University
Accreditation
Handbook(2018-2024)

April 2018

Table of Contents
1.

Overview of University Accreditation ...................................................................................... 1
1.1.Objectives and Characteristics ................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1. Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2. Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2.Evaluation that emphasizes IQA ............................................................................................. 2
1.2.1. Background .................................................................................................................. 2
1.2.2. Fundamental Concepts of IQA ..................................................................................... 2
1.2.3. IQA in the University Standards .................................................................................. 2
1.2.4. Key points of IQA ........................................................................................................ 3
1.3.Results, Process and Structure of University Accreditation ................................................... 6
1.3.1. University Accreditation Results ................................................................................. 6
1.3.2. Certificate of Accreditation and Accreditation Mark ................................................... 7
1.3.3. Accreditation Process ................................................................................................... 8
1.3.4. Organization ............................................................................................................... 112.

Preparation by Universities ..................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Concept of Self-study in University Accreditation ............................................................... 14
2.1.1

Self-study based on University Standards .................................................................. 14i.

University Standards .................................................................................................. 14ii.

Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................................... 14iii.

Evaluation Perspectives .............................................................................................. 15

2.1.2. Self-study from Perspective of Whole-University ..................................................... 15
2.1.3. Specific Concepts of Self-study ................................................................................. 16
2.1.4. Self-study at each Faculty and Graduate School ........................................................ 16
2.1.5. Points to Remember when Implementing Self-study ................................................. 18
2.2.Preparing the Self-Study Report (SSR) and the Rating Sheet .............................................. 19
2.2.1. Composition of the SSR ............................................................................................. 19
2.2.2. Details of Main Section .............................................................................................. 19i.

Current Situation ........................................................................................................ 19ii.

Strengths and Characteristics ..................................................................................... 21

iii.

Defects ........................................................................................................................ 21

iv.

Chapter/Section Conclusion ....................................................................................... 22

2.2.3

Points to Remember when Writing the SSR .............................................................. 25

2.2.4

Rating ......................................................................................................................... 25

2.2.5

Format and Timing of Submission ............................................................................. 26

2.3.Evidencing Materials ............................................................................................................. 27
2.3.1. Type of Materials ....................................................................................................... 27
i.

Basic Institutional Data .............................................................................................. 27

ii.

Basic Requirements Sheet .......................................................................................... 27

iii.

Evidencing Materials .................................................................................................. 27

2.3.2

Timing and Format of Submission ............................................................................. 29i.

Electronic data ............................................................................................................ 29ii.

Printed materials ......................................................................................................... 30

2.4 Application for University Accreditation .............................................................................. 32
2.4.1

Application Form ....................................................................................................... 32

2.4.2

Evaluation Materials .................................................................................................. 32

2.4.3

Accreditation Fees ...................................................................................................... 32

2.5 Before site-visit ..................................................................................................................... 34
2.6 Site-visit ................................................................................................................................ 34
2.7 Opinion Statements on the University Accreditation Results (Committee’s Draft) ............. 37
2.8 University Accreditation Results .......................................................................................... 37
2.9 Appeals against University Accreditation Results ................................................................ 37
2.10.

3.

After University Accreditation ...................................................................................... 38

2.10.1.

Evaluation Materials on the Website ...................................................................... 38

2.10.2.

Progress Report ....................................................................................................... 38

2.10.3.

Supplementary-review ............................................................................................ 39

Evaluators ................................................................................................................................ 41
3.1.Basic Principles ..................................................................................................................... 41
3.1.1. Standards .................................................................................................................... 41
3.1.2. Principles and Ethics in Evaluation ............................................................................ 41
3.1.3. Evaluation Process and Evaluator’s Perspectives ...................................................... 42

3.2.Evaluation by the University Review Subcommittee ........................................................... 44
3.2.1. Evaluation Materials .................................................................................................. 45
3.2.2. Writing the Evaluation Findings ................................................................................ 45
3.2.3. Preparation of Subcommittee’s Draft ......................................................................... 49
3.2.4. Preparation of University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee Chief’s Draft)and Holding Subcommittee Meetings ..................................................................................... 51
3.2.5. Site-visit ..................................................................................................................... 54
3.2.6. Preparation of University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Final Draft) ....... 58
3.3.Evaluation by the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee ................................................. 59
3.3.1. Evaluation Materials .................................................................................................. 60
3.3.2. Evaluation Flow ......................................................................................................... 60
3.4.Review of the Progress Report .............................................................................................. 63
3.4.1. Evaluation Materials .................................................................................................. 63
3.4.2. Review Flow .............................................................................................................. 63
3.5.Supplementary Review Work ............................................................................................... 65
3.5.1. Evaluation Materials .................................................................................................. 65
3.5.2. Evaluation Flow ......................................................................................................... 65

1.

Overview of University Accreditation

1.1. Objectives and Characteristics
The objectives and characteristics of University Accreditation by JUAA are as follows.

1.1.1. Objectives⚫To assure the public of the quality of university education and research through comprehensive evaluationof various aspects of the university based on JUAA University Standards.
⚫To continuously support the improvement and enhancement of university by presenting the results of the
University Accreditation and by reviewing reports (“Progress Reports”) on matters requiring improvement(“Areas of Serious Concern,” “Suggestions for Improvement”).
⚫To contribute to clarifying the role of the university through evaluation, and to support the fulfillment of theuniversity’s accountability to society.

1.1.2. Characteristics
i. Evaluation focusing on the effectiveness of the internal quality assurance system
The primary responsibility for quality assurance regarding university education lies with the university itself.
JUAA carries out evaluations that emphasize whether the university has set up the internal quality assurance(IQA) system and it is functioning effectively.
ii. Evaluation with emphasis on self-improvement
It is important for universities to carry out self-study in accordance with the University Standards. The university
can understand the current situation and find the strengths and problems. It is also important for universities todevelop policies to enhance those strengths and improvement measures regarding problem areas. Assuming suchself-study, JUAA carries out evaluations whereby the university can appropriately work on improving and enhancing the university, i.e., evaluations that emphasize self-improvement at the university.
iii. Evaluation emphasizing initiatives for the achievement of the mission and purpose and supporting
advancement and enhancement
JUAA carries out evaluations not only to confirm the fundamental matters required of the university, such as legal
requirements, but also to lead to the enhancement of education and research. In other words, JUAA carries out
evaluations that emphasize efforts to achieve the university’s own mission and purpose.
iv. Evaluation supporting continuous improvement and enhancement
University is required to submit a Progress Report for matters that require improvement (“Recommendation”,“Suggestions for Improvement,”) as discovered through the University Accreditation. JUAA reviews what improvements have done after the University Accreditation based on that report, and notifies the university of andannounces the results of that review in the Progress Report Review Results. Through this evaluation cycle, JUAA
continuously provides support for the university to make improvements and enhancements.
v. Evaluation emphasizing peer review
JUAA appoints the evaluators who are academic or administrative staff recommended by full member universitiesor the equivalent. The evaluators have deep understandings of university education and research.

11.2. Evaluation that emphasizes IQA
1.2.1. BackgroundIn 2009, the rate of newly enrolled university students in Japan exceeded 50%, which came to be referred to as
the “universal access” era. At the same time as this “universal access” was the phenomenon of “universal university admission.” With the decreasing population of 18-year-olds impacted by declining birth rates, students could
find a university to enroll in if they so desired. If we shift our focus to the state of socio-economics, there isevidence of social change resulting from progress in globalization and information communications technology(ICT), destabilization of the employment, and most recently, social confusion caused by the COVID-19 pandemic
and conditions surrounding universities are undergoing extensive changes.
Under such circumstances, universities are being questioned on the reinforcement of their human resources training function as higher education institutions. In other words, universities are required to develop educational
activities that make it possible to send out diverse students as capable people in a changing society. Universities
are, of course, primarily independent and autonomous institutions that focus on higher education and academic
research. Universities themselves clarify the purpose of developing their human resources and guarantee thelearning of students, and universities must primarily be responsible for assuring the quality of educational activities.

1.2.2. Fundamental Concepts of IQA“Internal Quality Assurance” is a constant and continuous process within the university used for the university to
improve quality and to explain and verify at its own responsibility that education and study is at an appropriate
standard by causing the PDCA cycle to function appropriately. As is clear in this definition, the main target of
IQA is educational activities, and the advancement of education and enhanced learning outcomes is the core of
the IQA objectives.
The IQA is becoming more significant based on the above situation in Japan, and is also becoming an international
trend. In addition, a fundamental concept that JUAA has held since establishment is respect for the independent
efforts of universities as they strive to guarantee and enhance their quality themselves. Based on this background,
JUAA leads other Certified Evaluation and Accreditation Organizations, by carrying out University Accreditationthat emphasizes IQA since 2011.

1.2.3. IQA in the University Standards
In University Accreditation, the third cycle of Certified Evaluation and Accreditation, even more importance isplaced on IQA. This is evident in evaluations that place greater importance on teaching and learning management
across the university, while assuming that the self-study for each department such as faculties and graduate
schools. In order to strive for advanced education and enhanced outcomes of student learning, universities mustsystematically develop educational activities. The cornerstone to achieving this is management of teaching andlearning in which the university president plays a central role. Universities are required to make efforts so thatthe internal process functions smoothly to plan and design, operate, review, and improve education, and this is
the reason for focusing on teaching and learning management across the whole-university when carrying out
University Accreditation that emphasizes IQA.
University Standards were revised to emphasize these points. For example, “IQA” (formerly number 10) was
moved to number 2 (i.e., just after “Mission and Purpose”) to further clarify the significance of IQA.
When a university carries out self-study or the evaluator carries out the evaluation in the University Accreditation,
Mission and Purpose (Standard 1) is confirmed first, and then the IQA system under Standard 2 (Internal Quality
Assurance). And, from Standard 3 to Standard 9, they are confirmed from the perspective of the whole-university
with regard to whether the three policies (Degree Award Policy, Curriculum Design and Implementation Policy,
and Admission Policy) and other policies have been established appropriately, whether education is progressing
appropriately based on those policies, and whether the result of carrying out self-study appropriately is linked to
improvement and enhancement. In addition, after confirming each individual matter (from Standard 3 to Standard29), Standard 2 is returned to, and confirmation regarding the functionality and effectiveness of the IQA system as
a whole, such as whether management of teaching and learning across the whole-university is functioning effectively, is required. In short, if any problems are seen in education or other related area, it is perceived as an issueof the IQA system as a whole, and must be reviewed. After such confirmation, Standard 1 is eventually returned
to, and the effectiveness of the various initiatives can be confirmed from the point of view of how well the mission
and purpose were achieved. The University Standards are structured in a way that considers this sequence.
Furthermore, in order for universities to achieve their own mission and purpose, it is important that the appropriate
university administration organizations be put in place as a necessary foundation to make the IQA system function,and that the university is operated based on appropriate financial bases Based on that, Standard 10 (Administration
and Financial Affairs) is established under the University Standards.
<<Diagram I-1 University Standards Structure>>

1.2.4. Key points of IQA
The following section clarifies more concretely what form IQA should take. That idea can be summarized as the
University-Wide Organization Responsible for Promoting IQA (the “University-Wide IQA Organization”) that
operates or provides support to make the PDCA cycle effective in each faculty, graduate school, or other organization in accordance with the University-Wide Policies and Procedures for IQA (the “IQA Policies and Procedures”). Following is a step-by-step explanation.
i. Establishment of IQA policies and procedures
It is essential for the university set policies and procedures for IQA, taking into consideration its scale and characteristics. Those policies and procedures do not just relate to self-study. This is because IQA consists of processes
to plan and design, operate, review, improve, and enhance education, which can be said to be a concept that is
broader than self-study.
The setting of these policies and procedures is important to share awareness and perform effectively among thepersons within the university. In addition, when carrying out self-study, the university can confirm the3appropriateness of quality assurance of educational activities by the policies and procedures. Following is considered specific content that should be incorporated into those policies and procedures.
⚫Fundamental concepts of IQA in the university⚫Authority and role of the University-Wide IQA Organization⚫Division of roles between the University-Wide IQA Organization and faculties, graduate schools, andother organizations⚫Guidelines for education planning and design, operation, review, and improvement and enhancement
Also, in order to make the IQA system more effective, it is essential that sufficient consideration be given to what
content must be established as policy and what kind of structure is appropriate to operate that policy, and toestablish policies and procedures that correspond to each university’s circumstances (mission and purpose, scale,structure of disciplines, etc.).
ii. Development of organization responsible for IQA university-wide
In addition to the aforementioned policies and procedures, the University-Wide IQA Organization must also be
developed. That organization must carry out the necessary administration so that the processes for educational
activities in faculties, graduate schools, and other organizations develop appropriately, and appropriate management to be able to regularly review and improve those educational activities. The “processes for educational
activities” refers to the establishment of the three policies (i.e., Degree Award Policy, Curriculum Design and
Implementation Policy, and Admission Policy), the compilation of a systematic curriculum based on those policies, the development of educational activities, the review of the effectiveness of those educational activities, andthe constant and continuous improvement and advancement based on the results of reviews.
When developing that organization, the university must review the grant of authority and the division of roles
between existing organizations as necessary. In this regard, it goes without saying that universities must consider
its characteristics, scale and form of governance. For example, depending on the circumstances, the roll of the
University-Wide IQA Organization can be the one which support each faculty and graduate school from the sideor the one which takes the initiative to promote educational activities implemented by each faculty and graduate
school.
iii. Policy clarification and systemized PDCA cycles
In addition to striving to develop policies and procedures and the organization, there are several matters to consider for the IQA system to function effectively.
The first point is to clarify policy. The need to clarify policies regarding IQA itself is as stated earlier, but clear
policies are also required for specific activities, such as educational activities and student support. To start with,it mentions three policies for educational activities. Only if those three policies are clear can it be said that afoundation for organizational quality assurance has been formed in education, and based on that foundation, thePDCA cycle functions from the formulation of specific objectives to self-study, and improvement and enhancement.
Similarly, if there are no guidelines for carrying out for support students, the status of PDCA does not function
well. In that sense, policies that ambiguously describe the image of initiatives are inadequate. Crucial point hereis clearness as guidelines to share the concept among the university personnel for carrying out specific activities.
In addition, University Standards stipulate the details of the framework of “student support” and “education andresearch environment,” but each university’s policy does not need to be formulated for each framework of JUAA
standards. For example, even if there are comprehensive policies for student support and education and research
Environment, there are no issues if those activities can be carried out in a specific manner.
In addition to clarifying policies, it is important that the various levels of the PDCA cycle in the university areorganically linked.

