths
and issues to be addressed,” and “future enhancement and improvement
measures”.
Table 15. List of evaluation items in the FY2019 self-assessment report
Key itemI. Accreditation activity

Secondary item
1. Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation
2. Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools
3. Program Accreditation (veterinary medicine)

II. Research activity
III. International
cooperation activity

1. Research
2. Initiative to archive materials
1. Response to international cooperation

IV. Corporate

1. Membershipmanagement activity

2. Public relations activities
3. Organizational governance and management
4. Financial affairs
5. Organizational management base46

As with the 2014 self-assessment, JUAA has addressed the challenges identified in
the 2019 self-assessment report. For instance, measures have been taken to
reduce the evaluation workload, such as capping the number of pages of the selfstudy reports prepared by universities and introducing a system to have theuniversities’ basic requirements for document analysis checked by JUAA staff so as
to lessen the burden of evaluators.
In addition, ICT has been adopted for evaluation activities in part of theaccreditation process since 2020. Specific approaches include conducting online
evaluator training and document analyses using a web conferencing system,
business messaging apps, and cloud storage. These initiatives have helped lighten
the evaluators’ workload to a certain extent by easing time and location constraints
on evaluators who are university faculty and staff.
To objectively confirm and assess JUAA’s overall activities, reviews are carried out
based on reports and supporting documents prepared by the Working Group for
self-assessment, which consists of JUAA staff, set up under the Self-Assessment
Committee. Supporting documents are listed in the Self-assessment Report.
JUAA is committed to examining its own activities as described in 2.1.2 through theabove self-assessment of its overall organizational management.
As a specific approach to assessing its accreditation activities, JUAA publishes theSurvey on the Effectiveness of University Accreditation after completing each
university accreditation cycle. The survey has been carried out so far during thefirst cycle (FY2004-FY2010) and the second cycle (FY2011-FY2017). For the third
cycle (from FY2018), a survey with questionnaires and interviews is 47underwaywith universities evaluated each fiscal year and the previous fiscal year. In addition
to an annual survey, JUAA plans a separate survey from the third cycle to assess theeffectiveness for the next several years.
As indicated in 2.1.2, JUAA has made improvements to evaluator training, sitevisits, and other procedures based on the results of evaluator questionnaires after
completing the evaluations every fiscal year.

Survey Reporton theEffectiveness of
University
Accreditation(1st Cycle)[WEB-JP]
Survey Reporton theEffectiveness of
University
Accreditation(2nd Cycle)[WEB-JP]

Furthermore, to assess the services for JUAA members in terms of corporate
management, JUAA conducts a questionnaire survey of higher education
institutions, with a view to further upgrading its services by analyzing theireffectiveness.
In response to the revised Detailed Ministerial Order, effective FY2018, that
requires certified evaluation and accreditation agencies to implement and publish
self-assessments, JUAA brought forward by one year part of its self-assessment
implemented every five years. JUAA also published the results on its website andreported them to MEXT. JUAA received the following comments from MEXT:“Incorporating the concept of IQA early into certified evaluation and accreditation

Comments to
the Japan
University
Accreditation
Association[WEB-JP]47

is commendable;” “It is expected that JUAA will enhance the assessment of
whether IQA functions properly or not;” “It is expected that JUAA’s newly
established research institute will promote research aimed at enhancing theevaluation quality and share the outcomes with other accreditation agencies;” and“It is expected that JUAA will pioneer measures to raise public awareness ofcertified evaluation and accreditation in coordination with other accreditation
agencies and MEXT, and to engage in various activities, such as case analyses, thatwill serve as a model for other accreditation agencies”.
2.1.4 The EQAA is subject to external reviews at regular intervals, ideally not exceeding five years.
There is evidence that any required actions are implemented and disclosed.
As mentioned earlier, JUAA’s external reviews were implemented by the External
Review Committee commissioned by the Board of Trustees in FY2014 and FY2020,
based on the results of the self-assessment reports compiled in FY 2014 and FY
2019, respectively.
The External Review Committee’s FY2014 and FY2020 reports were compiled
through document analyses of JUAA’s self-assessments and interviews with JUAA
officials, including the President and Self-Assessment Committee Chair. The reports
include the evaluators’ findings for such items as (1) JUAA’s distinctive features(areas for enhancement), (2) issues to be addressed by JUAA (areas for
improvement), and (3) recommendations to JUAA (expectations).
The FY2014 external review results presented the following issues:“It is considered necessary to pursue program accreditation based on thecharacteristics of study fields in order to review and enhance the quality ofundergraduate programs as the basis of university education… It is expected thatJUAA will take the initiative in promoting program-specific accreditation.”

External Review
Report(September 30,
2014)[WEB-JP]

Based on these views and other findings, the Board of Trustees decided to
implement accreditation by field of study in addition to the Certified Evaluation
and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools in coordination with MEXT andrelevant bodies. JUAA introduced Accreditation for Schools of Veterinary Medicine
in 2017 and Accreditation for Schools of Dental Education in 2021.
The FY2020 external review provided the following suggestions:“Rapid globalization in recent years has had a significant impact in various ways on
the development of professional graduate school education and international QA.
As a leading QA agency in Japan, JUAA has joined international QA networks in aneffort to collaborate with overseas QA agencies. Against this background, acomprehensive analysis of JUAA’s future activities would most likely become auseful policy for JUAA, and this analysis should include such key internal challenges
as financial plans, human resource development, and internationalization

External Review
Report(February 26,
2021)[WEB-JP]48

strategies, as well as analyses of long- to short-term management resources andsocial network designs.”
These comments have made JUAA aware of the need to create a more effective
mechanism for undertaking improvement activities based on periodic selfassessments and external reviews along with their results.
In the FY2020 external review, a director of TWAEA was appointed as an evaluator
to perform evaluations from a global perspective. JUAA formed a joint
accreditation project partnership with TWAEA as part of recent efforts to advanceits international cooperation activities.
The above external review results reports are made public on the JUAA website
after being presented to the Board of Trustees.

2.2 Links to the QA Community
2.2.1 The EQAA is open to international developments in quality assurance and has mechanisms thatenable it to learn about and analyze the main trends in the field.
[Recognizing the importance of international cooperation]
JUAA sets two objectives in its Articles of Incorporation: “to promote thequalitative improvement of higher education institutions in Japan” and “tocontribute to international cooperation such as educational and research activities
in higher education institutions.” In order for Japanese universities to develop andfurther enhance advanced education and research with the progress ofglobalization, it is necessary for JUAA to actively engage in the internationalizationof its activities, and to accurately understand higher education in other countries interms of QA as well as other trends and interests. With the internationalization ofhigher education already in mind, JUAA has joined various international networks
of QA agencies, including INQAAHE, to interact with other agencies in different
countries and regions, thereby connecting this experience to its accreditation
activities.
For example, JUAA was established based on a model of accreditation agencies in
the United States, with its accreditation system developed after studying thecountry’s systems, such as translating publications and other materials publishedby regional accrediting bodies, visiting US QA organizations, and participating inevaluator training and site visits. JUAA officials have visited various organizations
not only in the United States but also many other countries to conduct overseas
surveys, including research projects commissioned by MEXT. It is no exaggeration
to say that the accumulation of these steady research efforts has laid thefoundation of JUAA’s university accreditation.

Articles ofIncorporation

Report on theSurvey of
University
Accreditation by
US Accrediting
Organizations
and Other
Bodies (interim
report)(FY1997)[WEB-JP]
Report on theSurvey of
University
Accreditation by
US Accrediting

49

JUAA currently positions international cooperation as one of its main pillars, andhas set the following three targets as its medium-term goals (2020-2024).
1) Carry out activities to enhance the international compatibility of JUAA’s
accreditation and ensure its international credibility.
2) Engage in activities to promote collaboration with overseas accreditation
agencies.
3) Disseminate information on JUAA’s activities to increase its internationalrecognition, and gather the latest accreditation information by participating ininternational conferences and other events.

Organizations
and Other
Bodies (second
interim report)(FY1998)[WEB-JP]
Medium-term
Goals andMedium-term
Plan[SD-JP02]

To steadily achieve these targets, JUAA remains open to international
developments in QA and has a mechanism in place for following and analyzing thetrends of QA as indicated below.
⚫ Membership in international QA networks― Full member of INAQQHE, APQN, and CHEA-CIQG― Supporting member of AAPBS― Following international QA trends by attending annual general meetings and other gatherings held bymember institutions⚫ Reciprocal visits and training with overseas QA agencies― Training for MQA, MNCEA, and other agencies― Collaborative projects based on MOUs (international student surveys, international staff exchange
programs)⚫ Research on QA trends in foreign countries― Surveys focusing on IQA― Research projects by RIQAHE― Surveys on the trends of overseas accreditation agencies[Membership in international QA networks]
As mentioned earlier, JUAA has become a full member of INQAAHE and APQN, andappropriately monitors the QA trends in higher education by participating inconferences organized by these agencies and gathering information disseminatedby the networking organizations. In recent years, JUAA staff from the Office forInternational Planning and the Research and Planning Division took part in the
APQN Academic Conference in March 2019; staff from the Office for International
Planning also participated in the INQAAHE Conference and workshops in June 2021
and the APQN Annual General Meeting in November 2021. JUAA was scheduled topresent a joint accreditation project and student questionnaire surveys jointly
conducted with TWAEA and ONESQA at the APQN Academic Conference in March
2020, but the event was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Registered as apresenter, JUAA expects to deliver the presentations at the conference if
rescheduled.
In addition, in response to rapidly changing business education with the advent of
globalization, JUAA has joined the Association of Asia-Pacific Business School(AAPBS) as a supporting member, with the aim of contributing to the international50

development of professional graduate business schools covered by JUAA’s
accreditation. JUAA regularly participates in AAPBS’s annual general meetings andacademic conferences to interact with business schools in the Asia-Pacific region
and keep abreast of the latest trends. In November 2019, JUAA became a full
member of CHEA-CIQG. The group’s general meetings and other events have been
held online since FY2020. JUAA was unable to attend some meetings due to timedifferences, but plans to actively participate in future meetings to further promote
cooperation with overseas higher education institutions and QA agencies.
[Reciprocal visits and training with overseas QA agencies]
As a QA agency with the longest history and accreditation experience in Japan,
JUAA receives many visit requests from overseas accreditation agencies and otherbodies conducting surveys on Japan’s higher education QA. JUAA welcomes as
many visitors from abroad as possible in order to disseminate its efforts tooverseas agencies while learning about trends in other countries. These visits havecreated the opportunity for JUAA to sign partnership agreements.
For example, JUAA planned and implemented training sessions for the Malaysian
Qualifications Agency (MQA) in 2010 as requested by the Japan International
Cooperation Agency, as part of the Economic Partnership Program (EPP) under theJapan-Malaysia Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA). Based on requests from
MQA, which was newly established at the time, JUAA conducted training covering awide range of topics on Japan’s QA systems and JUAA’s university accreditation.
JUAA also provided MQA with the opportunity to observe Japan’s university
initiatives firsthand in cooperation with its member universities. These training
sessions were held for three consecutive years, and JUAA also visited MQA tocontinue the exchanges. The two sides eventually signed a partnership agreementin 2013. Since then, JUAA staff have participated in MQA’s training activities andconducted site visits to universities introduced by MQA, thereby acquiringextensive knowledge about Malaysia’s higher education policies and QA activities.
More recently, at the request of the Mongolian National Council for Education
Accreditation (MNCEA), a QA agency in Mongolia, JUAA offered MNCEA staff a twoday training session in May 2019. The training covered such topics as Japan’s higher
education and QA systems, JUAA’s university accreditation, and evaluator training.
In August of the same year, MNCEA asked JUAA to provide its evaluators and staff
with a training session on IQA and the roles of staff. JUAA’s associate directors of
the Office for International Planning and the Institutional Accreditation Division
visited MNCEA to hold the session. These activities have helped Japan andMongolia deepen their mutual understanding of QA.
Furthermore, in terms of external training, JUAA’s associate director of the
Research and Planning Division gave a presentation on Japan’s QA and university
accreditation at the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), a QA
51

agency in India, in April 2021. These requests reflect JUAA’s position as a leader inassuring and enhancing the quality of higher education in Japan.
Currently, JUAA has signed memorandums of understanding (MOUs) and otheragreements with the following nine agencies in seven countries to exchange
information on the trends of higher education systems and QA. Asia represents ahigh percentage of international students studying at Japanese universities.
Table 16. List of agencies signing MOUs and other agreements with JUAA
AgencyEuropean Foundation for Management Development (EFMD)
Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA)
Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan(HEEACT)
Taiwan Assessment and Evaluation Association (TWAEA)
Korean Council for University Education (KCUE) and Korean University
Accreditation Institute (KUAI)
Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment(ONESQA)
Center for Education Accreditation, Vietnam National University Ho
Chi Minh City (CEA VNU-HCM)
Mongolian National Council for Education Accreditation (MNCEA)

Year ofsigning

Location

2012
2013

Belgium
Malaysia

2013

Taiwan2013

Taiwan

2015

South Korea

2017

Thailand2020

Vietnam

2020

Mongolia

As for connections with ASEAN countries, JUAA received an invitation from its MOU
partner ONESQA in Thailand to attend the ASEAN Young Quality Assurance Officers
Network (AYQON) Forum hosted by the ASEAN Quality Assurance Network in
November 2019, and JUAA staff from the Office for International Planningparticipated in the event. The AYQON Forum is a network designed for young staff
members with emphasis on international cooperation in QA. With JUAA’s young
staff having few opportunities to give presentations at international conferences,
this event made JUAA aware of the need for its staff members to improve theirknowledge and presentation skills as QA personnel. JUAA also learned about thelatest trends of QA in ASEAN countries.
In addition, JUAA has signed a trilateral agreement with TWAEA and ONESQA as
part of its separate initiatives with its MOU partners. Specifically, the threeagencies have conducted international student surveys and organized international
staff exchange programs, thereby building stronger partnerships (see 2.2.2 fordetails).
[Research on the trends of QA in foreign countries]
JUAA monitors and analyzes the latest trends of QA in other countries and returns
the outcomes to its accreditation system. The specifics of the surveys and studies
are described in Item 2.1.1. It is notable that JUAA is the first organization in JapanMEXTCommissioned
Project“Establishment52

to advocate the importance of IQA based on site visits to overseas universities andaccreditation agencies, and has built and introduced its university accreditation
system focusing on IQA. JUAA also defines IQA, which was considered synonymouswith self-study, to be aligned with the international understanding of a series ofprocesses starting with educational planning and design. Other research outcomes
include improving evaluator training by incorporating mock evaluation workshops
based on the knowledge gained from participating in evaluator training sessions
held by overseas QA agencies.

of an Internal
Quality
Assurance
System”[WEB-JP]As well, a study group of JUAA staff has carried out surveys on overseas QA
systems, QA agencies’ evaluation criteria and processes, and evaluator training
since FY2018. The surveys cover QA agencies in the United States, Britain,
Germany, Australia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Malaysia, as well as ENQA, with briefing
sessions held periodically. At the end of each fiscal year, members of the study
group exchange opinions on activity policies and decide on topics for the following
fiscal year. In FY2020, the study group conducted research on the surveyedcountries and a questionnaire survey on ICT use in evaluations. The survey report isshared within JUAA, and discussions are underway on the specific use of ICT tomake evaluations more efficient. In FY2021, the group plans to explore such topics
as the accountability of US accreditation agencies and universities, viability ofGermany’s IQA, and collaboration among Malaysia’s accreditation agencies. It will
also study examples useful for the next cycle (fourth cycle) of the university
accreditation system and the current status of IQA systems of overseas universities
as common themes.
In these ways, the knowledge and knowhow gained through surveys and studies
are utilized for revising JUAA’s accreditation standards and reviewing its
accreditation system, and are indispensable in maintaining and improving JUAA’s
evaluation quality. Established as a sustainable research institute, RIQAHE plays animportant role in analyzing the QA trends and the current status of universities
both in Japan and abroad. (See 2.2.1 for RIQAHE’s activities.)
As described above, JUAA constantly monitors and analyzes QA trends through its
membership in international QA agency networks, various activities based oninternational cooperation, and surveys from multifaceted perspectives.
However, there is room for improvement in examining the QA systems in foreigncountries. From the perspective of the significance and continuity of these
activities, it is necessary for JUAA to pursue overseas research more systematically,rather than with a study group of its staff members. While enlarging theachievements of RIQAHE’s research projects, JUAA needs to actively present theoutcomes at international conferences.

53

2.2.2 The EQAA collaborates with other QA agencies where possible, in areas such as exchange of goodpractices, capacity building, and review of decisions, joint projects, or staff exchanges.
JUAA has various opportunities to interact, collaborate, and cooperate with QA
agencies in Japan and abroad. Specific examples of its initiatives are as follows.
⚫
⚫
⚫

Domestic agencies
Meetings and training among certified
evaluation and accreditation agencies
Announcement of university accreditation
good practices on the JUAA website
Publication and distribution of newsletters,
research journals, and PR magazines ascommunication tools

Overseas agencies⚫ Joint initiatives based on MOUs
― International staff exchange programs― International student surveys⚫ English translation and disclosure ofaccreditation standards and results⚫ Joint accreditation projects

First, JUAA exchanges information and opinions with domestic QA agencies, as
appropriate, through multiple meetings that include the JNCEAA meeting,management meeting of the Japanese College and University Portraits, and theliaison meeting on the institutional certified evaluation and accreditation system.
For example, certified evaluation and accreditation agencies share theiraccreditation results and good practices at the JNCEAA meeting held at the end of
every fiscal year, and publish the details on the JNCEAA website. The agencies also
hold annual joint staff training to update their knowledge on QA and to promoteinteractions among staff members (see 1.4.3 for details).

JNCEAA website[WEB-JP]In terms of sharing good practices, JUAA undertakes its own initiative to publish on
its website the outstanding efforts of universities identified as “commendations”
and “distinctive features” in JUAA’s accreditation results. The website includes not
only JUAA’s evaluations but also comments from evaluated universities, andprovides tags and keyword searches for easy access to information on the
distinctive features and outstanding efforts.

Search Page forCommendations and Distinctive
Features of
Universities[WEB-JP]In addition, as communication tools JUAA publishes various publications, including(1) “Newsletter,” which also serves as JUAA’s activity reports, (2) RIQAHE’s“University Evaluation Review”, (3) “University Staff Journal,” aimed at enhancing
staff members’ skills and abilities, and for other practical uses, (4) its public
relations magazine “JUAA,” and (5) “JUAA Library.” These publications are sent to
JUAA’s member universities and other relevant bodies.
Next, as part of its efforts to collaborate and cooperate with overseas QA agencies,
JUAA has signed partnership agreements with nine agencies in seven countries, asmentioned earlier, with activities including information sharing on QA and staff
exchanges. JUAA aims to maintain contact with its MOU partners at least several
times a year, and actively responds to surveys requested by INQAAHE and APQN
members.

