INQAAHE GUIDELINES OF GOOD
PRACTICE (GGP)

EXTERNAL REVIEW REPORT

Organization

Japan University Accreditation Association

Place

Tokyo, Japan

Date of the visit

Tuesday (8 November 2022) to Thursday (10November 2022)

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 3
INQAAHE’s GGP external evaluation process ......................................................................... 3
About Japans’s Higher Education System ................................................................................ 4
About the Japan University Accreditation Association (JUAA) .............................................. 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 7
ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH INQAAHE GUIDELINES OF GOOD PRACTICE............................................................................................................................................................. 9I.

The structure of the External Quality Assurance Agency (EQAA) ................................ 9II.

Accountability of the EQAA ............................................................................................... 17

III.
The Agency’s Framework for the External Review of Quality of Higher Education
Institutions (HEIs)........................................................................................................................ 20
IV.

The EQAA and its relationship with the Public........................................................... 26

V.

Decision-Making ................................................................................................................. 28

VI.

The QA of Cross-Border Higher Education ................................................................ 30

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE REVIEW PANEL........................................................... 32
ANNEX 1. INQAAHE Guidelines of Good Practice (GGP) ...................................................... 34
I.

The structure of the External Quality Assurance Agency (EQAA) .............................. 34

II.

Accountability of the EQAA ............................................................................................... 35

III. The EQAA’s framework for the external review of quality in Higher Education
Institutions .................................................................................................................................... 36
IV. The EQAA and its relationship to the public ................................................................... 38
V.

Decision making ................................................................................................................. 39

VI. The QA of Cross-Border Higher Education .................................................................... 40
ANNEX 2. composition of the GGP review panel ...................................................................... 41
ANNEX 3. schedule of the virtual visit ......................................................................................... 42External Evaluation Report2

INTRODUCTION
INQAAHE’s GGP external evaluation process
The Japan University Accreditation Association (JUAA) had requested the International
Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) for an external
evaluation of its performance in accordance with the Guidelines of Good Practice (GGP).
To this end, JUAA carried out a self-assessment process and submitted the selfassessment report and a list of supporting evidence to INQAAHE on 1 July 2022.
The external evaluation of JUAA was conducted in accordance with the GGP, updated by
INQAAHE in 2018 (Annex 1. Guidelines of Good Practice - GGP) and was carried out by
an independent review panel of international experts in the areas of evaluation and quality
assurance in higher education (Annex 2. Composition of the GGP Review Panel). The
review panel was composed of the following:Dr Rolf Heusser (Chair of the Review Panel): Director of the Swiss Accreditation
Agency (2001-2010). Chairman of the European Consortium of Accreditation(ECA, 2004-2014). Board Member of INQAAHE (2009-2010). International Higher
Education & QA Expert. University of Zurich.

Dr Ariana De Vincenzi (Committee Secretary): Member of the Council of Rectorsof Private Universities of Argentina (CRUP). Academic Vice Rector of the
Universidad Abierta Interamericana (UAI). International Higher Education & QA
Expert.



Dr Eddy Chong Siong Choy (QA Expert): Chief Technical Officer, FinanceAccreditation Agency (FAA). Board Member of INQAAHE (2018-2020). Lead
Assessor of ASEAN University Network-Quality Assurance. International Higher
Education & QA Expert.

The site visit was held for three days – Tuesday 8, Wednesday 9, and Thursday 10
November 2022. It featured an agenda that included a total of 15 interviews with JUAA’s
authorities and management staff, higher education institution representatives, peer
evaluators, representatives of national and international organizations associated withJUAA, and authorities of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andExternal Evaluation Report3Technology (MEXT). Annex 3 shows the agenda of the site visit and the interview sessions
conducted by the review panel. A final session was also held with JUAA’s authorities,
during which the review panel provided a summary of the main results of the external
review process.
Based on the self-assessment document and the information gathered during the site visit,
the review panel drafted the first version of the external review report, which was sharedwith JUAA for verification before being submitted to INQAAHE’s Board of Directors for final
approval.

About Japans’s Higher Education System
In Japan, higher education institutions (HEIs) include universities, graduate schools, juniorcolleges, colleges of technology, and specialized training schools. According to MEXT’s
website, as of May 2021, the percentage of 18-year-old population students enrolling in
HEIs exceeded 70% (universal access to higher education), in which private universities
and junior colleges have played a major role. In 2021, the total number of universities andjunior colleges was 803 and 315, respectively. There were 86 national, 98 public, and 619
private universities reported, as well as 14 public and 301 private junior colleges.
The establishment of universities and junior colleges, and graduate and undergraduate
programs require approval from the MEXT Minister. Since 2002, as part of the School
Education Act revision, HEIs and some professional training programs must undergo
periodic assessments by an external quality assurance agency certified by the MEXT. The
certified evaluation and accreditation system took effect in 2004 and considers institutional
certified evaluation and accreditation for universities, junior colleges, and colleges oftechnology every seven years, as well as specialized certified evaluation and accreditationof professional and vocational universities and junior colleges and professional graduate
schools every five years.
The institutional certified evaluation and accreditation process is undertaken by fiveaccreditation agencies, including JUAA, and the specialized certified evaluation is carriedout by 13 agencies, including JUAA. The HEIs are free to seek accreditation from any
accreditation agency of their choice.

External Evaluation Report4About the Japan University Accreditation Association (JUAA)JUAA is a voluntary and non-profit organization of universities founded in 1947 by 46
member institutions modeled after accreditation bodies in the United States with themission to “promote the qualitative improvement of higher education institutions in Japanthrough voluntary efforts and mutual assistance of member institutions to contribute tointernational cooperation, such as educational and research activities in higher education
institutions.”
In 1951, JUAA began accreditation activities based on the verification of membership
eligibility, and in 1996, it undertook university accreditation based on self-assessments. In
2004, JUAA became the first certified evaluation and accreditation organization authorized
by the MEXT Minister. Since 2012, JUAA has been an autonomous public interest
incorporated foundation certified by the Prime Minister of Japan and financed solely
through membership fees and accreditation fees. As of 2022, JUAA was made up of 313
universities that are full members, and 124 universities that are associate members: a totalof 437 universities representing 54% of the universities in Japan. Additionally, eight juniorcolleges are registered as JUAA full members.
Over the last seven years (2015-2021), JUAA has conducted 321 institutional certified
evaluations and accredited 292 universities and 17 junior colleges. Furthermore, JUAA
undertook 52 specialized certified evaluation and accreditation of professional graduate
schools in the fields of law (7), business (28), public policy (6), public health (4), intellectual
property studies (1), global communication (2), digital contents (1), and public relations (1).
In addition, JUAA has conducted non-certified evaluation processes in veterinary medicine
at seven institutions.
JUAA has also engaged in international joint accreditation standards projects (iJAS) with
the Taiwan Assessment and Evaluation Association (TWAEA) in 2018, which resulted in
the accreditation of two universities to date, one from each country. With the addition of
the Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA) of
Thailand in 2021, the iJAS project was expanded to operate as a three-country
partnership.
The basis of JUAA’s quality work is broad, as the agency has focused not only on
evaluation and accreditation but also on research and international cooperation activities.