4That is to say, the PDCA cycle for the University-Wide IQA Organization and the PDCA cycle for each department (i.e., faculties and graduate schools) are linked. The role of the University-Wide IQA Organization tostrengthen that link is important. In short, the role of that organization is to manage the PDCA cycle in eachdepartment. The term “management” refers here to preparing manuals for self-study carried out by each department or guidelines for university-wide IQA (such as the FD implementation policy), confirmation of whether
each department is operating appropriately based on those manuals or guidelines, and support, such as the creationof a structure across the university that links self-study results to improvement and advice to each department.

<<Diagram I-2 Internal Quality Assurance System Centered Around the University-Wide Internal
Quality Assurance Promotion Organization>>P

Establishment of objectives and plansregarding teaching and learning
management based on university-wide
policies and procedures for
IQA
Preparation andoperation ofplan of action to
improve andenhance basedon review
results

A

University-Wide
IQA Organization

manage(directly /indirectly)A

D

Teaching andlearning
management foreach faculty,
graduate school,
and other
organizations

C

EachfacultyP
A

Each
graduateschoolC[P] Education plans and design based on three policies[D] Teaching[C] Review of effectiveness of education (sel-study)[A] Improvement and enhancement in light of review results

5

DC
Report on resultsof self-study

Review of appropriatenessand effectiveness of teaching
and learning managementPD1.3. Results, Process and Structure of University Accreditation
1.3.1. University Accreditation Results
JUAA provides the University Accreditation Results to the university. The University Accreditation Results comprises the accreditation decision (accredited or unaccredited ) and “Overview” giving a summary of the evaluation,
as well as the “General Remarks” and “Findings” for each standard (“Notable Strengths,” “Suggestions for Improvement,” “Areas of Serious Concern”).

i. Accreditation Decision
In the University Accreditation, a decision is made in accordance with the following standards based on the university’s comprehensive situation.
The criteria for judgment are defined as follows in Table I-1.

Accredited
Unaccredited<<Table I-1 Criteria for Accreditation Decision >>The university is at a suitable standard as a university and satisfies the University
Standards by carrying out initiatives to achieve its mission and purpose
The university has issues regarding important matters, * is not at a suitable standard
as a university and does not satisfy the University Standards as it does not carry out
initiatives to achieve its mission and purpose* “Issues regarding important matters” means matters proposed as Areas of serious concern that, if not improved, will be difficult for the university to secure a suitable education standard and quality, i.e., issues thatfall under the following.
✓✓✓

Due to that issue, students cannot receive an education meets their degree level
Due to that issue, stable and continuous implementation of university education and research is
not anticipated
The impact on education quality and university administration is extensive, such as being thesource of other significant issues

6

ii. Findings
There are three types of “Findings” attached to University Accreditation Results: “Notable Strengths,” “Suggestions for Improvement,” and “Areas of Serious Concern.” The definitions of those proposals are defined as follows in Table I-2.

NotableStrengths

Suggestions
for Improvement
Areas of Serious Concern<<Table I-2 Definitions of Findings>>(i) Matters for achieving the mission and purpose for which significant results havebeen identified (are anticipated)(ii) Matters that are groundbreaking or unique in Japan’s higher education for whichsignificant results have been identified (are anticipated)(i) Slight defects in basic requirements, or matters that are problematic to maintaininga suitable standard as a university and require improvement(ii) Other matters that require improvement to achieve the mission and purpose(i) Major defects in basic requirements, or matters that are significantly problematic tomaintaining a suitable standard as a university and require improvement(ii) Other matters that require drastic improvement to achieve the mission and purpose

Of the above, Suggestions for Improvement and Areas of Serious Concern are Comments for matters that are
problematic items which must be improved. In each case, a progress report is required after the university accreditation (see II.10. " After University Accreditation "). Of the Suggestions for Improvement, items (ii) arebased on the mission and purpose for each university, and are sometimes attached from an advisory perspective
for university enhancement. Therefore, it is expected that there will be a wide range of approaches among universities, in principle, improvement is the key to achievement.

1.3.2. Certificate of Accreditation and Accreditation MarkJUAA issues a Certificate of Accreditation and Accreditation Mark to accredited university that conforms to the
University Standards. By displaying the Accreditation Mark* on its website or in publications, the university canoffer wide appeal to the public by showing that JUAA guarantees the quality of the university’s education andresearch.
<<Diagram I-3 Accreditation Mark>>*There are separate guidelines for using the Accreditation Mark.

7

1.3.3. Accreditation Process
University Accreditation is normally implemented on a seven-year cycle. The following diagram represents theseven-year cycle, which involves eight major steps. Opportunities are provided for the university and JUAA toactively exchange ideas, such as the numerous opportunities for discussion and interviews during site-visit. In
addition, a characteristic of the process is to review the Progress Report after the University Accreditation andcontinuous support to improve and enhance the university.

<<Diagram I-4 University Accreditation Process>>* Steps (ii) to (vi) are carried out in the academic year of implementation of the University Accreditation.
The details of Diagram I-4 are as follows.
i. Self-study
University carries out self-study using “Evaluation Criteria” established under the University Standards, and compiles the results in the Self-Study Report (SSR). When compiling the SSR, university is required to take selfstudy by each faculty and graduate school into consideration. In addition, Basic Institutional Data, Basic Requirements Sheet, and other evidencing materials are prepared to support the statements in that report, and the university must compile those materials and submit them to JUAA by April 1st of the year in which the University
Accreditation is implemented.

8

ii. Document analysis (May to September)
Document analysis is carried out based on the SSR and other materials submitted by the university. The university
is told of any uncertain matters that arose in the document analysis and additional materials that are required at
the time of the site-visit, but depending on the circumstances, the university may be requested to respond during
the document analysis stage before the site-visit.
iii. Site-visit (September to October)
The site-visit is carried out based on the document analysis. The purpose of the site-visit is to gather the necessary
information to ensure the accuracy and validity of the document analysis while actually confirming the education,
research and efforts in quality assurance through discussion and interviews with the university personnel (i.e.,president, faculty members and students). The university is required to make preparations beforehand. As a general rule, the University Accreditation is carried out based on facts that have arisen on or before the site-visit.
iv. Presentation of University Accreditation Results (Committee's Draft) (December)
The University Accreditation Committee prepares the University Accreditation Results (Committee’ Draft) basedon the University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Draft) prepared after the document analysis and thesite-visit, and sends the draft results to the university.
v. Statement of opinion on draft results (January)
If there are any factual errors in the University Accreditation Results (Committee’s Draft), the university may
state its opinion. If the university has provided a statement of opinion, the University Accreditation Committee
deliberates on whether to adopt that opinion, and prepares the University Accreditation Results (Final Draft) basedon the result of that deliberation.
vi. Notification and publication of University Accreditation Results (March)
After the Board of Trustees determines the University Accreditation Results, JUAA notify the results to the university, reports to the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and published on JUAA
website.
vii. Preparation and submission of Progress Report
The university submits the Progress Report regarding the result of improvements worked on in relation to mattersproposed as requiring improvement in the University Accreditation Results (“Suggestions for Improvement” and“Recommendations”) by the end of the July that falls three years after receipt of the University Accreditation
Results.
viii. Review of Progress Report, and notification and publication of review results
The review of the Progress Report is carried out by the Progress Report Review Subcommittee under the University Accreditation Committee. The draft of the Progress Report Review Results is prepared by the University
Accreditation Committee based on the Subcommittee draft, and settled by the Board of Trustees. The university
is notified of the review results and those results are published on JUAA website.
If the improvements are insufficient, JUAA will request additional report to the university at the next University
Accreditation. Through the review of the Progress Report and publication of results, JUAA continuously offers
support to improve and enhance the university.
In case of denial of accreditation, the steps from (vii) onwards in Diagram I-4 change as detailed in the following
diagram (see 2.9. and 2.10.).

9

<<Diagram I-5 Appeal, Supplementary Review Process>>
March

University Accreditation Results

DenialApril to May

No later than two years after
University Accreditation

Appeal (optional)

Supplementary
Review(optional)

By the end of the July that falls
three years after receipt of the
University Accreditation Results

Submit Progress Report(optional)

10

Granting
accreditation

1.3.4. Organization
The organizational structure and the role are:<<Diagram I-6 Organizational Structure>>i. University Accreditation Committee
The University Accreditation Committee is an organization that plays a central role in implementing the University Accreditation, such as collating the University Accreditation Results.
The Committee comprises 20 people including ten members selected by the Board of Trustees from candidates
recommended by full member universities, five members nominated by the Board of Trustees, and five external
experts also nominated by the Board of Trustees. In addition, Advisors and Special University Evaluators who
assume the role of assisting the committee chair and vice-chair may also be assigned.
ii. University Review Subcommittee
The University Review Subcommittee is an organization to comprehensively evaluate the university through the
document analysis and the site-visit, and a University Review Subcommittee is established for each university.
The Subcommittee comprises five evaluators (including one subcommittee chief), as a general rule. Evaluators
are made up from faculty members in a position where they understand education and research as a whole orfaculty members with that experience (four evaluators) and personnel in a position of overlooking the administrative staff as a whole or an administration department (one evaluator). The Subcommittee may include Advisors
and Special University Evaluators of the University Accreditation Committee may participate in the Subcommittee’s evaluation as necessary.

11

iii. Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee
The Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee is an organization to evaluate financial matters under the University
Standards, and comprises certified public accountants, experts in university financial affairs, and other experts.
In addition, the number of panels is established under the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee for evaluating
the national, local public and private universities respectively. Members of the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee serve as panel chiefs, as a general rule.
iv. Progress Report Review Subcommittee
The Progress Report Review Subcommittee is an organization to review the status of improvement of mattersbased on Progress Reports submitted by the accredited universities.
v. Supplementary Review Subcommittee
The Supplementary Review Subcommittee is an organization to provide a supplementary evaluation of a university based on the Progress Report on the Supplementary Review submitted by universities that have been denied
accreditation as a result of the University Accreditation or the re-review.
vi. Appeal Committee
The Appeal Committee is an organization for examining appeals made by universities that have not been accredited as a result of the University Accreditation, re-review, or supplementary review. The Appeal Committee isestablished as an independent organization in order to guarantee the appropriateness of the review procedures.

12

2.

Preparation by Universities<<Diagram II-1 Process>><< Timing >><< Matter >>April of a year before the University
Accreditation

Participation in Explanatory Meeting

Drafting and preparation of evaluation materials (Study-Study Report,
etc.)

NovemberSubmission of University Accreditation Application

By the last day of April of the year of
University Accreditation

Submission of evaluation materials

By around the end of May

Payment of accreditation fees

May to September

Document analysis period(response to questions and submission of supplementary materials)

September to OctoberSite visit

JanuaryStatement of Opinion on University Accreditation Results (Committee's
Draft) (optional)

March

Receipt of University Accreditation Results< Accredited >See 4 of this chapter

See 5 of this chapter< Non-accredited>

Appeal against University Accreditation
Results (optional)

April to May of a year after University
Accreditation

Application for
supplementary review

one or two year after University
Accreditation(optional)

not later than 3 years after University
Accreditation

Before the end of July after 3 years havepassed since receipt of University
Accreditation Results

See 1 to 3 of thischapter

See 6 of this chapter

Submission of
Progress Report

Submission of Progress
Report (optional)

13

2.1

Concept of Self-study in University Accreditation

The “University Standards” define the IQA as a constant and continuous process within the university used forthe university to improve quality and to explain and verify at its own responsibility that education and study is at
an appropriate standard by causing the PDCA cycle to function appropriately (see Material 1: University Standards and its Rational, Standard 2). The standards also refer to PDCA as “education planning and designing, implementing, checking, and making efforts for improvement and enhancement.” The Self-study falls under the “C”
or “checking,” and takes place as one of the important elements of the IQA system. When implementing selfstudy, it is extremely important that is carried out objectively and fairly, and with sincerity, from the point of viewof improving and enhancing the university and university education, and being held accountable to the public.
The self-study that is of particular focus in University Accreditation is that carried out from the perspective of thewhole-university. Following is an explanation of the University Standards, Evaluation Criteria, and Evaluation
Perspectives, followed by the concept of self-study carried out from the perspective of the whole-university inparticular.

2.1.1 Self-study based on University Standards
i. University Standards
The University Accreditation is to determine whether a university satisfies to the University Standards set by
JUAA. The University Standards are made up of standards and its rationale.
The University Standards contain broad terms to improve and enhance the achievement of each university’s mission and purpose. The university can use it as guidelines for educational activities. Each university is required tounderstand and apply the University Standards in its self-study considering own specific circumstances.
ii. Evaluation Criteria
JUAA has established the “Evaluation Criteria” based on the University Standards as a framework for self-study.
Multiple items make up each of the ten standards that form the University Standards, and those items are established to be linked, starting in order from items that relate to the policy-setting and continuing to items related toinitiatives under policies, self-study, and improvement and enhancement. Accordingly, it is important that universities pay attention not only to the content of each item, but also to the mutual relationship of the items.
It should be noted that universities are not required to establish policies for each of the ten standards and to
conduct a self-study. This means that the fundamental concepts (policies, etc.) for carrying out the activities in
the university must be clarified, and then the universities should have various system and procedures for checking
on the appropriateness, and the necessary improvements and enhancements made.
In addition, when carrying out self-study using the Evaluation Criteria, the self-study must keep in mind theconcepts of the University Standards.

14

<< Diagram II-2 Evaluation Items (e.g., Standard 4) >>Policy(i ) The uni vers i ty ha s cl ea rl y defi ned degree a wa rd pol i ci es for ea ch degree
progra m, whi ch a re ma de a va i l a bl e to the publ i c.

(i i ) The uni vers i ty ha s cl ea rl y defi ned curri cul um des i gn a nd i mpl ementation
pol i ci es for ea ch degree, whi ch a re ma de a va i l a bl e to the publ i c.

(i i i ) Cours es a ppropri a te for ea ch degree a re offered i n a ccorda nce wi th curri cul um
des i gn a nd i mpl ementation pol i ci es for a coherent curri cul um.

Initiative(i v) Va ri ous mea s ures a re i n pl a ce for effective tea chi ng a nd to a ctiva te s tudent
l ea rni ng.
(v) Gra des , credi ts a nd degrees a re a ppropri a tel y a wa rded.

(vi ) Student l ea rni ng outcomes , a s i ndi ca ted i n degree a wa rd pol i ci es , a rea ppropri a tel y a s s es s ed a nd eva l ua ted.