Newsletter[SD-JP05]
Public relations
magazine“JUAA”[WEB-JP]
University
Evaluation
Review
University Staff
JournalJUAA Library

54

JUAA, TWAEA, and ONESQA in particular have concluded a trilateral international
partnership agreement on information sharing related to QA and staff exchanges,
and jointly implement staff training and student surveys. JUAA’s collaboration
activities with other agencies have been expanding, with its MOU partner in
Vietnam, CEA VNU-HCM, joining the international student surveys since FY2021.
Furthermore, to increase its international recognition, JUAA actively disseminates
information about its activities by publishing its accreditation results andevaluation criteria translated into English, and posting them on the INQAAHE
Bulletin.
[International staff exchange program]
It is essential for staff members of QA agencies to monitor and understand theinternational QA trends. In addition to being knowledgeable about higher
education and QA in Japan and abroad, the staff’s problem-solving,communication, and social skills, along with teamwork ability, are importantqualities in carrying out activities smoothly. JUAA’s joint international staff
exchange program with TWAEA and ONESQA has been held annually since 2018,with the aim of learning from one another about the trends of higher education
systems and QA in each country, as well as developing and enhancing the abilities
and skills required as QA agency personnel.
Table 17. List of international staff exchange program themes

December2020

Training theme
QA Systems
Accreditation Systems
IQA
Evaluator Training
Toward the Efficiency of Evaluation
Status of Assessment of Learning Outcomes in Universities and QA
Agencies
Support for Quality Enhancement of Universities
Relationship Building with Society
Exchange Information & Perspectives on IT in Evaluation
Evaluation Standards
Document Reviews
Site-Visits
Strengths and Weaknesses of QA Systems
Analysis Methods for the Self-Assessment Report
Development of a Training Program for Assessors
Evaluation Mechanism of Assessors

July 2021

QA System: Retrospect in 2020 and Prospect for the Future

March 2018

June 2018

February
2019

July 2019

June 2020

ParticipantMid-level

Mid-level

Mid-level

Entry-level

Mid/entry-level
Mid/entry-level
Accreditation
Department

Staff training is organized by the three agencies in rotation. The three-day program
features presentations and discussions by participants, as well as visits to local
55

universities and relevant organizations. The training sessions have so far focused on
the current status of higher education in each country, accreditation systems,
evaluator training, improving evaluation efficiency, IT use in evaluation, and othertopics, as shown in Table 17. The participants have reflected on the current status
and challenges of their agencies, and applied the knowledge acquired during thesessions to their evaluation work.
The FY2020 and FY2021 sessions were held online due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
but the online format also allowed other overseas QA agencies to participate as
observers. The sixth staff exchange program in FY2020, for example, invited theVietnamese accreditation agency CEA VNU-HCM to join as an observer in a training
session themed on the “Development of a Training Program for Assessors” and“Evaluation Mechanism of Assessors.” The FY2021 program welcomed Croatia’s
Agency for Science and Higher Education as an observer, which provided an
opportunity to learn directly about trends in higher education systems and QA not
only in the Asian region but in EU countries as well. The next training session
designed for senior officials and mid-level staff is scheduled to take place inThailand with the themes of “QF vs QA” and “Internationalization of Quality
Assurance and Universities.” The session date is currently under consideration,
depending on the COVID-19 infection situation and travel restrictions. CEA VNUHCM plans to participate again in the program.
As far as the effectiveness of this training is concerned, the international staff
exchange program asks the participants to set goals in advance by specifying theabilities and skills they want to acquire through the training, and to reflect on theirachievements when the session ends. Questionnaire surveys are also conducted,
and the program is reviewed in terms of training approaches and content based on
the results. JUAA’s questionnaire survey of the participants revealed that many
were able to understand the accreditation systems in other countries, along withgovernment policies and other aspects, and to improve their presentation skills,
including how to prepare presentation materials. The survey found that many
participants enjoyed the opportunity to interact with staff from other agencies.
These responses suggest that the training program was conducted in line with its
original purpose, and that it had a positive impact on staff development.
[International student surveys]
JUAA, TWAEA, and ONESQA have conducted joint questionnaire surveys ofuniversity students in Taiwan, Thailand, and Japan since 2016 to explore ways topromote qualitative improvement in universities. Specifically, the online surveys
ask university students in these countries about their level of satisfaction studying
at university. The results are compared and analyzed, compiled into a report, andfed back to schools cooperating with the surveys. The first joint survey in FY2016
asked university graduates about the relationship between their studies andemployability. From FY2018 onward, the annual survey has targeted enrolled

2019 Survey
Report2020 Survey
Report2021 Survey
Report56

students to examine their learning outcomes and levels of satisfaction with theirstudies. JUAA publishes the survey reports on its member-only website; it also
provides a comparative analysis of Japanese universities and other surveyed
institutions to the cooperating schools as reference data. With Vietnam (CEA VNUHCM as a contact point) participating in FY2021, the joint survey covered students
in four countries. These surveys have raised some challenges, such as differences in
the number of cooperating schools and samples among the participating countries,
but it is significant that the accreditation agencies and cooperating schools sharethe list of surveyed schools, and that the comparative analysis serves as evidencematerials for education QA of universities.
[English translation and disclosure of accreditation standards and results]
JUAA monitors trends and gathers information on QA in other countries andactively disseminates information. Specifically, JUAA prepares a summary of theaccreditation results for each fiscal year and sends the summary to its MOU
partners; its evaluation criteria translated into English can also be accessed on its
website. JUAA posts its accreditation and survey results on the INQAAHE Bulletin(digital edition) in an effort to increase its international recognition. In these ways,
JUAA seeks international understanding of the significance and concept of its
university accreditation.
[Joint accreditation projects]
In 2018, JUAA launched a joint accreditation project in mutual cooperation withTWAEA, as part of its initiatives for the international QA of universities. The aim is
to contribute to the development and internationalization of universities throughaccreditation jointly conducted by JUAA and TWAEA. The project particularly
targets universities aiming to become internationalized. The joint project has
expanded with ONESQA taking part in 2021 (see 6.2.1 for details).

Webpage for
Accreditation
Results Search
INQAAHE
Bulletin(December
2021 iJAS,
September
2021
Accreditation
Results, March
2021
International
Student Survey,etc.)

As mentioned above, JUAA has created opportunities to interact with domestic andoverseas QA agencies, and actively collaborates and coordinates with otheragencies to share good practices and promote staff development. It is particularly
notable that JUAA, TWAEA, and ONESQA continue productive exchanges, ranging
from information sharing to international staff exchange programs and student
surveys, based on trilateral MOUs. JUAA also exchanges views with the two
agencies on possible joint research and symposiums, such as research on student
learning outcomes and symposiums on international QA. JUAA plans to consider
themes in FY2022 and seeks cooperation from its research institute RIQAHE.
JUAA hopes to further expand its exchanges and activities as needed, and todeepen its cooperation and partnerships in ways that contribute to QA of higher
education institutions in Japan.

57

3. The EQAA’s Framework for the External Review of Quality in Higher Education Institutions
3.1 The Relationship between the EQAA and Higher Education Institutions
3.1.1 The EQAA recognizes that institutional and programmatic quality and quality assurance are
primarily the responsibility of the higher education institutions (HEIs) themselves, and respects
the academic autonomy, identity and integrity of the institutions and programs.
[JUAA’s accreditation]
JUAA designs a cycle of accreditation to be implemented every seven years for theInstitutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation, and every five years for the
Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools.
On the other hand, the Program Accreditation examines QA through each
university’s self-study as a general principle with no requirements for third-party
evaluation. However, in response to the requests of universities providing
specialized education programs, JUAA has introduced field-specific evaluation
criteria based on its knowledge and experience. As of FY2021, third-party
evaluations have been implemented for veterinary medicine (from FY2017) anddental education (from FY2021). (See pages 9 to 10 for accreditation performance.)[Evaluation focusing on IQA]
JUAA shifted its focus to IQA starting with the second cycle of certified evaluation
and accreditation in FY2011, based on its basic concept that universities areprimarily responsible for assuring the quality of education. This change was due tothe first-cycle accreditation results revealing that self-studies were not necessarily
linked to improvements and reform of university education. JUAA called for theestablishment of a university-wide IQA system based on autonomy to ensure that
universities appropriately implement self-studies and improve education to achieve
their learning outcomes. These approaches to reform are also in line with JUAA’s
traditional stance of seeking to have universities assure their own quality while
respecting their autonomy. Furthermore, JUAA’s emphasis on IQA corresponds tointernational trends that have promoted reform.
Since the third cycle of certified evaluation and accreditation in FY2018, JUAA has
moved a step beyond the second cycle to develop IQA system with an emphasis on
functional effectiveness. JUAA’s University Accreditation Handbook states that the
primary responsibility for QA of university education rests with the university itself,
and that JUAA carries out evaluations focusing on whether the university has inplace and effectively operates IQA system.
[Evaluation in line with mission and purpose]
JUAA evaluates universities in line with their missions and purposes to respect theirindividuality and contribute to developing their distinctive features. Accordingly,
JUAA’s accreditation standards require universities to establish criteria for their
missions and purposes, as well as formulate and implement medium- and long-

University
Accreditation
Handbook

Website for
Accreditation
Standards
University
Standards and58term plans to clarify and realize their missions and purposes as appropriate higher
education institutions. These standards have paved the way for universities tospecify their missions and objectives of human resource development, formulateaction plans, and undertake educational and research activities. JUAA’s fieldspecific standards for professional graduate schools require universities to clarify
the objectives of their educational programs. In addition, JUAA’s Program
Accreditation Standards stipulates that universities clearly define the objectives of
their educational programs in line with their missions and purpose.

its Rationale
Junior College
Standards and
its Rationale

JUAA considers self-study reports by universities as important materials, as
universities use their self-studies to undergo third-party evaluations of their
methods in addition to their definition of evaluation criteria. Similar evaluation
methods are adopted for the Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools andthe Program Accreditation, suggesting that these methods help universities
strengthen their self-improvement and explanatory capabilities.
3.1.2 The EQAA promotes the development and appropriate implementation of IQA processes inaccordance with the understanding that the primary responsibility for assuring quality resides
with the institutions and its programs.
JUAA’s University Standards defines IQA as a constant and continuous process
within universities to improve quality and responsibly explain and verify that theireducation and studies meet appropriate standards by effectively operating PlanDo-Check-Act (PDCA) cycles and other functions. Standard 2. “Internal Quality
Assurance” requires universities to set out their policies and procedures for IQA,
and to establish systems linked to improving and enhancing their quality throughsuch evaluations as internal and external reviews. The University Standards
stipulates that universities must operate their IQA systems and carry out activities
to assure their educational quality, thereby enhancing student learning outcomes.
The Standards also states that universities must assess for themselves whether
their IQA system fully functions and make improvements as needed. The University
Standards is designed for universities to make comprehensive efforts to assure
educational quality and fulfill their social responsibilities.

University
Standards and
its Rationale

For accreditation, JUAA evaluates whether universities clearly state their policies
and procedures for IQA, how they maintain their IQA systems, and whether they
are capable of making improvements and enhancements by implementing
appropriate self-studies. JUAA also considers external reviews and otherapproaches as important to ensure the objectivity of self-studies. From theperspective of educational QA, Standards 4. “Curricula and Learning Outcomes”
stipulates that universities must formulate three policies (diploma, curriculum, andadmission policies), design and implement curricula based on these policies, andmonitor and assess student learning outcomes to demonstrate their effectiveness.

University
Standards and
its Rationale

59

These requirements stress the need for universities to commit themselves to IQAof their education. (See 3.2.1 for the structure of the University Standards.)
JUAA’s accreditation standards for professional graduate schools and specialized
fields are designed primarily to evaluate educational programs with no universitywide IQA standards in place; but JUAA requires universities to design andimplement curricula based on the three policies, and to monitor and assess thelearning outcomes. In addition, JUAA attaches importance to the QA of educational
programs, and requests that self-studies be implemented at the program level,with improvements and enhancements made based on the findings. These two
types of accreditations now require universities to submit their self-study reports
to JUAA, and evaluators conduct evaluations based on the reports, data, andsupporting evidence. JUAA considers this process as one that helps confirm theuniversities’ self-improvement abilities as described above. (See 3.3.1 for JUAA’s
evaluation methods.)

Website for
Accreditation
Standards

3.1.3 The EQAA bears in mind the level of workload and cost that its procedures will place on
institutions, and, strives to make them as time and cost effective as possible.
[Measures to reduce evaluation workload]
To help universities prepare efficiently for accreditation, JUAA has developed
specified formats for legal compliance items and numerical data among its
evaluation materials so that all universities can compile a uniform collection ofdata. The input data require no written explanations to be included in the selfstudy reports unless otherwise noted. This measure is aimed at easing the burden
on universities preparing accreditation applications by organizing the items andnumerical data requiring written descriptions and compliance status. As forsupporting evidence, JUAA requests that universities submit supporting evidencematerials in PDF or other digital formats, and starting in FY2018, evaluationmaterials are to be submitted in a digital format via a designated cloud computing
platform so as to lighten the physical workload. JUAA recommends that universities
planning to apply for accreditation attend a briefing session on the outline,
preparation, and process one year before filing, and secure time for the application
procedures.
Compiling self-study reports requires a significant amount of time and effort for
applicant universities. To help them implement self-studies efficiently, JUAA has
taken steps to increase their understanding of the University Standards.
Specifically, JUAA asks the universities to evaluate their initiatives by setting up
review items in line with the University Standards. In terms of empiricalevaluations, JUAA specifies the type of evidence for submission.

University
Accreditation
Handbook

University
Accreditation
Handbook

60

[Appropriateness of accreditation time]
JUAA’s accreditation for each institution and program takes one year to complete
from receiving the universities’ evaluation materials to notifying them of theaccreditation results. JUAA’s review subcommittees (accreditation teams) conduct
document analyses and site visits, with their draft evaluation results reviewed by
the accreditation committees to produce the draft results. After receiving feedback
from the applicant universities, the committees prepare their opinions before theBoard of Trustees discusses them and makes the final decision. In light of theseprocedures, and review of the evaluation results according to the decision-making
process, JUAA considers the time required for accreditation as appropriate. This
process also applies to the Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional
Graduate Schools and the Program Accreditation, and the time required for theseevaluations is also considered appropriate. (See 3.3.1 for JUAA’s accreditation
process.)

Accreditation
Fees
Regulations[WEB-JP][Appropriateness of accreditation costs]
JUAA charges a fee for each type of accreditation as shown below, with the fees
determined based on expenses that include payments to evaluators for meetings,
site visits, and document analyses; travel and accommodations during site visits
and other activities; meals and other miscellaneous charges; and personnel costs
for JUAA staff. The accreditation fees also include the expenses of the follow-up
system subsequent to the accreditation results, with accredited universities
incurring no additional costs until they apply for the next accreditation. Taking allthese factors into account, JUAA considers its accreditation fees as appropriate andreasonable compared with the accreditation fees charged by other accreditation
agencies as indicated in Table 19.
Table 18. JUAA’s accreditation feesType of accreditation
University Accreditation

Certified Evaluation andAccreditation for JuniorColleges

Certified Evaluation andAccreditation forProfessional Graduate
Schools

Accreditation fees
2,000,000 yen per university
350,000 yen per faculty
350,000 yen per graduate school*Universities that are not JUAA full members are charged an annual
membership fee for five years in addition to the above accreditation
fees.
2,000,000 yen per junior college
200,000 yen per department*Junior colleges that are not JUAA full members are charged an annual
membership fee for five years in addition to the above accreditationfees.
3,500,000 yen per faculty61

Program Accreditation

2,200,000 yen per program*1,300,000 yen per program for a joint degree program (2,600,000 yen
for two programs)

Table 19. Comparison of accreditation fees with other agencies (institutional accreditation)
JUAA

JIHEE

NIAD-QE

JAQUE

JACA

Base fee

2,000,000 yen

2,000,000 yen

3,762,000 yen

1,600,000 yen

1,800,000 yen

Faculty

350,000 yen

500,000 yen

660,000 yen

350,000 yen

400,000 yen

Graduate

350,000 yen

250,000 yen

660,000 yen

200,000 yen

200,000 yen

None

Non-members
are charged
membershipfees (byadmission
capacity) for
five years.

Non-members
are charged
membershipfees (byadmission
capacity) for
seven years.

Universities
applying for theInstitutional
Thematic
Assessment are
chargedadditional fees.

Non-members
are separately
chargedspecified fees.

Non-members
are charged
membershipfees (byadmission
capacity) for
seven years.

*Calculation

4,800,000 yen

5,000,000 yen

9,042,000 yen

3,800,000 yen

4,200,000 yen

schoolexample*Each amount is calculated for four faculties and four graduate schools.
*This table is based on each EQAA’s website.

3.2 Definition of Criteria for External Reviews
3.2.1 The EQAA recognizes and values institutional diversity and translates this valuation into criteria
and procedures that take into account the identity and goals of higher education institutions.
JUAA’s accreditation specifies the following three objectives.
1.
2.

3.

Assuring the public of the quality of university education and research through a comprehensive
evaluation of various aspects of universities based on the JUAA University Standards.
Continuously supporting the improvement and enhancement of universities through the process of
notifying universities of the accreditation results, reviewing the progress made in addressing theissues identified by the evaluations, and presenting the review results to the universities.
Contributing to clarifying the social roles of universities through accreditation, and supporting
universities in fulfilling their social accountability.

JUAA also conducts evaluation activities based on the same objectives in the
University Accreditation, Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Junior Colleges(Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation), and Program Accreditationfor 11 schools (including the Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional
Graduate Schools).
The Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation features five evaluation
items to achieve its objectives.
1.
2.

Evaluation focusing on the effectiveness of IQA.
Evaluation focusing on self-improvement functions.

62

3.
4.
5.

Evaluation focusing on initiatives to realize the mission and purpose, and supporting improvement andenhancement.
Evaluation supporting continuous improvement and enhancement.
Evaluation focusing on peer reviews.

To achieve the above items, JUAA’s accreditation requires universities to establish
and operate IQA systems aimed at improving and enhancing their education, andeventually connecting to better student learning outcomes. Accordingly, JUAA has
added IQA standards to the University Standards to assess the effectiveness andfunctionality. (Detailed in the “Overview of accreditation standards” below.) Peerreviews are also conducted, in principle, by evaluators consisting primarily of
faculty and staff members recommended by universities (see 3.3.3).
[Overview of accreditation standards]
JUAA has established different sets of standards for each type of accreditation.
Currently, the Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation adopts two setsof standards for universities and junior colleges, while the Program Accreditation
provides standards for nine professional graduate schools (law, business, public
policy, public health, intellectual property studies, global communications, digitalcontents, global legal studies, and public relations) and two standards for two
specialized fields (veterinary medicine and dental education).
<Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation>
The Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation stipulates ten standards
each for universities and junior colleges. The standards also include theirrationales, with the content applicable to all universities, regardless of the type of
institution, in order to provide a general outline of the schools’ expected roles. To
evaluate the missions and purposes of universities, for example, Standard 1.
“Mission and Purpose” states that universities appropriately define and disclose
their purposes for education, research, and human resource development basedon their missions, and that universities clarify their medium- to long-term plansand other policies to realize their missions. These standards indicate that JUAA
focuses on the appropriateness and effectiveness of each university’s efforts torealize its mission and purpose rather than conducting uniform evaluations.

Website for
Accreditation
Standards

University
Standards and
its Rationale

JUAA’s accreditation also requires universities to establish diploma, curriculum, andadmission policies, as well as draw up implementation plans for faculty and facultyorganizations, student support, education and research environment, and otheraspects, with a view to realizing their missions and purposes. JUAA then evaluates
whether the universities carry out these activities appropriately according to theirplans. These approaches demonstrate that JUAA values the identity and objectivesof higher education institutions.
Furthermore, the ten standards are interconnected. In other words, universities are63required to establish appropriate education and research organizations (Standard3), conduct educational and research activities based on the three policies(Standard 4), accept students suited to this educational level (Standard 5), andform a faculty organization by assigning appropriate faculty members supporting
their curricula (Standard 6), with the aim of realizing their missions and purposes(Standard 1). Universities must also provide the necessary support andenvironment for educational and research activities (Standards 7 and 8), andcontribute to society by returning the outcomes of their activities and acquired
knowledge to demonstrate their social responsibilities (Standard 9), while securing
the necessary financial resources through appropriate management to support
these activities (Standard 10). Furthermore, universities must fulfill their social
accountability (IQA) by assuring their educational quality through activities
focusing on this education and by making improvements and enhancements basedon the results of self-studies and external reviews (Standard 2).
Chart 7. Structure of the University Standards

Admission policy<Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools>
JUAA has established accreditation standards for professional graduate schools bystudy field to evaluate whether appropriate education is provided in each field.
When the standards were first introduced, JUAA’s evaluation focused mainly on
specialized programs, but it also covered all aspects of graduate schools including
management. It was soon realized, however, that the standards overlapped thoseof the Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation in terms of student
support and education and research environment, as professional graduate schools
and graduate schools often share courses under the same university-wide systems.
64As a result, JUAA has progressively revised the field-specific standards focusing
exclusively on educational programs since FY2019, and aims to clarify thedistinction between the two types of certified evaluation and accreditations.
JUAA’s revised standards for professional graduate schools consist of four key itemswith texts, basic requirements, and evaluation perspectives. The texts outline therequirements for graduate schools to meet, with multiple evaluation perspectives
provided in each item to explain the details of the requirements. The basic
requirements refer to legal and other minimum external requirements for each key
item, and the content of the basic requirement data is separately organized in aworksheet format. The standards require graduate schools to clearly define their
purposes and formulate medium- and long-term visions or professional graduate
school management strategies to achieve the purposes (Key Item 1). To this end,
the schools must establish three policies (diploma, curriculum, and admission),design appropriate curricula, develop educational methods for students to acquire
knowledge and skills more effectively, accept students suited to this educational
level, and provide student learning support and other assistance (Key Item 2). In
addition, the schools must form a faculty organization supporting their curricula,assign qualified faculty members, and promote their research (Key Item 3). Lastly,
the standards require the schools to commit themselves to making improvements
and enhancements based on the self-studies, as well as external reviews fromindustries and other entities, so as to maintain and improve their educational
standards (Key Item 4).
JUAA’s certified evaluation and accreditation standards for professional graduate
schools respect the schools’ objectives, with JUAA stating that it evaluates theireducational and research activities to achieve their clearly defined missions andpurposes.