External Evaluation Report5In 2018, JUAA established the Research Institute of Quality Assurance in Higher
Education (RIQAHE) to conduct research projects, seminars, an annual conference, andan annual university accreditation effectiveness survey, and disseminate the results of its
performance and publications on JUAA’s website.

External Evaluation Report

6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2021, JUAA requested INQAAHE to conduct an external review following the provisionsof the GGP. The external review was carried out considering JUAA’s self-assessment
report, the information gathered in the interviews held during the site visit in November
2022, and the complementary information provided by the agency after the site visit.
The self-assessment report is a very well-written document with clear and complete
information covering five years (2017-2021), and the responses provided to the different
categories, criteria, and indicators of INQAAHE’s GGP are exhaustive. During the site visit,
the review panel was able to conduct the interviews and gather complementary
information in a cordial and respectful work environment.
JUAA has established medium-term goals and action plans (2020-2024) in the areas ofaccreditation, research, internationalization, and corporate operations aligned with its
mission and with monitoring mechanisms for the achievement of the formulated goals.
Furthermore, JUAA has an internal quality assurance system for its processes andoutcomes, and a database system to organize information.
The robust governance structure, the qualified staff, the transparency in the decisionmaking process, and the integrity of its quality assurance framework are all attributes
recognized by the representatives of HEIs and the authorities of MEXT. Although there areformal instances to appeal decisions concerning the accreditation process and outcome
before the final resolution, it is recommended that JUAA revise the governance structure
and processes of the appeal body to ensure its independence.
Throughout the site visit, it was possible to verify that the certified evaluation andaccreditation processes are conducted with rigor and respect for the academic autonomy
of universities and HEIs. It is recommended that JUAA involves students and graduates inboth the Standards Committee and the accreditation committees.
The extensive international activities promoted through agreements with agencies mainly
from the Asian continent for the development of exchange activities, as well as its
participation in the iJAS project through the joint accreditation of universities, demonstrates
JUAA's interest in updating its quality assurance practices in accordance with international
trends in higher education. JUAA does not include in its evaluation system any standards

External Evaluation Report7to promote and evaluate transnational or cross-border education because it has no legal
basis to do so. Nevertheless, with the development of cross-border education increasing
rapidly in various forms in recent years, JUAA assumes the challenge to revise its
evaluation criteria and procedures considering cross-border education quality assurance
for the new accreditation cycle starting in 2025.
In summary, the site visit confirmed that JUAA’s performance has a positive impact onenhancing the quality of higher education in Japan and that the agency has the values,
qualities, and capacities for further improvements. From the evidence gathered in thisexternal review, JUAA’s alignment with the INQAAHE GGP is substantial. For this reason,
the review panel recommends that the INQAAHE Board certifies the alignment of JUAA
with the GGP.

External Evaluation Report

8

ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH INQAAHEGUIDELINES OF GOOD PRACTICEI.

The structure of the External Quality Assurance Agency(EQAA)The EQAA is a recognized, credible organization, trusted by higher education
institutions and the public. It has adequate mechanisms to prevent conflicts of interestin the decisions it makes; its staff has the needed skills to carry out the functions
associated with external QA. The EQAA has the needed resources to carry out its
mission.








Not compliant

Partially

Substantially

Fully compliant

compliantcompliant

1.1 Legitimacy and recognition
JUAA is an autonomous member-based organization founded in 1947 and was granted
the status of a public interest incorporated foundation in 2012 by the Prime Minister ofJapan.
In 2004, the MEXT Minister recognized JUAA as the first certified evaluation andaccreditation agency for universities, and later it acquired the status of a certified
evaluation and accreditation agency for junior colleges and graduate schools.
JUAA set one objective in its Articles of Incorporation that demonstrates its interest inaligning with guidelines designed by international associations when formulating policies
and practices: “contribute to international cooperation, such as educational and research
activities in HEIs.” In this connection, JUAA conducts different research projects to monitor
international trends in the development of activities of quality assurance agencies fromdifferent countries, including the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Thailand,
Malaysia, Taiwan, and Australia. Furthermore, in its Self-Assessment Report (page 14), it
states that, “before launching cycle two of its certified evaluation and accreditation, JUAA

External Evaluation Report9consulted the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher
Education Area (ESG) to develop an accreditation system that emphasizes IQA.”
During the interview, JUAA’s President mentioned that the evaluation of JUAA’s alignment
with INQAAHE GGP is an opportunity for the agency to “promote JUAA’s international
acceptance and visibility and strengthen the relationship with INQAAHE’s quality
assurance agency members.”
To prevent conflicts of interest, JUAA has adopted and published on its website theRegulations on the Fair Implementation of Third-Party Evaluation, a document that defines
the requirements for external reviewers, staff, and parties related to the institution underreview. It also prohibits any related party to the institution from offering cash or gifts to theaccreditation evaluators or JUAA’s staff. The Guidelines for Maintaining Ethical Conduct
and Confidentiality for Evaluators and Institutions summarize the key points of the ThirdParty Evaluation to prevent conflicts of interest that apply to evaluators, staff, and its
decision-making body.
1.2 Mission and objectives
JUAA’s mission and objectives are stated in the Articles of Incorporation, namely, “toconduct research on universities in Japan and abroad, improve the quality of Japanese
universities, and contribute to the advancement of international cooperation in university
education and research activities through voluntary efforts and mutual support of its
members.”
To accomplish this mission, JUAA has adopted the following objectives that are mentioned
in the self-assessment report (2021:17-18):
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;
3- Collects information and undertakes surveys and research on universities in Japanand abroad;4- Provides guidance, assistance, and information to universities for improvement ofeducation and research activities;

External Evaluation Report105- Organizes seminars, conferences, and other events aimed at quality improvementof universities;
6- Engages and cooperates in the international exchange of information on education
and research activities of universities;
7- Publishes resources on education and research activities of universities.
1.3 Governance and organizational structure
JUAA’s organizational structure consists of the Board of Councilors, the Board of Trustees,
the Research Institute for Quality Assurance of Higher Education, several Committees,
and sub-committees that are part of the decision-making bodies, and the Secretariat.
Based on its Articles of Incorporation, the Board of Councilors is the highest decisionmaking body responsible for appointing and removing the members of the Board ofTrustees and the Auditors, establishing the Articles of Incorporation, ensuring theautonomy of JUAA’s operations according to the law and regulations, approving thebalance sheet and the profit-and-loss statement, and making decisions regarding longterm debts, and the acquisition and disposal of important assets. The minimum number ofcouncilors is 15, and the maximum is 30. The Board of Councilors currently comprises 30
members, with 27 representatives of universities (mostly presidents), one accountant, one
business owner, and one high school principal. The Councilors are selected and appointed
by the Councilor Selection Committee from a field of candidates nominated by the Boardof Trustees and the Board of Councilors. To select the candidates from university
representatives, the following eligibility criteria are considered: university size and type,geographic location, and gender balance. The Councilors serve four-year terms.
The Board of Trustees makes decisions on the execution of JUAA’s activities based on anannual plan and budget, appoints the President of JUAA, participates in board meetings
convened by the president, and proposes the meeting agenda, selects Committee
members, and reports on the work agenda. The minimum number of trustees is 15, andthe maximum is 30. Currently, there are 28 representatives of Japan’s leading universities(mainly presidents). The Board comprises a President, two Vice-Presidents, one Senior
Managing Director, and four Managing Trustees to form the Board of Managing Trustees.
Two auditors monitor that the activities in the public interest are carried out as expected
and scrutinize the performance of the duties of the Board of Trustees.

