ᅜ❧኱Ꮫࡢᶵ⬟ᙉ໬ࠕᅜ㝿ⓗ㏻⏝ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿᩍ⫱ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢᵓ⠏ࠖ஦ᴗ᥎㐍ࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛグ㘓㸦ᖹᡂ 26 ᖺᗘ ➨ 3 ᅇ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ FD ◊ಟ఍㸧ࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ໬࡟ྥࡅࡓᩍ⫱ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ᨵ㠉㸫ᩍ⫱ࡢᅜ㝿ⓗ஫᥮ᛶࡢྥୖ࡟ྥࡅ࡚㸫The Innovation of the Educational System toward Globalization
㸫International Compatibility Improvement in Education㸫

ᖹᡂ 26 ᖺ 7 ᭶ 8 ᪥㸦ⅆ㸧⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ఍㤋 ᅜ㝿఍㆟ᐊ ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ 㹼㛤ദ㊃᪨࡜ᴫせ㹼ࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ໬ࡢᛴ㏿࡞㐍ᒎࡸᵝࠎ࡞♫఍ၥ㢟࣭ᆅ⌫つᶍㄢ㢟ࡢ῝้໬➼ࢆ⫼ᬒ࡟ࠊ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
ேᮦ㣴ᡂᶵ⬟ࡢᙉ໬ࡀᚑ᮶࡟ࡶቑࡋ࡚ᙉࡃồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ≉࡟ࠊᅜ㝿ⓗ࡞஫᥮ᛶࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡓࡵࡢᩍ⫱ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡬ࡢ㠉᪂ࡣᴟࡵ࡚㔜せ࡞ㄢ㢟࡛ࡍࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄆ㆑ࡢୗࠊ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ࡛ࡣࠊᅜ❧኱Ꮫࡢᶵ⬟ᙉ໬࡟ྥࡅࡓᨵ㠉஦ᴗ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕᅜ㝿ⓗ㏻⏝ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿᩍ⫱ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢᵓ⠏ࠖࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᩍ⫱ᨵ㠉ࡢ᪉㔪࡟Ꮫ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛไ࡬ࡢ⛣⾜ࢆᥖࡆࠊࡑࡢᐇ⌧࡟ྥࡅࡓྲྀ⤌ࢆ᥎㐍ࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࡢ୍⎔࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᖹᡂ 26 ᖺ 7 ᭶ 8 ᪥࡟ࠕࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ໬
࡟ྥࡅࡓᩍ⫱ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ᨵ㠉 㸫ᩍ⫱ࡢᅜ㝿ⓗ஫᥮ᛶࡢྥୖ࡟ྥࡅ࡚㸫ࠖ࡜㢟ࡋࡓ඲Ꮫ FD ◊ಟ఍ࢆ㛤ദࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ

௒ᅇࡣࠊᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖドࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽᅜෆእࡢᩍ⫱ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟㛵ࡍࡿ▱ぢࢆ῝ࡵࡿࡓࡵࠊ⟃Ἴ኱ᏛࡢᚫỌಖᩍᤵ࣭Ꮫ㛗≉ู⿵బ㸦ඖᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬㧗➼ᩍ⫱ᒁ㛗㸧࡜ࠊ࣡ࢩࣥࢺࣥ኱Ꮫ࣭኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱࢖ࣀ࣮࣋ࢩࣙࣥ◊✲ࢭࣥࢱ࣮㛗ࡢ Maresi Nerad ᩍᤵࢆㅮᖌ࡟㏄࠼ࠊ᪥ᮏ࡜⡿ᅜ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㉁ಖドࡢྲྀ⤌࡟↔
Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓෆᐜ࡜ࡋ࡚ᐇ᪋ࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ
◊ಟ఍࡛ࡣࠊᚫỌᩍᤵࡼࡾࠊ᪥ᮏ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢᨵၿ࡜㉁ಖド࡟㛵ࡍࡿᨻ⟇ࡢṔྐࢆࡓ࡝ࡾ
࡞ࡀࡽࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛไࡢព⩏࡜఩⨨௜ࡅ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊMaresi Nerad ᩍᤵࡼࡾࠊ♫఍ࡢᵝࠎ࡞ศ㔝࡛ά㌍࡛ࡁࡿேᮦࢆ⫱ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖドࡢࣔࢹࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ᆺࡢ
኱Ꮫ㝔㒊㛛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⤂௓ࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋ

ᮏ෉Ꮚࡣࠊࡇࡢ◊ಟ఍ࡢグ㘓ࢆࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟ἢࡗ࡚ࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ

ᖹᡂ 27 ᖺ 3 ᭶⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ ┠ ḟ㛤఍ᣵᣜ㸭Opening Remarks ···········································································  2Ọ⏣ᜤ௓ ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ㛗
Dr. Kyosuke Nagata, President, University of TsukubaࠕᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢᑟධ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
㸫኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖド࡟ྥࡅࡓᨻᗓ࡜⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫࡢྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳ㸫ࠖ ·······························  4
Introduction of the Degree Program System
㸫Approach to quality assurance in university education by government andthe University of Tsukuba㸫ᚫỌ ಖ ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫᩍᤵ࣭Ꮫ㛗≉ู⿵బ
Prof. Tamotsu Tokunaga, Executive Advisor to the President, University of Tsukubaࠕ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ᆺࡢ኱Ꮫ㝔㒊㛛㸸᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ࡟ᙺ❧ࡘࣔࢹࣝ࡜࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿ࠿ ····················· 22
The American-type of Central Graduate Division: Would it be a good Model for Japan?
Dr. Maresi Nerad,
Director of the Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education,
University of Washington࣡ࢩࣥࢺࣥ኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱࢖ࣀ࣮࣋ࢩࣙࣥ◊✲ࢭࣥࢱ࣮㛗㉁␲ᛂ⟅㸭Q & A··························································································· 44㛢఍ᣵᣜ㸭Closing Remarks ·············································································· 56
ΎỈ୍ᙪ ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ๪Ꮫ㛗
Dr. Kazuhiko Shimizu, Vice President, University of Tsukuba㛤఍ᣵᣜ㸭Opening RemarksỌ⏣ᜤ௓ ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ㛗㸭Dr.Kyosuke Nagata, President, University of Tsukubaࡇࢇ࡟ࡕࡣࠋࡲࡎࡣࠊ௒᪥ࢤࢫࢺ࡟࠾ᣍࡁ࠸ࡓࡋ

ࣝࡢḟ࡟ࠊ⾜ືୖࡢ⪃࠼᪉࡜ࡋ࡚࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ࠸࠸ࡔࢁ

ࡲࡋࡓ Dr. Maresi Nerad ࡟ឤㅰࢆ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ௒᪥ࠊ

࠺࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ

ࡇ࠺࠸࠺ࢱ࢖ࢺ࡛ࣝࠊࡇࢀ࠿ࡽᚫỌඛ⏕࡜ Nerad ඛ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡲࡍࡀࠊ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࣮ࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊ

⏕࡟࠾ヰࢆ࠸ࡓࡔࡃࢃࡅ࡛ࡍࡀࠊ⚾ࡣ๓ᗙ࡜ࡋ࡚ᑡ

ࡑࡢୖ࡛ࡑࢀࢆ࡝࠺ࡍࡿ࠿ࠋ௜ࡁྜ࠸࡜ࡋ࡚࢖ࣥࢱ

ࡋࡔࡅ࠾ヰࢆࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡍࠋ

࣮ࢼࢩࣙࢼࣝ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࢀ࡜ࡶ࣮࣎ࢲ࣮ࢆ㉺࠼࡚ࠊ

ࡇࡢㅮ₇఍ࡢࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡢ༢ㄒࡢ୰࡛ࠊ஧ࡘẼ࡟࡞࠾஫࠸࡟༠ᴗࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࢺࣛࣥࢫࢼࢩࣙࢼࣝ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠋ

ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ୍ࡘࡣࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝࠋ࡯ࡰࡑࡢᶓ࡟

ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡸࡀ࡚ᆅ⌫࡜࠸࠺༢఩࡛ࡶࡢࡀᮏᙜ࡟⪃࠼ᩍ⫱ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ᨵ㠉࡜࠶ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡍࠋ๪㢟ࡢ࡯࠺ࢆぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࠊࡲࡎ 1 Ⅼࡿ࡜ࠊᅜ㝿ⓗ஫᥮ᛶ࡜࠸࠺ࡩ࠺࡟᭩࠸࡚࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊࡑ

┠࡛࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋ

ࡢᅜ㝿ⓗ࡜࠸࠺㒊ศࡢⱥㄒヂࡣࠊInternational ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࡢほⅬ࡛వㄯࢆ୍ࡘࡔࡅゝࢃࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡍࠋ

ࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝࠊInternationalࠋゝⴥࡀỏ℃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ

௒ࠊ࣮࣡ࣝࢻ࢝ࢵࣉࢧࢵ࣮࢝ࡀࠊ࠸ࡼ࠸ࡼెቃ࡟ධ

⚾࡞ࡾ࡟⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝࡣࠊᆅ⌫㸯ಶࢆ༢఩ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋࢧࢵ࣮࢝ࡀ኱ዲࡁ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ඲㒊㏨ࡉࡎ

࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࡢࢆ⪃࠼ࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑ

ヨྜࢆぢ࡚ࠊࡸࡣࡾ୰࡟ࡣឤືࡍࡿሙ㠃ࡶ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋ

ࡢᇶ┙࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡣࠊᐇࡣࡸࡣࡾ International ࡔࢁ࠺ࡑࡢ୍ࡘࡣࠊࢻ࢖ࢶ࣭࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ᡓࡢண㑅࣮ࣜࢢࡢ࡜࠸࠺ࡩ࠺࡟ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋInterࠊNationalࠋࡘࡲࡾᅜ࡜

ヨྜ࡛ࡋࡓࠋ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ┘╩ࡣࠊࢡࣜࣥࢫ࣐ࣥ࡜࠸

ᅜ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡯࠿࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡩ࠺࡟ᛮࡗ࡚࠸

࠺ඖࢻ࢖ࢶࡢ௦⾲࢚࣮ࢫࢫࢺࣛ࢖࣮࡛࢝ࡍࠋぢ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ࡚ឤືࡋࡓࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢ┘╩ࡀࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ᅜḷࢆḷ࠺ᅜ࡜ᅜ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕

࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ᅜḷࢆࠊࢻ࢖ࢶᅜḷࢆḷ࠺࡜ࡁࡣ࣮ࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀ๓ᥦ࡛ࡍࠋࡑࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕

ࢻ࢖ࢶᅜḷࢆࠊ୧᪉ࢆḷࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋኚ࡟ࢼࢩࣙ

ࢸ࢕࣮ࢆ஌ࡾ㉺࠼࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚༠ᴗࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ

ࢼࣜࢬ࣒࡛ࠊನࡣ⏕ࡲࢀࡓᅜࡔࡅࡢᅜḷࢆḷ࠺࡜࠿ࠊ࠿࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ࠸࠼ࡤࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕

௒ാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊࡑࡕࡽࡢḷࢆḷ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ࡚ࠊ

ࢸ࢕࣮ࢆࡋࡗ࠿ࡾ࡜ࡘࡃࡿࠊ⥔ᣢࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ

ࡸࡣࡾ⮬ศࡣࠊ௒ࠊࢺࣛࣥࢫࢼࢩࣙࢼࣝ࡞ேᮦ࡜ࡋ኱ኚ㔜せ࡞ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜⪃࠼ࡲࡍࠋ࡚ࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢࢧࢵ࣮࢝ࢳ࣮࣒ࢆ⋡࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡅࢀ࡝

ࡶ࠺ఱᖺࡶゝ࠸ྂࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢼࢩࣙࢼࣝ

ࡶࠊࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⏕ࡲࢀࡣ࡝࠺ࡋࡓࡗ࡚ᾘࡏ࡞࠸ࠊࢻ࢖

࡞࢔ࢡࢸ࢕ࣅࢸ࢕࣮࡜࠸࠺ゝ࠸᪉ࡣࠊࢥࣥࢭࣉࢺࡣ

ࢶே࡛ࡍࠋ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ64 ヨྜࡢ࠺ࡕࠊࡶ

↻ワࡲࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊゝⴥࡢཎ⩏࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡶኚࢃࡗ࡚

࠺ 60 ヨྜࡣ⤊ࢃࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊぢ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸

࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡸࡣࡾࡇࡇ࡛ࡣゝⴥࢆᑡࡋኚ࠼࡚ࠊࢺࣛࣥ

࠺ẖ᪥࡛ࡍࠋ

ࢫࢼࢩࣙࢼࣝ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࠊࡲࡎ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢼࢩࣙࢼ
ࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢ᪉࡛ࡍࠋᩍ⫱ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ᨵ㠉࡜࠸࠺୰࡛ࠊ
௒᪥ࡢ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻࡣࠊࡶ࠺࠸ࡘࡶ࡝࠾ࡾ࡛ࠊࡲࡓ࠿
࡜ゝࢃࢀࡲࡍࡀࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࡛⪃࠼ࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋNerad ඛ⏕ࡢ࡯࠺࠿ࡽ
Ꮫ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜࠸࠺ヰ㢟ࡀฟ࡚ࡃࡿࡢࡣࠊᙜࡓࡾ
๓ࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡶࡋࢀࡲࡏࢇࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ୰࡛ࡣࠊ
Ꮫ⏕ࡢどⅬ࡟❧ࡗ࡚ᩍ⫱ࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
ㄡ࡛ࡶࡶࡕࢁࢇࡑ࠺ࡔ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡣࡎ࡛ࡍࡀࠊࡑ
ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡲ࡛ᮏᙜ࡟ࡑ࠺࡞ࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ
ᡃࡀᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣᮏᏛࢆ࠾࠸࡚࡯࠿࡟࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠸

࡜࠸ࡗ࡚࠸࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࢃࢀࢃࢀࡣࠊࡑࡢ

ࡑࢀࡣࠊ⢭⚄ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ࡚ࠊࡸࡣࡾ኱Ꮫࡢሙྜ

ࡓࡵ࡟ࣇ࢓࢝ࣝࢸ࢕࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊ⣔࡜࠸࠺࡟ࡣࠊࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࢆࡋࡗ࠿ࡾ࡜ࢥࣥࢭࣉࢺ

ࡶࡢࢆᩍ⫱⤌⧊࠿ࡽศ㞳࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ௒ᚋࡣࠊࡇ

ࢆᇶ┙࡟ࡘࡃࡗ࡚࠸࠿࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋࡇ࠺࠸

ࡢ฼Ⅼࢆࡼࡃά⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜࠸࠺

ࡗࡓᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢෆᐜࢆඛ⏕᪉࡜㆟ㄽࡍࡿࢳࣕ

ࡶࡢࢆ᥎㐍ࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ

ࣥࢫࡀࠊࡔࢇࡔࢇቑ࠼࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆᮇᚅࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ

ᚫỌඛ⏕ࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀࡲࡏࢇࡀࠊ⚾࠿ࡽ༙᪥࡛ࡍࡀࠊࡐࡦ࡜ࡶࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ᪉ࠎ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ

ࡶ㏙࡭࡚࠾ࡃࡇ࡜࡟࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡍࠋᮏᏛࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ

᭷┈࡞࣑࣮ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ

࣒ࣛ᥎㐍ࡣ᪂ࡋ࠸ẁ㝵࡟ධࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᏛ

኱ኚᮇᚅࡋ࡚ࠊ⚾ࡶ⪺࠿ࡏ࡚ࡶࡽ࠾࠺࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ

఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜࠸࠺⥲ពࡢ୰࡛ࠊ௒

ࡲࡍࠋᗘࡣࠊࡑࡢヲ⣽ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿẁ㝵࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜࡛ࡍࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛ᚑ๓࠿ࡽ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡞┿⌮᥈✲ࢆ┠ᣦࡍ Ph.D.ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡛⤖ᵓ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠋࡶ࠺୍
ࡘ⪃࠼࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿᑓ㛛⫋Ꮫ఩ࢆࠊᑓ㛛⫋Ꮫ఩࡜࿧ࡤ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ⤖ᵓ࡛ࡍࡀࠊࡑ࠺࠸
࠺Ꮫ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡶࡕࡷࢇ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁࡔ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ་Ꮫࡢ༤ኈࡀ࠶ࢀࡤࠊ་⒪⛉Ꮫࡢᑓ㛛⫋ࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ࠸࠸ࠋ⏕࿨ࡢ⌮Ꮫ༤ኈࡀ࠶ࢀࡤࠊࣂ࢖࢜ࢸ
ࢡࣀࣟࢪ࣮࡜࠸࠺ᑓ㛛Ꮫ఩ࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ࠸࠸ࠋࡑࢀࡒ
ࢀࡢேᮦࡢ⫱ᡂࢆ⪃࠼ࢀࡤࠊࡑࢀࡣࡦࡻࡗ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊ
ಟኈࢆฟ࡚ࠊᑓ㛛⫋࡟ᑵࡃ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ほⅬࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚࠸࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࡋࠊ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶㄡࡶ⯆࿡ࡀ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡞
ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ┿⌮᥈✲࡞ࡽࡤࠊ࿨ࡣᝰࡋ
ࡲ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ Ph.D.ࡀ⫱ࡘࡢࡶࠊࡇࢀࡲࡓ኱ษ࡞ࡇ࡜
ࡔ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ

Ꮫ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢᑟධ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
㸫኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖド࡟ྥࡅࡓᨻᗓ࡜⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫࡢྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳ㸫Introduction of the Degree Program System
㸫Approach to quality assurance in university education
by government and the University of Tsukuba㸫ᚫỌ ಖ ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫᩍᤵ࣭Ꮫ㛗≉ู⿵బ
Prof. Tamotsu Tokunaga,
Executive Advisor to the President, University of Tsukubaࡓࡔ௒ࠊࡈ⤂௓ࢆ࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋࡓᚫỌ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲ
ࡍࠋ࡝࠺ࡒࡼࢁࡋࡃ࠾㢪࠸࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡍࠋᮏ᪥ࡣࠊᩍ
ဨࡢ FD ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊ⚾ࡢ࡯࠺࠿ࡽ
ࡣㅮ₇࡜࠸࠺ࡩ࠺࡟㖭ᡴࡗ࡚ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊㅮ₇࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡬ࡢ⛣⾜࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄝ᫂࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ࠾⪺ࡁ␃ࡵ࠸ࡓࡔࡅࢀࡤ
࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
ඛ࡯࡝Ọ⏣Ꮫ㛗ඛ⏕ࡢࡈ࠶࠸ࡉࡘ࡟ࡶࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋ
ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫࡣࠊ௒ᚋࠊᏛ⩌ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᏛ㢮ࠊ◊✲⛉ࠊᑓᨷ࡜࠸࠺⤌⧊ࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡍࡿᩍ⫱࠿ࡽࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟ࡼࡿᩍ⫱࡟㡰ḟ⛣⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆ
ࡍ࡛࡟Ỵࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
࠾ᡭඖ࡟࠶ࡿ௒᪥ࡢ㓄௜㈨ᩱ࡟ࡣࠊ⟃Ἴ኱ᏛࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛไ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
࡜࠸࠺ཧ⪃㈨ᩱࡀࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡇࡢෆᐜ࡟ࡘࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡍ࡛࡟኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱఍㆟ࡸᏛ⩌ᩍ⫱఍㆟ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᩍ⫱◊✲ホ㆟఍➼ࡢ஢ᢎࢆᚓࡲࡋ࡚ࠊࡍ࡛࡟
ᡂᩥ໬ࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ௒ᚋࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜࡟ᚑ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ౛࠼ࡤ
Ꮫ㢮ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᑓᨷࢆᶓ᩿ࡍࡿᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆ࡝࠺࠸࠺ᡭ⥆ࡁ࡛ࡘࡃࡗ࡚
࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡝࠺࠸࠺ᑂᰝࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࠿࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀᐃࡵ࡚࠶ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈ
ࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ௒ᖺ 1 ᖺࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ 2 ᖺ࠿ࡅ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᏛ㢮ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᑓᨷ
ࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡍࡿᩍ⫱ࢆᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟⛣⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃሙྜࡢᡭ⥆ࡁ࡞ࡾࠊෆᐜࠊ
ࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᮏ᱁ⓗ࡞᳨ウ࡟ධࡿࡇ࡜
࡟ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ௒᪥ࡣࠊཧ⪃࡟࠾㓄ࡾࡋࡲࡋࡓ⟃Ἴ኱ᏛࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ≉ẁㄝ᫂ࢆຍ࠼ࡲࡏࢇࡀࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜⮬యࡣඛ࡯࡝⏦ࡋࡲࡋࡓࡼ
࠺࡟ࠊࡍ࡛࡟ᩍ⫱◊✲ホ㆟఍➼࡛஢ᢎࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓᩥ❶࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ௒ᚋࡇࢀ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊ㡰ḟ᪂ࡋ࠸Ꮫ఩
ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆࡘࡃࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ⛣⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡶࡢ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡐࡦࡇࢀ࡟ࡘࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒ
ࢀࡢඛ⏕᪉࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡈぴࢆ࠸ࡓࡔࡅࢀࡤ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾
ࡾࡲࡍࠋ