Self-study,
improvement andenhancement(vi i ) The uni vers i ty regul a rl y i ns pects a nd eva l ua tes the a ppropri a tenes s of i ts
educa tiona l progra m a nd how i t i s i mpl emented. The res ul ts a re us ed a s a neffective mea ns to ens ure i mprovement of the educa tiona l progra ms .

iii. Evaluation Perspectives
Implementing self-study from the perspective of the whole-university to identify strengths and weaknesses is to
be based on the specific circumstances of each university. Therefore, even if using the Evaluation Criteria set by
JUAA, it is important for the university to make focus points clear in accordance with the circumstances andcharacteristics of each university.
In order to make focus points clear, it is effective to establish evaluation perspectives. For example, taking theuniversity’s circumstances into account, each university must consider in what “appropriateness” is assessed anddevelop an evaluation perspective. The university should carry out self-study more substantial.
In this handbook, there is the “Evaluation Perspectives” as reference (see Material 2: Evaluation Criteria and
Evaluation Perspectives). However, the example is articulated only based on the basic terms of the University
Standards, and if used, universities should make adjustments in line with their respective situations.

2.1.2. Self-study from Perspective of Whole-University
The “self-study implemented from the perspective of the whole-university” is not simply a collection of the selfstudies carried out by each faculty and graduate school. It means a process of assessing the present condition of15

the whole-university, sorting the outstanding matters and issues, and ascertaining future policies based on theassumption that each faculty and graduate school carries out self-study.
Faculties and graduate schools are specifically responsible for educational activities, and it is important for themto carry out self-study on their own activities, but that alone is not sufficient. The university is needed to link the
PDCA at each faculty and graduate school and the PDCA at the whole-university which the University - WideIQA Organization.

2.1.3. Specific Concepts of Self-study
Taking the self-study for Standard 4 (Educational Program and Outcomes) as an example, we overview how to
implement the self-study in detail.
Standard 4 is a standard for handling specific curricula and educational methods, so of all ten standards, it particularly tends to be perceived as appropriate that each faculty and graduate school carry out self-study separately
and the University-Wide IQA organization simply collects them afterwards. However, as stated earlier, university
must go through the steps of understanding the current situation at the university based on self-study by eachfaculty and graduate school, consolidating strengths and weaknesses, and ascertaining future policies.
For example, Evaluation Criteria (i) of Standard 4 requires self-study of degree award policy. However, self-study
from the perspective of the whole-university is not achieved by simply listing the current situation of “Faculty
A’s degree award policy is …, Faculty B’s …” and so on. Upon self-study by each faculty and graduate school,
it is necessary for the university to carry out self-study on specific matters, such as whether the degree award
policy has been established appropriately in accordance with the university’s overall fundamental policies,* andwhether there are any faculties or graduate schools with unclear learning goals.
In addition, the university should need to take care regarding Evaluation Criteria (iii) to (vi), i.e., checking andevaluating under the policies. Simply listing each faculty and graduate school’s initiatives (e.g. those for systematizing the curriculum and stimulating learning) is insufficient. Universities must confirm whether educational
activities are being carried out appropriately at the whole-university and whether there are faculties and graduate
schools that have issues in developing educational activities, and if there are any issues, then confirm that eachfaculty and graduate school is clarifying plans for improvement and what advice and support the management
body is offering. This self-study itself is one aspect of management of teaching and learning that can be carriedout by universities as a whole.

2.1.4. Self-study at each Faculty, Graduate School, and Organizations
Although self-study carried out from the perspective of the whole-university is the chief focus of University
Accreditation, it must again be pointed out that this does not mean that self-study is unnecessary at each faculty,
graduate school, and organizations. Self-study at each faculty and graduate school is naturally important, and thesignificance of self-study carried out from the perspective of the whole-university is based on the assumption thateach faculty and graduate school carries out self-study.

The need to set out fundamental policies for the university as a whole to establish the so-called “Three Policies” is statedin Standard 2 (Internal Quality Assurance) of the University Standards.
*

16

<<Diagram II-3 Self-study Process>>

It is appropriate to understand that the purposes and targets of self-study differ (see Diagram II-3 (Self-study
Process)). The subject of the self-study by each faculty and graduate school is the respective educational programs,
checking the effectiveness of education in light of the learning outcomes. In terms of the University Standards,
Standard 1 (Mission and Purpose), Standard 4 (Educational Program and Learning Outcomes), Standard 5 (Student Enrollment), and Standard 6 (Faculty Members and Faculty Organization) are the focus of the self-study at
faculty and graduate school level. In addition, the focus of the self-study in organizations is their responsibility(e.g., Standard 2 (Internal Quality Assurance), Standard 3 (Education and Research Structure), Standard 7 "Student Support," Standard 8 " Education and Research Environment," Standard 9 "Social Collaboration and Social
Contribution," or Standard 10 " University Management and Financial Affairs).Self-study at university-wide levelhas the function of understanding the circumstances of the whole-university based on the self-study by the faculties, graduate schools, and organizations and implementing a self-study of cross-sectional matters at the university.
When reviewing the effectiveness of education at each faculty and graduate school, it is important to utilize external reference standards and to adopt the view of external parties in order to increase objectivity. In addition,
attention should also be paid to the importance of carrying out self-study at the level of class subjects, as theeducational program is established through each faculty member’s initiatives.

17

The results of each faculty, graduate school, and organization's self-study and improvement/enhancement efforts
are reported to the university-wide internal quality assurance organization, which provide as one of the basic data
for teaching and learning management, and measures are taken as necessary. In the self-study from a universitywide perspective, the results of self-study and improvement/enhancement efforts by faculty, graduate schools,
and other organizations, as well as the status of teaching and learning management are taken into account in
identifying the university-wide status, and self-study cross-sectional matters are self-study, while also reviewing
the effectiveness of the internal quality assurance system.

2.1.5. Points to Remember when Implementing Self-study
Although it is suggested that each faculty and graduate school must carry out self-study before self-study of thewhole-university, there is no need for the belief that self-study at faculty/graduate school level must be carriedout at the same time. For example, it is possible that professional graduate schools undertake based on the intrinsic
cycle that matches certified evaluation and accreditation for professional graduate schools. In addition, it may be
best to consider methods that limit the topics targeted in each year. Regardless of the form taken, it is importantthat the university ascertains future policies with an appropriate perception of each faculty and graduate school’s
circumstances.
In addition, there are cases where the 2 step-method (implementing at faculty/graduate school level first and thatafter at university-wide level) may not be appropriate. For example, if universities that have only one faculty, it
should need to avoid the overlap of self-study between the program level and the institutional level. The main
point of self-study is so that rather than only persons engaged in educational activities in a specific faculty or
graduate school carrying out self-study, university executives also participate in self-study, and take responsibilityof all activities within the university as a whole. Therefore, if this point is guaranteed, a single-subject university
may implement comprehensive self-study. In this way, self-study requires the most substantiated method while
being based on the university’s organizational scale and characteristics.

18

2.2. Preparing the Self-Study Report (SSR) and the Rating Sheet
When preparing the SSR for University Accreditation, the university should write the SSR including all faculties
and graduate schools (including distance learning program and joint degree program (domestic or international).

2.2.1. Composition of the SSR• The SSR should be organized into three parts: introduction, main section, and conclusion.
• The introduction should be focus on giving an outline of what university has been carried out since receiving

the previous University Accreditation (Certified Evaluation and Accreditation of Universities).
• The main section should be stated the current situation covering 10 Chapters with the University Standards

by JUAA. Additionally, Chapter 10 “University Management and Financial Affairs” is divided into Section
1 “University Management” and Section 2 “Financial Affairs.”• The conclusion should be stated an overall summary and the future outlook.
• The introduction and conclusion section may include distinctive headings for each university, such as “Pref-ace” and “Last Section,” but the structure of the main section should be outlined with the University Standards. Also, it will include a table of contents.
<<Diagram II-4 Example of Table of Contents for SSR>>

Table of Contents
Introduction ······································································· ○Chapter 1 Mission and Purpose ················································· ○Chapter 2 Internal Quality Assurance ·········································· ○Chapter 3 Education and Research Structure·································· ○Chapter 4 Educational Program and Learning Outcomes···················· ○Chapter 5 Student Enrollment ··················································· ○Chapter 6 Faculty Members and Faculty Organization ······················ ○Chapter 7 Student Support ······················································· ○Chapter 8 Education and Research Environment ····························· ○Chapter 9 Social Cooperation and Contribution ······························ ○Chapter 10 University Management and Financial Affairs ·················· ○Section 1 University Management ··········································· ○Section 2 Financial Affairs ··················································· ○Conclusion········································································· ○2.2.2. Details of Main Section
The university should arrange the main section under four items: Current Situation, Strengths and Characteristics,
Defects, and Chapter/Section Conclusion. Following are key points for writing the SSR.
i. Current Situation

19

For each of the Evaluation Criteria, the university should describe the current situation and judgment on its effectiveness and appropriateness. The Evaluation Criteria are generic and basic details and expressions. Therefore,
the university should carry out the self-study after sufficiently checking what are required at each university basedon the University Standards.
• The explanation should be given from the perspective of the whole-university (see II.1. (Concept of Self-

study in University Accreditation)). Standard 1 (Mission and Purpose), Standard 4 (Educational Programand Learning Outcomes), Standard 5 (Student Enrollment), and Standard 6 (Faculty Members and Faculty
Organization) are no exception where the details differ for each faculty and graduate school. Also, be sure
to describe the current situation of the whole-university under those standards and the sampling situation
at the faculties and graduate schools. The appropriate method for raising an example depends on the details,
but when it comes to, for example, the “curriculum,” an example of a undergraduate program does not
explain the appropriateness of graduate school education, so examples appropriate to each case are required. At the same time, if undertaken under a university-wide policy, it may not be necessary to provide
examples from both undergraduate and graduate education. In addition, it is important that this is notviewed microscopically; for example, even if giving an explanation in relation to the curricula, details suchas a list of all subjects offered are not necessary.
• When the Evaluation Perspectives are established based on the Evaluation Criteria, describe what perspec-tives have been adopted, including when examples given by JUAA were adopted.
• Details of the fundamental matters including legal requirements are not required in the SSR as they aredetailed in the Basic Requirements Sheet. However, if there are circumstances where information should be
added, such as if the basic requirements are not satisfied, those details should be included.
• Matters to be improved that have been pointed out in the previous University Accreditation or the equivalent

must be made known in Evaluation Criteria (iii) of Standard 2 (Internal Quality Assurance). Specifically,
the following cases apply.
✓✓✓✓

If a university that underwent University Accreditation by JUAA last time has been requested tosubmit another report on matters for which improvement was reported in the Progress Report
If a university that underwent University Accreditation by JUAA last time was proposed Areas of
Serious Concernas a result of a supplementary review
If a university that underwent an institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation last time by aparty other than JUAA is recognized as falling under JUAA’s “Areas of Serious Concern”
If a university is given a “warning,” an “opinion for correction,” an “opinion for improvement,” or“points of note” in monitoring the progress of establishment plans by the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology

If any of the above applies, describe how the university received and implemented the suggestions and improvements made in the respective problematic matters. The description for each problematic issue may be added as
an attachment if the volume of descriptions is excessive due to the number of matters.
Evaluation Criteria generally comprise items in relation to policy setting, items in relation to initiatives under thepolicies, and items in relation to self-study, and improvement and enhancement for each standard under the University Standards. The respective points of note are as follows.

Evaluation Criteria -- policy setting• In the Evaluation Criteria which relate to policy setting, describe what the objectives or policies are. How-ever, do not comprehensively describe all of the objectives and policies in details. It is enough to attachmaterials for confirming details. Regarding matters that should be noted when setting policies, see I.2. ofthis handbook.

20

Evaluation Criteria -- initiatives• Describe what initiatives have been done, considering the policies that form the basis thereof is clear.
• It is desirable to illustrate with referring to initiatives in specific matters and its outcome.

Evaluation Criteria -- self-study, and improvement and enhancement• The final Evaluation Criteria of each standard is for the systems and procedures for self-study. It is required

to describe these with mentioning what measures for improvement are being carried out. For example, inthe case of Standard 5 (Student Enrollment), university is required to check and evaluate whether self-studies
and improvement measures for the entrance examination have been done appropriately, focusing on, forexample, organization or personnel responsible for self-study and its procedures. Description should include
the judgement of effectiveness and appropriateness of self-study.
• When giving details of the system and procedures for self-study, and improvement and enhancement, pay

attention so that the connection to the details described in the SSR in relation to Standard 2 (Internal Assurance Guarantee), such as what type of role has been performed by the University-Wide IQA Organization,is clear.
• It is important to make clear the university-wide situation. Therefore, if carried out based on the separate

system and procedures for each faculty and graduate school, describe the complete picture as an overview,and give specific examples of the systems and procedures of several faculties and graduate schools.
• If a number of university organizations are committed to the self-study and improvement, make the roles andprocedures easy to understand by using diagrams, tables, etc.
• Also mention actual results of self-study and examples of initiatives for improvement and enhancement. As

part of that, consider referring to improvement and enhancement plans regarding self-study currently carried out and strengths, characteristics, and issues discovered as a result of that. However, the specific detailsof strengths, characteristics, and issues, and initiatives for improvement and enhancement thereof, are discussed in the “Strengths and Characteristics” and “Defects,” as explained below. Therefore, limit this section to an outline.
ii. Strengths and Characteristics
It is important to clarify the “Strengths and Characteristics” that should specifically be adopted as a university
from the perspective of the university as a whole. “Strengths and Characteristics” refers here to any of the matterslisted below:✓ Matters for achieving the mission and purpose for which significant results have been achieved (areanticipated)✓ Matters that are groundbreaking or unique in Japan’s higher education for which significant results
have been achieved (are anticipated)• When giving a description, clearly indicate what the intended outcomes are, and state specific details while

demonstrating grounds that can confirm the actual results. In addition, include if there are specific plans toprogress the matters in the future or matters considered to be issues to further improve initiatives in the
future and a planned response thereto.
• This section details “Strengths and Characteristics” that should specifically be raised, so there is no needto raise strengths and characteristics with regard to all the areas which Evaluation Criteria covers. In addition, if there are no matters to be raised, simply write “N/A.”iii. Defects
As with Strengths and Characteristics, describe each matter in relation to the issues that arose as a result of selfstudy. “Issues” stated here indicates matters that fall under either of the following:21✓ Defects regarding basic requirements, or for maintaining a suitable standard as a university✓ Defects upon achievement of the mission and purpose• Include specific descriptions while showing the reason for deeming improvements necessary. In addition,

describe specific plans for any remedial measures for those matters (if already implemented, including progress).
• As with “Strengths and Characteristics,” there is no need to raise issues from all the areas which Evaluation

Criteria covers. In addition, if there are no matters to be raised, simply write “N/A.”

iv. Chapter/Section Conclusion
Reflect on the details described in “Current Situation,” “Strengths and Characteristics,” and “Defects,” and givean overall conclusion. Specifically, a summary is required based on the content required under the University
Standards, such as whether the initiatives are sufficient and in accordance with the policies and what measures
should be carried out in the future.
The details of the “Chapter/Section Conclusion” must conform to the grading in the Rating Sheet submitted with
the SSR. There is no need to refer to the grade point in the SSR.