65

Chart 8. Structure of the Professional Graduate School Standards<Program Accreditation>
JUAA introduced the Accreditation for Schools of Veterinary Medicine in FY2017
and the Accreditation for Schools of Dental Education in FY2021. The standards forveterinary medicine comprise eight key standard items (1. Mission and Purpose, 2.
Curricula and Learning Outcomes, 3. Student Enrollment, 4. Faculty and Faculty
Organization, 5. Student Support, 6. Education and Research Environment, 7. Social
Cooperation and Contribution, and 8. Self-study and Information Disclosure). For
the accreditation structure and system, JUAA provides easy-to-understand, detailed
evaluation perspectives for universities undergoing the evaluations for the firsttime. On the other hand, the Program Accreditation Standards, which covers theentire university, overlaps to some degree with the Institutional Certified
Evaluation and Accreditation, as with the Professional Graduate School Standards.
JUAA plans to reorganize and streamline the Program Accreditation Standards forthe second cycle starting in FY2024.
The Accreditation for Schools of Dental Education specifies the standards
comprising five key items (1. Mission and Purpose, 2. Educational Content,66

Methods, and Outcomes, 3. Student Enrollment, 4. Faculty and Faculty
Organization, and 5. Self-study), with clearly defined categories established under
the key items, and multiple evaluation perspectives provided in each item. The
standards for both veterinary medicine and dental education place importance on
offering students hands-on clinical experience, and require the schools to provide
seamless education from undergraduate program studies to residency training andgeneral practice as veterinarians or dentists. In light of these conditions, JUAA’s
standards set out the evaluation items and perspectives to assess whether thenecessary systems and education are provided for clinical clerkships.
[Overview of accreditation procedures]
In terms of accreditation procedures, JUAA generally conducts its evaluations
based on self-study reports prepared by universities, faculties, and otherinstitutions, with respect for their missions and purposes. JUAA requires
universities to carry out self-studies in accordance with its University Standards.
While JUAA’s standards are used by evaluators as evaluation criteria, JUAA urges
universities to use them for their self-studies to help promote autonomous
standard assurance and enhancement.
When conducting site visits, JUAA’s evaluators send questions to the universities
five weeks prior to their visits, and begin the two-day on-site evaluation after
obtaining the written responses. Meetings and interviews during the site visits are
aimed at hearing opinions directly from university officials, and questions are asked
regarding their views and current status based on the written responses. As for the
Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools (excluding law schools) and theProgram Accreditation, JUAA sends the universities the draft results of theevaluators’ document analysis prior to the site visits, allowing the universities topoint out factual errors and express their views on the draft during the visits (seeChart 9.).
Furthermore, for all types of accreditations, JUAA sends the universities its draft
evaluation results compiled after completing its document analyses and site visits,
and sets a certain timeframe for the universities to respond with opinion
statements on factual errors and other matters, in order to ensure theappropriateness of its evaluation results.

Webpage for
the Overview of
the Institutional
Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation)[WEB-JP]The universities judged to have failed to meet the standards in their evaluation
results are provided with an opportunity to file an appeal against the results(denial of accreditation) within two weeks after receiving the notification. (See 3.3
for details of the accreditation procedures.)67

Chart 9. Timetable of document analyses and site visits
PeriodPeriod before site visits

Type of evaluation work

<April-May>

Around 4 months…

Evaluator training seminars<May-July>

Around 3 months…

Document analyses by evaluators (about 2 months)<August>7 to 10 weeks…

Evaluation team meetings (subcommittees)<Early5 weeks…

Sending evaluators’ questions to universities<October>

10 days…

Submitting responses to evaluators’ questions<October>

Site visits…

Site visits (2 days)

September>

3.2.2 The standards or criteria developed by the EQAA have been subject to reasonable consultation
with stakeholders and are revised at regular intervals to ensure relevance to the needs of thesystem.
[Standards revision process]
JUAA reviews its standards in line with each accreditation cycle. In addition, whenlaws and regulations on higher education are amended, JUAA needs to revise its
standards for the certified evaluation and accreditation that include legal
compliance, even in the midst of its accreditation cycle.
To revise JUAA’s standards, the Standards Committee first deliberates on therevision before setting up a working group to discuss and draft the revised
standards. While providing an update to the Standards Committee, the working
group draws up draft standards and solicits opinions from various parties.
Specifically, when revising the standards for the Institutional Certified Evaluation
and Accreditation, the Standard Committee collects various opinions for a periodof more than three weeks by sending the draft to all universities and junior colleges
and posting it on the JUAA website. As for the Professional Graduate School
Accreditation and the Program Accreditation, the Standard Committee sends thedraft to the applicable faculties, graduate schools, and JUAA’s full members, andseeks opinions through the JUAA website. The draft is also sent to other relevant
accreditation agencies and professional organizations as necessary. After theworking group reflects the feedback in the draft standards, the Standards
Committee undertakes deliberations, and the Board of Trustees meets to make thefinal decision. In these ways, JUAA revises its standards by reflecting publiccomments from not only university officials but also a wide variety of individuals
and groups.

Regulations on
Establishment
and Revision of
the Standards

68Chart 10. Standards revision process

Deliberation
at theStandards
Committee‣Forming a
subcommittee‣Direction ofrevising thestandards

Deliberation atthesubcommittee

Soliciting
publicopinions

Deliberation atthesubcommittee‣Discussing anddrafting therevisedstandards‣By mail and on
the website‣3 weeks to 1
month

‣Reviewing
feedback‣Formulating thedraft standards

Deliberation
at theStandards
Committee

Decision by
the Board ofTrustees‣Reviewing thedraft standards[Future challenges]
With the draft standards sent mainly to university officials, many opinions are
expressed by faculty and staff members. To actively reflect the views of industry it
is necessary to seek opinions from business organizations and other entities. It isalso important to consider ways to gather opinions from other university
stakeholders, including students and graduates. JUAA’s challenge ahead is tostrengthen its mechanism for reflecting the views of industry and university
stakeholders (including students and graduates) in its accreditation standards.
3.2.3 Standards or criteria take into consideration the specific aspects related to different modes ofprovision, such as transnational education, distance or online programs or other non-traditional
approaches to higher education as relevant to the context in which they operate.
[Evaluation of distance and online education]
As mentioned earlier, JUAA implements its evaluations focusing on the efforts ofuniversities to realize their missions and purposes; it also supports theirimprovement and enhancement efforts, and ensures that the evaluations are
consistent with non-traditional higher education as well. In other words, JUAA
evaluates universities in terms of whether they specify the learning outcomes
expected to be acquired by students in their diploma policy, clarify the necessary
curricula and educational methods to achieve the outcomes in their curriculum
policy, and provide education in accordance with these policies. JUAA considers
these approaches to also apply to non-traditional approaches to higher education.
[Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation]
In Japan, correspondence educational programs must be established in accordancewith the Standards for Establishment of University Correspondence Education andapproved by the MEXT Minister. Accordingly, to evaluate universities withcorrespondence education programs in the Institutional Certified Evaluation andAccreditation, JUAA confirms whether the universities comply with the nationalcorrespondence education standards, and examines the appropriateness of theirfaculty organizations and management for correspondence education.
69

However, many universities in Japan have introduced online lessons since 2020 toprevent the spread of the COVID-19 infections, and JUAA has also taken steps tocheck the status of anti-infection measures when conducting the Institutional
Certified Evaluation and Accreditation. With online classes held as a temporary
response to the pandemic, JUAA examines various anti-coronavirus measurestaken by universities, such as online education, through site visit interviews andother means, without revising its evaluation criteria. At the same time, as more
universities adopt distance and online education as new educational methods,
JUAA’s RIQAHE conducted a survey on online education and compiled a report
describing the various methods and challenges of online education introduced byuniversities as well as future outlooks based on the examples of other countries.
Based on the above survey and other research, JUAA reviewed the items used byuniversities as references for conducting self-studies in line with the University
Standards in 2021. As a result, the requirement of operating an appropriate
communications system for online education and entrance examinations wasadded to JUAA’s evaluation criteria.

FY2022
Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation
for Universities
and JuniorColleges[WEB-JP]
Survey on
Effective
Approaches,
Evaluation
Standards andPerspectives of
OnlineEducation[WEB-JP]<Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools>
Japan’s Standards for Establishment of Professional Graduate Schools states that“professional graduate schools may have their students take classes at places otherthan classrooms where classes are conducted using various types of media in anadvanced way as long as the classes are recognized as effective in specialized fields
that are expected to produce the full effects of education” (Article 8, Paragraph 2),
and that “professional graduate schools may provide correspondence courses using
various types of media in an advanced way as long as classes are recognized as
effective in specialized fields that are expected to produce the full effects ofeducation through correspondence education” (Article 9). These clauses indicatethat ICT-based education is permitted for school systems.
In response to the above decree, JUAA’s standards for the Certified Evaluation andAccreditation Standards for Professional Graduate Schools stipulate in all ninespecialized fields that classes in various temporal and spatial settings, such as
remote classes and e-learning, should produce the full effects of education by
providing appropriate content and methods. Accordingly, to evaluate graduate
schools adopting such educational methods as remote classes and e-learning, JUAA
evaluates their approaches to ensuring appropriate educational standards and theeffectiveness of their education, while examining whether the schools use methods
that reflect the content and characteristics of class subjects, based on their selfstudy reports.
[Program Accreditation]
JUAA’s Program Accreditation (veterinary medicine and dental education) covers
undergraduate programs, and generally evaluates distance education among

Professional
Graduate
Business School
Standards(Perspective No.
2-22)

Veterinary
Educational

70

various educational methods as part of its accreditation that values theuniversities’ efforts to realize their missions and purposes, and supports theirimprovement and enhancement measures, as in the Institutional Certified
Evaluation and Accreditation. With training essential in the two fields to acquire
practical skills, the universities conduct in-person practical training sessions in small
groups, while providing lectures in an online or on-demand format to prevent the
spread of the COVID-19.

ProgramStandards(Perspective No.
2-25)

As for veterinary medicine, there are four cases where two universities jointly
established a veterinary education program (eight universities and four programs).
Since their establishment, students enrolled in these joint programs visit eachother’s campus to take classes and practical training sessions, and faculty members
from both universities also travel between the two campuses for lessons andtraining. In addition, these universities have developed a distance education
system using ICT to jointly conduct classes, which prompted JUAA’s standards for
the Program Accreditation to include the requirement of establishing an ICT-based
remote learning system.
[Evaluation of transnational education and other new educational methods]
JUAA evaluates transnational education and other new educational methods aspart of the universities’ educational activities to realize their missions andpurposes, just in the same way as above, rather than developing criteria for eachapproach. JUAA believes it can evaluate newly developed educational methods
using advanced ICT from this standpoint. To deal with a growing number of nontraditional approaches to higher education in Japan, JUAA will seek evaluation
methods that can respond more flexibly and appropriately to diverse forms ofhigher education, while maintaining its evaluation focusing on universities’ efforts
to realize their missions and purposes.
[Future challenges]
As mentioned above, JUAA does not generally regard online and distanceeducation as special educational methods and evaluates these approaches as partof the educational methods adopted by universities based on their diploma andcurriculum policies to realize their missions and purposes. However, due to the
COVID-19 pandemic since 2020, many universities and graduate schools haveintroduced online education, and are expected to continue online lessons, combine
online and in-person classes, or provide education in an on-demand format, evenafter the pandemic ends. Some professional graduate schools have started on-line
lessons on weekdays and in-person classes on weekends to accommodate working
students. JUAA needs to gather and analyze examples based on the
aforementioned surveys and future trends, and weigh the points to consider
regarding the implementation and evaluation of online education.

713.2.4 Standards or criteria explicitly address the areas of institutional activity that fall within the
EQAA’s scope, (e.g., institutional governance and management, program design and approval,
teaching and learning, student admission, progression and certification, research, community
engagement) and on the availability of necessary resources (e.g., finances, staff and learning
resources).
[Appropriateness of accreditation standards]<Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation>
JUAA’s University Standards place importance on IQA (Standard 2) as described in
3.2.1. The Standards also requires universities to conduct educational and otheractivities based on three policies (diploma, curriculum, and admission) to realize
their missions and purposes (Standard 4), provide student support (Standard 7)
and education and research environment (Standard 8), commit themselves tosocial cooperation and contribution (Standard 9), and ensure robust management
and finance to support these activities (Standard 10).
These standards explicitly refer to the activities of higher education institutions andthe availability of necessary resources. Some standards mention two elements, forexample, in Standards 6, 8, and 10. Standard 6. “Faculty and Faculty Organization”
points to such activities as faculty development to promote educational quality;
Standard 8. “Education and Research Environment” refers to measures to ensure
research ethics for faculty members and graduate students; and Standard 10.
“University Management and Finance” partially includes university activities
related to the appropriateness of university management and the implementationof staff development for university management.
These specifications demonstrate that JUAA’s University Standards sets out
appropriate criteria related to the activities of higher education institutions and theavailability of necessary resources.
JUAA’s Junior College Standards also comprises the same criteria and are therefore
considered appropriate.
<Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools andProgram Accreditation>
JUAA’s standards for the Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional
Graduate Schools and the Program Accreditation examine educational programs
consisting primarily of the key items related to the activities of higher education
institutions. However, the professional graduate school standards regarding thenecessary organizations and regulations for the management of faculties andprograms are included in Key Item 4. “Professional Graduate School Management
and Improvement/Enhancement.”
Evaluation items regarding education and research environment and finance are
not included in the standards, but all higher education institutions with72

professional graduate schools as well as universities with veterinary or dental
schools subject to the Program Accreditation are required by law to undergo theaforementioned Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation. Taking thisrequirement into consideration, JUAA has arranged the standards to avoid theoverlapping of evaluations and to help reduce the workload of universities.
Table 20. Professional Graduate School Standards(Standards for Professional Graduate Schools of Public Health)
Key Item 1: Mission and Purpose

Key Item 3: Faulty and Faulty Organization

Key Item 2: Curricula, Learning Outcomes, andStudents

Key Item 4: Professional Graduate School
Management andImprovement/Enhancement

Table 21. Program Accreditation Standards (Dental Education Standards)
Key Item 1: Mission and Purpose
Key Item 2: Educational Content, Methods,
and Outcomes
Key Item 3: Student Enrollment

Key Item 4: Faculty and Faculty Organization
Key Item 5: Self-study

3.2.5 Criteria or standards and procedures take into account internal follow-up mechanisms, andprovide effective follow-up of the outcomes of external reviews.
JUAA notifies the universities of their accreditation results consisting of thefollowing content listed in the table below, and releases the results on its website
as well.

Webpage for
Accreditation
Results Search

The results of JUAA’s Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional
Graduate Schools and Program Accreditation are also released in the same format,
but the comments are classified into four categories (commendations, distinctive
features, suggestions for improvement, and areas of serious concern).
Commendations represent outstanding efforts that serve as a model for otheruniversities, while distinctive features refer to efforts short of notable outcomes,
but the approaches are considered useful in achieving objectives. The commentson distinctive features are effective especially for professional graduate schools
whose accreditation takes place on a five-year cycle, with some of their initiatives
requiring a longer period of time to produce outcomes.

Table 22. Structure of accreditation results (University Accreditation)
Decision

Decisions on whether the universities meet the University Standards(accredited) or not (unaccredited) are made based on a comprehensive
evaluation of their status. The accredited universities have the period ofaccreditation indicated.

73Accredited

Unaccredited

Overview
General remarks

Comments

Commendations

Suggestions for
improvement

Areas of serious
concern

The universities meet the University Standards due to their appropriate
standards as a university and initiatives undertaken to realize their
missions and purposes.
The universities fail to meet the University Standards due to serious
problems* that make their standards inappropriate as a university as wellas their failure to make efforts to realize their missions and purposes.
*Serious problems refer to matters, among the items identified as areas ofserious concern, that make it difficult to ensure appropriate educational
standards and quality as a university unless improvements are made.
Summary of the overall evaluation.
Overview of the universities’ initiatives and their evaluations in the ten
University Standards (Standard 10 is divided into (1) University
Management and (2) Finance).
The items pointed out by evaluators as notable among the initiatives
mentioned in the general remarks for the ten University Standards aredescribed, with notable efforts and problems presented in three
categories.
1：Items that contribute to realizing the universities’ missions andpurposes and (are expected to) produce positive outcomes.
2：Items that are pioneering or unique in Japan’s higher education and(are expected to) produce positive outcomes.
1：Minor deficiencies in basic requirements or problems in ensuring
appropriate standards as a university, with improvements required.
2：Other matters requiring improvement to realize the mission andpurpose.
１：Major deficiencies in basic requirements or serious problems inensuring appropriate standards as a university, with improvements
required.
２：Other matters requiring substantial improvement to realize themission and purpose.

[Improvement follow-up mechanism]<Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation>
JUAA’s Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation requires the accredited
universities to report on the progress in addressing all the comments (suggestions
for improvement and areas of serious concern) identified as problems in theiraccreditation results. JUAA requests that universities submit a report by the end ofJuly, three years after receiving their results, with consideration given to the time
expected to make improvements. JUAA evaluates the progress based on theirreports and notifies the universities of the results, and releases them to the publicthrough its website. If the areas of serious concern remain unaddressed, JUAA
strongly urges universities to make improvements by submitting another reportwhen undergoing the next cycle of certified evaluation and accreditation.
The unaccredited universities are allowed to request another evaluation todetermine whether they meet the University Standards by undergoing a follow-up

University
Accreditation
Handbook
University
Accreditation
Regulations

University
Accreditation74

review between the next fiscal year after accreditation and the fiscal year before
the next accreditation. The follow-up review requires a progress report on
addressing the comments (suggestions for improvement and areas of serious
concern) pointed out in the accreditation results. The decision is made based on
how the universities have corrected the items that led to accreditation being
denied. JUAA considers providing a simplified follow-up review for the universities
that failed to be accredited due to specific factors such as the shortage of full-time
faculty members.

Handbook
University
Accreditation
Regulations

On the other hand, the unaccredited universities are also permitted to present a
progress report to be reviewed by the University Accreditation Committee
regarding the issues identified as suggestions for improvement or areas of serious
concern, instead of applying for a follow-up review to seek accreditation.
In these ways, the Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation has amechanism for various forms of follow-up that enables JUAA to appropriately
monitor the degree of progress the universities have made in addressing the issues
identified in the accreditation results, and to urge them to make further
improvements as needed, in light of the improvement systems in place.
<Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools>
The graduate schools accredited in the Certified Evaluation and Accreditation forProfessional Graduate Schools must submit to JUAA a report on their improvement
plans to address the comments (suggestions for improvement and areas of serious
concern) in September of the year after their accreditation application (six months
after receiving the accreditation results). The schools are also required to give a
presentation at the Accreditation Committee and exchange opinions withevaluators on making their improvement plans more appropriate. The schools
must then compile and submit a report describing the progress and completion of
their improvement initiatives by the end of July, three years after applying foraccreditation, in order to ensure that the items pointed out as areas of serious
concern have been corrected. Upon receiving the report, JUAA sets up the Progress
Report Review Subcommittee under the Accreditation Committee to confirm thecompletion of improvements, and informs the schools of the review results.