External Evaluation Report

11The Board of Trustees develops its accreditation activities through Accreditation
Committees and sub-committees composed mainly of university stakeholders. Each
Committee has 20 members: 10 members selected from the candidates nominated by fullmember universities, five members named by the Board of Trustees, and five members
who are external experts, including representatives from high schools and the industry.
The decision-making bodies do not include students, and this is an area for improvementthat JUAA has assumed: “It has come to JUAA’s attention that it lacks a mechanism toallow direct involvement of students as university stakeholders. Going forward, JUAA willneed to consider building a process that reflects student perspectives in developing its
standards and accreditation system” (Self-Assessment Report, 2021:23.).
In the interviews during the site visit with university and college authorities, it was observedthat JUAA is recognized as an efficient and rigorous agency. Some testimonies aretranscribed: “JUAA promotes the development of an internal quality assurance system inthe university;” “JUAA’s standards are realistic and more flexible than those of otheragencies;” “A comprehensive understanding of what is necessary to improve is met afteran external evaluation carried out by JUAA.” Moreover, in an interview with the MEXT,
Ministry authorities declared that: “JUAA has been highly evaluated and the government
has used JUAA’s framework in order to enhance the quality of higher education”.
In addition, JUAA is a member of the INQAAHE, the Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN),
and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation’s (CHEA) International Quality Group(CIQG), a testament to its international and regional recognition.
JUAA’s daily activities are performed by full-time staff integrated into the Secretariat, whichis led by an Executive Director and is made up of three Departments: The Accreditation
Department, the Evaluation Research Department, and the General Affairs Department,
which are divided into six divisions. The Departments are led by Directors, while thedivisions are led by Associate Directors who are assisted by Assistant Directors.
It can be concluded that the composition of the decision-making body and its regulatory
framework ensure independence and impartiality in the decision-making process and thatthe organizational structure promotes an effective and efficient space for debate anddecision-making, as evidenced in the interviews with HEI authorities.

External Evaluation Report

12The EQAA has a strategic plan that helps assess its progress and plan for future
developments. JUAA conducted a self-assessment exercise in 2018, and the SelfAssessment Report published on 27 September 2019 emphasized the importance of
formulating and implementing its goals and strategies with a medium-term vision for eachof its activities to enhance the quality of Japan’s universities. Consequential to the selfassessment exercise, JUAA has established medium-term (2020-2024) goals and actionplans in the areas of accreditation, research, internationalization, and corporate
operations. A monthly operational status report on the areas outlined above is prepared
under the directions of the Vice-Presidents and Managing Trustees of the Board ofManaging Trustees.

A duty status report is prepared every six months, while financial

statements are produced yearly.
1.4 Resources
JUAA has a Secretariat comprised of an Executive Director and three Directors in chargeof the Accreditation Department, the Evaluation Research Department, and the General
Affairs Department. Each Department has two divisions, which are led by Associate
Directors.
As of November 2022, the Secretariat has 29 full-time positions: one Executive Director,
one Deputy Managing Director, two Directors, five Associate Directors, four Assistant
Directors and sixteen staff. Considering the 16 full-time staff, 11 of them are in the
Accreditation Department, two in the Evaluation Research Department, and three in the
General Affairs Department.
Furthermore, the Secretariat also uses temporary and contract staff as well and promotesinternships to manage the different activities carried out in the departments. As of
November 2022 (revised in January 2023 by JUAA), the breakdown of staff per
department is as follows:

External Evaluation Report13

Table 1: Secretariat Staff per Department, November 2022
Full-time
Department

staff(includes

Contract staff

Temporary
staff

Interns

Total

directors)
Accreditation

16*1

1

7

4

28

Evaluation Research

5

3

-

-

8

General Affairs

7

2

-

-

9

Total

282

6

7

4

45

Source: Data provided by JUAA in January 2023.

The largest number of staff works in the Accreditation Department, consistent with JUAA’s
main activity, i.e., institutional and program accreditation. Considering that JUAA has
conducted an annual average of 46 institutional accreditations between 2015 and 2021
(Self-Assessment Report, 2021, Table 1) and 10 annual accreditations in specialized fields(Self-Assessment Report, 2021, Table 2), the Accreditation Department is adequately
staffed. However, in interviews with the Secretariat staff, it was mentioned that full-time
staff is not sufficient to manage the number of accreditation processes that are expected
for the fourth cycle of accreditation starting in 2025.
Regarding staff training, both in the interviews held and in the 2020-2024 medium-termplan forecasts, the need is acknowledged to provide training in the use of information andcommunications technologies (ICTs) and in the development of skills to improve staff
performance in accreditation processes.
During the site visit, the panel was able to evaluate the quality of the facilities of JUAA’s
own building, with natural ventilation and lighting, and working spaces equipped withinformation technology (IT) resources that can be taken home by staff for work-from-homepurposes. The building includes a library with books and journals on higher education andvaluable archival materials on Japan’s university reform during and after the postwar
reform period.

1

The Deputy Managing Director serves as the Director of the Accreditation Department, for that reason, that

position is counted as part of the Accreditation department
2 A total of 29 full-time employees, including the Executive Director

External Evaluation Report14

In interviews with JUAA’s authorities and staff, an area for improvement was identified: thedevelopment and implementation of a decision analytics system that contributes to theimprovement of processes and results.
JUAA’s financial resources are derived from full-membership fees that are annually
collected and classified into ten grades according to the institution’s student capacity,
support- membership fees, and the accreditation fees.
Commendations
1. The Review Panel commends JUAA for the robustness of its management
structure, which ensures the engagement and participatory deliberation of different
organizational levels in decision-making, as well as the effectiveness of its
processes to drive the improvement of the quality of HEIs.
2. The Review Panel commends JUAA for the high degree of satisfaction notedamong the different representatives of HEIs interviewed during the site visit
regarding the impact of the evaluation and accreditation processes on the
improvement of the quality of the institutions. JUAA is also highly regarded by the
MEXT, as well as its international and national partners.
3. The Review Panel commends JUAA for the creation of a Research Institute for
Quality Assurance of Higher Education that strengthens its primary purpose ofcontributing to the continuous improvement of the quality of HEIs.

Suggestions
1. The Review Panel suggests that JUAA increase the full-time staff in the
Accreditation Department. This is considering that in its 2020-2024 medium-term
plan, it expects an increase in applications from universities and colleges for the
fourth cycle of accreditation starting in 2025.

Recommendations
1. The Review Panel recommends that JUAA include students and graduates in its
decision-making bodies and increase the presence of industry representatives.
2. The Review Panel recommends that JUAA develop job-based training activities topromote quality assurance knowledge and skills for its Secretariat staff.

External Evaluation Report15

3. The Review Panel recommends that JUAA develop and implement a decision
analytics system that takes advantage of the information available in its databaseand contributes to improving the efficiency of its processes and results.
Conclusion of the review panel
The review panel determines that JUAA is overall substantially compliant with the
Guidelines of Good Practice associated with section 1: The Structure of the Quality
Assurance Agency.