4௒᪥ࠊ⚾ࡀ࠾ヰࢆ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛไࡢ୰㌟ࠊࡑࢀ
⮬య࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡟⮳ࡿࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ㐨➽ࠊ✚ࡳ㔜ࡡࢆ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
ඛ࡯࡝࠿ࡽᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛไ࡟⛣⾜ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆ⏦ࡋࡲࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ
ඛ⏕᪉ࡢከࡃࡣࠊ࠸ࡘࡑࢇ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡀỴࡲࡗࡓࡢ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡁ
࡞ࡾࡑࢇ࡞ᛴ࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ௒ࡲ࡛ࡢᨵ㠉ࡢ᪉ྥ࡜ࡲࡗࡓࡃ㐪࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ࡞ࡐ᪂ࡋࡃࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡜ࡈᠱᛕࢆᣢࡓࢀࡿ᪉ࡶᑡ࡞࠿ࡽࡎ࠸ࡽࡗࡋࡷࡿ࡜ᛮࡗ
࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ௒᪥ࠊ⚾ࡀ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࡢࡣࠊࢃࢀࢃࢀࡀ௒ᚋ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡃ࡛࠶
ࢁ࠺Ꮫ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊỴࡋ࡚ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ኱Ꮫᨵ㠉࡜ࡲࡗࡓࡃ↓⦕ࡢࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡜ࡣ㐪࠺✀㢮ࡢᨵ㠉࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛
ᘏࠎ࡜✚ࡳ㔜ࡡ࡚ࡁࡓ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ᨵ㠉ࡢᘏ㛗⥺ୖ࡟࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࢃࡤᚑ᮶ࡢ኱Ꮫᩍ
⫱ᨵ㠉ࡢヨࡳࢆ㞟኱ᡂࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ௙⤌ࡳ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛ࠶ࡿࠋỴࡋ࡚ࡑࡢព࿡࡛ࡣࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛✚ࡳ㔜ࡡ࡚ࡁࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࡉࡽ࡟య⣔໬ࢆࡋ࡚ࠊ࠸ࢃࡤ⤌⧊໬ࡋ࡚㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡃࡢࡔ࡜ࠋࡑ࠺࠸
ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࡈ⌮ゎ࠸ࡓࡔࡃࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢᨵၿ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࡢṔྐࢆࡓ࡝ࡾࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ᨵ㠉ࡢヨࡳࡀࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛไ
࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⤖ࡧ௜࠸࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࠿ࠊࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࡈ⌮ゎ࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡓ࠸࡜
ᛮ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄝ᫂ࢆࡍࡿḟ➨࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
඲య࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ୕㒊ᵓᡂ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡲࡎ
኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢᨵၿ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖ
ドࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ☜❧࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ኱Ꮫ࡟ࡼࡿ୺
యⓗ࣭⮬❧ⓗ࡞ᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖド࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ᵓᡂ
࡛ࡍࠋࡇࡢ◊ಟ఍ࡢࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡀࠊ
ࠕࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ໬࡟ྥࡅࡓ
ᩍ⫱ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ᨵ㠉 ̿ᩍ⫱ࡢᅜ㝿ⓗ஫᥮ᛶࡢྥୖ࡟
ྥࡅ࡚̿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊᐇࡣࠊࡇࡢ
኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖドࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ☜❧࡜࠸࠸ࡲࡍࡢࡣࠊ
ࡑ࠺࠸࠺ᅜ㝿ⓗ࡞㉁ಖドࡢὶࢀࡢ୰࡛ࠊ᪥ᮏࡀᚑ᮶
ࡢ༢࡞ࡿᩍ⫱ࡢᨵၿ࠿ࡽࠊ࠸ࢃࡤᅜ㝿ⓗ࡞➇தຊࢆ
ᣢࡗࡓ㉁ಖドࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟㌿᥮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛
ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊᅜ㝿ⓗ࡞஫᥮ᛶࡢ୰࡛኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡇࡢ
➨㸰㒊ࡢẁ㝵࠿ࡽጞࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢ୰࡛ࠊ25 ᖺ๓ࡢ≧ἣ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ࡜࠿ࠊ2000 ᖺࡈࢁࡢ≧ἣ࡛ࡍ
࡜࠿ࠊ2004 ᖺࠊ2008 ᖺࡈࢁࡢ≧ἣࡀ㍕ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊỴࡋ࡚ࡇࡢ᫬
ᮇࡀ᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢᨵ㠉࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ኱Ꮫᨻ⟇ࡢ࢚࣏ࢵࢡ࣓࣮࢟ࣥࢢࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸
ࡣ㌿᥮Ⅼ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡣࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡏࢇࠋࡇࢇ࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆゝ࠺࡜ࠊΎỈඛ⏕࠿ࡽྏࡽࢀࡑ࠺࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊࡇ࠺࠸࠺ᩘᏐࢆฟࡋࡲࡋࡓࡢࡣࠊ
ඛ࡯࡝ụ⏣ඛ⏕࠿ࡽࡈ⤂௓ࢆ࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⚾ࡀᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬࡛኱Ꮫ⾜ᨻ࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࡢࡀࠊࡓࡲࡓࡲࡇ࠺࠸࠺ᖺ௦࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑ࠺࠸࠺ព
࿡࡛ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫࡢඛ⏕ࡀࡶࡢࢆㄽࡌࡿ࡜ࡁࡣࠊࡁࡕࢇ࡜ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ࢆᣲࡆ࡚ࠊࡁࡕࢇ࡜ㄽドࢆࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡍࡀࠊ⚾ࡀࠊ⌧࡟ᢸᙜࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ᫬ᮇ
࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ≉ẁཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ࢆㄽࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊᚰ㓄࡞ࡃࡋࡷ࡭ࢀࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺
࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ࠾ヰࢆࡍࡿࡘࡶࡾ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡲࡎ➨㸯㒊࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊ25 ᖺ๓ࡢ᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ
ࡢᩍ⫱ࡢ≧ἣࢆ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ඲㒊ࡢᩍ⫱ࡀࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࡀࠊ ࠎ࡟ࡋ
࡚ࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋᏛ
㒊࣭Ꮫ⛉ࡢᤵᴗ⛉┠ࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᢸ
ᙜᩍဨࡢ⪃࠼᪉࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ㛤タࢆࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋ
ᙜ↛ࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚య⣔ᛶ࡟Ḟࡅ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋྠ୍ྡ
ࡢᤵᴗ⛉┠࡛࠶ࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᢸᙜᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ෆᐜ
ࡀࡲࡗࡓࡃ␗࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ
⚾ࡣἲᏛ㒊࡛ᤵᴗࢆཷࡅࡲࡋࡓࠋẸἲ୍㒊ࠊẸἲ஧㒊ࠊẸἲ୕㒊ࠊẸἲᅄ㒊࡜࠶ࡾࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒ
ࢀࡢඛ⏕᪉ࡀࠊ㝸ᖺ࡛ᢸᙜ࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡍࠋඛ⏕ࡀ㐪࠺ࡈ࡜࡟Ẹἲ஧㒊ࡢᤵᴗෆᐜࡶࡲࡗࡓࡃ㐪࠺ࠋࡑࢀࡀ
࠸ࡗࡓ࠸ఱ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࢃ
ࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
Ꮫ⏕࡟ࡼࡿᤵᴗ⛉┠ࡢᒚಟ࡟ࡘࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ౛እ
ⓗ࡞ᚲಟ⛉┠ࢆ㝖࠸࡚ࠊᏛ⏕ࡀ⮬⏤࡟ᒚಟ⛉┠ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿࠋ኱Ꮫࡢ༞ᴗ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ୍ᐃᩘ௨ୖࡢ༢఩
ࢆྲྀᚓࡍࢀࡤࠊㄢ⛬ࢆಟ஢ࡍࡿࠋ୰㌟࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᐃ
㔞ⓗ࡞༢఩ᩘࡢၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
࠶ࡿ኱ᏛࡢἲᏛ㒊࡛ࡣࠊᚲಟ⛉┠ࡀࡲࡗࡓࡃࡈࡊ
࠸ࡲࡏࢇ࡛ࠊ඲࡚௚Ꮫ㒊ࡢᏛ㒊ࢆ⫈ㅮࡋ࡚ࡶ༞ᴗ࡛
ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣࡀࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋᯝࡓࡋ࡚ࡇ
ࢀࡀ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡢ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
኱Ꮫ㝔࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡲࡎࠊᡓᚋࡍࡄࡢ 1948 ᖺ࡟ࠊ࢔ ࣓ ࣜ ࢝ ࡟ ೌ ࡗ ࡚ ㄢ ⛬ ไ ኱ Ꮫ 㝔 ไ ᗘ 㸦 Graduate
School System㸧ࢆᑟධࡋࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࡋ
࡚ࠊ࠿࡞ࡾ㐜ࡃ࡞ࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ1974 ᖺ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࠊึࡵ
࡚ࡇࡢㄢ⛬ไ኱Ꮫ㝔࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊ኱Ꮫ㝔タ⨨ᇶ‽ࢆไᐃࡋࠊᏛ఩つ๎ࢆᨵṇࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢᏛ఩つ๎ࡢᨵṇ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊᚑ᮶ࡢ༤ኈࡢᏛ఩ࡣࠊ᪂ࡓ࡞▱ぢࢆ௜ࡅຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡟༤ኈࡢᏛ఩ࢆฟࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛
ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊࡇࢀࢆ኱Ꮫ㝔ࡢㄢ⛬ࢆಟ஢ࡋࠊ࠸
ࢃࡤ୍ே๓ࡢ◊✲⪅࡜ࡋ࡚◊✲ࢆࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡅࡿྍ⬟ᛶࠊ୍ᐃࡢᙧᘧⓗ࡞㈨᱁ࠊ⬟ຊࡢ❧ド࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊ༤ኈࢆฟࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛
ᨵṇࡋࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊከࡃࡢ኱Ꮫࡢᩍဨࡣࠊࢫࢡ࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ኱Ꮫ㝔࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉࡟࡞ࡌࡵࡎࠊᡓ๓ࡢไᗘ࡛࠶ࡾࡲࡋࡓࢻ࢖ࢶࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢ኱Ꮫ㝔ࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ
༞ᴗᚋ◊✲ࡢሙ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ኱Ꮫ㝔࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡟ᅛᇳࡋࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑ
ࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࢮ࣑ࢼ࣮ࣝᙧᘧ࡛࠶
ࡿᤵᴗࡢ࡯࠿ࡣࠊྛᩍဨࡢ◊✲ᐊ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᩍဨࡢ◊✲άື࡟ཧ⏬ࢆࡉࡏࡿࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢㄽᩥࡢసᡂᣦᑟࢆࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࡀࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕᩍ⫱άື࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸
࠺≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡇ࠺࠸࠺≧ἣ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᙜ᫬ࠊ⚾ࡶ኱Ꮫㄢࡢㄢ㛗⿵బ࡛࠶ࡾࡲࡋࡓࡅࢀ࡝ࠊᩥ㒊┬ࡀྲྀࡾ⤌ࢇ࡛࠸ࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ୍ࡘࡣࠊ1987 ᖺ࡟኱Ꮫᑂ㆟఍ࢆࡘࡃࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࠊᏛኈㄢ⛬ᩍ⫱ᨵၿࡢヨࡳࡀጞࡲࡾࡲ
ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛ࠊ୍⯡ᩍ⫱⛉┠ࡢ㛤タ࣭ᒚಟつไࡢᗫṆ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ࠸࠸⤖ᯝࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡋࡲࡏ
ࢇ࡛ࡋࡓࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊࡇࡇ࡟࠶ࡾࡲࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࢩࣛࣂࢫ
ࡢసᡂ࡛࠶ࡾࡲࡍ࡜࠿ࠊᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⮬ᕫⅬ᳨➼ࡢዡບࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᩥ㒊┬࡟ࡼࡿ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢᨵ㠉࣭ᨵၿ≧ἣ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄪᰝࡀࠊᚎࠎ࡟ྛ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᨵ
ၿ࡟⤖ࡧ௜࠸࡚ࡁࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡲࡓྠ᫬࡟ࠊ኱Ꮫ㝔ࡢᩍ⫱࡟ࡘࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ༤ኈ
ㄢ⛬ࡢ┠ⓗ࡟㧗ᗘᑓ㛛⫋ᴗேࡢ㣴ᡂࢆ㏣ຍ࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡋࡓࡋࠊ኱Ꮫ㝔ࡢ㔞ⓗᣑ኱ࢆ࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ㝔ᑓ௵ᩍဨࡢ㓄⨨ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ㝔ᅛ᭷ࡢ᪋タ࣭タഛࡢᩚഛࢆ࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ
ᙜ᫬ࡢᮇᚅ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱࡟࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࡀ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊᏛ⏕ࡀ 1 ே
࠿ 2 ேࡋ࠿࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ1 ே࠿ 2 ேࡋ࠿࠸࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛ
ࡶఱࡶ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࡜ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ኱Ꮫ㝔ࢆ㔞ⓗ࡟ᣑ኱ࢆࡋ࡚ࠊᑓ௵ᩍဨࢆࡘࡅ
࡚ᅛ᭷ࡢ᪋タࢆࡘࡃࢀࡤ࠾ࡢࡎ࠿ࡽ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࡀ⏕ࡲࢀ࡚ࡃࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸
࠿࡜ࠊࢃࢀࢃࢀࡣᴦほⓗ࡟⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊỴࡋ࡚ࡑ࠺ࡣ࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲ
ࡏࢇࠋࡸࡣࡾᩍဨࡢ◊✲άືࡣ඘ᐇࡋࡲࡋࡓࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊᩍ⫱άືࡣࠊ౫↛పㄪ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣࡀ⥆࠸ࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓ࡞࠿࡛ࠊ᫬㛫ࡢ㛵ಀࡶࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ
ཧ⪃ࡢෆᐜࡣࡈ⤂௓ࡋࡲࡏࢇࡅࢀ࡝ࠊ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢኚ㠉ࢆಁࡍືྥࡀ⌧ࢀ࡚ࡲ࠸ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
≉࡟኱Ꮫே⮬㌟ࡢ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ᨵၿࡢྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࢆࡈ⤂௓ࡍࡿ࠺࠼࡛ࡣࠊ࢟ࣕࣜ࢔ᩍ⫱ࡢ኱ኚ኱ࡁ࡞ὶࢀࡀ
ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ୰ኸᩍ⫱ᑂ㆟఍⟅⏦࡛ࠊࠕึ➼୰➼ᩍ⫱࡜㧗➼ᩍ⫱࡜ࡢ᥋⥆ࡢᨵၿ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⟅⏦ࡀฟࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ୺࡜ࡋ࡚㧗ᰯᩍ⫱ࢆᛕ㢌࡟⨨࠸࡚ࠊ࢟ࣕࣜ࢔ᩍ⫱ࢆᑟධࡋࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺ᥦゝࡔࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊᙜ᫬ࠊࡇࡇ࡟ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡼ
࠺࡟ࠊࣂࣈࣝࡢᔂቯࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ኱Ꮫ༞ᴗᚋࡢ↓ᴗ⪅ࡀቑຍࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢖
ࣥࢱ࣮ࣥࢩࢵࣉࡀᬑཬࠊᣑ኱ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡞࠿࡛ࠊᅜ
❧኱Ꮫ㛵ಀ⪅ࡀࠊ⮬୺ⓗ࡟ࠕ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢟ࣕࣜ࢔
ᩍ⫱ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ఍ࠖࢆ⤖ᡂࡋࠊᅜ❧኱Ꮫ༠఍࠿ࡽࠕ኱
Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢟ࣕࣜ࢔ᩍ⫱ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ሗ࿌ࡀࡈ
ࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋᮏᏛࡢΏ㎶୕ᯞᏊᩍᤵࡶᙜ᫬ࡢ୺せ࡞࣓ࣥࣂ࣮࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ
ࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓὶࢀࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࠊ⫋ᴗព㆑ࡢᙧᡂ࡟㛵ࢃࡿᤵᴗ⛉┠ࡀ㛤タࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡃࠋᙜ↛ࡑ࠺࠸࠺⫋ᴗព㆑ࡢᙧᡂ࡟㛵ࢃࡿᤵᴗ⛉┠࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ࠸ࢃࡤయ⣔ⓗ࡞ᩍ⫱ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠊࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡶ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢᨵၿ࡟࠿࡞ࡾᐤ
୚ࡋࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡲࡓྠ᫬࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡣ 2000 ᖺࡈࢁ࠿ࡽࠊࡕࡻ࠺࡝ἲ
ே໬ࡢ┤๓࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊᩥ㒊┬ࡀ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱࡟ᑐࡋ࡚➇தⓗ㈨㔠ࢆᑟධࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋ
ࡓࠋ1990 ᖺ௦ᚋ༙࠿ࡽࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ኱Ꮫ࡛⮬୺ⓗ࡟኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࢆᨵၿࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ືࡁࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࠊඹ㏻
ᵝᘧ࡛ࡢࢩࣛࣂࢫࡢసᡂࠊ཮᪉ྥᤵᴗࠊᏛ⏕࡟ࡼࡿᤵᴗホ౯ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ࢟ࣕࣜ࢔ᩍ⫱ࡢᑟධࡀ㐍ࡵࡽࢀࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡓࡔࠊࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓືࡁࡣࠊࡸࡣࡾ⤌⧊ⓗ࡞ືࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ୍㒊ࡢ᭷ᚿᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿヨࡳ࡛࠶ࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ
࠺࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡣࠊ୍㒊ࡢඛ⏕᪉ࡢດຊ࡟ࡼࡗࡓヨࡳ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡇ࠺࠸࠺ヨࡳࢆ㈨㔠㠃
࡛᥼ຓࢆࡋ࡚ࠊᩍဨࡢಶேⓗ࡞ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࢆ⤌⧊ⓗ࡞ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳ࡟㌿᥮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡇ
࠺࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ➇தⓗ㈨㔠ࡀ๰タࡉࢀࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡶࡕࢁࢇ◊✲࡟ᑐࡍࡿ➇தⓗ㈨㔠ࡣࠊࡇࢀ௨๓࠿ࡽ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠➼ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊᩍ⫱άື࡟㛵ࡍࡿ➇தⓗ㈨㔠࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࡲࡗࡓࡃ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࢃ
ࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡇࢀࡀࠊ2003 ᖺ࡟≉Ⰽ࠶ࡿ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ᨭ᥼ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࠊ⥆࠸
࡚ 2004 ᖺ௨㝆ࠊ⌧௦ᩍ⫱ GP ࡛࠶ࡾࡲࡍ࡜࠿ࠊᩍဨ㣴ᡂ࡛࠶ࡾࡲࡍ࡜࠿ࠊ࢟
ࣕࣜ࢔ᩍ⫱࡜࠸࠺≉ᐃࡢㄢ㢟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ➇தⓗ㈨㔠ࡀᣑ኱ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ2009 ఍ィᖺᗘ࡟࠾ࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱࡟╔┠ࢆࡋࡓ➇தⓗ㈨㔠ࡢᥦ౪㢠ࡀ 300 ൨෇ࠊ኱Ꮫ㝔ࡢᩍ⫱άື࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ 60 ൨෇࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᙜ᫬ࡢ 21 ୡ⣖
COE ➼ࡀ 340 ൨෇ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡢ࡛ࠊ1000 ൨෇ᙅࡢ࠾㔠ࡀࠊ኱Ꮫࡢᩍ⫱άື࡟㔜Ⅼⓗ࡟ᢞධࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓࠋࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ⌧ሙ࡛㡹ᙇࡗ࡚࠸ࡽࡗࡋ
ࡷࡿඛ⏕᪉ࡀ㈨㔠㠃࡛ࡢᛂ᥼ࢆᚓࡲࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ࠺࠸࠺ヨࡳࡀ኱Ꮫ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᏛ㒊࡟ࡼࡿ⤌⧊ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡟㌿᥮ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ḟࡀࠊ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖド࡟ྥࡅ࡚࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡇࢀࡀࠊඛ࡯࡝Ọ⏣Ꮫ㛗࠿ࡽࡶ࠾ヰࡀࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓ
ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᅜ㝿ⓗ࡞㏻⏝ᛶ࡟኱ࡁࡃ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࢃࡅ
࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ᪥ᮏࡣࠊ1990 ᖺ௦࠿ࡽ 2000 ᖺࡲ࡛
ࢆ㏻ࡌࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࢆᨵၿࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ヨࡳࢆࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࢆᨵၿࡍࡿ࡜࠸
࠺ࡢࡣࠊㄡ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࡢヨࡳ࠿࡜࠸࠼ࡤࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊ኱
Ꮫ㛵ಀ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ኱Ꮫ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࡢヨࡳ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
኱Ꮫ㛵ಀ⪅ࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣ࠸࠸࡜ᛮ࠺᪉ྥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ኱
Ꮫᩍ⫱ࢆᨵၿࡍࡿ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ᪉ྥ࡛ࡢດຊ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࢃ
ࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊࡕࡻ࠺࡝ 20 ୡ⣖ᮎ࠿ࡽࠊࡑࢀ࡜
ࡣࡲࡗࡓࡃ␗࡞ࡿὶࢀࡀฟ࡚ࡁࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡑࢀࡣ୍ࡘ࡟ࡣࠊࡇࡢཧ⪃ࡢ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛⏦ࡋࡲࡍࡀࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡀ WTO ࡟࠾ࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࠊࠕࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ㈠᫆࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⯡༠ᐃࠖࡢ୰࡛ࠊᩍ⫱ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࢆྵࡴࢧ
࣮ࣅࢫ஦ᴗࢆ WTO ࡢ㈠᫆஺΅ࡢᑐ㇟࡜࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡍࠋࡑࡢୖ࡛ࠊྛᅜ࡟࠾ࡅ
ࡿ㧗➼ᩍ⫱ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࢆ⮬⏤໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࢃ
ࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࡢタ⨨ㄆྍࡀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ኱Ꮫࡀ⮬⏤࡟᪥ᮏ࡛Ꮫ㒊ࡸ኱Ꮫ㝔ࢆ㛤タࡋ࡚ᩍ⫱࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆಖドࡋࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡣ WTO ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࢃࡅ࡛
ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡟ᑐᛂࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏ࡜࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡀ
㐃ྜࡋ࡚ࠊUNESCO ࡟࠾ࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ㧗➼ᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ࡢ
ಖド࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢞࢖ࢻࣛ࢖ࣥ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࢆࡘࡃࡾࡲࡋ
ࡓࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪉ྥ࡟࡞ࡽࡎ࡟ࠊ
ྛᅜࡢᨻᗓࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ㈐௵࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㧗➼ᩍ⫱
ࡢ㉁ࢆ☜ಖࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᢎㄆࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ᪥
ᮏࡢᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬࡟ࡼࡿ኱Ꮫࡢタ⨨ㄆྍไᗘࡀࠊᅜ㝿ⓗ࡟ࡶㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡣࠊࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓ
UNESCOࠊOECD ࡢ࢞࢖ࢻࣛ࢖ࣥ࡟‶㊊ࡏࡎࠊ࣎ࣟ
࣮ࢽࣕᐉゝࢆฟࡋࠊࡑࡢୖ࡛ࠊ࢚ࣛࢫ࣒ࢫ࣭࣒ࣥࢻ
ࢗࢫ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࡓࡕ࡛ࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ࣮ࣚ
ࣟࢵࣃ௨እࡢᡤ࡟࡝ࢇ࡝ࢇฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡇ࠺࡜ࠊ࠸ࢃࡤ
࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢ኱Ꮫࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ኱Ꮫࢩࢫ
ࢸ࣒࡜୪ࡪࢹࣇ࢓ࢡࢺࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻ࡟ࡋࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺
ືࡁࡀ࠶ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡇ࠺࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ືࡁ
࡟ᑐᛂࡋ࡚᪥ᮏ࡟࠾ࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫࡢ㉁ಖ
ドࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆᅜ㝿ⓗ㏻⏝ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡟㌿᥮ࡋ࡚࠸࠿࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ព㆑ࡀⱆ⏕࠼ࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛ⓙࡉࡲ᪉࡟ࡐࡦࡇࡇࡢ࡜ࡇࢁࡣ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸࡜ࡇࢁ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊ
ඛ࡯࡝ゝ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢᨵၿࡣࠊ኱Ꮫࡢ㛵ಀ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ኱Ꮫ࡟ྥࡅ
ࡓᨵၿࡢྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ࡛ࡣࠊ㉁ಖド࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣఱ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠋ኱Ꮫᩍ
⫱ࡢᨵၿ࡜㉁ಖドࡣ㐪࠺ࡢ࠿ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ㐪࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ㉁ࢆಖドࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊㄡࡀㄡ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ಖドࢆࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ኱Ꮫࡀ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢ฼ᐖ㛵ಀ⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ࢆಖドࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ㉁ࡢಖ
ドࢆࡉࢀࡿཷࡅᡭࡣᏛ⏕࡛࠶ࡾࠊᤵᴗᩱࡢ㈇ᢸ⪅࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㈨㔠ࢆฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᅜ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ༞ᴗ⏕ࡢཷࡅᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ௻ᴗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊධᏛ⪅ࢆ㏦ࡾฟࡍ㧗➼Ꮫᰯ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢ฼ᐖ㛵ಀ⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ኱Ꮫࡢᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ࢆಖドࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡇࡢ▐㛫࡟ࠊ࠸ࢃࡤ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢෆ㒊ࡢヨࡳࡀࠊ኱Ꮫእࡢேࢆ
ᕳࡁ㎸ࢇ࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢࡶࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ࢆಖドࡋ࡚࠸ࡇ࠺࡜࠸࠺᪉ྥ࡟ኚࢃࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡇࢀࡣࠊᅜ㝿ⓗ࡞ὶࢀࡢ୰࡛ࠊᙜ↛࡛࠶ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛
ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓ୰࡛ࡣࠊタ⨨ㄆྍ࡜タ⨨ᇶ‽ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠊ
࡜࡚ࡶᅜ㝿ⓗ࡞㏻⏝ᛶࡀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊㄆドホ౯ไᗘࡀᑟධࡉࢀࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡲ
ࡓྠ᫬࡟ࠊ኱Ꮫࠊ኱Ꮫ㛵ಀ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ୺యⓗ࡞ᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖド࡟ࡇࢀࡀᚲせࡔ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋ

ࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀࠊලయⓗ࡞ືࡁ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ➨୕⪅ホ౯ไᗘ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ᪥ᮏ࡛ࡣㄆドホ౯ไᗘࠊ࢔ࢡࣞࢹ࢕ࢸ࣮ࢩࣙ
ࣥ࡜ࡋ࡚ᑟධࡉࢀࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡉ࡚ࠊබⓗ࡞㉁ಖドไᗘࡢ≧ἣࠊ2004 ᖺࡢ≧ἣࢆ⏦ࡋࡲࡍ࡜ࠊ⾲㠃ⓗ࡟ࡣᩚഛࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊ┦஫ࡢ㛵㐃ࡀ୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋ኱Ꮫタ⨨ᇶ‽࡜኱Ꮫ㝔タ⨨ᇶ‽➼ࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࡀࠊࡑࢀࡣඹ㏻ࡢ኱Ꮫほࠊ኱Ꮫ⌮ᛕࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ึࡵ࡚ᡂࡾ❧ࡘつᐃయ⣔࡛࠶ࡾࡲࡋ
࡚ࠊෆᐜࡣ✰ࡔࡽࡅ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊᐃᛶⓗ࣭ᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞つᐃࢆ⿵ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡢࡣࠊᑂᰝෆつ➼࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢᑂᰝෆつ➼ࡀᗫṆࡉࢀࡓ▐㛫࡟ࠊࡑࡶࡑࡶ᭩࠸࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ࡝ࢇ࡞
ࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ࠸࠸ࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡢ࡛ࠊ⮬Ꮿࢆ኱Ꮫ࡟ࡋ࡚タ⨨ㄆྍ⏦ㄳࢆࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ືࡁࡉ࠼࠾ࡁ࡚ࡁࡓࢃࡅ࡛
ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡲࡓྠ᫬࡟ࠊㄆドホ౯࡟ࡘࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࡶࠊㄆドホ౯࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣἲᚊୖཷࡅࢀ
ࡤ࠸࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊఱࡽ࠾ቚ௜ࡁࢆࡶࡽࢃ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ࠸࠸ࠋㄆドホ౯ࢆཷࡅ࡞
࠿ࡗࡓ኱Ꮫࡣ࡝࠺࡞ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ࡝ࡇ࡟ࡶఱࡶ᭩࠸࡚࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊタ⨨ᇶ‽࡞ࡾタ⨨ㄆྍᑂᰝ࡜ㄆドホ౯ࡢ㛵ಀࡀࠊࡲࡗࡓࡃ㐃ືࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓ≧ἣ࡟ࡈࡊ࠸
ࡲࡍࠋ࡛ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ࡟ࡼࡿ⮬ᚊⓗ㉁ಖドࡢ≧ἣࡣ࡝࠺࠿࡜࠸࠸ࡲࡍ࡜ࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊタ⨨ᇶ‽࡟ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ⮬ᕫⅬ᳨ࠊ⮬ᕫホ౯ࡢࡳ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ࠸ࢃࡤእ࡟ྥ࠿
ࡗ࡚ࠊ⮬ศࡓࡕࡀࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᩍ⫱ࢆࡁࡕࢇ࡜බ⾲ࡋࠊእ㒊ࡢே㛫࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
⮬ศࡓࡕࡢᩍ⫱ࡢෆᐜࢆಖドࡋ࡚࠸ࡇ࠺࡜ࠊࡇ࠺࠸࠺ほⅬࡀ୙༑ศࡔࡗࡓࢃ
ࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ㛵ಀ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ⮬ᚊⓗ㉁ಖドࡢ≧ἣࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ
ᇶ‽༠఍ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ JABEEࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᑓ㛛⫋኱Ꮫ㝔ࡢㄆドホ౯ᅋ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡶ
ࡢࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࡀࠊࡇࢀࡶᮍᩚഛࡔࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡑࡢᙜ᫬ࠊ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡇ࠺࠸࠺≧ἣࡢ୰࡛ࠊ࠿࡞ࡾඛ㐍ⓗ࡞ᐉゝࢆࡋࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
➨㸯ᮇ୰ᮇィ⏬࡟࠾ࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ኱Ꮫࡢᩍ⫱◊✲➼ࡢ㉁ࡢྥୖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ┠ᶆࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟࡜ࡿ࡭ࡁᥐ
⨨࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᩍ⫱┠ᶆ࡜ࡑࡢ㐩ᡂ᪉ἲࢆ⾲♧ࡍࡿᯟ⤌ࡳࢆ⟃Ἴࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻ࡜ࡋ࡚タᐃࡍࡿࠋ♫఍࡟ศ࠿ࡾࡸࡍ࠸⟃Ἴࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࢆタᐃࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ
ᩍ⫱ࡢᡂᯝࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୰ᮇィ⏬࡟♧ࡋ࡚ࠊᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬࡟ᥦ♧ࢆࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢࡲࡲㄆྍࡉࢀࡓࢃࡅ࡛
ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬࡟ᥦฟࢆࡋࡲࡋࡓࡢࡣࠊ2003
ᖺ 10 ᭶࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋᅜ඲యࡢ≧ἣࡀࠊࡑࡢ 1 ᖺᚋ
ࡢ 2004 ᖺ࡟⮳ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡇ࠺࠸࠺≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ
⪃࠼ࢀࡤࠊ࠸࠿࡟⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫࡢヨࡳࡀඛ㐍ⓗ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࠿ࡀ࠾ศ࠿ࡾ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮ
࠸ࡲࡍࠋ