Handbook of
the Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation
for Professional
Graduate
Schools of
Public Health[WEB-JP]
Regulations on
the Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation
for Professional
Graduate
Schools of
Public Health)[WEB-JP]75

Chart 11. Improvement follow-up in the Certified Evaluation and Accreditation forProfessional Graduate Schools

Receivingaccreditation results↓

Presenting improvement
plans↓

Submission
deadline↓

The progress report is to be submitted during this period.
*The report includes the progress status of all items commented on (reporting on each comment indifferent fiscal years is not permitted).

JUAA has a mechanism in place for allowing the unaccredited universities to apply
for a follow-up review, as in the Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation.
However, the application period is limited to one or two fiscal years after
accreditation in consideration of the five-year accreditation cycle.
<Program Accreditation>
As for the Program Accreditation, which grants accreditation to universities for aterm of seven years, JUAA accepts a progress report submitted in the same mannerand timeline as it does for the Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation.
The report is reviewed by the Progress Report Review Subcommittee set up underthe Accreditation Committee, with the results notified to the universities.
JUAA also has a mechanism in place for allowing the unaccredited universities tofile for a follow-up review, as is the case with the Institutional Certified Evaluation
and Accreditation.

Handbook of
the Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation
for Professional
Graduate
Schools of
Public Health[WEB-JP]
Regulations on
the Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation
for Professional
Graduate
Schools of
Public Health)[WEB-JP]
Regulations on
the Program
Accreditation[WEB-JP]3.2.6 The EQAA procedures specify the way in which criteria will be applied and the types of evidence
needed to demonstrate that they are met.
[Operational guidelines and decision methods on accreditation standards]<Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation>
JUAA has provided various materials to specify how to apply its standards in theInstitutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation
The Decision Criteria and Their Operational Guidelines sets out the guidelines andkey points to consider regarding the decision criteria for accreditation and theiroperations. The decisions on the University Accreditation are made based on these

Decision Criteria
and Their
Operational
Guidelines[WEB-JP]76

criteria and guidelines, with comprehensive consideration given to the issues
identified as areas of serious concern in the accreditation results. JUAA denies
accreditation to universities with matters of particular concern that include (1)problems that prevent students from receiving education suitable for theirdegrees, (2) problems that make it difficult for universities to conduct educationaland research activities in a stable and sustainable manner, and (3) matters thatcause other serious problems significantly affecting the universities’ educational
quality and management.
In other words, the anticipated serious cases represent (1) serious problems arisingfrom the ineffective operation of an IQA system (Standard 2. “IQA”), (2) failure toappropriately manage student quotas (Standard 5. “Student Enrollment”), (3)failure to provide the legally required number of full-time faculty members(Standard 6. “Faculty and Faculty Organization), and (4) financial problems affecting
the educational environment and faculty allocations.
The “Guidelines for Accreditation” has been developed for evaluators to makeunified decisions. These materials consist of guidelines for evaluating the basic
requirements related to laws and regulations and other matters with reference tothe decisions made in past fiscal years. Additions and revisions are made asnecessary in light of each year’s evaluation performance and other aspects.

Guidelines for
Accreditation[WEB-JP]JUAA has also provided the “Evaluators’ Perspectives” describing the details of theevaluators’ tasks item by item based on the University Standards to show what
evaluators focus on.

Evaluators’
Perspectives<Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools andProgram Accreditation>
JUAA clearly states in the introduction of its accreditation standards for eachprogram that decisions on whether universities meet the standards are madebased on a comprehensive evaluation of the progress achieved in addressing thecomments presented as areas of serious concern, such as failure to meet legal
requirements and other serious problems. In addition, the introduction mentions
the types and definitions of comments in the accreditation results, as the decision
to deny accreditation involves areas of serious concern among the comments.
JUAA’s handbooks also explain that accreditation decisions are made based on acomprehensive assessment of the procedures of the accreditation results, types,
and definitions of comments, descriptions of areas of serious concern, and impactof the identified problems on education.

Standards forProfessional
Graduate
Schools of
Public HealthAccreditation
Handbook forProfessional
Graduate
Schools of
Public Health[WEB-JP]77

Table 23. Types and definitions of commentsin the Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools
Type of item

Basic requirements for
professional graduate
school programs

Legal matters related
to professional
graduate schools

Matters responding toeach professional
graduate school’s
purposeComments in theCertified
Evaluation andAccreditation

・Commendations
・Areas of serious concern
・Suggestions for
improvement

・Areas of serious
concern・Suggestions for
improvement

・Commendations
・Distinctive features
・Suggestions for
improvement[Materials required when applying for accreditation]<Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation>
Universities must prepare the following types of materials when applying for
JUAA’s Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation. Of these materials,
JUAA places the utmost importance on the “self-study report” compiled byuniversities based on their self-studies. In addition, as mentioned earlier, JUAA
urges universities to carry out efficient self-studies by preparing a separate datacollection of numerical information and legal compliance status.

University
Accreditation
Handbook

Table 24. Materials required when applying for
the Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation
Self-study Report

Basic university data
Basic requirements
check sheet
Supporting evidencematerials

A report on the self-study conducted by the university using JUAA’s
University Standards consisting of an introduction, body, and conclusion.
The body must list the ten standards to describe the current status andreviews (strengths and problems) based on the evaluation items in eachchapter. A list of evaluations showing how each standard is met on a 4point scale must also be attached to the report.
A collection of data including the numbers of students (applicants, entrants,
and enrolled students), dropouts, leaves of absence, and faculty members.
A collection of data presenting the current status of legal requirements toensure the university’s compliance.
Materials serving as supporting evidence for the Review Report include any
materials produced and used by the university on a daily basis. They are
indicated in the list of materials to be submitted, along with theirsupporting evidence.

<Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools andProgram Accreditation>
The Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools andthe Program Accreditation require submission of the following materials. JUAA
considers the self-study report as important as it does for the Institutional Certified
Evaluation and Accreditation. JUAA urges universities to write an appropriate

Accreditation
Handbook forProfessional
Graduate
Schools of
Public Health[WEB-JP]78

report by explaining in its handbooks how to outline the evaluation criteria, andproviding points to consider before preparing the report.
To help make preparation work more efficient, JUAA asks the universities toseparately submit a document on their legal compliance status and numerical datain the prescribed form.
Table 25. Materials necessary when applying for
the Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools
Self-study Report

Basic School data

Supporting evidencematerials

A report on the self-study conducted by the university using JUAA’s
standards for each program consisting of an introduction, body, andconclusion. The body must list the key standard items to describe thecurrent status and reviews (strengths, problems, and improvement
measures) in each chapter.
A collection of data including the numbers of students (applicants, entrants,
and enrolled students), dropouts, leaves of absence, and faculty members,
as well as presenting the current legal compliance status.
Materials serving as supporting evidence for the Review Report include any
materials produced and used by the university on a daily basis. They are
indicated in the list of materials to be submitted, along with theirsupporting evidence.

[Efforts to implement self-studies]<Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation>
JUAA attaches importance to self-studies by universities, with its University
Accreditation Handbook carefully explaining how to write a self-study report,
which is a report compiled by universities based on their self-studies. The thirdcycle University Accreditation especially requires universities to conduct selfstudies from a university-wide perspective. To this end, JUAA requests that
undergraduate and graduate schools carry out self-studies for each program,
before the university executive board compiles the results and identifies thedistinctive features and issues to be addressed from a boarder perspective.
Furthermore, the handbook provides applicant universities with the evaluation
items required for self-studies in ten standard categories, along with evaluation
perspectives (reference materials) including specific examples. Evaluators also use
these items for their evaluations.
JUAA requires universities to submit supporting evidence materials to show that
their initiatives meet the standards, and clarifies the types of evidence by providing
examples of supporting evidence required or expected to be required for each
evaluation item. JUAA also publicly releases a list of these materials
All this information is accessible to universities in JUAA’s handbooks and on its
website.

University
Accreditation
Handbook

Evaluation
Items and
Perspectives
Self-study
Report: Notes
and Examples ofSupporting
Evidence
Materials[WEB-JP]
List of Materials
to Be Submitted[WEB-JP]79

<Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools andProgram Accreditation>
The Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools andthe Program Accreditation categorize the key standard items, with multiple
evaluation perspectives provided for each item. To conduct self-studies, graduate
schools are required to describe the current status of these items, including
strengths, issues to be addressed, and improvement measures, based on theevaluation perspectives. JUAA also specifies legal and other minimum
requirements for the key items and organizes them quantitatively and qualitatively
as a separate set of basic requirement data.

Standards forProfessional
Graduate
Schools of
Public Health

3.3 The External Review Process
3.3.1 The EQAA carries out an external review process that is reliable and based on published criteria
and procedures. It follows a self-assessment or equivalent, and includes an external review(normally including a site visit or visits) and a consistent follow-up of the recommendations
resulting from the external review.
[Accreditation process]
JUAA has established the same accreditation process for its Institutional Certified
Evaluation and Accreditation, Certified Evaluation and Accreditation forProfessional Graduate Schools, and Program Accreditation. As mentioned in 3.2
regarding its accreditation standards, JUAA conducts evaluations with a focus on
the universities’ self-improvement capabilities based on the results of their selfstudies (self-study report). JUAA has created an eight-step process starting with
self-studies, as shown in the chart below. The process features document analyses,
site visits, and improvement follow-up systems subsequent to notification andannouncement of the accreditation results.

80

Chart 12. University Accreditation process

First, a university applying for the University Accreditation conducts a self-study
based on JUAA’s University Standards, and summarizes the results in the self-study
report. The university generally completes these tasks by the year before
undergoing the accreditation process, and submits the self-study report and othernecessary materials to JUAA by April of the year of accreditation.
Next, JUAA’s review subcommittee conducts a document analysis between May
and September. Evaluators examine the materials submitted by the university towrite up their findings. Then the review subcommittee holds a meeting (evaluatormeeting) to discuss the findings while hearing the evaluators’ opinions on the
document analysis, and identifies questions and matters requiring confirmation
based on the university’s materials.
After the document analysis, the review subcommittee conducts a site visit
between September and October. During the two-day visit arranged for all applying
universities, information is collected through an opinion exchange with faculty andstaff members, including the president and students.

81

Table 26. Example of a site-visit schedule
Day 1
Time
９:30～12:00
12:00～13:00
13:00～14:30
14:30～14:40
14:40～16:10
16:10～16:20
16:20～17:05
17:05～17:30

Day2

Activity
Evaluator meeting
Lunch time
General meeting (1)Break
General meeting (2)Break
Individual interviews
(1)

Time
９:30～10:00
10:00～10:45
10:45～10:55
10:55～11:55
11:55～12:55
12:55～13:40

Activity
Evaluator meeting
Individual interviews (2)BreakStudent interviews
Lunch time
Individual interviews (3)13:40～14:25

Evaluator meeting

Evaluator meeting

14:25～16:00
16:00～17:30

General meeting (3) /opinion exchange
Evaluator meeting

After the site visit, the University Accreditation Committee reviews the evaluation
results produced by the review subcommittees, determines the accreditation
results (Committee’s draft), and sends them to the university around December. If
the draft results contain any factual errors or other inconsistencies, the university isallowed to file an opinion statement during a designated period. In this case, theUniversity Accreditation Committee deliberates on whether to adopt the opinion,
with the results reflected in the accreditation results. This process takes roughly
one month.
After the University Accreditation Committee’s review is completed, the Board ofTrustees discusses the accreditation results and makes the final decision. JUAA
notifies the university of the finalized accreditation results in March and announces
them on its website after reporting to the MEXT Minister.
As for the subsequent follow-up support for improvement, as described in 3.2.5,
JUAA asks the accredited universities to review their improvement reports andnotifies them of the results, while offering the unaccredited universities a
supplementary review (optional). The evaluation results of the progress reports
and supplementary reviews since FY2018 are published on the JUAA website.
JUAA widely disseminates the above accreditation process through its
accreditation handbooks and website. JUAA also provides detailed explanations at
briefing sessions for universities planning to apply for accreditation, and holds
training seminars for evaluators before they begin their evaluation work.
The above descriptions demonstrate the high reliability of JUAA’s accreditation
process, as JUAA is certified by the MEXT Minister as an accreditation agency
operating in accordance with Japan’s certified evaluation and accreditation system.
JUAA also conducts a questionnaire survey of the evaluated universities to assess
the validity of its accreditation process, and uses the results to improve its

University
Accreditation
Handbook
Webpage for
the Overview of
the Institutional
Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation82

accreditation methods and process as necessary, such as improving the functionsof its committees involved in accreditation.
3.3.2 The EQAA has published documents, which clearly state what it expects from higher education
institutions, in the form of quality criteria, or standards and procedures, for self-assessment andexternal review.
[Standards and documents related to the standards]
JUAA publishes its accreditation standards described in 3.2 in both Japanese andEnglish on its website. The accreditation standards are also included as a referencein JUAA’s handbooks for universities applying for accreditation and for evaluators to
fully understand the standards before carrying out their evaluation.
In addition, to promote efficient self-studies using the accreditation standards for
the Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation, JUAA presents theevaluation items and perspectives as references, which are made public on its
website and included in its handbooks. JUAA’s website and handbooks also provide
materials linking evaluators’ perspectives to evaluation items, decision criteria andoperational guidelines for accreditation results, and other guidelines for comments(suggestions for improvement and areas of serious concern).

University
Standards and
its Rationale
University
Accreditation
Handbook
Evaluation
Items and
Perspectives
Decision Criteria
and Their
Operational
Guidelines[WEB-JP][Regulations on accreditation procedures]
JUAA has established regulations for each type of accreditation to specify theevaluation systems and procedures. Based on these regulations, JUAA sets up
evaluation committees as bodies responsible for accreditation, under which thefiscal year’s evaluation systems and policies are discussed and reviewed. The draft
evaluation results are then submitted to JUAA’s Board of Trustees for finalization of
the accreditation results. In these ways, JUAA operates its accreditation process
based on the regulations.

Guidelines for
Accreditation[WEB-JP]As described in 3.2.2, JUAA’s regulations also include systems and procedures forrevising its standards, accreditation fees, and code of ethics for parties involved inaccreditation (applicant universities, evaluators, and JUAA staff).

Regulations on
Establishment
and Revision of
the Standards

These regulations are made public on the JUAA website. As for its code of ethics foraccreditation parties, JUAA has drawn up ethical guidelines based on its
regulations, and distributes and explains them at briefing sessions for universities
planning to apply for accreditation; the guidelines are handed out to evaluators,
and ethical violations are outlined using specific examples during the training
sessions.

Accreditation
Fees
Regulations[WEB-JP][Accreditation handbooks]
JUAA has produced handbooks for all types of accreditations to systematicallyexplain its accreditation standards and processes. JUAA’s handbooks stress that
universities bear the primary responsibility for assuring educational quality and the

University
Accreditation
Regulations

Regulations on
the Fair
Implementationof Third-Party
Evaluation[WEB-JP]83

social background in which the QA of education is required. The handbooks alsoemphasize that universities establish and operate IQA system to enhance student
learning outcomes. The materials describe the structure and system ofaccreditation standards, evaluation methods using the standards, a detailed
timeline from application preparation to notification and announcement ofaccreditation results, and improvement follow-up systems subsequent to theresults. The handbooks also contain separate chapters for applicant universities
and evaluators that explain the accreditation process and materials used forevaluations. JUAA is therefore committed to the transparency of its accreditation
system by disclosing the instructions to both sides.
JUAA’s accreditation handbooks provide evaluation criteria, guidelines, and other
instructions as references, in addition to the formats of documents required toapply for accreditation and the evaluation forms used by evaluators. JUAA offers
the handbooks in a digital format, with all texts, materials, and formats madepublic and available for download on its website.

University
Accreditation
Handbook

3.3.3 The external review process is carried out by teams of experts consistent with the characteristicsof the institution/program being reviewed. Experts can provide input from various perspectives,
including those of institutions, academics, students, employers or professional practitioners.
[Accreditation structure]
JUAA has formed accreditation committees responsible for evaluating different
types of accreditations under the Board of Trustees. As of 2021, JUAA has two
committees in charge of the Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation(University Accreditation and Junior College Accreditation); eight committees
overseeing the Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate
Schools (law (law schools and global legal studies), business, public policy, publichealth, intellectual property studies, global communications, digital contents, andpublic relations); and two committees supervising the Program Accreditation(veterinary medicine and dental education).
The accreditation committees are operated based on JUAA’s regulations thatspecify the members of each accreditation committee, their responsibilities,
decision-making bodies organized under the committees, and accreditation
procedures. The committees consist mainly of faculty members recommended bytheir universities and selected by the Board of Trustees; they also include external
experts who ensure the transparency of the evaluations and reflect the needs ofindustry and other entities when conducting peer reviews. Among the external
experts are corporate executives and media representatives.
For example, the Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation is
implemented under the accreditation structure shown in the chart below. JUAA’s
accreditation regulations specify the number of members of each decision-making

University
Accreditation
Regulations

84

body and their qualifications. The University Accreditation Committee has theauthority to set up the University Review Subcommittees (five members each inprinciple) in charge of document analyses and site visits of the applicant
universities; the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee (number of members
determined based on the number of applicant universities, types of universities,
and their faculties and programs) responsible for evaluating the universities’
financial status; the Progress Report Review Subcommittee (number of members
determined based on the number of universities submitting progress reports)
tasked with reviewing the improvement status through progress reports madeunder the accreditation follow-up system; and the Supplementary Review
Subcommittee in charge of reevaluating the unaccredited universities applying fora follow-up review with their improvement plans.
Chart 13. Structure of JUAA’s Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation(University Accreditation)

Structure of the University Accreditation Committee (20 members)
1. Ten people selected by the Board of Trustees from candidates recommended by JUAA’s fullmember universities.
2. Five external experts.
3. Five people named by the Board of Trustees.
*The term of office is two years. Members may be reappointed.
*A chair will be chosen by the members, with a vice-chair appointed by the chair.
*A non-member may be appointed assistant secretary for a term of one year.
Structure of the University Review Subcommittee (five members in principle)
1. The subcommittee comprises members of the University Accreditation Committee and othercommittee members.
2. One of the members serves as the subcommittee chief.

85

3. The members include four faculty members recommended by universities and one administrative
staff member, with consideration given to membership balance in terms of university type,specialized fields, gender, and other aspects.
*The term of office for the subcommittee chief and other members is one year. They may bereappointed.
*The Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee may set up a panel as necessary.

[Emphasis on peer review]
Peer review is one of the features in JUAA’s accreditation, as mentioned in 3.2.
JUAA’s review committees and subcommittees include university faculty and staff
recruited through recommendations from universities based on the following
qualifications.
<Nomination requirements for University Accreditation Committee candidates>
1. A person in a position overseeing university-wide activities.
E.g., president, vice president, board member (or a person previously holding one of the posts)
2. A person in a position overseeing the overall educational and research activities.
E.g., chief, or assistant chief of a university-wide academic affairs committee, dean (or a person
previously holding one of the posts)
3. A person well-versed in university self-study activities.
E.g., chief, or assistant chief of a self-study committee, director of a review, institutional research, orother office (or a person previously holding one of the posts)
4. A person playing an active role and taking charge of university reform (especially teaching andlearning).
E.g., chief, or assistant chief of a university reform or teaching and learning reform committee (or aperson previously holding either of the posts)

Based on the Regulations on University Accreditation, each subcommittee is madeup of five members, in principle, who are all selected from candidates
recommended by universities, and must include one administrative staff member.
The recommended candidates must meet the following qualifications, andevaluators are selected based primarily on their work experience at universities
and junior colleges.
< Nomination requirements for subcommittee candidates>(Faculty)
1. A person in a position overseeing university-wide activities.
E.g., president, vice president, board member (including a person previously holding oneof the posts)
2. A person in a position overseeing the overall educational and research activities.
E.g., dean (including a former dean)
3. A person well-versed in university self-study activities.