External Evaluation Report

16

II.

Accountability of the EQAAThe EQAA has in place policies and mechanisms for its internal quality assurance,
which demonstrate a continuing effort to improve the quality and integrity of its
activities, its response to the changes to the context in which it operates and its links
to the international community of QA.








Not compliant

Partially

Substantially

Fully compliant

compliantcompliant

2.1 Agency’s Quality Assurance
JUAA operates with transparency, integrity, and professionalism, and adheres to ethicaland professional standards as mentioned in Section 1. A good practice of JUAA is theannual publication of a summary of the results of all accreditation processes carried out by
the association, and an individual report of the results of the accreditation of each
institution, mentioning its strengths, suggestions for improvement, and, potentially, any
area of serious concern.
Every five years, JUAA carries out a performance self-assessment in accordance with its
objectives, the effectiveness of its activities, and the ability to respond to changes in higher
education. In the past 20 years, JUAA has conducted two self-assessments, one in 2014
and another in 2019, followed by two processes of external review.
The self-assessments are conducted by the Self-Assessment Committee, which, since2021, has been upgraded as a Standing Committee to monitor the achievements of
JUAA’s action plan every fiscal year. The Self-Assessment Committee consists of one
managing trustee, one current or previous Standards Committee member, one current or
previous member of the Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation Committee, one
current or previous member of the Certified Evaluation and Accreditation Committee forProfessional Graduate Schools, and one external expert.
The results of the self-assessment process are compiled into a report and serve as input
for the external review carried out by the External Review Committee. Its members areappointed by the Board of Trustees and include one to three members from Japanese
universities, one to three members of other accreditation bodies, and a few external
experts.

External Evaluation Report17In January 2022, JUAA built an internal quality assurance (IQA) system whose purposes,
structure and procedures are defined in the Regulation on Internal Quality Assurance(IQA). One of the key drivers for JUAA to create the IQA system is to link the results of theself-assessment and the external review with the improvements and reforms to beconsidered in the medium-term goals and plans.
From 2018, it is mandatory that all accreditation agencies conduct a self-assessment
process and publish the result (Ordinance on Details in Applying the Standards
Established in Article 110 (2) of the School Education Act). JUAA publishes the selfassessment reports and the results of its external review on its website.

2.2. Links with the Quality Assurance Community
Aligned with JUAA’s mission, three targets have been set as its medium-term goals (20202024):a) Carry out activities to enhance the international compatibility of JUAA’s
accreditation and ensure its international credibility.
b) Engage in activities to promote collaboration with overseas accreditation
agencies.
c) Disseminate information on JUAA’s activities to increase its internationalrecognition and gather the latest accreditation information by participating
in international conferences and other events.
To achieve its targets, JUAA has joined several international networks of quality assurance
agencies, including INQAAHE, APQN, and CHEA-CIQG, and became a supporting
member of the Association of Asia-Pacific Business Schools (AAPBS) to participate intheir events. JUAA has also signed memorandums of understanding with eight agencies ofAsian countries and with the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD)
from Belgium to exchange information on the trends of the higher education system andquality assurance.
As for the connection with Asian agencies, JUAA has taken part in reciprocal visits andtraining activities with the following entities: the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA),
the Mongolian National Council for Education Accreditation (MNCEA), the National
Assessment and Accreditation Council of India (NAAC), and the Office for National
Education Standards and Quality Assessment of Thailand (ONESQA). In addition, JUAA

External Evaluation Report18

has signed a trilateral agreement with TWAEA and ONESQA to conduct the joint
accreditation of universities, aiming to become internationalized, manage international
students’ surveys, and organize international staff exchange programs.
In an interview with members of the Japan Network of Certified Evaluation andAccreditation Agencies, the review panel confirmed the existence of a space for theexchange of good practices between the national agencies certified by the MEXT Minister.
In addition, JUAA has recently launched a website to disseminate good practices of theaccredited universities, and the reports are translated into English to increase its
international recognition.
Commendations
1. The Review Panel commends JUAA for the publication of the results of university
and college accreditation processes on its website, both in Japanese and in
English.
2. The Review Panel commends JUAA for the implementation of an IQA system
linking the results of self-assessment and external review reports conducted every
five years, with the improvements to introduce in JUAA’s medium-term goals andplans.
3. The Review Panel commends JUAA for the critical and proactive self-assessment
report produced for the certification of the Agency’s compliance with INQAAHE
GGP.
Suggestions
1. The Review Panel suggests that JUAA continue with external evaluations
conducted by international associations or networks, such as INQAAHE, rather
than an External Review Committee appointed by the Board of Trustees.
Conclusion of the Review Panel
The Review Panel concludes that JUAA is fully compliant with the Guidelines of Good
Practice associated with Section 2: Accountability of the EQAA.

External Evaluation Report

19

III.

The Agency’s Framework for the External Review of
Quality of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)

The main concern of the EQAA is the promotion of quality education and student
achievement. In doing this, it recognizes that quality is primarily the responsibility of
the higher education institutions themselves and supports this principle in its criteria
and procedures. These promote internal quality assurance (IQA) and provide higher
education institutions with clear guidance on the requirements for self-assessmentand external review.








Not compliant

Partially

Substantially

Fully compliant

compliantcompliant3.1. Relations between the agency and the HEIs
JUAA recognizes that institutional and programmatic quality and quality assurance are
primarily the responsibility of HEIs, by focusing on the evaluation of the internal quality
assurance system of the institution. As mentioned in JUAA’s Self-Assessment Report(2021: 59), “Standard 2. Internal Quality Assurance requires the universities to set out theirpolicies and procedures for IQA and to establish systems linked to improving andenhancing their quality through such evaluations and internal and external reviews. The
University Standards stipulates that universities must operate their IQA systems and carryout activities to assure their educational quality, thereby enhancing student learning
outcomes.”
As stipulated by the School Education Act, a cycle of accreditation is implemented every
seven years for the Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation, and every five
years for the Certified Accreditation and Evaluation of Professional Graduate Schools.
Since the third cycle of certified accreditation in 2018, JUAA defined the following fivecharacteristics for the institutional accreditation in its University Accreditation Handbook(2018-2024):
1. Evaluation focusing on the effectiveness of the internal quality assurance system of
the institution.

External Evaluation Report20

2. Evaluation with emphasis on self-improvement, as a result of a self-study inaccordance with the standards.
3. Evaluation emphasizing initiatives for the achievement of the institution’s mission
and purpose.
4. Evaluation supporting continuous improvement and enhancement, and
5. Evaluation emphasizing peer review.
Thus, it is noted that JUAA not only places the responsibility for quality assurance in theinstitution but also respects the diversity of projects and institutional identities by taking a
fit-for-purpose approach.
The members of JUAA’s Standards Committee and the evaluators interviewed during thesite visit agreed that it is necessary to improve the effectiveness of the IQA systems of theinstitutions. On the other hand, the HEI authorities interviewed highlighted the inclusion of
the IQA standard starting with the second cycle of accreditations and recognized theimportance of consolidating the implementation of the institutional IQA system. In its
medium-term plan (2020-2024), JUAA foresees that the Standards Committee, theUniversity Committee, and the Junior College Committee examine the efficiency andeffectiveness of the institutional IQA system, and based on the results, establish
improvements for the fourth-cycle accreditation.
JUAA implements different mechanisms to prevent accreditation processes from being an
excessive workload:-

Prepares a briefing session for the institutions on the outline preparation of theaccreditation one year before filling out the application procedures.