22

<<Diagram II-5 Example of Format of Main Text of SSR>>
Chapter 4 Educational Program and Outcomes(1) Current Situation
Evaluation Criteria (i):The university has clearly defined degree award policies for each degree program, which are made available to the public.

If an Evaluation Perspective
has been established, givedetails.

Evaluation Perspective 1: Establishment of basic policy for university as a whole
Evaluation Perspective 2: Appropriate establishment and publication of Degree
Award Policy that explicitly states the suitable learning outcomes forthe degree, such as knowledge, technical skills, and attitude required
for the student to gain when completing the program
The basic policy of the university as a whole sets out that “…,” and each faculty andgraduate school specifically sets out each factor made up of “… ability” “… nature”
based on that policy (Material 1-3, Material 4-1). …
The details of the learning outcomes are clear and are published in a way that can easily be referred to by anyone. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Degree Award Policy is set out and published appropriately.

Make sure the details of thepolicy, etc. can be specifically understood.

Give the Explanation of
Current Situation for all
Evaluation Criteria.

Evaluation Criteria (iii):
Courses appropriate for each degree are offered in accordance with curriculum design and implementation policies for a coherent curriculum.
Evaluation Perspective 1: …
…

Each faulty and graduate school’s curriculum is, in general, appropriately compiled inaccordance with the respective curriculum design and implementation policy. That is tosay, under the undergraduate program, from the first year … is carried out based on thefact that the university-wide basic policy sets out “…,” and for example, Faculty A has
realized this as ……… (Material 4-8). …
…
XXXX is carried out. However, in the results of …, a difference has arisen at eachgraduate school, and with regard to sluggish graduate schools, there are remaining issues, such as the need for promotion measures (see diagram below).

23

With regard to matters carried out based on the same
framework and ideas, it isenough to mention only a
few faculties or graduate
schools as example.

With regard to mattersfor which a difference
has arisen for each faculty and graduate school
and matters intrinsic torespective situations, uselists, diagrams, and tables, and concisely describe in the text an outline of the situation fromthe perspective of theuniversity as a whole.

Evaluation Criteria (vii):
The university regularly inspects and evaluates the appropriateness of its educational program and how it is implemented. The results are used as an effective means to ensure improvement of the educational programs.
Evaluation Perspective 1: …
…
After the YY Committee installed at each faculty and graduate school has carried out
the self-study, the results thereof are reported to the University-Wide IQA Committee(Material 2-8). The University-Wide IQA Committee is to verify … based on those results (Material 4-14).
Faculty A
YY Committee
XX Committee

Give specific details on
the systems and procedures for self-study andimprovement based on
results thereof.
In doing so, pay attention
so that the connection to
the details in Standard 2,
such as what type of role
has been performed by
the University-Wide IQACommittee, are clear.

Faculty B
YY Committee

University-Wide Internal
Quality Assurance Promotion Committee

Graduate School C
YY Committee

The curricula, and details and methods thereof, have undergone self-study based on
this system, and as a result, it can be said to be functioning at this point in time. For example, it has led to improvements in … (Material 4-21).
(2) Strengths and Characteristics

24

Clearly indicate what theintended results are, andstate specific details
while demonstrating the
ground.

➢ There were strong results such as … with regard to … (which commenced inYEAR) to achieve …. Further, … should be done in future while continuing
verification and improving areas to be improved …… (Material 4-5).
➢ …. … (Material 4-7).
(3) Defects➢ Regarding …, … has not been carried out. From the point of view of student…, this can be said to be an issue (Basic Institutional Data Table X). Specificpolicies must be considered in the future, and this will be dealt with as quickly
as possible.
(4) Chapter/Section Conclusion
As detailed in the Explanation of Current Situation, overall, …, and it can be said thatgenerally appropriate education is being implemented in all degree programs. As astrength, ……. On the other hand, there are issues, and initiatives will be undertaken asa university for …… ….

Include specific descriptions while showing the reason for deeming improvements necessary.

For how to demonstrate evidencing materials , see II.3.
of the Handbook.

Make sure there are no discrepancies between the details of the “Chapter/Section
Conclusion” and the Rating Sheet submitted with the Self-Study Report.

2.2.3 Points to Remember when Writing the SSR
i. Clarification of the grounds
The SSR can be said to be a satisfactory report if it is based on appropriate evidence. Therefore, the university
should use materials that are direct basis, and pay attention so that there is no contradiction between the contentsof the description and the dates used between the SSR and the submitted materials (for how to prepare evidencing
materials, see II.3).
ii. Easy to understand
Make efforts so that the content of the SSR is easy for third parties to understand. In addition, efforts must be
made to include accurate facts and to include notes in relation to terms unique to the university.
iii. Addition of original chapters
University may establish original chapters that are not directly based on the University Standards and carry out
self-study of certain details at its own discretion. In the University Accreditation, the evaluator will carry out theevaluation in accordance with standards that are closely related to the University Standards.
All descriptions in the ten chapters under the University Standards must be in accordance with the Evaluation
Criteria established by JUAA and a university may not establish independent items.

2.2.4 Rating
University is required to rate “S,” “A,” “B,” or “C” regarding the matters for each of the ten University Standards
and state it in the Rating Sheet. Be particularly aware that there are no discrepancies between the details of the“Chapter/Section Conclusion” in the SSR and the rating. For example, if rated as “S,” the grounds for being
deemed to be “in extremely favorable circumstances based on the University Standards and of a standard where
initiatives that achieve the mission and purpose are superior” must be able to be understood from the “Chapter/Section Conclusion.”

25

S
A
B
C

<<Table II-1 Criteria for Rating>>
In extremely favorable circumstances based on the University Standards and of a superior
standard of initiatives to achieve the mission and purpose.
In favorable circumstances based on the University Standards and generally appropriate initiatives that achieve the mission and purpose.
Some defects based on the University Standards and requiring further efforts to achieve themission and purpose.
Severe defects based on the University Standards and requiring drastic improvements toachieve the mission and purpose.

* If applying the above rating standards to Standard 1 (Mission and Purpose), the section “initiatives to achieve
the mission and purpose” or “that achieve the mission and purpose” is irrelevant.

2.2.5 Format and Timing of Submission
i. Volume of the SSR
University should format for the SSR using pages of horizontal writing, with 40 Japanese characters by 40 rows
per page and no more than 100 pages, excluding the cover and the table of contents.
ii. Submission of the SSR and the Rating Sheet
University should submit the documents by the last day of April (for details, see 2.4.2). When submitting, do so
as electronic data in PDF format and as printed materials. A university should provide all electronic data on thesame media (e.g., CD) together with materials such as the Basic Institutional Data. With regard to the printed
materials, submit them with the Rating Sheet and the List of Materials, all bound in one file. The binding order is
List of Submission Materials, Rating Sheet, and SSR (see Diagram II-8).

26

2.3. Evidencing Materials
2.3.1. Type of Materials
i. Basic Institutional Data
These materials detail the minimum quantitative information that is necessary for the University Accreditation. The record date is May 1 of a year before the University Accreditation, unless otherwise specified.
Important points are annotated at introduction and each table.
ii. Basic Requirements SheetThis material briefly indicates whether the university meets the legal and other basic requirements. Throughthis material, a university can understand the current situation regarding basic requirements and give an outline to a third party.
The record date of the sheet is May 1 of a year before the University Accreditation, unless specifically indicated in the sheet (if the sheet states five years, it must include the past five years including a year before of
the University Accreditation). Refer to the sheet for other points of note.
iii. Evidencing Materials
University must prepare other various evidencing materials. The materials must be selected in accordancewith each university’s circumstances and in line with the self-study. However, there are materials that all
universities must submit regardless of whether they were used at the time of self-study. See Material 6 of thehandbook for details of required materials and specific content of optional materials. Following is some points
of note in preparation.
Objective and reasonable
The descriptions in the SSR must be agreed on by a third party to be reasonable and appropriate. For example,
evaluation results by a third party may be considered for evidencing that the curriculum is systematic andappropriate, and by doing so, a third-party perspective is added, and the objectivity and reasonableness ofthat description increases.
Showing achievements and outcomes
In order to be persuasive, it is important to use materials that show “achievements” and “outcomes” as necessary. That is to say, by only having materials that show that “there is a system for …” and materials thatsignify that “there are initiatives for …,” a university may only carry out a superficial self-study and cannot
sufficiently show appropriateness. In that case, it is important to utilize materials that specifically show theachievements and results such as “as a result of initiatives to …, there was an outcome of …” and “with theresult of …, we came to implement …” to be convincing.
Careful selection of volume and type of materials
Attaching a large number of materials does not necessarily constitute evidence for a third party. Sufficient consideration must be given regarding whether each material directly grounds or not. Moreover,from the point of view of the confidentiality and priority, it is also important to arrange materials into
those submitted in April and those prepared at the time of the site -visit.
Points of note for preparation
Allocate numbers to the materials in the order referred to in the SSR in the following way. There is no needto reassign material numbers for each new chapter. Use the material number first allocated throughout theentire document.

27

<< E.g. >> Base material 1-5

Material-specific no.
(Serial number within a chapter)

First appearance chapter
numberThere is no need to allocate a material number for the Basic Institutional Data or the Basic Requirements
Sheet. If referred to as a basis to the SSR, include the name of the materials and table numbers.
Booklet materials or the like that are only partially form an evidence, prepare extract materials comprising
the sections that serve as an evidence plus the following (excluding cases of required materials).
(1) Cover (2) Table of contents (3) Section to clarify publication year and publisher(4) Other sections required to understand the type and nature of the material
The submission of materials is not required when JUAA specifies the form as “website.” Even when JUAA
does not specify, a university may use materials on a website, if appropriate. However, if those materials or
the links are supposed to change or break, convert those websites into electronic data such as PDFs and submit
them.
Methods when utilizing materials on websites are specifically as follows.
⚫The SSR simply details the material number and that the materials are on a website (e.g. Base Material
X-X (Web)), and does not detail the URL or provide a link.
⚫Shortcuts to websites are established in prescribed areas on CDs, etc. that include electronic data material (detailed later) (see Diagram II-7).

<<Diagram II-6 Details of Self-Study Report>>……………………………………… (Base Material 3-12).
Also, …………………...……… (Base Material 1-5 (Web)).
In addition, ………………………………………………
(Basic Institutional Data Table 3, Base Material 3-13).

If website is used

If Basic Institutional Data is used

Points of note regarding particular materials• If the materials regarding Standard 4 (Educational Program and Outcomes), Standard 5 (Student Enrollment), and Standard 6 (Faculty Members and Faculty Organization) differ for each faculty and graduate
school, at the time of submission in April, only submit those of faculties or graduate schools referred toin the SSR. At the time of the site visit, prepare the materials of all faculties and graduate schools

28

including those not submitted in April. The scope of specified materials is detailed in Material 6 of thishandbook.
• Some of the materials for Standard 10 (University Management and Financial Affairs) require materials
for several years (Table II-2).

<<Table II-2 Materials Required for Several Years>>Standard No.
Standard 10 (2)Material Type・Audit report by auditor
・Audit report by auditing firm or certified public accountant
・Financial Statements

No. of Years Required
Six years until the year of
the University Accreditation

2.3.2 Timing and Format of Submission
Materials must be submitted on or before April 1st. However, submit audit reports and financial statements
for a year before the University Accreditation separately after the accounting audit.
The standard submission format is electronic data and, depending on the materials, submission of printed
materials is required (for details, see Table II-3 (Timing and Format of Submission of Evaluation Materials)).
In addition, submit the List of Materials (Form 8-1) together.
i. Electronic data
When submitting materials in April, provide the Basic Institutional Data, the Basic Requirements Sheet, andthe List of Materials in Excel format and other materials in PDF format, together with the SSR and the Rating
Sheet on the same medium (such as CD). On such occasion, separate each of the materials into folders andspecify the material number in the materials. For materials that form the evidence of multiple chapters, provide the data in the folder for the first chapter where that material appears, and create a shortcut to that datain all chapter folders that use that material.
If materials are difficult to submit in April due to reasons such as being unable to be converted into electronic
data and being voluminous, those materials may be prepared for the site visit. In that case, contact and confirm
with JUAA beforehand.

29

<<Diagram II-7 Submission of Electronic Data>>

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 10(1)Chapter 10(2)Basic Requirements Sheet (XXUniversity)

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Self-Study Report Basic Institutional(XX University) Data (XX University)

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

List of Materials(XX University)

Rating Sheet(XX University)

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

XXXX Policy

Divide into folders in line with the chaptersfor the Self-Study Report

YYYY Performance Data (Web)ZZZZ Website

Clearly indicate material no.

Annual Report of AAAA

Create a shortcut for materials on a website(create a PDF file if there is the possibility ofa dead link)

BB Committee Agenda
CCCC Website (Web)ii. Printed materials
Submit printed materials in addition to electronic data for the Basic Institutional Data, the Basic Requirements Sheet, financial statements, audit reports, and the List of Materials. The submission format is inaccordance with Diagram II-8.
<<Diagram II-8 Printed Materials Submission>>
List of Materials
Rating Sheet
Self-Study Report

Basic Institutional Data
Basic Requirements Confirmation Sheet* Divide into three files andbind materials in the ordershown in this diagram

Financial statements
Audit report* Bind the materials for all years into one file30

<<Table II-3 Timing and Format of Submission of Evaluation Materials>>

April *1
FormatMaterial Type

Self-Study Report
Rating Sheet

Basic Institutional Data
Basic Requirements Sheet(Faculties or graduate(Electronic data)(printed materials)

VolumeVolume

○
(PDF)
○
(PDF)
○
(Excel)○(Excel)○(Excel)Other materials

Specified materials
schools referred to in Study
from those prepared and Evaluation Report)
by each faculty andgraduate school(*2) (Other than above)

○
(PDF)

Financial reports (financial statements)
Audit report
Material other than that above○○
CDs, etc.
containing
all 16

Bound insame
file 16○○○(Electronic data)(printed materials)

VolumeVolume

○
(PDF)
○
(PDF)
✕

○
Bound in(Excel)same○
file 16(Excel)

✕

－

○
(PDF)

✕

－

○
(PDF)

○
(PDF)

○

5

○
(PDF)

○
(PDF)

✕

－

○
(PDF)

✕

－

○
○
－

○

Prepare the same data as that submitted
in April on two notebook PCs

List of Material

Site Visit
Format○Bound insame
file 2○

Bound insame
file 2

○*3

2

○*3

2

○

2

✕

－

*1 Submit financial statements and audit reports for a year before the University Accreditation after the accounting audit is completed.
*2 See Material 3 of the Handbook*3 Materials that can be prepared as actual articles, such as books
In addition to the materials shown above, there are some materials required to prepare for site visit (see II.5(2) of the Handbook).

