January 19, 2008
To:

Professor Takafumi Uzuhashi
Director of Do-ERC-SW

From: Takashi Koyama
Curriculum Review Committee
Graduate School of Social Studies, Social Welfare CourseDoshisha University

What the Educational Curriculum for the Social Welfare Course atthe Graduate School Should Be Like (Report)

Since the end of last year, the Curriculum Review Committee has carried out
discussions on what the educational curriculum for the Social Welfare Course at theDoshisha University Graduate School should look like, and has reached its
conclusions, which are compiled in the attached report.

1What the Educational Curriculum for the Social Welfare Course at
the Graduate School Should Be LikeI.

Background of Reforms

Since the 1980s, discussions have been underway at the national level regarding what
education at graduate schools in Japan should be like, resulting in initiatives topromote qualitative and quantitative improvements in graduate schools. In September
2005, as a result of these discussions, the Central Council for Education released areport titled “Graduate School Education in the New Age: Towards the Developmentof Internationally Attractive Graduate School Education.”
This report emphasized the following as points that graduate schools must aim toachieve:
1.
Make graduate school education practical – strengthen organized developmentof educational curriculum2.
Improve viability and credibility internationally – ensure the quality of graduate
school education
The report organizes into the four categories the functions that graduate schools
should take responsibility for with regard to nurturing human resources development.
To be more specific, the four categories are: (1) nurture researchers and other humanresources who are rich in creativity and have superior capabilities to do research anddevelopment work; (2) nurture highly-specialized professionals who havesophisticated specialized knowledge and capabilities; (3) nurture university teachers
who have solid teaching skills and research capabilities; and (4) nurture intellectualand highly knowledgeable human resources capable of providing broad support of aknowledge-based society.
With regard to how this background relates to the Social Welfare Course, there will
likely be calls for bolstering the system for nurturing highly-specialized professionalin the Master’s Program, and the establishment of a system for nurturing teachers andresearchers in the Doctoral Program.
The Science Council of Japan, too, has submitted a number of reports and madevarious recommendations through the Liaison Committee for Studies of Social
Welfare and Social Security (hereinafter referred to as “Kenren”), including the report“Concerning Systems, etc., for Research and Education of Social Welfare,” which
was submitted to the Prime Minister in 1974. Of particular note is Kenren’s report“Concerning the Promotion of Research and Education Related to Social Services,”
which was submitted in 2000. This report pointed out the necessity of integrating theresearch and studies being carried out on social services at three levels: “macro-levelstudies,” which are centered around national policies; “meso-level studies,” which are
centered around the activities of local communities, local authorities, facilities,companies, and private-sector organizations (NPO), etc.; and “micro-level studies,”
which are centered around the activities of individuals, families, and other smallgroups (self-help groups, group homes, etc.).

2

With regard to how this background relates to the Social Welfare Course, there will
likely be a need for the curriculum to become structured and making certain elementsof the curriculum compulsory.
With regard to the issue of what a graduate school of social welfare should be like, theJapanese Association of Schools of Social Work established the Graduate School
Education Review Committee, which has proposed, with regard to master’s degree
programs, a set of Curriculum Guidelines. Although the Committee has not proposed
anything as extensive as a set of guidelines for doctorate degree programs, it hassummarized curriculum-related issues and proposed matters for discussion (2006school year).
The Committee’s Guidelines for Master’s Degree Programs proposes a modelcurriculum in which all the subjects are categorized into five groups: Group A –general basic subjects; Group B – subjects classified by level; Group C –comprehensive overview subjects; Group D – master’s theses; and Group E –practical training and practical business subjects. Four subjects in the general basic
subject group, i.e. Fundamental Principles of Social Welfare, Discourse of Social
Work, Studies of the History of Social Welfare Theories and Doctrines, and Research
Methods for Social Work, in addition to the master’s theses and practical training
subjects have been designated as compulsory.
With regard to how this relates to the Social Welfare Course, the Guidelines will
likely serve as an effective reference when reviewing how to structure the curriculum,such as how to divide up the curriculum into groups and what parts should be madecompulsory.
As for efforts at Doshisha University, the president published “A Draft of Reforms
for Graduate School Education and Research (The Need for Strategies for GraduateSchools)” in Extra Edition No. 676 of Doshisha University Bulletin in October 2007,and discussions are being carried out in various offices throughout the university. This
draft raised a wide variety of issues, of which the proposal for reorganization toestablish a Master’s Program that focuses mainly on nurturing highly-specialized
professionals, a Five-year Doctoral Program that focuses on nurturing researchers, aproposal regarding increasing the enrollment quota, and introducing general subjects
and general education programs, appear to be relevant to the Social Welfare Course.
II.