86E.g., member (including a former member) of a self-study or relevant committee
4. A person playing an active role and taking charge of teaching and learning management.
E.g., member (including a former member) of a body responsible for promoting IQA or
faculty development committee, or a person knowledgeable about teaching and learning
management and planning (a person with experience working for a university reformpromotion or relevant office)(Administrative staff)
1. A person in a position overseeing university-wide activities.
E.g., director, executive director, general manager, or supervisor of a specificadministrative department (including a person previously holding one of the posts,
excluding the head of a finance-related department)
2. A person in a position overseeing the overall educational and research activities.
E.g., member (including a former member) of a self-study committee, a person
knowledgeable about certified evaluation and accreditation work (a person withexperience working for a review or relevant office)The number of accreditation committee members for the Certified Evaluation andAccreditation for Professional Graduate Schools varies for the type of school, but
the committees have a similar structure to the Institutional Certified Evaluation andAccreditation. Each committee comprises members selected by the Board ofTrustees from candidates recommended by universities, people with professional
experience in the accreditation field, and those belonging to professional bodies(corporations, organizations, municipalities, public agencies, and other entities).
The subcommittees responsible for document analyses and site visits consist offour to five evaluators each, all of whom are university faculty members. The
subcommittees also allow external experts (from professional bodies) involved in
the accreditation committee to participate as observers in order to ensure thetransparency of their evaluations.
[Involvement of industry, students, and graduates in evaluation]
As mentioned above, the committees operating JUAA’s accreditation include
external experts from industry and relevant bodies, while the subcommittees
tasked with evaluating the applicant universities consist of university faculty andstaff in principle. As for the Program Accreditation for Schools of Dental Education,
one dentist recommended by the Japan Dental Association is to be included among
the subcommittee members (four people).

87

Table 27. Participation of external experts in committees
Number ofcommittee
members

Numberofexternal
experts

Number ofpractitioners

University
Accreditation

20

5

－

Junior College
Accreditation

10

3

－

Law

15

Business20

52

Public policy

15

2

3

Public health

12

2

2

12

2

4

6

1

2

6

1

2

Public relations

6

1

2

Veterinary
medicine8

12Dental education

10

1

1

Type ofaccreditation

Institutional
Professional graduate schools

Intellectual
property studies
Globalcommunications
Digital contents

5

Outline of external experts andpractitioners
High school teachers, media
representatives, certified
accountants
High school teachers, media
representatives, municipality
officials
Legal professionals (judges,
prosecutors, lawyers), media
representatives, corporate andintellectual property legal
professionals
Corporate executives and outside
directors, media representatives,
think tank researchers
NPO, public agency, municipality
officials
Medical company officials, media
representatives
Public agency, corporate officials

Programs

Organization officials, media
representatives
Corporate, organization officials
Advertising company executives,
organization officials
Veterinarians, Japan Veterinary
Medical Association
Dentists, Japan Dental
Association, dental-related
business organizations

JUAA has not established a system for such university stakeholders as students andgraduates to participate in its evaluations, but it conducts student interviews
during site visits at universities applying for accreditation. University officials are
barred from attending the interviews so that students can express their opinions
openly about the education and learning environments at their schools. Thisapproach helps to evaluate the universities’ education from a student perspective.
To prepare the accreditation results, JUAA evaluates the universities based on thefacts confirmed through interviews with university officials and material reviews
while referring to the opinions of interviewed students.
[Future challenges]
JUAA considers there are issues to be addressed regarding the current involvementof industry and other relevant parties in its accreditation process.
88While industry professionals are included in JUAA’s accreditation committees asexternal experts, they do not participate in the subcommittees in charge of
document analyses and site visits. The external experts of the committees canparticipate in the subcommittees’ activities as observers, but it is impossible forthem to take part in all the activities, given the number of such experts. JUAA willconsider creating a system for external experts to join the subcommittees so as toreflect the views of industry professionals in its accreditation process as well as
provide an opportunity for university and industry officials to exchange opinions.
However, with many universities applying for the Institutional Certified Evaluation
and Accreditation, it is necessary to build up relations with industry to secure asufficient number of external experts for the subcommittees. As for the Program
Accreditation, the subcommittees for the dental education evaluation includedentists recommended by the Japan Dental Association. With this case in mind,
JUAA will work toward involving external experts in the subcommittees for the
Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools and theProgram Accreditation while deepening its cooperation with professionalorganizations.
3.3.4 The EQAA has clear specifications on the characteristics and selection of external reviewers, whomust be supported by appropriate training and good supporting materials such as handbooks or
manuals.
[Establishment of regulations on selecting evaluators]
The necessary items for conducting evaluations in all categories are stipulated in
JUAA’s regulations. The members of the accreditation committees andsubcommittees are also clearly specified. JUAA selects evaluators throughrecommendations from higher education institutions based on its nomination
guidelines, as mentioned earlier.
[Evaluator training]
Evaluator training for the Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation
provides two types of sessions for (1) candidates recommended by universities and(2) evaluators selected as subcommittee chairs and members. The training for
those recommended by universities is conducted in accordance with the“University Accreditation Regulations: Detailed Rules on the Qualifications andNomination of Subcommittee Members Candidates.” The regulations state that
potential evaluators recommended by universities may participate in training
sessions organized by JUAA. JUAA invites the recommended candidates to its
annual university accreditation symposium as an opportunity for them to acquire
the necessary knowledge of higher education as evaluators. Among the symposium
themes are the importance of IQA and efforts to monitor and evaluate learning
outcomes. Participation is voluntary, but many recommended candidates have

University
Accreditation
Regulations:
Detailed Ruleson theQualifications
and NominationofSubcommittee
Members
Candidates[SD-JP11]89attended the gatherings. A questionnaire survey of the participants conductedeach year reveals that around 90 percent of the respondents find the content
useful, suggesting that JUAA’s symposiums help train evaluators. To improve theparticipation rates, JUAA began in 2020 to video stream the events for thoseunable to take part, in an effort to raise awareness of their role as evaluators. The
symposium held online in 2021 saw a significant increase in the participation rate.
In addition, JUAA made the on-demand video of these events available exclusively
for evaluators scheduled to attend the subcommittee meetings, thereby helping
them increase their knowledge of accreditation.
Table 28. JUAA’s University Accreditation Symposiums
Year

Theme

Number ofParticipation

participants

rate*・ “Key points of newly revised university standards”
・ “IQA and new evaluation systems”
・ “Views on university accreditation based on experience as an
2018
264
34.5%
evaluator”
・ Panel discussion: “What role should evaluators play in thethird cycle of university accreditation”
・ “IQA defined by JUAA and its evaluation”
・ “Evaluation of curriculum – IQA of Standard 4. ‘Curricula andLearning Outcomes’”
2019
249
33.8%
・ Panel discussion: “Toward the second year of the third-cycle
university accreditation”
A fresh Look at Peer Review – Toward Evaluation Leading to
the Development of Universities
・ “Role of university accreditation as peer review”
2020 ・ “Experience as an evaluator – from the perspective of
192
26.1%
administrative staff”
・ Panel discussion: “What attitude and mindset should a peer
reviewer have”
Appropriate Ways to Conduct the Third-Cycle University
Accreditation – Based on Past Experiences
・ “Preparation for university accreditation: Points to consider
2021
335
51.6%
as an evaluator”
・ “Art and science of university accreditation: Seeking better
approaches to universities as teams”*The participation rate is calculated based on the ratio of the number of participants attending the symposium
to the number registered as recommended candidates.

JUAA holds seminars every year to train evaluators selected as subcommittee
chairs and members, as evaluator training is required as a legal obligation forcertified evaluation and accreditation agencies. JUAA’s regulations for all types ofaccreditations also stipulate that training related to evaluation practices must be
provided in an appropriate manner. The evaluator training seminars for theInstitutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation provide evaluation methods,
90

processes, and schedules based on the evaluator manual described later. The
group work of the subcommittees offers evaluators an opportunity to simulate
accreditation through case studies and other activities.
Evaluator training has taken place online since FY2020 when JUAA made an urgent
decision to hold the sessions online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. JUAA
distributed a video on-demand to explain the evaluation system and evaluation
criteria. The evaluators expressed mixed reactions, with some saying they wereable to adjust their schedules easily and watch the videos repeatedly, while others
said they could not ask questions and had a hard time focusing. A survey of theevaluators found that 64 percent preferred in-person training seminars. In
response, JUAA introduced an online meeting system in addition to the video ondemand for the FY2021 seminar to provide subcommittee evaluators with anopportunity to communicate directly with each other.
Table 29. Evaluator training seminar programs in FY2021
Program
Lecture 1:“JUAA’s evaluators”

Lecture 2:“Evaluators’ experiences”

Case study:“Ichigaya University – Evaluation of its
IQA”

Outline
The vice chair of the University Accreditation
Committee instructs evaluators on the mindset ofuniversity accreditation and the key points to consider.
A person who served as a subcommittee chair teaches
evaluators the key points in document analyses, ways
to find commendations, and tips on information
gathering during site visits.
Group work evaluating the IQA system of a fictitious
university is conducted with the University
Accreditation Committee’s vice chair as a facilitator so
as to learn about JUAA’s stance on IQA.

Briefing on evaluator ethics andExplanations of evaluator ethics, administrative
administrative matters, and aprocedures, and other matters by the secretariat.
questionnaire*A briefing on the evaluation methods, processes, and schedules will be video streamed on demand.

A questionnaire survey of the participants in the FY2021 evaluator training showedthat 96 percent of the respondents said the online training was appropriate, withcomments including the online format allowing them to take part from remotelocations. JUAA plans to continue using online platforms for its training. On theother hand, some participants noted that in-person gatherings would easecommunication among subcommittee members. JUAA will consider ways toimprove the situation.
Regarding its training seminars, JUAA staff are discussing ways to enhance thecontent for evaluators to acquire more practical evaluation methods to upgrade
their skills and abilities, while studying training sessions conducted by overseas
accreditation agencies. The adoption of a case study approach represents part of91

these efforts. Specifically, in response to a number of comments from evaluators
who have had difficulties evaluating IQA systems, JUAA uses a fictitious university’s
self-study report to hold group discussions during which evaluators can exchange
opinions about questions to universities and check points for evaluations. The casestudy materials are revised each year to make them easier to understand based on
the findings frequently reported in past evaluations. JUAA aims to make these casestudies more effective so that participants can acquire evaluators’ perspectives bypresenting the results of their group work, with the chair, vice chair, and secretaryof the University Accreditation Committee playing their roles as facilitators.
Meanwhile, JUAA recognizes the need to further enhance its training related to site
visits, and will work to develop various approaches to make site visits easy tovisualize even for new evaluators. These approaches will include role-playing
interviews and opinion exchanges with officials of the universities under review.
JUAA holds training seminars annually for the selected evaluators of the Certified
Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools and the Program
Accreditation. The seminars for evaluations by multiple subcommittees (including
professional graduate business schools) provide training for subcommittee chairs
to fulfill their leadership role in accreditation. JUAA also plans to hold similar
sessions targeting the subcommittee chairs in the Program Accreditation for
Schools of Dental Education to promote opinion exchanges among them, given thatthe accreditation process requires the formation of multiple subcommittees every
year. Furthermore, with the evaluations of professional graduate schools andprograms involving experts in various fields, JUAA attaches importance to providing
opportunities for these experts to meet and share the evaluation objectives andpolicies. For example, when evaluating professional graduate business schools, thesubcommittee chiefs prepare memos outlining the universities under review(purpose, key strategic points, numbers of students and faculty members, degrees
to be awarded, completion requirements, curricula, etc.), and share the key points
to check among their members.
[Materials supporting evaluations]
JUAA has produced an evaluator manual for the Institutional Certified Evaluation
and Accreditation in addition to the aforementioned handbooks to facilitatesmooth evaluation activities by evaluators. The manual is designed to help deepen
the understanding of the evaluation criteria from the evaluators’ point of view; it
provides materials describing the university standards, evaluation items, andevaluators’ perspectives, and specifies the structure of the criteria and key points
to check. The manual also includes other points for conducting evaluations from a
university-wide perspective and assessing the appropriateness of the universities’
initiatives, along with examples of describing the evaluation content more clearlyand points to note during site visits.

Evaluator
Manual[SD-JP12]92

In addition, the evaluator manual contains all the evaluation tools used in thepreviously-mentioned decision criteria, operational guidelines, and other
instructions; namely, all the necessary information for evaluators is collected in asingle volume to support their evaluation activities.
3.3.5 External review procedures include effective and comprehensive mechanisms for the preventionof conflicts of interest, and ensure that any judgments resulting from external reviews are basedon explicit and published criteria.
[Exclusion of interested parties]
To ensure the fairness of third-party evaluation, JUAA explicitly states the exclusionof interested parties to carry out its evaluations. Its regulations on all types ofaccreditations stipulate that members and secretaries of the University
Accreditation Committee, as well as members of the University Review
Subcommittee and the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee (including panel
members), may not participate in evaluating the universities to which they belong.
The formation of subcommittees is reviewed by the accreditation committee basedon its subcommittee formation policy, which also states that no interested parties
will be appointed as subcommittee members.

University
Accreditation
Regulations<Policy on the formation of subcommittees for the Certified Evaluation and Accreditation forProfessional Graduate Public Policy Schools>
1. One subcommittee is in charge of one program.
2. No interested parties of the applicant universities will be appointed as chairs or members of
subcommittees responsible for their professional graduate public policy schools. Interested parties
refer to persons who fall under any of the following.
(1) Persons employed or expected to be employed as full-time faculty members, adjunct faculty
members (part-time lecturers), or board members of universities subject to accreditation.
(2) Persons who have been employed as either full-time faculty members or board members ofuniversities subject to accreditation within the past three years.
3. Members of the Accreditation Committee for Public Policy Schools who are recommended byuniversities with graduate schools of public policy will be appointed as subcommittee chiefs inprinciple.
4. Persons recommended by universities with graduate schools of public policy will be appointed as
subcommittee members, with consideration given to the balance of specialized fields as well as
national, public, and private universities.
5. Each subcommittee will select at least one member who belongs to a professional graduate school.
6. The participation of external experts in the subcommittees will be left to their own discretion.
Those wishing to take part in the evaluation subcommittees must submit a request regarding theirchoice of subcommittee and evaluation methods ((a) document analyses and site visits, (b) site
visits only, etc.) to the subcommittee chair through JUAA Secretariat after the schedules of thesubcommittee meetings and site visits are finalized. External expert members are allowed to93

participate in the evaluation subcommittees as observers; they can express their views and offer
advice to the applicant graduate schools, but are not permitted to express their opinions on
decisions made by the review subcommittees.

[Ethics of evaluation personnel]
To ensure the fairness of accreditation, JUAA conducts evaluations in accordancewith its regulations on each type of accreditation, and publicly releases theRegulations on the Fair Implementation of Third-Party Evaluation on its website.
(See 1.1.3 for conflicts of interest and ethics.)

Regulations on
the Fair
Implementationof Third-Party
Evaluation[WEB-JP]3.3.6 The EQAA’s system ensures that each institution or program will be evaluated in a consistent way,even if the external panels, teams, or committees are different.
[Evaluation based on accreditation standards]
All evaluations are reviewed by JUAA’s subcommittees and accreditationcommittees. The accuracy of the accreditation results is ensured throughconsistent evaluations based on their respective criteria, with the final review anddecision made by the Board of Trustees. (See 1.3.1-1.3.3 for JUAA’s decisionmaking process.)
In addition, in order for evaluators to conduct uniform evaluations based on theevaluation criteria, JUAA has drawn up the Guidelines for Accreditation bycompiling specific cases of past evaluations. Items covered by the guidelines arereviewed by the subcommittees, while the accreditation committees confirm theitems are addressed as indicated in the guidelines.
Furthermore, as mentioned in 3.3.4, JUAA supports the evaluators’ task toimplement a consistent evaluation method by informing them of its criteria andevaluators’ perspectives, while publishing and distributing the evaluator manualthat provides specific examples of describing evaluation results.
[Evaluator training]
JUAA’s evaluator training, as described in 3.3.4, offers all evaluators the same
program, which JUAA considers an effective approach to ensure that its evaluations
are conducted in a consistent way without creating differences among evaluators.
JUAA believes that training enables evaluators to acquire the same level ofknowledge and skills by understanding JUAA’s evaluation purpose, gaining
knowledge of the evaluation procedures and materials necessary for evaluations,and holding mock subcommittee meetings (opinion exchanges among evaluationteam members). To assess the effectiveness of its evaluator training, JUAA carries
out a questionnaire survey of the participants after the training is complete tomeasure the level of their acquired knowledge and skills. Another survey
conducted at the end of the fiscal year asks evaluators about how effective thetraining is for their tasks. The surveys conducted over the past three fiscal years
94from FY2018 to FY2020 revealed that roughly 80 percent of the respondents
described the training as effective (83% in 2020, 79% in 2019, and 87% in 2018),
suggesting that the current training is effective to some extent.
In addition, JUAA’s evaluator manual is used for evaluators to share their mindset
by specifying the structure of the evaluation criteria and check points. The manual
allows evaluators to review these instructions at any time and helps prevent
differences from arising among evaluation teams.
[Support by JUAA staff]
JUAA staff attend subcommittee meetings for document analyses and accompany
evaluators during site visits to provide support as necessary, such as facilitating
discussions among evaluators based on the Guidelines for Accreditation andexplaining past evaluation cases. The staff also serve as coordinators between
evaluators and applicant universities, contacting the universities evaluated bysubcommittees, and arranging schedules for site visits. Staff support for evaluators(subcommittees) and applicant universities helps ensure a smooth accreditation
process.
3.3.7 The EQAA carries out the external review within a reasonable timeframe after the completion of
a self-assessment report, to ensure that information is current and updated.
JUAA’s accreditation results are announced approximately one year after thecompletion of the self-study reports. Considering the period of time required for
document analyses and site visits, followed by the review of opinion statements,
JUAA’s accreditation is carried out within a reasonable timeframe.
The results of all types of accreditations are produced based on the findings up to
the time of site visits as a general principle, and JUAA makes the utmost effort toeliminate any time lag between self-studies and site visits. However, in theInstitutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation, the following items will bereflected in the accreditation results even after the site visits, if improvements are
confirmed before an opinion statement is submitted or the draft evaluation results
are reviewed by the Board of Trustees. All exceptions are related to legal
requirements, and the failure to comply is a serious issue, but JUAA considers thismatter as an exceptional measure because it only requires meeting external
conditions.
<Items reflected as exceptions in the accreditation results>
The following items are reflected in the accreditation results even after improvements are madefollowing the site visits.
1. School rules and regulations are revised to articulate the mission and purpose.
2. The missing information required to be disclosed by law is made public on the university’s website.
3. The shortage of faculty members required by law has been corrected through recruitment andappointment.

95

3.3.8 The EQAA provides the higher education institutions with an opportunity to correct any factual
errors that may appear in the external review report.
[Opinion gathering from universities during site visits]
In all types of accreditations, JUAA sends a list of questions raised during the
document analyses to the universities prior to site visits. If there are mistaken
views in the subcommittees’ findings, the universities can ask for corrections intheir responses. The site visits provide an opportunity not only for evaluators to
ask questions but also for the evaluated universities to convey their opinions. The
universities can also request corrections or changes regarding the self-study report.
As for the Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools
and the Program Accreditation, JUAA attaches the evaluation results of document
analyses to the list of questions sent to universities before conducting site visits.
The universities are allowed to present their views based on the results whenanswering the questions.
[Opinions statements]
JUAA provides all universities, junior colleges, and professional graduate schools
with an opportunity to submit opinion statements to correct factual errors in theirevaluation results (see 3.3.1 for details). Universities and other institutions areallowed to request corrections if their evaluation results include factual errors or
expressions that could be misleading to the public. Upon receiving an opinion
statement, the Accreditation Committee reviews and revises the results asnecessary.
[Appeal against accreditation results]
JUAA has a system in place for universities denied accreditation in their finalized
results to file an appeal against the decision. When an appeal is lodged, both theAccreditation Committee involved in the accreditation process and the Appeal
Committee, an independent body that is not affiliated with the accreditation
subcommittees, examine whether there are any flaws in the evaluation procedures
or factual errors affecting the decision. Based on the examination, the Board ofTrustees makes the final decision on the accreditation results. (The appeal review
system and process are described below in 5.2.2 and 5.2.3.)