31

2.4 Application for University Accreditation
2.4.1 Application Form
University should check the status that is satisfied for the following eligibility before sending the application (Form 1). If the university wishes to become a full member of JUAA, it should also submit the application form for full membership (Form 2).
• University (four-year) or graduate university:
As of April of the year of the University Accreditation, the first enrolled students have completed
the program and a further one year or more has passed.
• University (six-year):
As of April of the year of the University Accreditation, the first enrolled students have completed
the program.
JUAA accept the application form from 1st November to 30 November of the previous year of the University Accreditation. After receiving the application, JUAA sends the receipt notification and notifies procedures to the university by the end of December.
If withdrawing the application due to unavoidable circumstances, send the written request (Form 3) on or
before the last day of March. After that deadline, JUAA will officially announce the name of the university.

2.4.2 Evaluation Materials
University submits the evaluation materials (SSR, Rating Sheet, Basic Institutional Data, Basic Requirements Sheet, List of Material, and evidencing materials) in the prescribed format and number on or before
the last day of April (see chapter 2.3.). The university submits audit reports and financial statements of
the year before the University Accreditation promptly after the accounting audit is completed. Evaluationmaterials may not be replaced after submission.
Due to the concentration of submissions immediately before the deadline, the university should contact
JUAA beforehand of the expected arrival date and volume.
After end of the evaluation, JUAA will keep some of the submitted evaluation materials and suitably
dispose of the remaining materials so that they are not leaked externally. However, the university should
notify JUAA if it wishes for the materials to be returned as JUAA can return the materials, excluding those
kept by JUAA.

2.4.3 Accreditation Fees
After receipt of the evaluation materials, JUAA sends an invoice for accreditation fees. The university
should then transfer the accreditation fee to the designated account detailed in the invoice on or before thedeadline designated by JUAA (around the end of May). If payment before the designated deadline isdifficult, the university should contact JUAA.
If the university is a full member university, the accreditation fee is the total of (1) and (2) below, and if
the university is not a full member, the accreditation fee is the total of (1), (2) and (3) below. Consumption
tax is added to (1) through (3) below.
(1) Base amount 2,000,000 yen + consumption tax(2) 350,000 yen per faculty or graduate school (*1) (*2) (*3) + consumption tax(3) Amount equivalent to 5 times the full member fee (*4) + consumption tax

32

Admission capacity
Less than 1,000
Less than 2,000
Less than 3,000
Less than 5,000
Less than 8,000<<Table II-3 Full Member Fee (p.a.)>>200,000 yen
Less than 10,000

800,000 yen

350,000 yen
500,000 yen
600,000 yen
700,000 yen

900,000 yen
1,000,000 yen
1,100,000 yen
1,200,000 yen

Less than 15,000
Less than 20,000
Less than 30,000
30,000 or more

*1 Calculated based on the faculties and graduate schools in a year before the University Accreditation.
However, faculties and graduate schools that have not enrolled students more in that year are not included.
*2 Even when the professional school have already undergone the Certified Evaluation and Accreditation at the professional graduate school level, that school is included in the calculation.
*3 If evening or distance learning division is attached to a faculty offering daytime program of same
field, the division is not included in the calculation (if there is a similar example in graduate schools,
the fee calculation is handled the same as).
*4 If the university is approved to become a full member of JUAA, it will be exempt from the full member fee for five years.

1
2
3

4

5

Example Calculation of Accreditation Fees
Faculty or graduate school name
Admission capacity
Faculty of Literature
480
Faculty of Law
810
Graduate School of Literature
35
Major in Humanities (Master’s Program, Doctoral Program)
Graduate School of Law
80
Major in Law (Doctoral Program)
Major in Public Policy (Professional
Degree Program)
Graduate School of Law
170
Major in Practical Law (Professional
Degree Program)
Total
1,575

Full member• (1) Base amount: 2,000,000 yen × 1.08 (consumption tax) = 2,160,000 yen• (2) Amount added in accordance with the number of faculties and graduate schools:
350,000 yen × 5 faculties and graduate schools × 1.08 (consumption tax) = 1,890,000 yen
Total 4,050,000 yen
Not Full member• (1) + (2) = 4,050,000 yen• (3) Amount equivalent to 5 times the full member fee (p.a.):350,000 yen × 5 x× 1.08 (consumption tax) = 1,890,000 yen
Total 5,940,000 yen

33

2.5

Before site-visit

The University Review Subcommittee and the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee, which
are established under the University Accreditation Committee, conduct document analysis basedon submitted evaluation materials. If the evaluators have any questions or requests for additional
materials, the university should need answer to questions or prepare their requests.

2.6

Site-visit

2.6.1 Purpose
The purposes of the site-visit are as the follows:• To collect necessary information to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of evaluations
while actually confirming the stance towards education, research and quality assurance byhaving discussions and interviews (i.e., president, faculty members and students)• To conduct beneficial exchanges of opinions to support the further development of the university

2.6.2 Campus and Schedule
The site-visit is, in principle, conducted at the campus with the university headquarters over two
consecutive days in late September or October.
JUAA gives notice in around late May of possible dates for site-visit with the list of the evaluators.
The dates will be determined in June after consultation with the university.

2.6.3 Participants in Site-visit
i. JUAA
The members of the University Review Subcommittee will visit the university. If necessary, theevaluator of the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee will also visit. The JUAA staff (2 or 3
people) will go along with the evaluators.
ii. University
The president, responsible personnel for IQA, deans, and other personnel who can answer questions from JUAA should attend the general discussion. Personnel of corporate business section
might also be asked to attend if necessary.

2.6.4. Program of Site-visit
Table II-4 shows the two-day site-visit schedule.

34

<<Table II-4
9:30–12:00
12:00–13:00
13:00–15:00
15:00–15:10
15:10–16:10
16:10–17:30

Sample Schedule>>

Day 1
Evaluators meeting
Break
General discussion
Break
Individual interview
Evaluators meeting

9:30–10:00
10:00–11:00
11:00–11:10
11:10–12:10
12:10–13:10

Day 2
Evaluators meeting
Individual interview
BreakStudent interview
Break

13:10–14:10
14:10–14:40
14:40–16:30
16:30–17:30

Individual interview
Evaluators meeting
General discussion
Evaluators meeting

i. Evaluators meeting
Evaluators review materials and collect and analyze information during the meeting.
ii. General discussion
All evaluators meet with the president and people responsible at the university to make sure forthe unsure matters.
General discussion is held twice in total and once each day. At the first session, there is time fora presentation by the university (around 30 minutes). During the presentation, the university
should describe its IQA system, characteristics and issues that became clear during self-study,
and plans aimed at improvements and enhancements.
iii. Individual interview
There are some interview sessions with individual personnel (academic / administrative staff).
iv. Student interview
Students (in principle, people who study at the campus where the site visit is conducted) are interviewed to hear a wide range of views to ensure the appropriateness of the evaluation. Faculty
members and other university staff may not attend student interviews.
v. Tour of facilities (when necessary)
The evaluators will visit and inspect the facilities and equipment of the university to check theactual condition of those facilities and equipment. That will be conducted only if the subcommittee judges it is necessary.

2.6.5. Preparation of materials prior to Site-visit
JUAA will send the University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Draft) and the site-visit
schedule (draft) no later than five weeks before the site visit.
The university should prepare the following materials and submit them to JUAA no later than tendays before the site visit. The university should provide each of the following materials in written
and electronic formats.

35

⚫University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Draft) (in which answers to questionsand views on the accreditation results have been entered)⚫Evidencing materials for the above (that can be submitted in advance)⚫List of Materials (Form 8-2)
* Materials including those prepared on the day of the site-visit are to be listed.
Materials subject to “site-visit” in the List of Materials as of April (materials used as thebasis for the SSR whose submission in April was postponed and materials concerning
specific matters in the faculties/graduate schools that are to be prepared in the site-visit(materials specified in Material 6 of the Handbook))* When listing those materials, categorize them into those that will be submitted in advanceand those that will be prepared on the day of the site-visit.
⚫Site Visit Agenda (Form 12)⚫Attendees List at Discussion (Form 13) and Seating Plan (any format)⚫Attendees List at Student Interview (Form 14) and Seating Plan (any format)⚫List of Facilities subject to Facility Tour (only when visiting and inspecting facilities andequipment, any format)⚫Access Map to the university (any format)

2.6.6. Site-visit venue
The university should prepare one room for the evaluators, one or more room for discussions, anda room to interview students.
The university should prepare two sets of each of the following materials together with thoseabove in the room for the evaluators. Further, the university should either put one of the two sets
in a box that can be taken. The university may provide one additional set of those materials in thediscussions room so that it is possible to use one set of those materials in the discussion room.
⚫Evaluation materials submitted in April (SSR, Basic Institutional Data, Basic Requirements Sheet, List of Materials, and other evidencing materials)⚫Materials whose submission in April was postponed⚫Materials concerning specific matters in the faculties/graduate schools that are to be prepared in the site visit (see Material 6 of the Handbook for details)⚫Evidencing materials of answers to questions and views on the draft accreditation resultsthat are to be prepared on the day of the site visit⚫Laptop computers for materials reviews* Laptop computers should be able to connect to the Internet so that it is possible to refer tomaterials.
JUAA might request additional materials during the site-visit.

2.6.7. Expenses
JUAA will bear all travel expenses and lunch expenses for attendees from JUAA.

36

2.7
Opinion Statements on the University Accreditation Results (Committee’s Draft)
JUAA sends the University Accreditation Results (Committee’s Draft) in around late December.
If the university finds any factual errors or any expression that might cause a misconception inthat draft, it may make a statement of opinion. In principle, a statement of opinion may only
consider events that have occurred on or before the site-visit.
If the university will make a statement of opinion, it should prepare the document using the form
(Form 15) and submit that together with the evidencing materials and a list of those materials(Form 8-3) on or before a date specified by JUAA in January-February. JUAA will send the response to the appeal with the University Accreditation Results in March.

2.8

University Accreditation Results

University Accreditation Results (Final Draft) prepared by the University Accreditation Committee through an opinion hearing procedure are to be finally determined as the University Accreditation Results by the Board of Trustees (February to March). After making a final determination,
JUAA will notify the results to the university. A Certificate of Accreditation and an Accreditation
Mark will be issued to the university if the university has been accredited.
JUAA also reports University Accreditation Results to the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology as result of Certified Evaluation and Accreditation, and it publishes thoseresults on JUAA website.
Rating by the evaluators will be notified the university but not be publicized.

2.9

Appeals against University Accreditation Results

The university that has not been accredited or suspended the decision may make an appeal requesting the revocation of that decision. If the university is to make an appeal, it should submit
the documents in designated form (Form 16 and Form 17) with evidencing materials within two
weeks from the day on which it receives the University Accreditation Results.
If an appeal is made, the Appeal Committee, which is independent from the University Accreditation Committee, will conduct a review to confirm whether there is any error in the facts that are
the basis for the decision in the University Accreditation Results. The Board of Trustees will
make a decision on the University Accreditation Results based on the results of that review. The
university will be notified of the results of the review, and those results will also be reported to
the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and published on JUAA website.
If the Appeal Committee conducts a hearing of opinions or site-visit in the process of a review, it
will charge the university for those expenses.

37

2.10. After University Accreditation
2.10.1. Evaluation Materials on the Website
After the university has received University Accreditation Results, it should post the University
Accreditation Results and the SSR on the university’s website no later than May 1. The university
should also publish any other evaluation materials to the extent practicable. The university should
exercise caution with respect to the handling of personal information when publishing materials.

2.10.2. Progress Report
If it is found that there is a problem that requires improvement in the University Accreditation,
Areas of Serious Concern or Suggestion for Improvement will be proposed in the University Accreditation Results. Each accredited university should summarize the status of improvement as a
Progress Report (Form 18) and submit that together with the evidencing materials (no later thanthe end of July three years after receipt of the University Accreditation Results).
It is also possible to submit a Progress Report before three years have passed if the improvementof all of the issues is complete. In that case, the university should contact JUAA by the end ofJanuary of the year of submission. JUAA will notify the university in writing in April of specificmatters for preparing the Progress Report.
General points to note are as follows.
• Areas of Serious Concern and Suggestions for Improvement are different findings dependingof the problem. However, in either case, the university will definitely be requested to make
improvements and to report to JUAA on the status of the improvements (see Table I-2 for thedefinition of proposals).
• If a problem has not been improved, the university should explain that and describe what
measures the university will take from now to improve that problem.
• Progress Reports form (Form 18) contain a part that describes the status of general initiatives
after University Accreditation. In that part, rather than describing individual problems, theuniversity should describe from a whole-university perspective how the university accepted
recommendations or suggestions, the system under which improvements are to be made, andthe measures it has taken (or will take) aimed at improvement.
The Progress Report Review Subcommittee reviews the status of improvements based on Progress Report, and the University Accreditation Committee prepares Progress Report Review Results (Committee’s Draft) based on those results. Progress Report Review Results (Committee’s
Draft) will be sent to the university to be checked for factual errors. After that procedure, Results
are finalized by the University Accreditation Committee and the Board of Trustees. The university
will be notified of the Progress Report Review Results, and those Progress Report Review Results
are published on the website of JUAA. After the university has received Progress Report Review
Results, it should post the Progress Report Review Results and the Progress Report submitted to
JUAA on the university’s website.
Progress Report Review Results might contain the following.
• There might be a request for a second report with respect to matters where it is found that
improvement is insufficient. If the university has received such a request, it should describe
the status of improvement in the prescribed locations in the SSR for the next University Accreditation (see 2.2.2 of the handbook).
• If a matter is particularly significant and the situation is equivalent to a denial of accreditationor suspension of decision, there might be a request for annual reports on the status of38

improvement instead of the above. If the university receives such a request, it should provide
annual reports until the next University Accreditation.

2.10.3. Supplementary-review
If the university has not been accredited as the result of the University Accreditation may undergo
a supplementary-review seeking another decision on whether the university meets the University
Standards. In a supplementary review, the university should report on the status of improvementof all matters requiring improvement (Areas of Serious Concern and Suggestions for Improvement) in the University Accreditation Results. The decision in a supplementary-review will bemade based on the status of improvement of the matters that were the cause of the decision to
unaccredited.
University may make only one application in one or two years after the University Accreditation
was conducted.
If the university applies for a supplementary-review, it should submit an application in designatedform (Form 20) by the specified deadline. After receiving an application, JUAA will send theuniversity a receipt notice and notify of procedures going forward.