-Prescribes the format for self-study report and uniform data collection.

-

Defines the type of evidence required for submission in line with the standards.

-

Requires supporting evidence in digital formats.

-

Requires one year to complete the accreditation processes.

-

Defines reasonable accreditation fees compared with the accreditation fees
charged by other accreditation agencies (comparisons of accreditation fees areavailable in Table 19 of JUAA’s self-assessment report).

Despite the measures, in interviews held with representatives from junior colleges andfrom program accreditations, a lack of clarity was mentioned regarding the documents toExternal Evaluation Report21

be included by the institutions as evidence of compliance with the standards, in addition to
the need to shorten the accreditation process.

3.2. The definition of criteria for external evaluation

JUAA has established different sets of standards for each type of accreditation:
standards for universities, standards for junior colleges, standards for nine
professional graduate schools (law, business, public policy, public health,intellectual property studies, global communications, digital contents, global legal
studies, and public relations), and standards for two specialized fields (veterinaryand dental education).
The institutional certified evaluation and accreditation stipulate ten standards and theirrationale: mission and purpose; internal quality assurance; education and researchorganizations; educational program and learning outcomes; student enrollment; faculty
and faculty organization; student support; education and research environment; social
cooperation and contribution; university management and finance. JUAA published thestandards on its website, together with a document called “Evaluation items, perspectives
and considerations for universities accreditation,” which is a practical guide with questions
for institutions to conduct their self-assessment process considering the items comprisedin each standard.
The certified evaluation and accreditation for professional graduate schools stipulate fourstandards. It is noteworthy that, within the framework of the periodic review of thestandards, JUAA identified in 2019 that there was an overlap between the standards for
institutional accreditation and those required for the accreditation of professional graduate
schools. In particular, the overlap occurred in the standards referring to student supportand education and research environment. Therefore, considering that professional
graduate schools are required to undergo institutional certified evaluation andaccreditation, JUAA focused the standards only on the educational program. The
standards are mission and purpose, education outcomes and students, faculty and facultyorganization, and professional graduate school management and improvement.

External Evaluation Report

22

JUAA is committed to reviewing the standards prior to the start of a new accreditation
cycle. For that purpose, it implements consultation mechanisms with different types of
institutions. In interviews with representatives of universities, colleges, and professional
graduate schools, it was mentioned that their participation in the definition of standards
occurs through surveys. It is worth going back to what was already mentioned in Section 1
regarding the absence of participation of students and graduates in the definition ofstandards; this constitutes an aspect for improvement that JUAA has undertaken for the
fourth cycle of institutional certified evaluation and accreditation starting in 2025.
Regarding online education, JUAA’s Self-Assessment Report (2022: 71) states: “JUAA
does not generally regard online and distance education as special educational methods
and evaluates these approaches as part of the educational methods adopted byuniversities based on their diploma and curriculum policies to realize their missions andpurposes (…)”. Also, a survey was conducted by JUAA’S RIQAHE to analyze theexperiences and challenges of online education introduced by universities after the impactof the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of the survey, as well as future trends based on
the examples of other countries are inputs for JUAA “…to consider regarding theimplementation and evaluation of online education”. This challenge was also mentioned by
the authorities of the Board of Trustees in the interview held during the site visit.
3.3. The external evaluation process
All JUAA accreditation processes involve the preparation of a self-assessment reportagainst the prescribed standards, document analysis, site visit, and the publication of theexternal review report on JUAA’s website (previously, a draft report is produced that issent to the university to respond in case of identifying errors or inconsistencies). JUAA
also includes mechanisms for follow-up of suggestions for improvement and areas ofserious concerns resulting from the external review. The universities can present a
progress report to be reviewed by the Accreditation Committee and can request a followup review between the year following accreditation and the year before the next
accreditation cycle.
In addition to the information provided in the University Accreditation Handbook and othersupporting documents available on JUAA’s website, HEIs are also given a detailed
explanation of the accreditation process during briefing sessions.

External Evaluation Report

23

The external review process is carried out by Accreditation Committees that consist mainlyof faculty members recommended by their universities and are selected by the Board ofTrustees. The committees also include external experts to reflect the needs of the industry,
such as corporate executives and media representatives. The Accreditation Committee
has the authority to set up sub-committees in charge of document analysis and site visits
that, in principle, consist of university faculty and staff. External experts can only
participate in the sub-committees as observers, which prevents them from holding
exchanges with the representatives of the institutions, this being an aspect that JUAA
intends to improve. The representatives of the universities interviewed during the site visit
mentioned that it is important that external experts are involved in the accreditation
process beyond the instance of report production.
For their part, students and graduates do not participate in the accreditation process,except when the evaluators interview them during the site visit.
JUAA has established the nomination requirements for candidates of institutional andprofessional graduate schools’ accreditation committees and sub-committees. All theevaluators are supported by training in accordance with the “University Accreditation
Regulations: Detailed Rules on the Qualifications and Nomination of Subcommittee
Members Candidates.” This is in addition to JUAA’s annual symposium andcomprehensive seminar sessions. JUAA has also produced an Evaluator Manual for the
institutional certified evaluation and accreditation to contribute to the understanding of theevaluation criteria from the evaluator’s point of view. The evaluators interviewed during thesite visit mentioned that the training provided by JUAA is effective, a perception consistent
with the result of the surveys administered by JUAA to the evaluators at the end of eachfiscal year.
3.4. The requirements for self-evaluation
JUAA requires universities and junior colleges to establish and operate an IQA system andlink the results of self-studies to clarify the direction of the institutions. Furthermore,particular attention is given to monitoring learning outcomes presented in the diploma
policy of each HEI.
JUAA has provided HEIs with clear guidance on the preparation for external reviews. In
addition to accreditation handbooks and the information posted on JUAA’s website, on-site

External Evaluation Report24consultations, briefing sessions, and videos are also made available. JUAA has also
disseminated good practices from universities accredited.
Commendations
1. The Review Panel commends JUAA for the support it offers to HEIs to build aninternal quality assurance system and the respect for the identity and integrity of
the institutions.
2. The Review Panel commends JUAA for its commitment to review its standards
before each accreditation cycle, considering the opinion of various stakeholders.
3. The Review Panel commends JUAA for the diversity of materials provided to theuniversities to prepare the self-study report, especially the briefings where goodpractices from accredited universities are shared.
4. The Review Panel commends JUAA for the systematic training of external experts
and members of sub-committees in charge of accreditation processes.
Suggestions
1. The Review Panel suggests that JUAA strengthen the support mechanisms for
HEIs so that they manage the institutional and program accreditation processes
without perceiving them as a work overload.
Recommendations
1. The Review Panel recommends that JUAA systematize mechanisms to involve
students, graduates, and industry representatives in the revision of the standards
for the fourth cycle of institutional certified evaluation and accreditation starting in
2025, and to involve these stakeholders in the evaluation and accreditation
processes.
2. The Review Panel recommends that JUAA develops standards and criteria toimplement the evaluation of online education as a specific mode of education,
considering that many universities have introduced online education after the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Conclusion of the review panel
The review panel concludes that JUAA is substantially compliant with the Guidelines ofGood Practice associated with Section 3: the Agency’s Framework for the External Reviewof Quality in Higher Education Institutions HEIs

External Evaluation Report

25

IV.