963.4 The Requirements for Self-evaluation
3.4.1 The EQAA provides clear guidance to the institution or program in the application of theprocedures for self-evaluation, the solicitation of assessment/feedback from the public, students,and other constituents, or the preparation for external review as necessary and appropriate.
[JUAA’s requirements for universities]
As mentioned above, JUAA requires universities to establish a mechanism forassuring and enhancing the quality of their education and other activities, and toprovide QA to the public; namely, universities must establish and operate an IQA
system.
While it is important to develop an appropriate IQA system based on the types,
sizes, and characteristics of universities, JUAA places importance on operating
PDCA and other improvement cycles at the class, educational program, andinstitution levels. JUAA thus requires universities to carry out university-wide selfstudies from a comprehensive perspective in addition to operating a class
improvement mechanism (e.g., faculty development activities based on classsurvey results) and conducting program reviews. JUAA also stresses the importanceof utilizing the results of self-studies to clarify the direction of universities, connect
to educational improvement, and eventually enhance student learning outcomes.
In terms of self-studies, JUAA especially recommends that universities undergoexternal and third-party reviews to ensure objectivity. JUAA’s accreditation
standards state that universities must take such measures as adopting external
reviews to increase the objectivity and validity of their self-studies.

University
Standards and
its Rationale

To enhance quality through IQA system, it is essential to understand and assess theknowledge, skills, mindsets, and other elements acquired by university students on
campus. With this perspective in mind, JUAA requires universities to monitor thelearning outcomes (e.g., knowledge and skills to be acquired by the time ofgraduation or course completion) presented in their diploma policy and evaluate
their appropriateness. JUAA also urges universities to utilize the evaluations by
their stakeholders, including students, graduates, and employers of graduates, asthese evaluations can be useful in analyzing learning outcomes. As for professional
graduate schools, which serve as higher educational institutions tasked withcultivating advanced professionals, an FY2018 law stipulates that the reviewers ofprofessional graduate schools must include industry experts in the schools’ fields,
and if possible, other parties from local municipalities and communities. The
schools are now required to establish a mechanism for gathering opinions fromthese stakeholders to reflect their needs in the curricula. In response, JUAA also
requires professional graduate schools to collect opinions from their stakeholders
in terms of legal compliance. JUAA’s accreditation standards for professional
graduate schools have added evaluation perspectives for the system to gather

Self-study
Report: Notes
and Examples ofSupporting
Evidence
Materials[WEB-JP]97

opinions from industry and other professionals, the appropriateness of reviewers,
and the status of curricula with their opinions reflected.
[Explanation and dissemination to universities]
JUAA provides universities planning to apply for its accreditation with information
by publishing handbooks for each type of accreditation on its website, holding
briefing sessions, and offering individual consultations upon request. JUAA’s
website also gives the universities easy access to the necessary materials to
prepare their accreditation applications, including evaluation criteria, handbooks,
and accreditation processes, as well as its regulations and past accreditation
results. The results can be searched by, for example, fiscal year, category, andkeywords. Starting in FY2021, JUAA has introduced a system that enables thesearch for items identified as commendations and distinctive features in theaccreditation results, as part of its efforts to disseminate good practices.

Search Page forCommendations
and Distinctive
Features of
Universities[WEB-JP]In the briefing session for the Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation,
JUAA stresses the importance of IQA in its third-cycle accreditation, in light of thesocial context and the need for higher education institutions. During the session,
JUAA describes the evaluation criteria, processes, and materials that need to beprepared, and distributes its guidelines to explain the ethics required of theapplicant universities. In recent briefings, JUAA has offered points to consider toappropriately prepare the self-study report, expecting universities to increase theaccuracy of their evaluation materials. To share other universities’ initiatives, thesessions use case reports by universities that demonstrated good practices andcreative approaches to their IQA in the previous fiscal year’s accreditation.
Until FY2019, the sessions for universities planning to apply for accreditation took
place in person, with four venues used for the same content to accommodate theparticipants (different venues and schedules for universities for case reports). But
from FY2020 onward, JUAA has released briefing videos and materials on its
website, and responded to questions from universities using an on-demand format
for a limited period of time, in order to prevent the spread of the COVID-19.

Briefing Videos
for Universities
Planning to
Apply forAccreditation in
FY2022[WEB-JP]In addition, JUAA arranges individual briefings for the Institutional Certified
Evaluation and Accreditation by sending its staff to universities upon request. JUAA
responds to 20 to 30 requests a year either in person or online. The individual
briefings have become an effective way for JUAA to address questions and provide
consultations based on each case.
With a relatively small number of schools applying for the Certified Evaluation andAccreditation for Professional Graduate Schools and the Program Accreditation,
JUAA offers individual briefings to the above universities upon request. A briefing
session for the Accreditation for Schools of Dental Education, which started in

Webpage for
ProgramAccreditation
Application
Procedures[WEB-JP]98

FY2021, was held online in July 2021 for all dental universities and faculties, withthe video made available later on the JUAA website.
When asked about the effectiveness of JUAA’s handbooks and briefing sessions,about 98 percent of the applicant universities described the handbooks as useful,and roughly 96 percent answered the guidance was beneficial. This suggests that
JUAA’s briefings are effective. JUAA will intensify its efforts to promote theunderstanding of its accreditations by offering more on-demand materials,
including online and video resources, and creating an environment for university
officials to access them at any time.

Results of theQuestionnaire
Survey on the
Effectiveness of
University
Accreditation(2018-2020)[SD-JP13][Future challenges]
As mentioned above, JUAA’s evaluation criteria require the adoption of external
reviews to ensure the objectivity of self-studies, but do not mention theparticipation of students and industry leaders who may become employers ofgraduates in the self-studies. JUAA requires universities to conduct class evaluation
surveys of students and have the results analyzed by faculty and staff members to
improve their education as part of education QA, but these requirements do notinclude the involvement of students in evaluating university-wide activities.
However, to meet social needs universities must communicate and collaborate
with industry. JUAA will consider requiring universities to gather opinions from
employers and other industry professionals, and to reflect these opinions in theireducation. Meanwhile, international trends show students participating as
evaluators in their universities’ self-studies. JUAA will examine the effects andchallenges of including students as evaluators, and present how students mighttake part in evaluating universities.

994. The EQAA and Its Relationship to the Public
4.1 Public Reports on EQAA Policies and Decisions
4.1.1 The EQAA provides full and clear disclosure of its relevant documentation such as policies,
procedures and criteria.
To ensure the transparency and accountability of its accreditation, JUAA iscommitted to actively disclosing information on its evaluation policies andprocedures by establishing the Internal Rules on Information Disclosure.
Specifically, the article pertaining to third-party evaluation (evaluation targets,criteria, items, implementation systems, methods, schedules, cycles, results
announcement methods, costs, results, and others) stipulates that information will
be disclosed in an appropriate manner through publications, the internet, andother media. Accordingly, JUAA makes the necessary information public through its
website and other means.

Internal Rules
on Information
Disclosure[SD-JP14]

While the details of the evaluation criteria and procedures are described in Section
3., JUAA has compiled them into handbooks for each type of accreditation as acommunication tool. These handbooks describe the features of JUAA’s
accreditations and what specific procedures are necessary to undergo theevaluations. They also include JUAA’s accreditation standards, evaluation
regulations, and related documents, with a comprehensive collection of thenecessary information serving as a handy reference book.
For example, the University Accreditation Handbook explains the objectives andcharacteristics of university accreditation, and explicitly describes the evaluations
focusing on the effectiveness of IQA system as the characteristics of JUAA’s
University Accreditation. The handbook provides the details of IQA, including
fundamental concepts, approaches, and key points in the University Standards. In
terms of JUAA’s specific procedures, the handbook added JUAA’s accreditation
framework, “University Accreditation Regulations,” at the end of the text, while
offering detailed explanations to help universities undergo the accreditation
process from preparation (including self-studies) to application and support during
and after the evaluations. In addition, the handbook contains JUAA’s “University
Standards and its Rationale” and other relevant materials, such as “Evaluation
Items and Perspectives (References),” “Decision Criteria and Their Operational
Guidelines,” “Guidelines for Accreditation,” and “Evaluators’ Perspectives.”

University
Accreditation
Handbook

As mentioned above, JUAA’s handbooks are designed primarily for universities
undergoing accreditation as well as evaluators, but are also accessible on the JUAA
website to disclose all the content to relevant parties and the general public in aclear and comprehensive manner, thereby ensuring the transparency andaccountability of JUAA’s accreditation. JUAA’s evaluation policies, processes,
regulations, and criteria are also provided separately on its website, with changes

Webpage for
the Institutional
Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation
Handbook[WEB-JP]
Webpage for
the Handbook

100

swiftly updated.

of the Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation
for Professional
Graduate
Schools[WEB-JP]
Webpage for
the Program
Accreditation
Handbook[WEB-JP]
Webpage for
the Overview of
the Institutional
Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation[WEB-JP]4.1.2 The EQAA reports its decisions about higher education institutions and programs. The content
and extent of reporting may vary with cultural context and applicable legal and otherrequirements.
JUAA describes assuring the public of the quality of university education andresearch as one of its accreditation objectives (see 3.2.1). JUAA is responsible as anorganization for making its evaluation results public. In Japan, certified evaluation
and accreditation agencies are required to announce their results in accordancewith the School Education Act. In light of JUAA’s activities as a public interest
incorporated foundation, it is essential to publicly release its evaluations results aspart of its activities contributing to the benefits of society, namely, public interest.
JUAA notifies the applicant universities of their evaluation results following thereview and final decision by the Board of Trustees, with the certified evaluation
and accreditation results also reported to the MEXT Minister. The online evaluation
results are available by fiscal year, along with a page for searching by individual
settings, including implementation years, university names, and categories. The
search results show the accreditation results with a summarized version in English,
while JUAA’s English website offers a similar search page in an effort to disseminate
the information internationally. In addition to its online efforts, JUAA actively
releases its evaluation status and activities for the fiscal year through public
relations magazines and press releases.
Furthermore, JUAA announces changes to its evaluation criteria and procedures aswell as survey and research outcomes on its website, while also notifying relevanthigher education institutions and other entities in writing as necessary.

Webpage for
the Institutional
Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation
Results[WEB-JP][WEB-EN]
Webpage forAnnouncement[WEB-JP]
Webpage for
Research
Outcomes andPublished
Materials[WEB-JP][WEB-EN]101

4.1.3 The EQAA has mechanisms to facilitate the public a fair understanding of the reasons supporting
decisions taken.
JUAA’s accreditation results consist of decisions on whether universities meet its
standards, along with overviews (summaries of accreditation status), general
remarks, and comments (commendations, suggestions for improvement, and areasof serious concern) on each evaluation criteria. As mentioned above, JUAA’s
accreditation standards and results are released on its website to help the public
understand the reasons for the decisions (accredited or unaccredited) taken andthe universities’ strengths and challenges. Regarding the University Accreditation,
JUAA also publishes materials analyzing the evaluation trends for each fiscal year
to provide a broader perspective on an annual basis, along with a glossary of terms
used in its accreditation.
In August 2021, JUAA opened a webpage that enables users to search for thecommendations and distinctive features of the evaluated universities by fiscal year
and keywords. The search page organizes such information as accreditation years,
types of universities, and school capacities. The webpage also tags the goodpractices of the universities, allowing users to search for universities with similar
successful achievements. Considering that negative results tend to attract more
public attention, JUAA launched this initiative to actively publicize the excellent
points of highly acclaimed universities, with relevant URLs and other links attached
to help the public better understand their evaluated points and efforts. The pagealso includes comments from evaluated universities, thereby providing
opportunities for the two sides – evaluators and evaluatees – to clarify andpublicize the universities’ strengths and distinctive features to the general public.
Evaluation criteria far beyond common sense will not be accepted widely bysociety, no matter how well worded they may be. With this in mind, JUAA solicits
public comments, as mentioned in 3.2.2, every time it formulates or revises its key
evaluation criteria. In doing so, JUAA commits itself to gaining public understandingof its criteria by opening the door not only to universities and relevant parties but
to everyone through announcements on its website. JUAA considers this approachas part of its mechanism for making the reasons for its accreditation decisions
widely and fairly understood by people in general.

FY2021
University
Accreditation[WEB-JP]

Search Page forCommendations
and Distinctive
Features of
Universities[WEB-JP]

Webpage forAnnouncements[WEB-JP][Future challenges]
While describing its efforts to make its accreditation results widely known to the
public, JUAA finds room for further improvements in its activities.
First, JUAA’s accreditation results reports tend to have long sentences using
technical terms. Creating a search page to explain the terminology used by higher
education institution officials may be helpful, but the public may still find themeanings difficult to understand. As pointed out in MEXT’s comments (see 4.2.1),

JUAA-SNS (note)[WEB-JP]102

raising public awareness of certified evaluation and accreditation remains achallenge. Regrettably, media outlets tend to report only simple and sensational
news that a university was denied accreditation, rather than focusing on the
excellent outcomes achieved by accredited universities.
JUAA will work to make more people aware of its main accreditation objectives byaccumulating more data than in the past to upgrade its search page forcommendations and distinctive features, and publicizing the webpage throughvarious means. In recent years, JUAA has begun addressing these challenges, suchas delivering public lectures on its accreditation results using easy-to-understandwords on a separate website. JUAA is considering taking further steps, including
disseminating more concise summaries of its accreditation and results of the year
on its website and social media.

4.2 Other Public Reports
4.2.1 The EQAA discloses to the public the decisions about the EQAA resulting from any external
review of its own performance.
JUAA places importance on implementing university accreditation and undergoing
third-party evaluations to regularly review its activities as an QA agency, with theaim of improving and enhancing such activities as organizational management andresearch projects. The External Review Committee, a body that excludes JUAA’s
board, staff, committee members, and other interested parties, assumes this
responsibility. The results of the Committee’s evaluation present suggestions for
improvement and challenges in JUAA’s activities. The results are also reported to
the Board of Trustees and made public on the JUAA website (see 2.1.2 and 2.1.4).
In addition to these initiatives, JUAA conducts and publishes the self-assessmentsof the Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation and the Certified
Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools, as required for
accreditation agencies by ministerial ordinances. JUAA reported its FY2018 selfassessment results to MEXT, whose comments have been released on its website.
The ministry listed four points expected of JUAA: (1) “Incorporating the concept of
IQA early into certified evaluation and accreditation is commendable;” (2) “It is
expected that JUAA will enhance the assessment of whether IQA functions
properly or not;” (3) “It is expected that JUAA’s newly established research institutewill promote research aimed at enhancing the evaluation quality and share theoutcomes with other accreditation agencies;” and (4) “It is expected that JUAA will
pioneer measures to raise public awareness of certified evaluation andaccreditation in coordination with other accreditation agencies and MEXT, and toengage in various activities such as case analyses that will serve as a model forother accreditation agencies.” JUAA is working to advance point (1) and address
point (2) in its accreditation process, as mentioned in 3.1.2, while carrying out

External Review
Report(February 26,
2021)[WEB-JP]
Self-Assessment
Report on theInstitutional
Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation[WEB-JP]
Self-Assessment
Report on theCertified
Evaluation andAccreditation
for Professional
Graduate
Schools[WEB-JP]MEXT website[WEB-JP]103

surveys and research regarding point (3) and releasing the outcomes, as describedin 2.2.1 and 4.2.2. As for point (4), JUAA acknowledges the challenges, as stated in
4.1.3.
In these ways, JUAA appropriately discloses the results of self-assessments andexternal reviews of its activities in a transparent manner.
4.2.2 The EQAA prepares and disseminates periodically integrated reports on the overall outcomes of
QA processes and of any other relevant activities.
JUAA periodically compiles the outcomes of its activities in reports and otherdocuments and releases them to the public to ensure transparency. Specifically,
JUAA announces its university accreditation results for each type of accreditation
every fiscal year on its website, along with a summary outlining the overview of
the year’s evaluations, systems, processes, decisions, and future procedures. These
results and materials are also submitted to MEXT as required by law. To
disseminate the outcomes of its university accreditation activities, JUAA conducts asurvey on the effectiveness of the University Accreditation after each accreditation
cycle, and reports the results on its website. Through these efforts, JUAA aims topublicly clarify the effectiveness of its university accreditation, while improving its
activities by reflecting the survey findings in the next cycle of accreditation (see2.1.2).
Furthermore, JUAA prepares an annual report on the outcomes of all its activities,
including accreditation. This report covers the main activities of accreditation,
research, international cooperation, and corporate management, and is submitted
to the Cabinet Office and released to the public on the JUAA website. JUAA also
publishes an annual newsletter featuring its activity report, activity plan, andfinancial documents, and distributes its newsletter to member universities.
Additionally, JUAA established RIQAHE in FY2018 to conduct surveys on university
accreditations in Japan and abroad for the benefits of its various projects and sharethe outcomes with member universities (see 2.1.1 and 2.2.1). These activities help
not only improve the quality of JUAA’s evaluations but also develop QA systems inJapan. JUAA must return the outcomes to society in order to serve the public’s
interest as a public interest incorporated foundation. Therefore, JUAA distributes
its reports on the survey results to member universities, and releases them to the
public on its website as well. Among the reports with specific themes are the“Survey on the Expected Role of Achievement Level Evaluation” and the “Survey on
Effective Online Education and Evaluation Standards and Perspectives.” The“University Evaluation Review” is a research journal aimed at establishing basic andpractical theories related to university accreditation and educational improvementin Japan and abroad, and applying these theories to the practices of university
evaluation. The “University Staff Journal” focuses on university staff playing an

Webpage for
the Institutional
Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation
Results[WEB-JP]
Results ofUniversity
Accreditation
and Other
Evaluations[WEB-JP]
Results of theCertified
Evaluation andAccreditation
for Professional
Graduate
Business
Schools[WEB-JP]
Survey Reporton theEffectiveness of
University
Accreditation(2nd Cycle)[WEB-JP]FY2020 Activity
Report[WEB-JP]
Newsletter[SD-JP05]
Webpage for
Research
Outcomes andPublished
Materials[WEB-JP][WEB-EN]104

important role in university reform, with the aim of enhancing their practical skills
and abilities. All of these reports are annual publications. JUAA has been carryingout surveys regularly since before RIQAHE’s establishment, and publishes thereports on its website, along with the research conducted by the Research Groupon Higher Education and the outcomes of research commissioned by MEXT.

105

5. Decision-making
5.1 The Decision-making Process
5.1.1 The EQAA decisions take into consideration the outcomes of both the institution’s selfassessment process and the external review; they may also consider any other relevant
information, provided this has been communicated to the HEIs.
JUAA stresses the importance of universities’ IQA systems, and regards their selfstudy reports that include self-study results and supporting evidence asimportance sources of information. JUAA also conducts site visits to obtain thenecessary evidence and information through interviews with university officials
before deciding on the accreditation results (detailed in 3.2.1 and 3.3.1). With afocus on universities’ IQA as well as respect for their independent and autonomous
activities for reviews and improvements, JUAA’s evaluations are based primarily on
information obtained from universities. JUAA does not unilaterally seek
information on individual universities from third parties. JUAA’s reference toexternal organization databases and other information sources is limited to the
purpose of examining data representing general trends and information used byuniversities as evidence.
JUAA clearly states its position on fully respecting university autonomy through its
handbooks and other documents. JUAA also includes its regulations in thehandbooks to inform universities of its accreditation procedures from
implementation to decisions on the results. After the evaluations, JUAA conducts aquestionnaire survey of the evaluated universities on the effectiveness of the
University Accreditation to gather opinions on its evaluation procedures and theimpact of accreditation on universities. According to the survey results, when asked
whether JUAA’s university accreditation methods, schedules, and other procedures
were appropriate, more than 90 percent of the respondents described them asappropriate or mostly appropriate, while no one stated they were inappropriate orslightly inappropriate. JUAA has so far faced no challenges to the decision-making
process of the accreditation results.