<<Table II-5 Supplementary-review Application Deadlines>>
Applying in a year after the University Accreditation or re-review
From June 1 to June 30 in the year of the
supplementary review

Applying in two years after the University
Accreditation or re-review
From January 6 to January 31 in the year of
the supplementary-review

Following that, the university should prepare and submit Progress Report for Supplementaryreview (Form 21), in which the status of improvement is described. The university should also
submit the evidencing materials. Submission should be done by the specified deadline.
<<Table II-6 Progress Report for Supplementary-review Submission Deadlines>>
Applying in a year after the University Accreditation or re-review
By the end of July in the year of the supplementary review

Applying in two years after the University
Accreditation or re-review
By the last day of April in the year of the
supplementary review

The fee for a supplementary-review is 700,000 yen (and consumption tax). However, the accreditation fee might be increased by as much as 300,000 yen (and consumption tax) depending on
the contents of the review. The university should pay the accreditation fee by a deadline specified.
When conducting supplementary-review, the Supplementary Review Subcommittee conducts
document analyses and site-visit, and the University Accreditation Committee drafts Supplementary Review Results (Committee’s Draft) based on those results. The university will be given an
opportunity to state its opinion on those Supplementary Review Results (Committee’s Draft) (theprocedures are the same as those for opinion statements on University Accreditation Results(Committee’s Draft)). Taking the opinion into consideration, a final decision on the Supplementary Review Results will be made by the Board of Trustees (February–March).

39

After a final decision has been made, the university will be notified of the results. JUAA will also
report the results to the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and it
will publish on JUAA website. The university should also post on its website the Progress Reportfor Supplementary-review it submitted to JUAA.
University that has been denied accreditation may make an appeal requesting the revocation ofthat decision if that decision is based on a factual error (the procedures are the same as those forappeals against University Accreditation Results).

40

3.

Evaluators

3.1. Basic Principles
The basic principles of evaluations are explained below before explaining specific evaluation
tasks.

3.1.1. Standards
The University Standards are the standards for evaluations. The University Standards are madeup of standards and the rationale, and the basic concept of what should be considered appropriate
is provided for in those parts.
Evaluation Criteria have been established under the University Standards as a framework for universities to conduct self-study. University Accreditations are conducted based on self-study byuniversities, so evaluators use those Evaluation Criteria as a framework for evaluation. While theevaluation differs depending on the university’s mission and purpose and circumstances, there
are several perspectives that become important as evaluators use Evaluation Criteria. Those perspectives are summarized in Evaluator’s Perspectives (Material 5).

3.1.2. Principles and Ethics in Evaluation
Evaluators should proceed with evaluations while keeping the following in mind.
⚫Conduct University Accreditations based on each university’s mission and purpose, and various policies, and evaluate while fully considering characteristics such as the background,size and the disciplines of the university.
⚫In principle, evaluations should be conducted from the perspective of the whole-university.
In other words, evaluate matters concerning specific departments by looking at how thoseare viewed by the university management body, how strengths that should be enhanced andmatters that require improvement are supported by the management body, and what improvements have been achieved.
⚫Focus on the function of IQA system. In other words, conduct the evaluation by understanding in a sequence of planning, implementing and reviewing the education. If there are any
problems, evaluators need to examine how the university itself is taking measures for the
improvement of those issues, including the function of the University-Wide IQA Organization.
⚫Explore the university’s strengths such as significant results that have been achieved.
Evaluators should also take note of the following in order to conduct evaluation activities in a fairand sincere manner.
⚫Evaluation materials submitted by the university must not be used for a purpose other thanthe University Accreditation and must not be divulged to an outside party. After the evaluation, be sure to return evaluation materials to JUAA.
⚫Take care to ensure no doubts arise among the public as to the relationship between theevaluator and the university. Also, do not impose opinions of the evaluator on the university
at the time of site-visit.

Also refer to the rules of JUAA for protecting confidentiality and personal information.

41

3.1.3. Evaluation Process and Evaluator’s Perspectivesi.

Evaluation process

Evaluations are conducted for each item in line with the Evaluation Criteria. The Evaluation Criteria themselves have been established based on the University Standards, and evaluators rely on
the University Standards as the standards for judging appropriateness and effectiveness, so evaluators should first understand the contents of the University Standards, and then conduct evaluations in line with the Evaluation Criteria.
ii.

Evaluator’s Perspectives

When evaluating, evaluators should confirm the perspective from which they are required to readthe SSR and other materials while referring to the Evaluator’s Perspectives set by JUAA (Materials 5).
For example, for the first Evaluation Criteria in Standard 2 (IQA) which relate to university-wide
IQA policies and procedures, there are multiple points to be noted as Evaluator’s Perspectives(e.g. the contents of the procedures). Each of the perspectives shows the important elements, so
evaluators should conduct evaluations while considering all perspectives.
There are many perspective that pose questions in the form of “what” or “how.” That is to consider
the differences among universities and to avoid monolithic evaluations. For example, there is aperspective that asks “what kind of members make up the University-Wide IQA Organization?"in Standard 2-(ii). The evaluator should first understand how that university makes efforts (meaning the composition of the members) based on its policies, and then evaluate whether those efforts
will achieve what is required by the University Standards.
<<Diagram III-1 Evaluator’s Perspectives (example: part of Standard 2)>>Standard 2 – Internal Quality Assurance
Evaluation Criteria (i)The university has a clearly defined policy and procedure for internal quality assurance,
which it informs to relevant university personnel.
<Evaluator’s Perspectives>
What are the contents of the university-wide policies and procedures for IQA?
How are the above policies and procedures shared within the university?
Evaluation Criteria (ii)The university has an entity responsible for enhancing internal quality assurance and asystem to carry out procedures to fulfill this responsibility.
<Evaluator’s Perspectives>
How is the university-wide IQA system structured?
How is the authority and the role of the University-Wide IQA Organization and otherorganization(s) that play a major role in IQA set out in the rules of the university andhow are roles divided among organizations such as faculties and graduate schools andthe form cooperation with those organizations should take set out in the rules of the university?
What kind of members make up the University-Wide IQA Organization?
Evaluators should also take note of the following when referring to the Evaluator’s Perspectives.

42• Given that self-study by each university is conducted depending on the circumstances of that
university by, for example, the university setting its own evaluation perspectives, give adequate attention to what the university specifically focuses on. Therefore, perspectives forevaluators are not necessarily limited to those set by JUAA.
• Evaluation Criteria are comprised of the items regarding the policy setting, implementation,
review and improvement actions, and all the items are linked together. Conduct evaluations
while recognizing this concept.
• When referring to the SSR, be sure to understand not only the descriptions of the current
situation, but the overall contents. Evaluator should look at all the efforts including themeasures to enhance strengths or improve problems.
• There are also perspectives in Standard 1 (Mission and Purpose), Standard 4 (Educational
Program and Learning Outcomes), Standard 5 (Student Enrollment), and Standard 6 (Faculty
Members and Faculty Organization) that are for specific individual matters (e.g. consistency
between Curriculum Design and Implementation Policy and educational program). Conduct
evaluations with respect to those perspectives with an approach that considers whether thecontents of the university’s explanation are reasonable rather than directly evaluating contents such as class formats and class methods in a discipline-specific viewpoint. In otherwords, evaluators should conduct evaluations from perspectives such as whether the management body of the university understands the circumstances in each faculty and graduate
school and whether the appropriateness of faculties and graduate schools has been sufficiently shown, and whether university-wide advice and support to be provided if there is an
issue in any faculty or graduate school.

43

3.2. Evaluation by the University Review Subcommittee<<Diagram III-2 Evaluation Process by the University Review Subcommittee>><<Time>>May<<Matter>>
Attending the evaluator training seminar
Receipt of evaluation materials

See 2.(1) in this Section

Writing the Evaluation Findings

See 2.(2) in this Section

Up to early/middle ofJuly

Writing the University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Draft)

See 2.(3) in this Section

Up to one week before
the subcommittee meeting

Writing the University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee Chief’s Draft)

Up to middle of June

Late July or August

University Review Subcommittee Meeting

Within one week after
the end of the subcommittee meeting

Writing the University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Draft)

Ten days before thesite-visit

Receipt of the materials forsite-visit

September or OctoberSite-visit

Early November

Writing the University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Final Draft)44

See 2.(4) in this Section

See 2.(5) in this Section

See 2.(6) in this Section

3.2.1. Evaluation Materials
The evaluation materials to be submitted by each university are as follows.
[A] SSR[B] Rating Sheet[D] Basic Requirements
Sheet[E] Evidencing materials[C] Basic Institutional
Data[F] Others

Evaluation materials will be sent from JUAA office to each evaluator upon the commencementof the evaluation. Almost all Evaluation materials [E] are only electronic data, but other evaluation materials will be in the form of printed materials and electronic data. If there are necessary
materials other than the above, the university may be requested to provide those materials, so theevaluator should consult with JUAA office.

3.2.2. Writing the Evaluation Findings
In the first stage of the document analysis, each evaluator writes his or her findings with respect
to the standards of which he or she is in charge (those findings will be the base for the University
Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Draft)).
<Procedures>• Prepare evaluation findings by dividing the ten standards comprising the University Standards among all evaluators other than the subcommittee chief. Each evaluator should be incharge of around five standards, and roughly two evaluators should be in charge of each area.
• Prepare Evaluation Findings using the prescribed Findings Entry Sheet (Form 9) and submitthat to the JUAA by email. The submission deadline is a specified date in the middle of June.
<Points to Note >• The Findings Entry Sheet is made up of descriptions for each area of the University Standards and descriptions regarding the standards as a whole ((v) and (vi) below), and each of
the points to note are as follows.
General Remarks• Describe the results of the evaluation based on the University Standards with referring to the
Evaluator’s Perspectives. That description should be made by not simply facts such as systems but also the evaluator’s judgement on the appropriateness and effectiveness. It is also
necessary to show the reasons and grounds for the judgement (if any evaluation materials
are referred to, clearly indicate the names of those materials and the places that are referredto).
• Multiple Evaluation Criteria are set out in each standard and multiple Evaluator’s Perspectives are set out in each Evaluation Criteria. Ensure Evaluation Findings are described byeach Evaluation Criteria, and avoid using a format with a list of short questions and answers
for each Evaluator’s Perspective• The Basic Requirements Sheet simply shows conditions such as a number of full-time faculty members. Confirming the basic requirements is important. However, those are nothing
more than one element, so do not focus only on the status of basic requirements. Together
with the document analysis by the evaluators, JUAA will check to confirm whether the basic
requirements are satisfied or not. If there is a problem, the evaluators will be informed by

45

JUAA at the time of the preparation of Subcommittee’s Draft, and the evaluators will rewrite
the General Remarks and the Proposals as required (see III.2.(3)Subcommittee’s Draft).
• University Accreditation is to be done from a whole-university perspective, so evaluators
should evaluate the university as a whole in line with that university’s mission and purpose.
Therefore, even with standards concerning individual faculties and graduate schools such as
Standard 4 (Educational Program and Learning and Outcomes), conduct evaluations with afocus on matters such as what the circumstances are at the university as a whole, how university management body views those circumstances, what university-wide support is provided with respect to strengths to be enhanced and required improvements to lead to improvements and enhancements. At that time, it is important to look at the specific circumstances of faculties and graduate schools as specific examples, but it is not necessary to cover
all of the faculties and graduate schools in Evaluation Findings. Conduct the evaluation
based on faculties and graduate schools that are referred to in the SSR.
• Materials of faculties and graduate schools that are not referred to in the SSR are preparedat the time of the site-visit. If it is not possible to fully evaluate the appropriateness of theuniversity-wide circumstances, conduct the evaluation by looking at more individual faculties and graduate schools during the site-visit and checking faculties and graduate schools ina cross-organizational manner with respect to points that should be particularly clarified asa subcommittee (see III.2.(5)).
<<Diagram III-3 Description of Exemplar Evaluation Findings in light of Circumstancesof each Faculty and Graduate School>>
Based on a Curriculum Design and Implementation Policy, small classes are thoroughly implemented throughout all faculties and many practical lessons such as field work are adopted.
In Faculty B in particular, xxx was adopted in academic year 20xx, and xxx is being carriedout (pp. 23–24 of Base Material 4-x). As a result, the level of satisfaction among students andthe pass rate of xxx have increased, and it is possible to recognize learning outcomes with respect to xxx (pp. 42–44 of Base Material 4-x).

Findings• There are three types of findings: Notable Strengths, Suggestions for Improvement, and Areas of Serious Concern. It is possible to make special mention of a proposal if any matterdescribed in the General Remarks falls under any category in the following table.
<<Table III-1 Definitions of Findings>>
NotableStrengths

Suggestions
for Improvement
Areas of Serious Concern(i) Matters for achieving the mission and purpose for which significant results have been identified (are anticipated)(ii) Matters that are groundbreaking or unique in Japan’s higher education
for which significant results have been identified (are anticipated)(i) Slight defects in basic requirements, or matters that are problematic tomaintaining a suitable standard as a university and require improvement(ii) Other Matters that require improvement to achieve the mission andpurpose(i) Major defects in basic requirements, or matters that are significantly
problematic to maintaining a suitable standard as a university and require improvement

46

(ii) Other Matters that require drastic improvement to achieve the mission
and purpose• Suggestions for Improvement and Areas of Serious Concern are made for improvements. It
is necessary for the university to submit the Progress Report on the proposed matters after
the University Accreditation.
• It is necessary to describe the reason and grounds on which the proposal is made. Further,with respect to Suggestions for Improvement and Areas of Serious Concern, each university
will take measures to make improvements, so it is necessary to describe what the problem is
specifically. Take care not to prescribe the way or method of improvement.
• It is possible to consider as strength even a matter where results are sufficiently anticipatedin the future such as where partial results have been achieved.
• Evaluators are expected to make comments to cheer up the university for further efforts,
even when any positive results or outcomes have been already seen.
• Problems at individual faculty- or graduate school level are sometime results of any defects
in university’s management. If Suggestions for Improvement and Areas of Serious Concern
are proposed, it is necessary to sort out the causes of the problems and determine what should
be subject to proposals.
• As evaluators should make suggestion or recommendation with considering the particular
context, it is necessary to have thorough dialogue with the university during the site-visit.
Questions• If a matter is not clear with only the evaluation materials and it is necessary to obtain answers
from the university, describe it as question. If there are any materials that the evaluator
wishes to have submitted or review during the site-visit, describe which materials are necessary.
• Give descriptions in a way that explains what unclear and what information is necessary inorder to obtain appropriate answers from the university.
• It is important to clarify the reasons and grounds in particular of what can be proposed asStrengths, Suggestions for Improvement, or Areas of Serious Concern, so be sure to raise aquestion if there is a lack of information.
• It is possible to ask for a submission or review of materials without requesting answers inwriting.
• Questions are sent to the university after deliberations at a subcommittee meeting (see 3.2.4(Preparing Subcommittee Chief’s Draft and Holding Subcommittee Meetings)).
Rating• An rating should be made in any of S through C based on the overall evaluation of eachstandard. Therefore, be sure to determine which rate will be made after carrying out the tasks
mentioned above.
• If the SSR or other evaluation materials contains many unclear points and evaluation could
not be done sufficiently, it is possible to defer rating. In that case, describe that as “assessment deferral.”47

<<Table III-2 Criteria for Rating>>
S

In extremely favorable circumstances based on the University Standards
and of a superior standard of initiatives to achieve the mission and purpose.