The EQAA and its relationship with the Public

The EQAA makes public its policies and decisions about institutions and programs,
discloses the decisions about its own performance and disseminates reports on
outcomes of QA processes.








Not compliant

Partially

Substantially

Fully compliant

compliantcompliant4.1. Public reports on quality assurance policies and their decisions
JUAA provides disclosure of its documentation through the website and other means.
Handbooks are available for each type of accreditation, including the description of theprocedures, standards, regulations, and other relevant materials.
In addition to the evaluation results in Japanese, as required by the School Education Act,JUAA also publishes a summary in English on its website.
There are mechanisms in place to provide the public with a fair understanding of theevaluation decisions made. In 2021, JUAA launched a webpage that enables users tosearch for commendations, distinctive features, keywords, and comments from evaluateduniversities. The webpage tags the good practices to publicize the excellent points andsuccessful achievements of the institutions.
4.2. Other public reports
JUAA publishes the self-assessment report and the external review results on its website.
It is noted that these documents are not easily accessible through the free navigation of
the site.
Commendations
1. The Review Panel commends JUAA for its transparency in making numerous
reports and substantial information available on its website.

Suggestions

External Evaluation Report26

1. The Review Panel suggests that JUAA improve the visibility of the Agency's selfassessment and external review reports published on its website, to further
strengthen its transparency and social responsibility.
Conclusion of the Review Panel
The Review panel concludes that JUAA is fully compliant with the Guidelines of Good
Practice associated with Section 4: The EQAA and its relationship to the public.

External Evaluation Report

27

V.

Decision-Making

The EQAA has policies and procedures in place that ensure a fair and independent
decision-making process in the final review of the institution or the program. It
provides effective procedures to deal with appeals and complaints.








Not compliant

Partially

Substantially

Fully compliant

compliantcompliant5.1. The decision-making process
JUAA’s decisions take into consideration the outcomes of the self-assessment report andsupporting evidence provided by the institutions, and all the information obtained during
the site visit. The evaluation decisions are based on JUAA’s published standards andprocedures.
After the evaluation process, JUAA conducts a survey of the evaluated institutions on theeffectiveness of the accreditation. According to the survey results, more than 90% of the
respondents described the evaluation procedures as appropriate or mostly appropriate(Self-Assessment Report, 2021:106). The representatives of different HEIs interviewed
during the site visit expressed a high degree of acceptance and recognition of thetransparency and clarity with which JUAA conducts the evaluation and accreditation
processes.
As mentioned in the introduction, HEIs are free to seek accreditation from any
accreditation agency of their choice. In this sense, it is common for some universities tosubmit the results of reviews conducted by other accreditation agencies as evidence, but
JUAA regards them as one of the many evidence materials provided.
5.2. The agency’s process for appeals and grievances
JUAA defines the appeal procedure in its Regulation on Review of Appeals against
Accreditation Results, which is available on its website.

External Evaluation Report28

The institutions denied accreditation can file an appeal to overturn the decision based on
factual errors. An Appeals Committee conducts reviews considering the documents
provided by the institution and may solicit opinions from the appealing institution, theexternal experts, and even conduct onsite inspections. After completing the review, theCommittee sends the result to the Board of Trustees for the final decision. JUAA notifies
the institution and the MEXT of the final decision.
The Appeals Committee consists of five members: two university officials and threeexperts who do not belong to universities, elected by the Board of Trustees. To ensuretransparency, the list of Appeals Committee members is published on JUAA’s website.
This Committee is different from the committee responsible for accreditation, and both are
under JUAA’s Board of Trustees.
JUAA acknowledges two challenges with the appeals, one of which is to add theappointment of legal professionals to its regulations, and the other one regarding theindependence of the Appeals Committee’s decisions in terms of the possible influence
from the Board of Trustees.

Commendations
1. The Review Panel commends JUAA for its strictness and consistency in its
evaluation procedures, evidenced in the self-assessment report and in theinterviews held during the site visit.
Recommendations

1. The Review Panel recommends that JUAA revise the regulation for appeals,
preventing the decisions of the Board of Trustees from affecting the composition of
the Appeals Committee and therefore the resulting outcomes.

Conclusion of the Review Panel
The Review Panel concludes that JUAA is substantially compliant with the Guidelines ofGood Practice associated with Section 5: Decision making.

External Evaluation Report

29

VI.

The QA of Cross-Border Higher Education

The EQAA has policies relating to both imported and exported higher education.
These policies take into account the characteristics of the providers and thereceivers, and refer to all types of transnational higher education.








Not-applicable

Partially

Substantially

Fully compliant

compliantcompliant

6.1 Criteria for cross-border education
According to the Self-Assessment Report (2021:115), no Japanese universities haveopened overseas schools and Japanese campuses of overseas universities “are designed
under MEXT’s jurisdiction, which means that quality agencies cannot engage in quality
assurance activities for them. For these reasons, JUAA currently has no framework fortransnational education.” However, “JUAA will strive to improve its evaluation system,
including evaluation standards as needed, in light of the future overseas development ofJapanese universities”.

6.2 Collaboration between agencies
This standard does not apply to JUAA in terms of cooperation with local agencies inimporting and exporting education, for the reasons mentioned above. However, JUAA
collaborates with other agencies to improve mutual understanding of higher education
environments. In 2018, JUAA launched an iJAS project to contribute to theinternationalization of universities through joint accreditation. The agreement signed
between JUAA and TWAEA (Taiwan) involved a mutual understanding to develop aninternational framework with a fit-for-purpose approach. In 2019, iJAS issued its
accreditation to two universities, Akita International University from Japan, and Chia Nan
University of Pharmacy and Science from Taiwan. In 2021, ONESQA (Thailand) joined the
project, and a three-party accreditation is expected in cooperation with universities inThailand.

External Evaluation Report30

Recommendations:
1. The Review Panel recommends that JUAA includes standards for cross bordereducation in its evaluation system to promote the quality of higher education at thetransnational level.
Conclusion of the Review Panel
The Review Panel concludes that section 6: The QA of cross border higher education of
the Guidelines of Good Practice is not applicable to JUAA’s evaluation.