Survey Resultson theEffectiveness of
University
Accreditation(Question I-610)[SD-JP15]

In rare cases, misconduct by a university may emerge after its accreditation results
are decided. JUAA’s regulations on University Accreditation, Certified Evaluation
and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Business Schools, and Program
Accreditation all stipulate that the Board of Trustees, in consultation with the
University Accreditation Committee, may revoke a university’s accreditation evenduring the accreditation process, if the university is found to have engaged inserious misconduct affecting the accreditation decision, such as falsifying its selfstudy report or other materials. Such scandals are sometimes brought to light by
the media, but JUAA does not decide whether to revoke the accreditation based
simply on these reports, but makes its decision after asking the university tosubmit documents as required by the above rules and conducting hearings if

University
Accreditation
Regulations
Regulations on
the Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation
for Law Schools
andProfessional
Graduate
Schools of
Global Legal
Studies[WEB-JP]106

necessary.
In this way, JUAA consistently conducts its evaluations with respect for university
autonomy, and its policies and procedures are designed to ensure clear, fair, andindependent decision-making.

Results of theInvestigation
Concerning the
Selection ofStudents for
Admission to a
School ofMedicine andChanges to theDecisions on
the University
Accreditation
Results Basedon the Results[WEB-JP]
Change to theAccreditation
Results(Decision) ofTokyo Medical
University[WEB-JP]5.1.2 The EQAA decisions are impartial, rigorous, and consistent even when they are based on thereports of other quality assurance bodies.
To apply for accreditation, universities are responsible for preparing and submitting
their self-study reports and supporting evidence to JUAA. Some universities submit
the results of reviews conducted by other accreditation agencies as evidence, but
JUAA basically regards them as one of the evidence materials and conducts its
evaluations in the same way as it does for other universities without changing its
criteria. JUAA is committed to consistent and rigorous evaluations, and fairly treats
evidence materials provided by all universities.
Japan has two types of certified evaluation and accreditation (institutional anddisciplinary) as well as other program-specific accreditations (see Part I-3.). Many
universities have undergone multiple evaluations in addition to the institutional
certified evaluation and accreditation. In light of this trend, it is important for JUAA
to take into account the evaluations conducted by other accreditation agencies,
and improvement activities undertaken by the evaluated universities in response to
the results, in order to fairly evaluate the universities’ efforts toward QA andenhancement. This approach will help not only increase the effectiveness ofevaluations but also ease the burden on universities. JUAA utilizes otheraccreditation agencies’ evaluations in its accreditation process, but has a clear
policy on the extent to which these evaluations can be used as evidence materials.
JUAA believes its fair, independent decision-making process is ensured, given that
it utilizes other agencies’ evaluation results at its own discretion.

University
Accreditation
Handbook
Handbook for
the Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation
for Professional
Graduate
Business
Schools[WEB-JP]107

Referring only to appropriate information as evidence is important in conducting aproper evaluation. In the accreditation process, JUAA constantly examines whether
appropriate information is obtained by using other accreditation agencies’
evaluation results, and will revise its policy if the information obtained proves to beinappropriate.
5.1.3 The EQAA decisions are based on published criteria and procedures, and can be justified onlywith reference to those criteria and procedures.
Based on the universities’ self-studies, JUAA is committed to conducting fair andreliable evaluations from a third-party point of view. It is therefore essential for
JUAA to provide universities beforehand with access to information on its
evaluation criteria and procedures. JUAA considers this important because the aimof its accreditation is to assure the public of the quality of university education andresearch (see 3.2.1). Given that university students and applicants will eventuallyparticipate in the labor market, employers are important university stakeholders.
Disseminating the evaluation results to employers is therefore necessary to assure
the quality of universities’ educational and research activities and to clarify theirrole in society. To this end, JUAA specifies the evaluation criteria and procedures in
its regulations, and also includes them in its handbooks published on its website.
In addition, JUAA helps evaluators fully prepare for accreditation by holding
training seminars to explain its evaluation criteria and procedures, along withsimulations (see 3.3.4 and 3.3.5). This training contributes to JUAA’s publishedcriteria and procedures being consistent in the accreditation process, resulting inappropriate decisions. Even when using other accreditation agencies’ evaluations
as evidence (see 5.1.2), JUAA carries out its evaluations consistently based on its
published criteria without changing the procedures.
Despite JUAA’s defined and published criteria, evaluators may interpret individual
cases differently, which could negatively affect universities undergoing JUAA’s
accreditation using their self-studies. JUAA has drawn up written guidelines for
dealing with certain problems, and provides evaluators with supplemental
materials explaining how to refer to its evaluation criteria, with these materials
also made public.
JUAA therefore finds no problem regarding its published evaluation criteria andprocedures, and considers its accreditation reliable and transparent.

University
Accreditation
Handbook
Handbook for
the Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation
for Professional
Graduate
Business
Schools[WEB-JP]
University
Accreditation
Regulations
Regulations on
the Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation
for Professional
Graduate
Business
Schools[WEB-JP]
Guidelines for
Accreditation[WEB-JP]
Evaluators’
Perspectives
Accreditation
Handbook forProfessional
Graduate
Schools of
Public Health[WEB-JP]108

5.1.4 Consistency in decision-making includes consistency and transparency in processes and actions
for imposing recommendations for follow-up action.
JUAA conducts evaluations based on its published criteria, with comments
attached for issues to be addressed (see 3.2.5). JUAA clearly defines its evaluation
criteria and comments on strengths and problems in its handbooks (see 3.2.5).
JUAA implements its accreditation uniformly and fairly for all universities in linewith these criteria and definitions throughout the process from evaluations byreview subcommittees to final decisions by the Accreditation Committee, thereby
ensuring its consistency.
JUAA places importance on the self-improvement functions of universities (see3.2.1), and considers its role to be to assist universities in improving and enhancing
their quality independently and autonomously. JUAA provides universities withfeedback on their improvement efforts after receiving their progress reports andreviewing them at the Accreditation Committee. JUAA also provides certain
universities with an opportunity to present their improvement plans to theAccreditation Committee and exchange opinions with committee members (e.g.,
Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Business Schools).
This support helps universities modify their plans as necessary based on thecommittee’s advice and make their improvement activities more effective. JUAA
offers this exchange opportunity with the Accreditation Committee to all
professional graduate schools, excluding law schools and professional graduate
schools of intellectual property studies. Such arrangements are only possible for a
relatively small number of evaluated professional graduate schools per year (atmost ten schools submit progress reports). The challenge lies in providing similar
support to a larger number of universities (30 to 50 per year) in the University
Accreditation and other evaluations.
[Future challenges]
While it is difficult to offer all universities undergoing evaluations the opportunity
to exchange opinions with the Accreditation Committee, JUAA can provide
information to help universities introduce their improvement plans by othermeans, for example, sharing improvement efforts made by various universities. The
initiatives identified as commendations in the accreditation results are now
accessible on the JUAA website. Considering it useful to widely disseminate not
only the universities’ distinctive features and strengths but also other effective
improvement activities, JUAA will explore ways to expand its support through suchmeans as online media and events.
5.1.5

University
Accreditation
Handbook
Handbook for
the Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation
for Professional
Graduate
Business
Schools[WEB-JP]
University
Accreditation
Regulations
Regulations on
the Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation
for Professional
Graduate
Business
Schools[WEB-JP]

Search Page forCommendations
and Distinctive
Features of
Universities[WEB-JP]The EQAA’s reported decisions are clear and precise.

Based on JUAA’s accreditation results, the evaluated universities are required toproperly confirm their strengths and issues to be addressed in light of their current

Website for
Accreditation
Results109

status, and clarify their measures to make improvements. To assure the public of
the quality of university education and research (see 5.1.3), it is necessary to makethe accreditation results easy to understand for both universities and the public.
JUAA is committed to clear, precise, and intelligible evaluations by establishingdecisions (accredited/unaccredited), evaluation overviews, evaluations foruniversity standards, and results including comments on each standard. The formatof the results is revised as necessary before the next accreditation cycle begins. For
example, JUAA’s university accreditation results initially provided overviews
presented in each evaluation category for university standards, but the current
results have been organized to make them easier to read by adding several
headings for each standard, followed by overviews. JUAA’s accreditation results ofprofessional graduate schools contain tables showing curricula and the numbers ofstudents and faculty members.
As a QA agency, JUAA’s accreditation results are recognized as clear and accurate
based on the fact that most evaluated universities find the results easy tounderstand. JUAA’s survey of universities on the contents of the results revealed
that more than 90 percent of the respondents stated the results were easy or
generally easy to understand. When asked whether JUAA’s evaluations of theuniversities’ initiatives were appropriate, a similar percentage of the respondents
answered that the evaluations were appropriate or generally appropriate. The
accreditation results must be easy to understand for the public as well. With social
connection in mind, JUAA includes business and secondary education professionals
as members of the Accreditation Committee and the Board of Councilors to seek
their opinions. JUAA has exchanged views with organizations related to high school
career guidance, and published educational materials providing ways to utilize its
accreditation results for career guidance.

Survey Resultson theEffectiveness of
University
Accreditation(Question I-5)
[SD-JP15][Future challenges]
JUAA has produced reference materials to help high school students with their
future academic choices, but its evaluations have rarely been appreciated and used
as a reference. To further promote its accreditation results, for example, JUAA is
consulting with high school teachers. JUAA will actively hold discussions with otherstakeholders in various fields to deepen their understanding of its evaluations andexpand the use of the results. Through a series of exchanges, JUAA will review its
accreditation decisions in terms of clarity and accuracy as a QA agency, andexamine its stakeholders’ needs and to what extent their needs have been fulfilled.
JUAA will improve its format and methods of presenting accreditation results ifneeds arise from these communications.

1105.2 The EQAA’s Process for Appeals and Complaints
5.2.1 The EQAA has procedures in place to deal in a consistent way with complaints about its
procedures or operation.
As mentioned in Part I, certified evaluation and accreditation is mandatory andplays an important role in assuring the public of the quality of university
evaluation. JUAA reiterates that one of its objectives is to assure the public of thequality of university education and research; namely, JUAA’s accreditation hassocial significance. The same objective also applies to program-specificaccreditation. JUAA’s evaluations must therefore be fair, appropriate, andtransparent. To this end, it is important to establish a mechanism for accepting
opinions from universities and other institutions, and providing them with anopportunity to make appeals.
JUAA has a mechanism in place for an independent body to review the appeal filed
by a university against the decision on its accreditation results (described below in
5.2.2). In addition, JUAA has set up an inquiry form on its website to accept
complaints concerning its overall activities, including evaluations, and has
procedures in place to deal with the complaints it receives. JUAA basically replies
only to identified senders and does not respond to anonymous inquiries. In callcases, JUAA records and stores its responses in a given form. After receiving
inquiries, the person in charge contacts and consults with the executive director via
the associate director of the department in charge. Any reply requiring advice fromthe Accreditation Committee is made after the consultation.
JUAA also actively offers opportunities to hear various opinions on its accreditation
procedures, operations, and other activities. Specifically, JUAA officials collectrequests when evaluators and university officials openly exchange opinions on thechallenges facing universities during site visits, and conduct a questionnaire surveyof the universities and evaluators after the evaluations are completed. Based on
the opinions collected, the Standards Committee and the Accreditation
Committee, both in charge of the evaluation system, address any issues that need
to be corrected.
[Future challenges]
JUAA has procedures to deal with complaints in a consistent way, but may face
more complicated cases requiring legal action. To ensure more appropriate
responses, it would be best to prepare a systematic manual specifying a series ofprocedures, including legal disputes, in light of the various types of complaints
based on past cases. JUAA records and stores the complaints and its responses forsharing internally, but considering the possibility of more complicated and legallychallenging cases, it is necessary to work more closely to share information acrossits departments.

University
Accreditation
Handbook
Handbook for
the Certified
Evaluation andAccreditation
for Professional
Graduate
Business
Schools[WEB-JP]
Survey Resultson theEffectiveness of
University
Accreditation(Question I-5)
[SD-JP15]
Surveys of
Evaluators for
the FY2020
Certified111

Evaluation andAccreditation
for Professional
Graduate
Schools andApplicantGraduate
Schools[SD-JP16]

5.2.2 The EQAA has clear, published procedures for handling appeals related to its external review anddecision-making processes.
JUAA provides the evaluated universities with an opportunity to make opinion
statements regarding factual errors or other inconsistencies before finalizing theresults of the Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation, Certified
Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional Graduate Schools, and Program
Accreditation. This is one of its key processes for implementing fair and appropriate
evaluations (see 3.3.1 for procedures).
The universities officially denied accreditation can file an appeal to overturn thedecision. With the review focused on the facts underlying the decision, theuniversities can only lodge appeals over factual errors. In other words, the review
related to the alleged objection does not mean reevaluating the accreditation
results, but examining whether the accreditation results were produced based on
appropriate procedures, before determining the need to revise the results.
The Appeal Committee conducts reviews based on the documents submitted byuniversities as a general principle (see 5.2.3). The Committee may solicit opinionsfrom the appealing university and external experts if necessary, and even conduct
on-site inspections of the university. After completing the review, the Committee
sends the results to the Board of Trustees for a final decision on the need forchanges. JUAA notifies the university of the final results, which are also reported to
the MEXT Minister and made public (see Chart 14.).

Regulations on
Review of
Appeal against
Accreditation
Results

In recent cases, three universities filed appeals against the decisions to denyaccreditation on the Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Professional
Graduate Business Schools in FY2016, Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for
Law Schools in FY2018, and University Accreditation in FY2019. In the three cases,
written reviews were conducted in accordance with the above procedures. The
Appeal Committee sent questions to two of the universities to conduct hearings
due to insufficient explanations in their submitted documents. The Committee
confirmed that the evaluations of the three universities were carried out
appropriately based on the regulations, from implementation to decisions on the
results, and found no factual errors. The Committee concluded that the decisions
to deny accreditation were appropriate.
112

The appeal review process, aimed at assessing the appropriateness of JUAA’s
evaluations, must be neutral and transparent. To this end, the Appeal Committee
serves as an independent body, as described below in 5.2.3, with its review
conducted with no interested parties involved to ensure impartiality.
JUAA specifies all procedures for handling opinion statements and appeals in its
regulations, and makes these procedures public through its handbooks, website,and other media.

Regulations on
Review of
Appeal against
Accreditation
Results
University
Accreditation
Handbook

Chart 14. Appeal and review process・Filing within two weeksof the results notification
・Submission in writing
・Attaching evidencematerials

Reviewing submitted
documents, conducting
hearings and on-site
inspections asnecessary, and drawing
up draft review results

・Submission of the Appeal
Committee’s draft results
to the President
・Final decision on the
results, including the needfor revisions by the Boardof Trustees

5.2.3 Appeals are conducted by a Panel that was not responsible for the original decision and has noconflict of interest; appeals need not necessarily be conducted outside the EQAA.
JUAA attaches the utmost importance to no conflicts of interest in its process andsystem for responding to appeals against its accreditation results in order to ensure
neutrality.
Appeals filed by universities are handled by the Appeal Committee, which isdifferent from the committee responsible for the accreditation results (see Chart3.). The Appeal Committee established under JUAA is an independent body
dedicated to reviewing appeals with respect to all JUAA evaluations.

Regulations on
Review of
Appeal against
Accreditation
Results

The Appeal Committee consists of two university officials and three experts who
do not belong to universities. Its members cannot concurrently serve as membersof committees involved in implementing evaluations and deciding on the results.
University officials cannot participate in reviewing the accreditation results of theuniversities to which they belong.
In this way, JUAA’s appeal review strictly excludes stakeholders of the accreditationcommittees and appealing universities. The impartiality of the review is alsoenhanced by including external experts who are neither university faculty and staff
nor accreditation agency employees. Moreover, transparency is ensured byreleasing a list of Appeal Committee members to the public on the JUAA website.

List of Appeal
Committee
Members[WEB-JP]113

[Future challenges]
JUAA has two challenges to address regarding the Appeal Committee membership.
The first challenge lies in the appointment of legal professionals. The Appeal
Committee includes lawyers, but their appointment is not stipulated in theregulations. With possible legal disputes stemming from the appeal review in mind,
it is necessary to consider adding the appointment of legal professionals to theregulations.
The second challenge concerns the independence of the Appeal Committee. As
mentioned earlier, members of the committees tasked with evaluations anddecisions on the results as well as those affiliated with the universities filing
appeals are not permitted to take part in the appeal review (see 5.2.3). This rule isclearly stated in the regulations, and no problems have arisen in terms of
independence and impartiality. However, it is important to state more explicitly inthe regulations that the review process by the Appeal Committee is not directly
influenced by the Board of Trustees, JUAA’s top body responsible for final decisionmaking. While the final decision is made by the Board of Trustees, theindependence of the review process must be ensured. JUAA will therefore work torevise its regulations to further ensure the Appeal Committee’s independence.

114

6.

The QA of Cross-border Higher Education

6.1 Criteria for Cross-border Higher Education
6.1.1 The EQAA in a sending country makes clear that the awarding institution is responsible for
ensuring the equivalent quality of the education offered, that the institution understands theregulatory frameworks of the receiving countries, and that the institution provides clear
information on the programs offered and their characteristics.
This reference standard does not currently apply to JUAA.
The OECD and the World Bank define cross-border education as the movement ofpeople, programs, providers, curricula, projects, research, and services in
education across national jurisdictional borders. In this definition, cross-bordereducation includes broader movements of students and researchers. Transnational
education is, however, considered the movement of academic programs andinstitutions across borders; in other words, it focuses primarily on the movementof academic programs and providers to students, and not the movement ofstudents to overseas higher education institutions and providing countries. Suchtransnational education includes international branch campuses, franchise
programs, distance education, partnership programs, and joint universities (Knightand McNamara, 2017).
Looking at transnational education in Japan, in terms of exporting education, noJapanese universities have opened overseas schools. Only several overseas
universities have been established by local corporations that were founded andacquired (including mergers) by Japan’s school corporations or other entities as
independent institutions, while satellite campuses have been set up for distanceeducation from Japan with lessons conducted by dispatched faculty members. As
for Japan importing education, there are several Japanese campuses of overseas
universities, but these institutions are designated under MEXT’s jurisdiction, whichmeans that QA agencies cannot engage in QA activities for them. For thesereasons, JUAA currently has no QA framework for transnational education.

OECD andWorld Bank,
2007
Knight, Jane andMcNamara,
John, 2017,
Transnational
Education: A
Classification
Framework andData Collection
Guidelines forInternational
Programme andProviderMobility (IPPM).
University
Standards and
its Rationale

With international academic mobility increasing rapidly in various forms in recent
years, QA for cross-border education has become increasingly important. As a QA
agency, JUAA will strive to improve its evaluation systems, including accreditation
standards, as needed, in light of the future overseas developments of Japanese
universities. JUAA’s Standards Committee is currently reviewing its evaluation
system ahead of the fourth cycle of the University Accreditation starting in FY2025.
JUAA plans to discuss cross-border education QA at the Committee and reflect theoutcomes in revising its evaluation criteria and processes if necessary.

115

6.1.2 Students and other stakeholders receive clear and complete information about the awards
delivered.
In Japan, universities have the authority to grant degrees, and JUAA as a QA agency
issues certificates for its accredited universities upon request from their students
and graduates. JUAA issues one to four certificates per year, with most of themrequested by individuals primarily for (1) seeking employment with overseas
companies, (2) transferring or advancing to overseas universities or graduate
schools, or (3) taking qualification tests. JUAA willingly responds to their requests
for career advancement, in the hope that its certified evaluation and accreditation
certificates will be used for the benefit of students and graduates.
JUAA also releases its accreditation results, including evaluated fiscal years, on its
website, while disseminating its information to overseas QA agencies.

Webpage for
the Outline of
Accreditation
Results
Webpage for
Accreditation
Results by
University
Webpage for a
List of Full
MemberUniversities

The above efforts show that JUAA offers appropriate information to students andother stakeholders.
6.1.3 The rights and obligations of the parties involved in transnational education are clearly
established and well known by the parties.
Not applicable.