A

In favorable circumstances based on the University Standards and generally
appropriate initiatives that achieve the mission and purpose.

B

Some defects based on the University Standards and requiring further efforts to achieve the mission and purpose.

C

Severe defects based on the University Standards and requiring drastic improvements to achieve the mission and purpose.

* If applying the above assessment standards to Standard 1 (Mission and Purpose), the section“initiatives to achieve the mission and purpose” or “to achieve the mission and purpose” isirrelevant.
Comments• State in writing if there are any comments or a concern which could not be described at theGeneral Remarks or the Findings.
Request for site-visit (faculty member, students, etc.)• Individual interviews with university personnel and student interviews are conducted during
the site-visit. Subcommittee must determine which points will be questioned at those interviews. Therefore, while preparing Evaluation Findings, describe as necessary what information evaluators want to confirm and describe the faculty members or students with whom
the evaluators would like to meet.
• If it is considered necessary to visit and inspect facilities or equipment when conducting anevaluation such as where a problem in facilities or equipment is found, it is possible to visit
and inspect facilities and equipment during the site-visit. If there are any facilities or equipment that are to be subject to a site inspection, describe those in their respective sections.

48

3.2.3. Preparation of Subcommittee’s Draft
This is the first step to compile the Evaluation Findings prepared by each evaluator as an evaluation by the subcommittee.
<Preparation Procedures><<Diagram III-4 Workflow>>• Evaluator except the subcommittee chief will write the University Accreditation Results(Subcommittee’s Draft) (hereafter simply referred to as “Subcommittee’s Draft”). Eachevaluator will write the Draft with respect to approximately two or three standards.
• JUAA office will send the Evaluation Findings of all of the evaluators. The evaluators are
to prepare Subcommittee’s Draft using a prescribed form (Form 10) based on those Evaluation Findings.
• Submission to JUAA office is to be made by email no later than the specified date in early
to mid-July.

<Points to Note when Preparing >Like the sheet for Evaluation Findings, the form is comprised of descriptions for each of theten standards of the University Standards and overall descriptions that are not based on individual standards. Each of the points to note is as follows.
Decisions and Overview• It does need to make the accreditation decision and write the Overview at this stage.
Raring• Determine the rating. While it is possible to defer at this stage, it is required to determine
after the site-visit.
• When determining an assessment, take into account the contents of General Remarks andFindings the below, and avoid using a method that will, for example, adopt an assessmentthat was the majority or take an average at the stage of the Evaluation Findings.

49

General Remarks• Unlike Evaluation Findings, it is necessary to describe an overview for each standard. Therefore, carefully examine Evaluation Findings of multiple evaluators and integrate descriptions
for each item. Following that, add descriptions that give an overview of the descriptions foreach item in the designated place in the form.
• If it is judged there is a problem in the basic requirements as the result of basic requirement
confirmation work by JUAA office, each evaluator will be informed at the time of preparing
the Subcommittee’s Draft. Each evaluator should confirm whether any such problem is taken
into account and revise or adjust that description as necessary.
• When revising or adjusting descriptions including the above points in basic requirements,
pay attention to consistency between the Findings and the General Remarks.
• Evaluations might be divided among evaluators. In that case, evaluators will have discussions at a subcommittee meeting, and the evaluations as a subcommittee will be determined,
so describe the contents of evaluations considered most appropriate by the evaluators incharge of preparation in the Subcommittee’s Draft as materials for discussions. Further,when proceeding with discussions at a subcommittee meeting, each evaluator in charge ofpreparation will explain points in the preparation of the Subcommittee’s Draft and indicate
the discussion points.
Findings• Select findings to be raised with respect to Strengths, Suggestions for Improvement, andAreas of Serious Concern based on the General Remarks.
• There are cases where there is a problem in the basic requirements, and it might be appropriate to suggest or recommend the improvement. Add description as necessary based on thebasic requirement confirmation work by the JUAA office.
• If a description of the reasons and grounds on which there is strength or a problem that
requires improvement is insufficient, clarify that description. Given that, with respect to a
problem in particular, the university will need to take measures for improvement, evaluatoris requested to make the points clear what the problem is.
Questions• Select and organize questions and materials whose submission or review is to be requested
in connection with those questions.
• Give descriptions in a way that explains what unclear and what information is necessary inorder to obtain appropriate answers from the university.
Comments• While referring to the Comments described in the Evaluation Findings, describe as necessary
overall matters that could not be described in the above areas or a concern in relation to a
standard other than a standard of which the evaluator is in charge.
Request for site-visit (faculty member, students, etc.)• Select and organize matters that are to be confirmed through interviews at site-visit. If there
are need to visit and inspect facilities or equipment, organize the descriptions in the same
way.

50

3.2.4. Preparation of University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee Chief’s Draft)and Holding Subcommittee Meetings
All evaluators meet for the purpose of sharing their findings and preparing for site-visit. Before
that subcommittee meeting, the subcommittee chief is to review the Subcommittee’s Draft, whichhave been prepared by other evaluators, and prepare the University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee Chief’s Draft) (hereafter simply referred to as “Subcommittee Chief’s Draft”).
i. Preparation of Subcommittee Chief’s Draft<Preparation Procedures><<Diagram III-5 Workflow>>• JUAA office will send the Subcommittee’s Draft to the subcommittee chief. The subcommittee chief should review and prepare Subcommittee Chief’s Draft based on that.
• Submission to JUAA office is to be made by email no later than a specified date one week
before the subcommittee meeting.
<Points to Note when Preparing Subcommittee Chief’s Draft>• The purpose of preparing the Subcommittee Chief’s Draft is to clarify the discussion points
during the subcommittee meeting, so pay attention to matters such as consistency between
the General Remarks and the Findings and integrity of evaluations, and adjust the descriptions as much as possible. When adjusting the descriptions, also refer to the Comments prepared by each evaluator to consider what problems and concerns each evaluator has.
• If it is necessary to change the Ratings after adjusting the descriptions of the General Remarks or the Proposals, revise them.
• If there are any overlapping matters or any matters that can be consolidated into a single
matter with respect to the questions or interviewee request, make adjustments to those matters.
• It is not necessary to adjust descriptions with respect to the Comments prepared by each
evaluator.

51

ii. Subcommittee Meeting
Duration, attendees, and materials for meetings⚫The duration of each meeting is four hours.
⚫All subcommittee members are to attend the meetings. Further, if the Advisor or other member of the University Accreditation Committee is involved in the evaluation by the subcommittee, the he or she should also attend.
⚫Subcommittee Chief’s Draft and evaluation materials are ready in the meeting rooms.
Process of Subcommittee Meetings⚫Deliberate on the contents of Subcommittee Chief’s Draft for each of the ten standards. The
subcommittee chief serves as moderator.
⚫Subcommittee chief present discussion points from an overall perspective, and other evaluators who are in charge of each standard report on the results of document analysis.
⚫The points to note when making discussion are as follows.


Rather than checking every single word of the Draft, conduct discussions while generally
observing the university with a focus on strengths and problems (Suggestions for Improvement and Areas of Serious Concern).

With respect to the standards needed to consider the specific matters of faculties andgraduate schools such as Standard 4 (Educational Program and Learning Outcomes),
rather than deliberating on each faculty and graduate school individually, give an overview of university-wide characteristics and problems and confirm the matters in a crossorganizational manner.

Deliberate on whether to the Findings are appropriate and deliberate on whether there
is any matter to be checked further at the site-visit.

Deliberate on whether the reasons are clear with respect to standards whose rating isdeferred (if a rating is deferred, it is necessary to decide on one of S through C after thesite-visit).

Deliberate on matters to be confirmed in interviews at site-visit, questions to be sent tothe university in advance, and clarify the points of the site-visit.

⚫When revising Subcommittee Chief’s Draft and preparing University Accreditation Results(Subcommittee’s 2nd Draft) after a subcommittee meeting, the subcommittee chief will be incharge of the preparation of General Comments. Therefore, exchange opinions on the overall
evaluation.
⚫The accreditation decision is to be made after conducting the site-visit, but it is beneficial toexchange opinions at the document analysis stage. The standards for judging whether a university conforms to the University Standards and standards in the case of deferring an assessment are as follows

52

<<Table III-3 Criteria for Accreditation Decision>>

Accredited

The university is at a suitable standard as a university and satisfies the University Standards by carrying out initiatives to achieve its mission and purpose

Unaccredited

The university has issues regarding important matters,* is not at a suitable
standard as a university and does not satisfy the University Standards as it
does not carry out initiatives to achieve its mission and purpose* “Issues regarding important matters” means matters proposed as Areas of Serious Concern that,
if not improved, will make it difficult for the university to secure a suitable education standard
and quality as a university.

53

iii. Workflow after the subcommittee meeting<<Diagram III-6 Workflow>>

Revise the Subcommittee Chief’s Draft based on the results of discussion at the meeting andprepare the University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s 2nd Draft) (hereafter simply referred as to “Subcommittee’s 2nd Draft”). The preparation of the Subcommittee’s 2nd Draft shouldbe allocated to the same evaluators who prepared the Subcommittee’s Draft. Further, the subcommittee chief will prepare the General Comments. Those General Comments describe an overview
of the evaluation as a whole, and they will be the Overview in the final University Accreditation
Results.
Send the Subcommittee’s 2nd Draft to JUAA office by email within one week after the subcommittee meeting.
The Subcommittee’s 2nd Draft will be sent to the university together with the Draft prepared by
the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee as a document. The General Comments by the subcommittee chief will not be sent to the university.

3.2.5. Site-visit
In principle, site-visit will be conducted for two days at the campus where the university headquarters are located. All evaluators in the University Review Subcommittee will take part in thesite-visit. If the Advisor or other members of the University Accreditation Committee are involved in the evaluation by the subcommittee, they will also participate in the site-visit, and evaluators from the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee might also participate depending on thereview. JUAA staff will also attend the site-visit.
i.

Purpose of site-visit

Site-visit is conducted for the following purposes.
• To collect necessary information to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of evaluations
while actually confirming the stance towards education, research and quality assurance bydiscussing and interviewing with president, faculty members, students and others, and clarifying matters that were not clear at the document analysis stage54

• To provide an opportunity for evaluators to discuss in order to finalize an evaluation as a
subcommittee• To conduct beneficial exchanges of opinions with the university to support the further development of the university
ii. Preparations
Materials related to site-visit
JUAA office will send the following materials to the evaluators in advance.
• Subcommittee’s 2nd Draft (in which answers to questions and views on the Subcommittee’s
2nd Draft have been entered)• Evidencing materials and its list
• Site Visit Agenda (Form 12)• Attendees List at Discussion (Form 13) and Seating Plan
• Attendees List at Student Interview (Form 14) and Seating Plan
• List of Facilities subject to Facility Tour (only when visiting and inspecting facilities andequipment)• Access Map to the university

Confirm the materials
Before site-visit, confirm the materials if there are any points that are unclear by looking overanswers to questions regarding the Subcommittee’s 2nd Draft and views of Subcommittee’s 2nd
Draft (if necessary, check the SSR, the Basic Institutional Data, the Basic Requirements Sheet,and the evidencing materials).
iii. Program of site-visit
Site-visit is conducted over two days and is made up of the following activities, and the overall
schedule of site-visit is determined based on discussions between JUAA and the university.
• Evaluator discussions and material review• Discussion and interview with university personnel (general and individual)• Student interview• Tours of facilities (only if necessary)55

<<Table III-4 Example of Site-visit Schedule>>
9:30–12:00
12:00–13:00
13:00–15:00
15:00–15:10
15:10–16:10
16:10–17:30

Day 1
Evaluators meeting
Break
General discussion
Break
Individual interview
Evaluators meeting

9:30–10:00
10:00–11:00
11:00–11:10
11:10–12:10
12:10–13:10

Day 2
Evaluators meeting
Individual interview
BreakStudent interview
Break

13:10–14:10
14:10–14:40
14:40–16:30
16:30–17:30

Individual interview
Evaluators meeting
General discussion
Evaluators meeting

Evaluator meeting (including material review)
Evaluators will have discussions on multiple occasions during the limited period of two days inorder to effectively and efficiently implement the site-visit while sharing necessary information
with each other and to have discussions aimed at the completion of the University Accreditation
Results (Subcommittee’s Final Draft). Evaluators will also review materials prepared by the university during the time for evaluator discussions.
The following should be noted during evaluator discussions.
<First Day>
During the initial meeting on the first day, review the points of the site-visit while confirming theanswers and the views of the university. At that time, it is necessary to discuss what should bemade clear to understand the causes of the problems and what should be confirmed with respect
to education, research at faculties and graduate schools that are not mentioned in the SSR. Determine also the order of priority of questions at the time discussion and interview with the university
personnel and students and the roles of each evaluator. If a tour of facilities is to be conducted,
confirm that as well.
The University Accreditation is conducted in light of facts made up to the time of the site-visit.
That must be kept in mind when discussing and interviewing and reviewing materials.
During the final discussions on the first day, reflect on the results of the first day, confirm thepoints to be revised in the 2nd Subcommittee’s Draft, and organize the points on the second day.
<Second Day>
During the morning meeting and other occasions, confirm again focus points on the second day
and roles of each evaluator.
During the final meeting, look back over the two days and confirm what has become clear, andhave discussions aimed at the preparation of the University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Final Draft) (hereafter simply referred as to “Subcommittee’s Final Draft”). Evaluators must
determine the Ratings, Findings and accreditation decision ant the final meeting, and also must
agree on the contents of the overview and the general remarks of each standard.