External Evaluation Report

31

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE REVIEW PANELJUAA is a robust quality assurance agency recognized by the MEXT Minister, with aconsolidated governance structure and a well-regulated working process. It has a clear
and published quality assurance framework, and its staff is qualified and committed toachieving its goals and action plans. JUAA has the challenge to continue with the trainingof its staff, and a job-based training program is recommended.
JUAA’s operations are aligned with the national regulations and the cultural contexts of thecountry, and at the same time, the agency is fulfilling international best standards. There isevidence of alignment between JUAA’s mission and its actions. The basis of JUAA’s work
is not only focused on evaluation and accreditation processes but also takes into
consideration other relevant topics of higher education, such as research, international
cooperation, and social commitments. JUAA has the challenge to continue improving themechanisms to increase the visibility of its activities and the interest of the public in the
results of its accreditation processes.
To fulfill the purpose of improving the quality of Japanese universities, JUAA assumes a
fit-for-purpose approach and encourages HEIs to establish an IQA system. In this regard,
the Agency recognizes and respects the heterogeneity in the higher education system ofJapan and is flexible regarding new trends in higher education. JUAA reviews its
standards in line with each accreditation cycle and solicits the opinion of different
stakeholders, while assuming the challenge to involve students in the next accreditation
cycle starting in 2025. Also, it is important to increase the participation of representatives
from the industry during the whole evaluation and accreditation process.
The transparency, integrity, and professionalism of the Agency in its operations arenoteworthy. Nevertheless, JUAA must revise the independence of the Appeals Committee
from the decisions of its Board of Trustees.
There is enough evidence in the self-assessment report and in the information gathered
during the site visit regarding the respectful relationship between JUAA and the HEIs, andExternal Evaluation Report32between JUAA and other national and international partnerships. JUAA collaborates withother international agencies in MOU-based activities, joint staff training, and joint
accreditation projects.
Finally, there are two aspects to remark on about the review process: the hospitality andthe respectful work environment throughout the three days of the site visit and the clear,complete, and well-written self-assessment report.
From the evidence gathered in this evaluation, it emerges that its compliance with the
INQAAHE 2018 Guidelines of Good Practice (GGP) is substantial (see the summary tablebelow); therefore, the Review Panel recommends to the INQAAHE Board of Directors tocertify JUAA’s compliance with the GGP.

Summary Table: Assessment of Compliance with INQAAHE Guidelines of Good
Practice (GGP)GGP Sections

Not

Partially

Substitutional

Fully

CompliantCompliantCompliantComplaintSection I: The structure of theExternal Quality Assurance Agency(EQAA)



Section II: Accountability of the EQAA

Section III: The EQAA’s framework forthe external review of quality inHigher Education Institutions

Section IV: The EQAA and its
relationship to the publicSection V: Decision making
Section VI: The QA of cross border

N/Ahigher education

External Evaluation Report33

ANNEX 1. INQAAHE Guidelines of Good Practice (GGP)I.

The structure of the External Quality Assurance Agency(EQAA)The EQAA is a recognized, credible organization, trusted by the higher
education institutions and the public. It has adequate mechanisms to prevent
conflicts of interest in the decisions it makes; its staff has the needed skills tocarry out the functions associated to external QA. The EQAA has the needed
resources to carry out their mission.

1.1.

Legitimacy and recognition

1.1.1

The EQAA has an established legal basis and is recognized by a competent
external body.

1.1.2

The EQAA takes into consideration relevant guidelines issued by international
networks and other associations, in formulating its policies and practices.

1.1.3

The EQAA has a clear and published policy for the prevention of conflicts ofinterest that applies to its staff, its decision-making body, and the external
Reviewers.

1.2 Mission and purposes
1.2.1

The EQAA has a written mission statement and a set of objectives that explicitly
provide that external quality assurance of higher education is its major concern,
describe the purpose and scope of its activities and can be translated into verifiable
policies and measurable objectives.

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.

1.3.2

The composition of the decision-making body and/or its regulatory frameworkensure its independence and impartiality.

1.3.3

The EQAA’s organizational structure makes it possible to carry out its external
review processes effectively and efficiently

External Evaluation Report341.3.4The EQAA has a strategic plan that helps assess its progress and plan for future
developments

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 andits methodological approach.

1.4.2

The EQAA has the physical and financial resources needed to fulfil its goals andcarry out the activities that emerge from its mission statement and objectives.

1.4.3

The EQAA provides systematic opportunities for the professional development of
its staff.

II. Accountability of the EQAAThe EQAA has in place policies and mechanisms for its internal quality
assurance, which demonstrate a continuing effort to improve the quality andintegrity of its activities, its response to the changes to the context in which it
operates and its links to the international community of QA.

2.1 Quality assurance of the EQAA
2.1.1

The EQAA operates with transparency, integrity and professionalism and adheresto ethical and professional standards.

2.1.2

The EQAA has in place mechanisms that enable it to review its own activities inorder to respond to the changing nature of higher education, the effectiveness of its
operations, and its contribution towards the achievement of its objectives.

2.1.3

The EQAA periodically conducts a self-review of its own activities, including
consideration of its own effects and value. The review includes data collection andanalysis, to inform decision-making and trigger improvements.

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 anddisclosed.

2.2 Links to the QA community

External Evaluation Report35

2.2.1The EQAA is open to international developments in quality assurance and hasmechanisms that enable it to learn about and analyze the main trends in the field.

2.2.2

The EQAA collaborates with other QA agencies where possible, in areas such as
exchange of good practices, capacity building, and review of decisions, joint
projects, or staff exchanges.

III. The EQAA’s framework for the external review of quality inHigher Education Institutions
The main concern of the EQAA is the promotion of quality education and student
achievement. In doing this, it recognizes that quality is primarily the responsibilityof the higher education institutions themselves and supports this principle in its
criteria and procedures. These promote internal quality assurance (IQA) andprovide higher education institutions with clear guidance on the requirements for
self-assessment and external review.

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 theinstitutions and programs.

3.1.2

The EQAA promotes the development and appropriate implementation of IQAprocesses in accordance with the understanding that the primary responsibility forassuring quality resides with the institutions and its programs.

3.1.3

The EQAA bears in mind the level of workload and cost that its procedures willplace on institutions and strives to make them as time and cost effective as
possible.

3.2 The definition of criteria for external quality review
3.2.1

The EQAA recognizes and values institutional diversity and translates thisvaluation into criteria and procedures that consider the identity and goals of higher
education institutions.

External Evaluation Report363.2.2The standards or criteria developed by the EQAA have been subject to reasonableconsultation with stakeholders and are revised at regular intervals to ensure
relevance to the needs of the system.

3.2.3

Standards or criteria take into consideration the specific aspects related to different
modes of provision, such as transnational education, distance or online programs
or other non-traditional approaches to HE as relevant to the context in which they
operate.

3.2.4

Standards or criteria explicitly address the areas of institutional activity that fallwithin 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 theavailability of necessary resources (e.g., finances, staff and learning resources).

3.2.5

Criteria or standards and procedures consider internal follow up mechanisms, andprovide for effective follow up of the outcomes of the external reviews.

3.2.6

The EQAA procedures specify the way in which criteria will be applied and thetypes of evidence needed to demonstrate that they are met.

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, andincludes an external review (normally including a site visit or visits), and aconsistent follow up of the recommendations resulting from the external review.

3.3.2

The EQAA has published documents, which clearly state what it expects fromhigher education institutions, in the form of quality criteria, or standards andprocedures, for self-assessment and external review.

3.3.3

The external review process is carried out by teams of experts consistent with thecharacteristics of the institution/program being reviewed. Experts can provide input
from various perspectives, including those of institutions, academics, students,
employers or professional practitioners.

External Evaluation Report373.3.4The EQAA has clear specifications on the characteristics and selection of external
Reviewers, who must be supported by appropriate training and good supporting
materials such as handbooks or manuals.

3.3.5

External review procedures include effective and comprehensive mechanisms forthe prevention of conflicts of interest, and ensure that any judgments resulting fromexternal reviews are based on explicit and published criteria.