6.2 Collaboration between Agencies
6.2.1 The EQAA cooperates with appropriate local agencies in the exporting and importing countries
and with international networks. This cooperation is oriented to improve mutual understanding,to have a clear and comprehensive account of the regulatory framework, and to share goodpractices.
This reference standard does not apply to JUAA in terms of exporting andimporting education. However, JUAA collaborates with other agencies in (1) MOUbased activities (see 2.2.1 and 2.2.2), (2) joint staff trainings (see 2.2.2), and (3)joint accreditation projects. The following are the detailed descriptions of (3).
JUAA launched the iJAS project in 2018 as a new international cooperation
initiative. The aim of iJAS is to contribute to the development andinternationalization of universities through joint accreditation. The project was
initially designed as an international QA framework under cooperation between
JUAA and TWAEA to enhance the mutual understanding of the higher education
environments in Japan and Taiwan as well as further promote international
cooperation. In 2021, ONESQA, Thailand officially joined iJAS, and the project isnow underway in Taiwan, Thailand, and Japan.

Webpage for
iJAS
iJAS Handbook

iJAS dates back to 2014 when JUAA received an offer for mutual accreditation fromTWAEA, but from the perspective of QA, JUAA did not immediately agree to accept
116

the accreditations of universities evaluated by other agencies. Both sides started
with working-level opinion exchanges, and spent a long period of time discussing
how the accreditation should function through participating in each other’s
evaluator seminars, subcommittees, and site visits. As a result, the two agencies
reached an agreement to implement joint accreditation by a mixed team using
shared evaluation standards instead of each other’s criteria. The evaluation
standards and methods were decided after discussions by the Standards
Committee and the Board of Trustees. The launch of iJAS required a total of two
years, but JUAA and TWAEA have successfully developed a unique and distinctive
framework for international QA to implement joint accreditation based on
integrated standards.
The following six standards were adopted by iJAS after TWAEA and JUAA comparedeach other’s evaluation criteria for similarities and identified such key items as IQA.
The two agencies also referred to the ESG established by ENQA to take the broaduse of these standards into consideration.
Table 30. Standards for International Joint Accreditation
Standard 1. Mission, Goals & Strategy

Standard 2. IQAStandard 3. Teaching & LearningStandard 4. FacultyStandard 5. Social Connection

Standard 6. Governance

The iJAS evaluation focuses on whether the university’s activities and outcomes arefit for the purpose, rather than legal compliance. Accordingly, iJAS stipulates that
universities accredited by institutional evaluations conducted under the laws andregulations of their countries are eligible to apply for the International Joint
Accreditation.
Regarding the evaluation methods, the iJAS Committee set up by the threeagencies discusses the iJAS policy and reviews the draft accreditation results. The
accreditation consists of document analyses and site visits conducted by a review
team formed based on the location, characteristics, and type of each applicant
university.
The review team has five evaluators. For a Japanese university, a mixed team isformed – one chair and three evaluators from Taiwan and Thailand, and one
evaluator from Japan. The iJAS policy stipulates those evaluators are to be selectedfrom current (or former) members of the university executive board, professors,
and administrative staff (senior level) of higher education institutions or research
institutes, and senior corporate managers with expertise in higher education, inorder to ensure high-quality evaluations.
Each agency holds evaluator training based on the integrated training program. The
aim of the training is to raise the evaluators’ awareness of the different educational
117

systems in each country, deepen their understanding of the iJAS standards andmethods, and ethics for evaluators, applicant universities, and administrative
offices, and ensure smooth evaluation practices.
The effects of iJAS under the above procedures include the following.

Assuring Assuring
international
qualityinternational
quality•Evaluation by overseas quality
assurance agencies•Internal quality assurance•Guidelines for signing
partnership agreements withoverseas universities

Ensuring international
standards

Promoting international
initiatives•Enhancing internationalrecognition•Acquiring outstanding students
and researchers•International educationcompatibility•Credit transfers•Promoting exchanges among
universities in Japan, Taiwan,
and Thailand•Guidelines for joint/double
degrees

In FY2018, JUAA held its first briefing session on iJAS, publicized the project on its
website, and distributed flyers at its events, drawing not only attention fromhigher education institution officials but also inquiries from newspapers and othermedia outlets.
In 2019, iJAS issued its accreditation to two universities – Akita International
University (Japan) and Chia Nan University of Pharmacy and Science (Taiwan). A
university in Taiwan applied for iJAS in FY2020, but the evaluation was postponedwith the site visit canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In FY2021, Thailand
joined the project, and JUAA updated its iJAS brochures for distribution to
universities and held briefing sessions for universities in Japan. The iJAS
Committee also reviewed its related regulations, accreditation handbooks, andother materials. The iJAS Committee plans to carry out trial accreditation incooperation with universities in Thailand in order to confirm the appropriatenessof the current standards and evaluation process.

Accreditation
Report for
Akita
International
University
Accreditation
Report for
Chia Nan
University of
Pharmacy &Science

iJAS project is characterized by the following two major features. First, it includes
the opinions (evaluations) of international evaluators with expertise in university
accreditation in their countries. Second, iJAS focuses on the internal quality
assurance of institutions based on the evaluation criteria shared with overseas
accreditation agencies.
With iJAS intended for international-oriented universities, its accreditation
standards include criteria related to internationalization strategies and key QA
items, including the functionality of IQA systems and the monitoring andassessment of learning outcomes. iJAS does not directly evaluate legal complianceof the applicant universities, as its application requirements stipulate that
universities are qualified for accreditation after undergoing and receiving
institutional accreditation under the laws and regulations of their countries. The
118

iJAS basically looks at the fitness of purpose, namely, whether the universities’
activities and outcomes fulfill their purposes. The evaluations focused on mission,
purpose, objectives, and strategy, as well as IQA efforts, are the major features of
iJAS’s accreditation process.
Several international QA frameworks are exploring the QA of joint educational
programs and cross-border education (including JOQAR (Joint Programmes: QA
and Recognition of Degrees Awarded), MULTRA (Multilateral Agreement on the
Mutual Recognition of Accreditation Results Regarding Joint Programmes by ECA),QACHE (QA of Cross-border Higher Education), and ENQA (European Associationfor Quality Assurance in Higher Education)). Degree program-level evaluations
based on international standards are actively conducted in such fields as business,
medicine, engineering, public health, and public policy. However, there are few
cases of institution-wide accreditations based on international standards, and in
this respect, the iJAS institutional accreditation represents a new and uniqueapproach focusing on the functionality of IQA.

JOQAR
MULTRA
QACHE

However, the iJAS project has been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, amid
the process of making arrangements with would-be applicant universities seeking
in-person site visits. The iJAS Committee shares the need to boost its performanceand build credibility for iJAS over a period of time while balancing the quality andquantity of reviewed universities. The two iJAS-accredited universities
commented that the international joint accreditation certificate helps
demonstrate their compliance with internationally accepted standards(international educational quality standards) and raises their profiles. These
achievements will create high expectations for iJAS to expand further, including
extending to other countries. JUAA strongly recognizes the importance of the
project in terms of enhancing the international compatibility of accreditation andensuring international credibility. Its Board of Trustees has confirmed that JUAA
will strive to step up its joint accreditation activities and actively coordinate withother countries. The expansion of this joint accreditation system worldwide could
increase its value, making universities more aware of the need for such an
accreditation. To achieve this ambition, it is important to first carry out more joint
accreditations in Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand while extensively promoting iJAS at
the same time. With universities in Asian countries taking active approaches tointernationalization, Japan needs to keep up with the trend, and cooperating with
Asian QA agencies is essential. JUAA plans to expand its publicity activities to QA
agencies in the Asian region through APQN.
In addition, JUAA is approaching the national government to advance the iJAS
project. In Japan, universities are required by law to undergo certified evaluation
and accreditation every seven years. Combining with iJAS or other voluntaryevaluations would place a heavy burden on universities. JUAA is considering119lobbying MEXT to have iJAS recognized as an alternative to the certified
evaluation and accreditation in Japan. The other iJAS agencies also plan to takesimilar approaches in Thailand and Taiwan, with each seeking to coordinate with
their central government.
JUAA will work to further advance iJAS and contribute to international QA of
universities, while strengthening collaboration and cooperation with TWAEA andONESQA.
6.2.2 The EQAA seeks ways to cooperate in the external quality assurance in transnational education
provision, for example through mutual recognition.
As described in 6.1.1, few transnational educational programs are offered in Japan.
JUAA currently has no QA standards for such programs. However, JUAA manages
the iJAS project, a framework that transcends the scope of transnational education
QA (see 6.2.1 for details) and enables the accreditation of universities in Japan,
Taiwan, and Thailand using integrated international standards. The standards arebroadly equivalent to international standards, with consideration given to theshared items of the three agencies and the unique features in each country. Oncethe pilot evaluation of Thai universities is completed, the review will be madenecessary. But, the iJAS project has great potential for development, such as
expanding target countries and improving accreditation methods. Adding morecountries is expected to bring many benefits through an extended network ofinternational exchanges with evaluated universities. JUAA agrees that expanding
the project will lead to collaboration with more international agencies, as well as
enhancing the international recognition and ensuring the international credibilityof the iJAS accreditation. JUAA will work with TWAEA and ONESQA to make theproject even more effective and contribute to international QA as QA agencies.

120Conclusion

As mentioned in the main body of this report, JUAA has undertaken several self-assessments of its
organization and activities in the past. These past self-assessments were conducted to assess whether
JUAA (a) has the organizational structure and systems in place to achieve its goals, (b) implements its
activities appropriately, (c) meets its stated goals, and (d) operates in line with QA aimed by theJapanese government’s higher education policy. In this latest self-assessment undertaken to
demonstrate our alignment with INQAAHE’s GGP, JUAA evaluated its organizations and activities fromthe added perspective of whether JUAA meets the international expectations and standards of QA
agencies. It was a refreshing experience for us, and being able to confirm through the self-assessmentthat JUAA’s governance system and QA activities are in alignment with the GGP was extremely
rewarding. Nonetheless, the review did reveal a number of areas requiring improvement, which are
discussed below.
First, JUAA lacks a mechanism to allow direct student involvement in the process of developing
accreditation standards and other QA activities (Section 1.3.1). Turning our eyes overseas, we findthere are countries that actively support student participation in their QA. If we were to adopt thispractice in Japan, JUAA would need to consider appropriate methods suitable to the Japanesecontext.
Second, RIQAHE needs to actively disseminate its research findings in Japan and abroad (see Section
2.2.1). Established in 2018, the RIQAHE is a unique organization that undertakes research exclusively
on university QA and university accreditation. Widely sharing its achievements not just in Japan but
internationally as well would enhance JUAA’s presence and promote its growth.
Third, there is room to improve JUAA’s staff training programs in terms of systematic structuring(Section 1.4.3). Presently, plans for annual staff training are designed and implemented with the aimof developing a common set of competencies expected of all staff across all job levels and categories.
In future, JUAA looks to build a more systematic training framework by establishing job-level-specificcompetencies in addition to the current skills, and developing training programs designed to build
these competencies.
The fourth challenge is finding ways to sustain JUAA’s organizations and activities that currently rely
on volunteers. This is an issue that came to light during the Self-Assessment Committee’s discussions
held in relation to the GGP alignment review. All JUAA personnel, for example, Board members andcommittee members, other than the staff, work for JUAA on a part-time basis. To maintain thecontinuity of its activities and ensure that the organization can grow as a sustainable entity, JUAA
needs to reconsider how roles and responsibilities should be assigned and coordinated.
The article titled “The History of INQAAHE Guidelines of Good Practice and its Impact” featured on
INQAAHE’s website points out, among other things, that the work of QA agencies carries great
responsibility, because their judgements have an enormous impact on the future of higher education121

institutions, and as such, QA agency staff are expected to demonstrate responsible behavior based on
relevant knowledge and expertise.
This latest self-assessment was conducted by six teams of staff members ranked assistant director
and higher. Each team evaluated six items of the GGP criteria, summarized the results and presented
them as a team report at the all-teams meeting. These reports were studied, discussed, and further
compiled into a draft self-assessment report, which was then presented to the Self-Assessment
Committee for further discussions before drawing up the final version. By actively engaging in this
GGP alignment review process, the team members gained the confidence needed to carry out QA
activities going forward. At the same time, this experience enabled them to realize anew the grave
responsibilities of a QA agency’s work. This was another significant benefit that the project provided.

122

Appendix 1: References
Knight, Jane and McNamara, John, 2017, Transnational Education: A Classification Framework andData Collection Guidelines for International Programme and Provider Mobility (IPPM), British Council.
OECD, Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher Education, 2005.
OECD and The World Bank, 2007, Cross-border Tertiary Education: A Way towards Capacity
Development, OECD publishing.

123Appendix 2: Complete list of supporting evidence
Section1

Supporting documents(JPN)[SD-JP01]
Employment Regulations[SD-JP02]
Medium-term Goals andMedium-term Plan
[SD-JP03]
Action Plan
[SD-JP04]
Secretariat Organization
Regulations

2[SD-JP01]
Employment Regulations[SD-JP02]
Medium-term Goals andMedium-term Plan
[SD-JP03]
Action Plan
[SD-JP05]
Newsletter[SD-JP06]
Specific Personal
Information Handling
Regulations[SD-JP07]
Regulations on thePrevention ofHarassment[SD-JP08]
Self-Assessment
Committee Regulations[SD-JP09]
External Review
Committee Regulations[SD-JP10]
Regulations on Internal
Quality Assurance

Website links (EN)

Website links (JPN)Act on General Incorporated
Associations and General
Incorporated Foundations
Act on Authorization of Public
Interest Incorporated Associations
and Public Interest Incorporated
Foundations
OECD’s Guidelines for Quality
Provision in Cross-border Higher
Education
Articles of Incorporation

Regulations on the Fair
Implementation of Third-Party
Evaluation
Guidelines for Maintaining EthicalConduct and Confidentiality for
Evaluators and Institutions

Regulations on Establishment andRevision of the Standards
Board of Trustees and Auditors
JUAA Building PhotographSelf-Asseemsent Report (September
27, 2019)
Boards of Councilors
Self-Assessment Report (September
27, 2019)
JUAA website (Research>Archives
Regulations on Inspections of Archival
Documents
Statement of Net Assets (FY2016FY2020)
Regulations on Full Membership andSupport Membership
Accreditation Fees Regulations
FY2020 Balance Sheet
Activity Plan and Budget

JUAA website

Activity Plan and Budget

Activity Report and Financial
Statements

Articles of Incorporation

Activity Report and Financial
Statements

Board of Trustees and Auditors

Public Relations Magazine “JUAA”

Webpage for the Research Institutefor Quality Assurance of Higher
Education (RIQAHE)University Accreditation Handbook

Website for Public Interest
Corporation Information

University Evaluation Review

Board of Councilors

University Staff Journal

Survey Report on the Effectiveness of
University Accreditation (1st Cycle)

JUAA Library

Survey Report on the Effectiveness of
University Accreditation (2nd Cycle)

2019 Survey Report

Regulations on the Fair
Implementation of Third-Party
Evaluation
Regulations on the Protection of
Personal Information

2020 Survey Report

JNCEAA website

124Section3

Supporting documents(JPN)

Website links (EN)

Website links (JPN)

2021 Survey Report
Webpage for Accreditation Results
SearchINQAAHE Bulletin (December 2021
iJAS, September 2021 Accreditation
Results, March 2021 International
Student Survey, etc.)

Roadmap
Self-Assessment Report (January 17,
2014)
Self-Assessment Report (September
27, 2019)[SD-JP11]
University Accreditation
Regulations: Detailed
Rules on the
Qualifications andNomination of
Subcommittee Members
Candidates[SD-JP12]
Evaluator Manual

University Accreditation Handbook[SD-JP13]
Results of theQuestionnaire Survey on
the Effectiveness of
University Accreditation(2018-2020)

University Standards and its Rationale

Website for Accreditation Standards

Junior College Standards and its
Rationale
Regulations on Establishment andRevision of the Standards
Professional Graduate Business
School Standards

Veterinary Educational Program
Standards
Webpage for Accreditation Results
SearchUniversity Accreditation Regulations
Evaluators’ Perspectives

External Review Report (September
30, 2014)
External Review Report (February 26,
2021)
Comments to the Japan University
Accreditation Association
Report on the Survey of University
Accreditation by US Accrediting
Organizations and Other Bodies(interim report) (FY1997)
Report on the Survey of University
Accreditation by US Accrediting
Organizations and Other Bodies(second interim report) (FY1998)
MEXT-Commissioned Project“Establishment of an Internal Quality
Assurance System”
Search Page for Commendations andDistinctive Features of Universities
Accreditation Fees Regulations

Webpage for the Overview of theInstitutional Certified Evaluation andAccreditation)
FY2022 Certified Evaluation andAccreditation for Universities andJunior Colleges
Survey on Effective Approaches,
Evaluation Standards andPerspectives of Online Education
Handbook of the Certified Evaluation
and Accreditation for Professional
Graduate Schools of Public HealthRegulations on the Certified
Evaluation and Accreditation forProfessional Graduate Schools of
Public Health)Regulations on the Program
Accreditation
Decision Criteria and Their
Operational Guidelines
Guidelines for Accreditation
Self-study Report: Notes andExamples of Supporting Evidence
Materials

125Section

Supporting documents(JPN)

Website links (EN)Standards for Professional Graduate
Schools of Public Health
Evaluation Items and Perspectives

Webpage for the Overview of theInstitutional Certified Evaluation andAccreditation

4[SD-JP05]
Newsletter

University Accreditation Handbook[SD-JP14]
Internal Rules on
Information Disclosure

Webpage for the Institutional
Certified Evaluation and Accreditation
Results
Webpage for Accreditation Results
SearchWebpage for Search Results

Webpage for Research Outcomes andPublished Materials

5[SD-JP15]
Survey Results on the
Effectiveness of
University Accreditation[SD-JP16]
Surveys of Evaluators for
the FY2020 Certified

University Accreditation Regulations

University Accreditation Handbook

Website links (JPN)
List of Materials to Be Submitted
Regulations on the Fair
Implementation of Third-Party
Evaluation
Search Page for Commendations andDistinctive Features of Universities
Briefing Videos for Universities
Planning to Apply for Accreditation in
FY2022
Webpage for Program Accreditation
Application Procedures
Webpage for the Institutional
Certified Evaluation and Accreditation
Handbook
Webpage for the Handbook of theCertified Evaluation and Accreditation
for Professional Graduate Schools
Webpage for the Program
Accreditation Handbook
Webpage for the Overview of theInstitutional Certified Evaluation andAccreditation
Webpage for the Institutional
Certified Evaluation and Accreditation
Results
Webpage for Announcement
Webpage for Research Outcomes andPublished Materials
FY2021 University Accreditation
Search Page for Commendations andDistinctive Features of Universities
JUAA-SNS (note)
External Review Report (February 26,
2021)
Self-Assessment Report on theInstitutional Certified Evaluation andAccreditation
Self-Assessment Report on theCertified Evaluation and Accreditation
for Professional Graduate Schools
MEXT website
Results of University Accreditation
and Other Evaluations
Results of the Certified Evaluation
and Accreditation for Professional
Graduate Business Schools
Survey Report on the Effectiveness of
University Accreditation (2nd Cycle)
FY2020 Activity Report
Regulations on the Certified
Evaluation and Accreditation for Law
Schools and Professional Graduate
Schools of Global Legal Studies
Results of the Investigation
Concerning the Selection of Students
for Admission to a School of Medicine

126Section

Supporting documents(JPN)
Evaluation andAccreditation forProfessional Graduate
Schools and Applicant
Graduate Schools

Website links (EN)and Changes to the Decisions on the
University Accreditation Results
Based on the Results

Evaluators’ Perspectives
Website for Accreditation Results

Regulations on Review of Appeals
Against Accrediation Results

6

Website links (JPN)

Change to the Accreditation Results(Decision) of Tokyo Medical University
Handbook for the Certified Evaluation
and Accreditation for Professional
Graduate Business Schools
Regulations on the Certified
Evaluation and Accreditation forProfessional Graduate Business
Schools
Guidelines for Accreditation
Accreditation Handbook forProfessional Graduate Schools of
Public Health
Search Page for Commendations andDistinctive Features of Universities
List of Appeal Committee Members

OECD and World Bank, 2007
University Standards and its Rationale
Webpage for the Outline of
Accreditation Results
Webpage for Accreditation Results by
University
Webpage for a List of Full Member
Universities
Webpage for iJAS
iJAS Handbook
Accreditation Report for Akita
International University
Accreditation Report for Chia Nan
University of Pharmacy & Science
JOQAR
MULTRA
QACHE

127

128