56

Material Review
In addition to the assessment materials that were referred at the time of the document analysis,
review materials for site-visit to ensure the accuracy of the evaluation.
Materials that relate to individual faculty and graduate school such as materials regarding curricula are submitted only with respect to some faculties and graduate schools at the document analysis stage, but such materials regarding all faculties and graduate schools are prepared at the timeof the site-visit. If it is not possible to perform a sufficient evaluation with only the faculties andgraduate schools mentioned in the SSR and the evidencing materials of that report, look at several
more faculties and graduate schools. Also check faculties and graduate schools in a cross-organizational manner.
Further, if there are any necessary materials other than those that have been prepared, it is possible
to make a request to the university through the JUAA office.
General discussion
General discussion is conducted twice during the site-visit. Discussion is conducted on the premise that both JUAA and the university have looked over the 2nd Subcommittee’s Draft.
At the first day session, following an explanation of the purpose of the site-visit by the subcommittee chief, there will be a presentation by the university (description of its IQA system, characteristics and issues that became clear during self-study, and plans for improvements and enhancements). Confirm matters such as challenges and future plans and the university’s stance towards
IQA while asking questions based on the university’s explanation.
Following that, ask the questions related to the 2nd Draft. It is important to confirm at that time
what the president or other university personnel thinks the causes of the problems and what
measures the university will take in the future. It is important to also pay attention to the point of
the causes of individual problems and whether those individual problems are impacted by problems in the function of management or governance. In particular, confirm during dialogue withthe university whether the findings made to the university are appropriate.
Individual interview
Unlike general discussion, faculty members with whom the subcommittee wishes to interview inorder to confirm individual initiatives in faculties, graduate schools or administrative organizations.
Student interview
Student interview is conducted for hearing the opinions from students to ensure the appropriateness of evaluations. University faculty personnel are not allowed to attend student interview.
Tour of facilities (when necessary)
Tour of facilities will be conducted in the cases where it is necessary to confirm the actual condition of the facilities or equipment because, for example, any concerns about facilities or equipment have been arisen at the document analysis stage. Only facilities and equipment at the campus
where the university headquarters are located are subject to facilities tour. It is also possible toquestion students and other people using facilities on the day of a site inspection.
If it is necessary to conduct a tour of facilities other than those notified to the university in advance,
consult with JUAA office.

57

iv. Points to note during site-visit
During the site-visit, behave while referring to the following.
<Appropriate behavior and attitude>• Focus on evaluations which the mission and purpose, and policies of the university and its
faculties and graduate schools are actually being achieved.
• Participate in collaboration manner in the spirit of peer reviews.
• Listen carefully to the university's thoughts and actual circumstances and do not speak morethan necessary.
• Ask questions to ensure there are no unclear points while paying attention to the allocationof time.
• Make efforts not only to find problems but also strengths.
• In light of the fact that the University Accreditation Results will eventually be made public,exchange opinions while taking care to check that (i) there is no factual error by an evaluator,(ii) the evaluation is not subjective, (iii) there are not any facts that have been changed since
the University Accreditation started, and (iv) there are no expressions that could cause apublic misconception.
<Inappropriate behavior and attitude>• Impose the evaluator’s conclusion on the university and ask questions based on a premisethat there is only one answer.
• Propose a specific method of resolving a problem.
• Make a statement based on the standard of the university to which the evaluator belongs.
• Make comments to individual people.
• Make statements telling the university how to revise the 2nd Subcommittee’s Draft) such as“make that Strength,” “leave that in Suggestions for Improvement,” and “the university will
be accredited.”

3.2.6. Preparation of University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Final Draft)
Revise the 2nd Subcommittee’s Draft and prepare the University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Final Draft) (hereafter simply referred as to “Subcommittee’s Final Draft”) based on the
results of the site-visit. Revising work is to be shared among evaluators (same as the allocation of
the Subcommittee’s Draft).
Further, the subcommittee chief should determine the accreditation decision and describe theoverview giving a summary of the evaluation. The Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee is
responsible for financial affairs in the Subcommittee’s Final Draft, but the subcommittee chief ofthe University Review Subcommittee should prepare the decision and the overview.
Send the Subcommittee’s Final Draft to the JUAA office by email no later than a specified datein early November. After the Subcommittee’s Final Draft has been prepared, it will be submitted
to the University Accreditation Committee.

583.3. Evaluation by the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee<<Diagram III-7 Evaluation Process by the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee>><<Time>>Late April

May to June
After evaluator training
seminar
Up to early July

Early/middle of July

Within one week after
the end of the panel
meeting<<Matter>>
Holding of the Financial Affairs Review
Subcommittee Meeting(Deliberate on financial affairs review
policy)Holding evaluator training seminar

Preparation of Evaluation Findings

See 3.(2).3) in thisSectionPanel meeting(Deliberate on the contents of the Evaluation Findings)

See 3.(2).4) in thisSectionPreparation of the Panel Report

Early August

Within one week after
the end of the subcommittee meeting

Preparation of the University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Draft) (financial affairs review section)

Ten days before thesite-visit

Receipt of answers to questions and opinion on University Accreditation Results(Subcommittee’s Draft) (financial affairs
review section)

NovemberSee 3.(2).2) in thisSectionReceipt of evaluation materials

Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee
Meeting(Deliberate on the contents of the Panel
Report)September to late OctoberSee 3.(2).1) in thisSectionSee 3.(2).5) in thisSection

Implementation of the site-visit

See 3.(2).6) in thisSectionHolding of the Financial Affairs Review
Subcommittee Meeting
Preparation of the University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Final Draft)(financial affairs review section)See 3.(2).7) in thisSection59

3.3.1. Evaluation Materials
The following evaluation materials are to be sent by JUAA office to the evaluators after the evaluator training seminar ([F] and [G] are only for private universities).
[A]SSR[B]Rating Sheet[C] Basic Institutional Data
[D] Basic Requirements Sheet[E]List of Submission Materials[F] Comparison of Financial Ratio with Averages (Material 7)
Table comparing financial ratios of private universities with averages by type (based on information provided by the Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation for Private Schools of Japan)[G] Checklist of Ratio of Financial Assets to the Required Reserve Fund (Material 8)
In addition to the Ratio of the Financial Assets to the Required Reserve Fund where retirement
reserve funds, the amount of accumulated depreciation, No. 2 Fund, No. 3 Fund, and other funds
are deemed required reserve amount of each school corporation and that amount is compared withthe actual status of financial assets, the checklist contains information such as the ratio of theamount of net expenditure carried over to the next year (amount of net consumption expenditure
carried over to the next year) to income from business activities (imputed income)).

[H] Evidencing materials
Financial statements and other relevant materials are to be submitted by the university. Financial
statements and audit reports for the accounting year before the University Accreditation will be
submitted after the completion of an accounting audit. Those will be sent once they have been
submitted (excluding public universities that do not submit materials equivalent to those materials).
3.3.2. Evaluation Flowi. Subcommittee Meeting
Financial affairs reviews are conducted by establishing multiple panels under the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee. For that purpose, a meeting of the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee will be held to decide the evaluation policy and the allocation of duties of each panel(April).
ii. Evaluator training seminar
Evaluators will participate in the evaluator training seminar and receive training necessary forevaluations in practice (May to June).
iii. Preparation of Evaluation Findings
Each evaluator in a panel other than the panel chief should write the Evaluation Findings of theuniversity for which he or she is responsible in a prescribed form (Form 9) based on the evaluationmaterials by a specified date (around early July, and the work period is roughly one month) (prepare one Evaluation Findings for each university).

60

iv. Panel meetings and preparation of the Panel Report
Tasks before the panel meeting
The Evaluation Findings prepared by each evaluator will be sent to all evaluators of the panels.
Look over the findings of all universities and consider the appropriateness of the contents of thosefindings before the panel meeting is held.
Panel meeting (early to middle of July)
Deliberate on the contents of the Evaluation Findings based on Evaluation Findings. Confirm
whether there is universities where site-visit is to be conducted.
Preparation of the Panel Report
The panel chief should prepare a Panel Report after revising the Evaluation Findings within one
week from the end of the meeting. The method of preparing the Panel Report is the same as themethod of preparing the Evaluation Findings.
v. Holding of the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee Meeting and preparation of the
University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Draft) (financial affairs review section)
Subcommittee Meeting (early August)A meeting of the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee will be held to deliberate on the contents of the Panel Report prepared by the panel chief.
The points to note at the time of that deliberation are the same as those during the panel meeting,but the subcommittee chief should pay attention to whether any discrepancy has arisen in termsof evaluations among the panels. It is also necessary to determine universities where site-visit is
to be conducted.
Preparation of the University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Draft) (financial affairs review section)
The subcommittee chief should prepare the University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s
Draft) (financial affairs review section) within one week after the end of the subcommittee meeting.
The prepared University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Draft) (financial affairs review
section) is to be sent to the university together with the one prepared by the University Review
Subcommittee as a single document.
vi. Site-visit
If the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee has judged that a site-visit is necessary, the members of the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee will participate in that site-visit (September
to late October).
vii.

Subcommittee Meeting and preparation of the University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Final Draft) (financial affairs review section)

A meeting of the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee will be held (November) to prepare theUniversity Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Final Draft) (financial affairs review section)61

based on the answers and the views of the university, and, if a site-visit has been conducted, theresults of that site-visit.
The University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Final Draft) (financial affairs review section) prepared by the Financial Affairs Review Subcommittee is to be submitted to the University
Accreditation Committee together with the one prepared by the University Review Subcommittee
as the University Accreditation Results (Subcommittee’s Final Draft).
At that time, the Decision and the Overview on the evaluation accreditation results as a wholewill be prepared by the University Review Subcommittee chief based on the evaluation as a whole
including the financial affairs review.

623.4. Review of the Progress Report
3.4.1. Evaluation Materials• Progress Report
Material that summarizes the status of Areas of Serious Concern and Suggestions for Improvement in the University Accreditation Results.
• Evidencing materials
Materials that evidence the Progress Report.

3.4.2. Review Flow<<Drawing III-8 Progress Report Review Process>>(1)
Subcommittee meeting(2)
Prepare the
Review Findings(3)
Prepare the Progress Report Review Results(Subcommittee’s Draft)(4)
Prepare the Progress Report Review Results(Subcommittee’s
Final Draft)(5)
University
Accreditation
Committee(6)
Confirmation Procedures(7)
University
Accreditation
Committee(8)
Decision andannouncement

i. Subcommittee meeting (1st)The Progress Report Review Subcommittee Meeting will be held to determine the review policy
and the roles of evaluators. Following that, the evaluation materials will be sent from the JUAA
office to the evaluators.
ii. Preparation of the Review Findings and the Progress Report Review Results (Subcommittee’s Draft)
Each evaluator should prepare Review Findings of the university for which he or she is responsible by a deadline specified by JUAA based on the evaluation materials. The subcommittee chief
should prepare the Progress Report Review Results (Subcommittee’s Draft) based on the evaluator’s Review Findings, .

iii. Subcommittee meeting (2nd) and preparation of the Progress Report Review Results(Subcommittee’s Final Draft)
At the second meeting of the Progress Report Review Subcommittee, discussion will be conducted on the contents of the Progress Report Review Results (Subcommittee’s Draft), and the63Subcommittee will prepare the Progress Report Review Results (Subcommittee’s Final Draft)
after the meeting.
iv. University Accreditation Committee meeting
Discuss on the Progress Report Review Results (Subcommittee’s Draft) and prepare the Progress
Report Review Results (Committee’s Draft) at a meeting of the University Accreditation Committee.
v. Confirmation Procedures
Send the Progress Report Review Results (Committee’s Draft) to the university to confirm that
there are no factual errors in that draft.
vi. University Accreditation Committee meeting and decision and announcement
While considering the opinion of the university, the University Accreditation Committee will
finalize the review to prepare the Progress Report Review Results (Final Draft).
The Progress Report Review Results (Final Draft) will be sent to the Board of Trustees for final
decision.
The university will be notified of the finalized Progress Report Review Results, and those Progress Report Review Results are made public through the JUAA website.

64

3.5. Supplementary Review Work3.5.1. Evaluation Materials• Supplementary Review Progress Report
Material that summarizes the status of responses to problems proposed as Areas of Serious Concern and Suggestions for Improvement.
• Evidencing materials
Materials that evidence the Supplementary Review Progress Report.

3.5.2. Evaluation Flow<<Diagram III-10 Supplementary Review Process>>(1)
Subcommittee
meeting(2)Preparation of
Evaluation
Findings(3)
Preparation of
the Supplementary Review
Results(Subcommittee’s Draft)(4)
Subcommittee
meeting(5)Site-visit(if necessary)(6)
Preparation of
the Supplementary Review
Results(Subcommittee’s Final
Draft)(7)
University
Accreditation
Committee(8)
Confirmation
Procedures(9) February(10) February–
March
Decision and announcement by
the Board ofTrustees

Holding of the
University Accreditation
Committee
Meeting* [NOTE] This schedule is for the cases where
there is an application for a supplementary review during the academic year that is two years
after the University Accreditation.

i. Subcommittee meeting (1st)
Subcommittee meeting will be held for evaluator training and determine the review policies as well as theroles each evaluator. Evaluation materials will be sent to the evaluators of the Supplementary Review Subcommittee.
ii. Preparation of Evaluation Findings
Each evaluator should prepare the Evaluation Findings for the university for which he or she is responsible
based on the sent materials.

65iii. Preparation of the Supplementary Review Results (Subcommittee’s Draft)
The responsible evaluators will prepare the Supplementary Review Results (Subcommittee’s Proposal) basedon the Evaluation Findings. The evaluators should look at all of the Evaluation Findings, carefully examine
the appropriateness of those, and prepare the Supplementary Review Results (Subcommittee’s Draft).
iv. Subcommittee meeting (2nd) and preparation of the Supplementary Review Results (Subcommittee’s Final Draft)
All evaluators of the Supplementary Review Subcommittee will meet. The JUAA office will send the Supplementary Review Results (Subcommittee’s Draft) to the evaluators prior to the meeting. Review the Supplementary Review Results (Subcommittee’s Draft) and prepare the Supplementary Review Results (Subcommittee’s Final Draft) at the subcommittee meeting.
At the subcommittee meeting, evaluators will discuss and determine whether it is necessary to ask a question
or conduct a site-visit
v. Site-visit
If a site-visit is to be conducted, that will take place over one day. At site-visit, discussions and interviews
will be conducted with the university president and other university personnel, materials will be reviewed,
and if necessary inspections of facilities and equipment will be conducted.
vi. Preparation of the Supplementary Review Results (Subcommittee’s Final Draft) and the University Accreditation Committee meeting
The Supplementary Review Results (Subcommittee’s Final Draft) is to be submitted to the University Accreditation Committee after that has been reviewed by the chair and vice-chair of the University Accreditation
Committee and Advisors. After receiving that, the University Accreditation Committee will review the Draft
to revise into the Supplementary Review Results (Committee’s Draft).
vii. Confirmation procedures
The Supplementary Review Results (Committee’s Draft) will be sent to the university for confirming whether
there are any factual errors (statement of opinion procedures)viii. University Accreditation Committee meeting
The University Accreditation Committee will prepare the Supplementary Review Results (Final Draft) basedon the results of the confirmation procedures.
ix. Decision and announcement
The Supplementary Review Results (Final Draft) will be sent to the Board of Trustees for a final decision.
After the decision have made, university will be notified of the Results and those results will also be reported
to the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and published on JUAA website.

66