Points for Discussion Regarding the Curriculum of the Social Welfare Course at
Doshisha University Graduate School

Based on the recommendations and reports described above, we reviewed thecurriculum for the Social Welfare Course at Doshisha University Graduate School,
and as the party responsible for the curriculum, we organized and summarized theissues into the points described below, and submitted them for discussion to theCouncil for Graduate School Courses. In summarizing the discussion points, wereferred to the curriculums offered at other Courses as described in A Guide toGraduate School Programs in Social Studies (2007).
< Confirmation >3

First of all, in the short-term, a realistic response will be required with respect to theGP Program of the Graduate School. In the medium- and long-term, serious
discussions about reforms, such as the reforms related to reports by the Japanese
Association of Schools of Social Work and those found after comparison with otherCourses at Doshisha University’s Graduate Schools or at other universities, will
become necessary. Therefore, we believe that for the time being, curriculum reform
should be carried out in two rounds, with the first round of reforms being
implemented for students being admitted in April 2009, and the next round of reforms
being implemented for students being admitted in 2010 and onwards.
< Premises >The concrete proposals regarding the curriculum presented in the GP Planning Report
are “make the existing field work (practical training) compulsory”; “develop overseas
field work and make it possible to earn credits for the field work”; and “consider
holding case conferences and supervisor workshops and make it possible to earncredits for participation in them.”
Therefore, reforms implemented in line with these proposals should be consideredshort-term issues.
< Points for Discussion >○Master’s Program1.
Regarding Compulsory System
There is no notion of compulsory elements in the currently existing curriculum of theSocial Welfare Course. Therefore, in order to “make practical training compulsory,”
as proposed in the GP Planning Report, it will be necessary to change the curriculum
system and adopt a compulsory system. In addition to a way to designate individual
subjects as a compulsory subject, there are other methods for implementing acompulsory system, such as a selective subject group system, in which a specified
number of credits will be required to be earned from among a group of subjects.
* If a compulsory system is adopted, should only the field work subjects be madecompulsory or should other subjects also be made compulsory?
* If field work is made compulsory, how should field work be categorized?
* How should overseas practical training be viewed?
2.
Regarding Taking Undergraduate Subjects
As the curriculum at the Graduate School is structured based on the assumption thatthe student has already studied specialized subjects as an undergraduate, studying thesubjects in the Graduate School curriculum alone would be insufficient to learn all thefundamentals related to social welfare. Consequently, consideration should be given
to allowing students transferring from other universities, particularly those who did
not earn a degree related to social welfare, to study undergraduate-level subjects.
*Should these subjects be offered for credit, made compulsory but not offer
credit for them, or should they be generally recommended to all students in theCourse? (At present, the Graduate School of Social Studies does not recognize
credits from the undergraduate subjects.)