3.3.6

The EQAA’s system ensures that each institution or program will be evaluated in aconsistent way, even if the external Panels, teams, or committees are different.

3.3.7

The EQAA carries out the external review within a reasonable timeframe after thecompletion of a self-assessment report, to ensure that information is current andupdated.

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

3.4 The requirements for self-evaluation
3.4.1

The EQAA provides clear guidance to the institution or program in the applicationof the procedures for self-evaluation, the solicitation of assessment/feedback fromthe public, students, and other constituents, or the preparation for external review
as necessary and appropriate.

IV. The EQAA and its relationship to the public
The EQAA makes public its policies and decisions about institutions andprograms, discloses the decisions about its own performance and disseminates
reports on outcomes of QA processes.

4.1 Public reports on EQAA policies and decisions
4.1.1

The EQAA provides full and clear disclosure of its relevant documentation such aspolicies, procedures and criteria.

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 applicablelegal and other requirements.

External Evaluation Report384.1.3The EQAA has mechanisms to facilitate the public a fair understanding of thereasons supporting decisions taken.

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.

4.2.2

The EQAA prepares and disseminates periodically integrated reports on the overalloutcomes of QA processes and of any other relevant activities.

V. Decision making
The EQAA has policies and procedures in place that ensure a fair andindependent decision-making process in the final review of the institution or the
program. It provides effective procedures to deal with appeals and complaints.

5.1 The decision-making process
5.1.1

The EQAA decisions take into consideration the outcomes of both the institution’s
self-assessment process and the external review; they may also consider any otherrelevant information, provided this has been communicated to the HEIs.

5.1.2

The EQAA decisions are impartial, rigorous, and consistent even when they arebased on the reports of other quality assurance bodies.

5.1.3

The EQAA decisions are based on published criteria and procedures, and can bejustified only with reference to those criteria and procedures.

5.1.4

Consistency in decision-making includes consistency and transparency inprocesses and actions for imposing recommendations for follow-up action.

5.1.5

The EQAA’s reported decisions are clear and precise.

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.

5.2.2

The EQAA has clear, published procedures for handling appeals related to its
external review and decision-making processes.

External Evaluation Report395.2.3

Appeals are conducted by a Panel that was not responsible for the original decisionand has no conflict of interest; appeals need not necessarily be conducted outside
the EQAA.

VI. The QA of Cross-Border Higher Education
The EQAA has policies relating to both imported and exported higher education.
These policies take into account the characteristics of the providers and thereceivers, and refer to all types of transnational 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 theinstitution understands the regulatory frameworks of the receiving countries, andthat the institution provides clear information on the programs offered and theircharacteristics.

6.1.2

Students and other stakeholders receive clear and complete information about theawards delivered.

6.1.3

The rights and obligations of the parties involved in transnational education are
clearly established and well known by the parties.

6.2 Collaboration between agencies
6.2.1

The EQAA cooperates with appropriate local agencies in the exporting andimporting countries and with international networks. This cooperation is oriented to
improve mutual understanding, to have a clear and comprehensive account of theregulatory framework and to share good practices.

6.2.2

The EQAA seeks ways to cooperate in the external quality assurance intransnational education provision, for example through mutual recognition.

External Evaluation Report40

ANNEX 2. COMPOSITION OF THE GGP REVIEW PANELINQAAHE GGP review panel

Dr Rolf Heusser
Chair of the Review Panel

Dr Ariana De Vincenzi
Secretary

Dr Eddy Chong Siong Choy
QA Expert- Director of Swiss
Accreditation
Agency(2001-2010), ChairmanoftheEuropean
ConsortiumofAccreditation(ECA,
2004-2014). Member ofboard of directors of
INQAAHE (2009-10)
International
Higher
Education & QA Expert- University of Zurich- Member of the Council of
Rectors of Private Universities
of Argentina- Academic Vice-chancellor of
the Universidad Abierta
Interamericana, Argentina.
- International Higher
Education & QA Expert- Chief Technical Officer (QA)
Finance Accreditation Agency(FAA)- INQAAHE Board Member- AUN-QA Lead Assessor
International
Higher
Education & QA Expert

Previous GP Review:- CAA GGP Review 2021

Previous GGP Review:- ANEAES GGP Review 2021
- CNED GGP Re-alignment
2022

Preview GGP Review:- HEEACT GGP Review 2020

Malaysia

Argentina
Switzerland

Report signed by the GGP Review Panel
Date: 13 February 2023
GGP Project Coordinator
Mr. Dewin Justiniano
INQAAHE GGP Project
Coordinator

Quality Assurance Senior
Specialist at ADEK – 42
Abu Dhabi, UAE
Honduras

External Evaluation Report41

ANNEX 3. SCHEDULE OF THE VIRTUAL VISIT
Day 1
Time

Activities & Interview Sessions

8:30-9:00

Preparatory Meeting Day 1
Session 1:

9:00-10:00

JUAA President and Secretariat(in-person)
Session 2:

10:00-11:00

JUAA Self-Evaluation Committee(In-person)
Session 3:

11:00-12:00

HEIs Representatives, QA
Representatives - Institutional Accreditations(online)12:00-12:30

Office Tour

12:30-13:30

Lunch Break

13:30-14:00

GGP Review Panel Internal Meeting
Session 4:

14:00-15:00

Professional Graduate School QA Representatives – Certified Evaluation andAccreditation(online)Session 5:

15:00-16:00

JUAA’s International Partners(online)

Day 2
Time

Activities & Interview Sessions

9:00- 9:30

Preparatory Meeting Day 2
Session 6:

9:30-10:00

JUAA’s National Partners #1(online)Session 7:

10:00-11:00

HEIs QA Representatives – Program Accreditations(Veterinary Medicine)(online)External Evaluation Report

42

Time

Activities & Interview Sessions
Session 8:

11:00-11:45

JuniorCollege

Representatives,

QA

Representatives-

Institutional

Accreditations
11:45-12:30(online)Lunch Break

12:30-13:00

GGP Review Panel Internal Meeting

14:00-14:30

Coffee BreakSession 10:

14:30-15:30

JUAA’s Standards Committee(In-person)

15:30-16:00

Coffee BreakSession 11:

16:00-17:00

JUAA’s Evaluators (Reviewers)(Hybrid: online and in-person)
Session 12:

17:00-18:00

JUAA Staff Members(Institutional and Program Accreditation)(In-person)

Day 3
Time

Activities & Interview Sessions

9:00– 9:15

Preparatory Meeting Day 3
Session 13:

9: 15-10:15

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) –University Education and Entrance Examination Division, Higher Education
Bureau (online)

10:15-10:30

Coffee BreakSession 14:

10:30-11:00

JUAA’s National Partners #2(online)Session 15:

11:00-11:30

JUAA’s National Partners #3(online)External Evaluation Report43Call-back Session:
11:30-12:15

The GGP Review Panel will call for another interview session with JUAA staff
if the GGP Review Panel needs to clarify or ask additional questions.

12:15-13:00

Lunch Break

13:00-14:30

GGP Preparations to deliver the Oral Exit Report

14:30-15:00

Oral Exit Report(In-person)

External Evaluation Report44External Evaluation Report45