4

3.
Regarding Taking Subjects of Other Graduate Schools or Other Courses
Doshisha University is a comprehensive university. It has a broad range of Courses inits Graduate School of Social Studies, and in addition, offers a number of other
Graduate Schools and Courses, such as Law, Economics, and Psychology, that aredeeply related to social welfare study. Allowing students take advantage of taking
such an extensive range of choices is certainly an option.
* In what manner can these recommendations be made?
* Should credits be given, and what kind of limitations should there be?
(At present, the Social Welfare Course does not recognize credits from subjects ofother Graduate Schools or Courses as valid for fulfilling completion requirements;
however, other Courses do recognize such credits.)
4.
Regarding the System of Connecting Levels
The relationship between the Undergraduate Faculties and the Master’s Program, as
well as between the Master’s Program and the Doctoral Program may also bereviewed or modified for improvement.
* Establish a Two-year Course and a Five-year Course that students can register
for at the time of admission to the Graduate School* Discuss establishing a system that would allow fourth-year undergraduate
students who have fulfilled certain conditions and wish to enter the Graduate
School, to undertake advance registration for the Graduate School. (This system
is different from a grade-skipping system, and would ensure that the student
receives a college degree.)
5.
Regarding Discussions on What the Curriculum Should Be LikeAt present, the classes taught by full-time teachers run 180 minutes straight through,including the lecture followed by the seminar, and are worth six credits. By
registering for the subject taught by the teacher who is the student’s principal
supervisor, the student is able to ask for guidance regarding the master’s thesis duringclass hours.
In actual operation, however, the class does not function satisfactorily as a venue forgiving thesis guidance. Each class not only has students who are receiving guidance
for their master’s theses from the teacher of the class, but the class also naturally
contains first-years students in addition to second-year students who are receiving
master’s theses guidance from other principal supervisors. Therefore, guidance for thestudent’s master’s thesis actually ends up being given outside classroom hours.
On the other hand, this system has some merits for first-year students, as they canreceive inspiration and stimulation by listening to the presentations of the master’stheses of the upper-class students who are receiving guidance from the teacher incharge of that subject. Nevertheless, it is difficult to manage a class with students who
have a different awareness of the issues, are doing different levels of research, andwhose purpose for taking the class are different; for example, students who arereceiving guidance for their master’s theses and those who are taking the class as apart of their basic studies.
While students whose purpose in attending the class is to write their master’s theses
will find the classes less than challenging, first-year students will, in the end, berequired to undertake special research and give presentations of a high level.

5Furthermore, coupled with a tendency among first-year students to maintain as heavya class load as they can bear in their initial year, hoping to create a bit of a slack intheir class schedule in the following year, there is a tendency among first-year
students to not have the time to spare to do any in-depth research in specialized fields.
Moreover, the time when students decide who should be their principal supervisor
may also need to be discussed. The principal supervisors who provide guidance forthe master’s theses of the students of the Social Welfare Course are decided at the endof the students’ first year. There are merits to this system, as students who come fromother fields or are slow to commit to a research theme can use a full year to think
about what they want to research while accumulating knowledge in a broad range offields. However, it is also true that this system tends to delay the start of the students’research towards writing their master’s theses.
6.

Ensure diversity through such activities as special research

It would seem that the overall Graduate School curriculum will move towards somedegree of structure through a series of reforms; however, the diversity and freedom of
the Graduate School’s curriculum must not be sacrificed as a result of this. In view ofthese circumstances, there will also probably be demands to actively promote theimplementation of various programs, including, for example, special researchundertaken by outside lecturers (which are presently already underway at theuniversity), in order to ensure diversity.
○Doctoral Program

For the Doctoral Program, rather than being a credit-based system, the Social Welfare
Course is set up so that students register for the subjects of their academic advisor.
Although no particularly problematic issues have been raised at present, a number ofpoints that might possibly merit discussion are described below.
1.

Should a system be adopted in which students are separated at the time of theentrance examination into those who wish to enroll in a Five-year Doctoral
Program and in a Two-year Doctoral Program (mentioned previously)?
The establishment of a Five-year Doctoral Program for the purpose of nurturing“researchers who have superior capabilities for carrying out research anddevelopment” and “university teachers who have not only solid teaching skills
but also the ability to carry out research,” as they are described in a report by theCentral Council of Education, is certainly a possibility.

2.

With regard to encouraging students to register for lectures given by teachersother than the teacher who is their academic advisor
Generally speaking, there is a tendency for isolation to occur in the course ofcarrying out research or studies. As such, it is probably necessary to set up
various systems that will help prevent such isolation as research becomes morespecialized.

3.

With regard to implementing a credit-based system6In addition to clarifying the process for obtaining a doctorate degree andpromoting research in specialized fields, consideration should be given to thepossibility of adopting a credit-based system in order to nurture both a highlevel of learning and research capabilities concerning social welfare studies,
obtained through completion of studies of elective subjects. However, withregard to adopting a credit-based system, some issues remain unresolved,
including how best to meet the needs of adult graduate school students, whofind it difficult to find the time to attend school.
5.

Establishing joint seminars and other efforts
In addition to the point about adopting a credit-based system, consideration also
needs to be given to a number of other issues, including the establishment ofplaces where joint exercises or activities can be held, such as venues wheregraduate students can make presentations and a place where students canexpand their horizons through the research guidance they receive.

III.

Proposals for current issues

Based on an understanding of the issues outlined above, the changes to the curriculum
are proposed for possible adoption from spring of next year (2009).
1.
Adoption of a system of compulsory subjects
System I and II, Field work, and guidance for Master’s theses will be compulsory(thesis guidance will be newly established).
2.
Field work will become diversified and be compulsory
Field work will be categorized into three types: practical training (year-round) toacquire competencies as a social worker (as well as a supervisor or other positions);
field study-type practical training (whenever needed) to carry out on-site research atfacilities and organizations, etc.; and overseas field work (intensive, summer term).
Students will be required to complete one of the three types of field work.
3.
Regarding the principal supervisor system
Currently, the principal supervisor for the students’ Master’s theses is decided in theirsecond year, but deciding the principal supervisor will be moved up to the autumn of
their first year. However, the issue of how to deal with those students who have notyet finalized their thesis theme by the autumn of their first year will be deliberated
separately.
4.
Regarding seminars
The current system, which is comprised of Group A and Group B seminars, will beabolished. The system of having classes in which the lecture and seminar runconsecutively and are taught by full-time teachers will also be reviewed, with thepossibility of abolishing this type of class. In place of this type of class, classes willbe established in which the full-time teachers will provide guidance for master’stheses.

75.

Consider holding case conferences and supervisor workshops and make itpossible to earn credits for participation in them
Establish these activities and position them at the subtitle-level to special research.
(However, a number of issues related to the adoption of such a system remainunresolved, including who will be in charge of the lectures, how the students will beevaluated, the required hours, and how many credits should be given.)
6.

Regarding undergraduate subjects, and subjects of other Courses and otherGraduate School Faculties
Students from Faculties outside those related to welfare studies will be instructed totake subjects in the Department of Social Welfare. (Students will only be instructed totake the classes, as they will not earn any credits for taking the classes.)
The system will be changed so that credits earned for the subjects at other Courses
and other Graduate Schools will also be recognized as valid for fulfilling completion
requirements.
IV.

Issues in the FutureLong-term issues that call for discussion include whether or not to allow fourth-year
students to register for subjects in the Master’s Program; establish a Five-year
Doctoral Program; and make the Doctoral Program credit-based.
It is also necessary to engage in concrete discussions regarding the implementation ofPoints 1 through 6 mentioned above in “Proposals for current issues.” Details stillneed to be worked out for many issues, including how should international practicaltraining be done; what kind of guidance should be given to students who are graduatesof non-welfare studies-related Departments regarding what subjects in theundergraduate Departments to register for; and details related to the recognition of thevalidity of credits from subjects of other Courses and other Graduate Schools forfulfilling completion requirements.

8