ࡕ࡞ࡳ࡟⚾⮬㌟ࡶᙜ᫬ࠊ஦ົᒁ㛗࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ⟃Ἴࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࢆᐃࡵࡿ
ࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᩥ❶సᡂ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㛵୚ࢆࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࡀࠊᯝࡓࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ
⟃Ἴࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࡢ୰㌟ࡀ࡝࠺࡞ࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡲࡗࡓࡃఱࡶ
᝿ᐃࢆࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡏࢇ࡛ࡋࡓࠋᐇࡣࠊࡑࡢᚋ࡛኱Ꮫࡢ᪉࠿ࡽ୰ᮇィ⏬࡟ࡇ࠺᭩࠸࡚࠶ࡿࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊ࠶࡞ࡓࡣࠊ࠸ࡗࡓ࠸࡝࠺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࠿࡜
ゝࢃࢀ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊ௒ࡢ⌧ᙺࡢ᪉ࠎ࡟඲㒊⪃࠼࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ᴟࡵ࡚↓㈐௵࡞ᅇ⟅ࢆ࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ⟃Ἴࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࢆ᭱ึ࡟ࡘࡃࡿ࡜ࡁࡣ኱
ኚࡈⱞປ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊࡇࡇ࡟࠶ࡾࡲࡍࡼ࠺࡟♫఍࡟ศ࠿ࡾࡸࡍ࠸࡜࠸࠺ゝ࠸᪉ࠋ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᩍ⫱┠ᶆ࡜ࡑࡢ㐩ᡂ᪉ἲࢆ⾲♧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⌧ᅾ࡟㏻ࡌࡿ
᪂ࡋ࠸㉁ಖドࡢほⅬࡀࠊࡇࡢ 2003 ᖺࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛ᩥ❶໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
㠀ᖖ࡟ඛ㐍ⓗ࡞ヨࡳࡔ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
ࡑࡢᚋࠊ2008㹼2010 ᖺࡢ≧ἣࢆ⏦ࡋࡲࡍ࡜ࠊࡼ࠺
ࡸࡃබⓗ࡞㉁ಖドไᗘࡀᩚഛࡉࢀ࡚ࡲ࠸ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋ
බⓗ࡞㉁ಖドไᗘ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊタ⨨ᇶ‽࡜タ⨨ㄆྍᡭ⥆ࡁࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊㄆドホ౯࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑ࠺࠸ࡗ
ࡓ࡞࠿࡛ࠊබⓗ࡞㉁ಖドไᗘࡣᩚഛࢆࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊ
ࡇࢀࡣࠊ࠸ࢃࡤ᭱పᇶ‽ࡢಖド࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࢀ
ࡒࢀࡢ኱Ꮫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱࡟࡝ࢀࡔࡅࡢ㈨※ࢆᢞධࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡝ࢀࡔࡅࡢᩍဨࢆ㓄⨨ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ᭱ప
ఱ༢఩ࡢᤵᴗࢆ㛤タࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ᴟࡵ࡚≀⌮ⓗ࡞㈨※ᢞධ㔞ࢆᐃࡵࠊࡑࡢ࣑ࢽ࣐࣒ࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࢆᐃ
ࡵࡓࡔࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࢆࡶࡗ࡚ᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖ
ド࡜ࡣࠊ࡜࠺࡚࠸ࡲࡔゝ࠼࡞࠸≧ἣ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ṧࡿࡣࠊࡑࡢ᭱పᇶ‽ࡼࡾࡉࡽ࡟ୖࢆ┠ᣦࡍ኱Ꮫ࡟ࡼࡿ⮬ᚊⓗ࡞㉁ಖドࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ㛵ಀ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ⮬ᚊⓗ࡞㉁ಖドࡀᚲせ࡞ࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ኱Ꮫ࡟ࡼࡿ⮬ᚊⓗ࡞㉁ಖドࢆಁࡋࡲࡋࡓࡢࡀࠊ୰ኸᩍ⫱ᑂ㆟఍ࡢࠕᏛኈㄢ⛬ᩍ⫱ࡢᵓ⠏࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⟅⏦࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡇࢀࡀࡈࡊ࠸ࡲ
ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ2008 ᖺ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡅࢀ࡝ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞Ꮫኈㄢ⛬ᩍ⫱ࡢᵓ⠏࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࡢດຊࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓࠋᙜ᫬ࠊ⚾ࡣᢸᙜᒁ㛗࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟ
ࢢ࣒ࣛไࢆ඲㠃ⓗ࡟ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡜ࡋ࡚ᑟධࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୰ኸᩍ⫱ᑂ㆟఍࡛ᥦ᱌ࡋ
ࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊ࡞࠿࡞࠿㈶ྠࢆᚓࡽࢀࡲࡏࢇ࡛ࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊไᗘ
ࢆࡑࢇ࡞࡟⡆༢࡟ኚ࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊࡑ࠺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜
ࢆᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊᩍ⫱᝟ሗࡢබ⾲ไᗘࢆᑟධࡋࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ
ྛ✀⿵ຓ஦ᴗ࡟ࡼࡾᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛไᗘࢆᑟධࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ヨࡳࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡲࡓ኱Ꮫ㛵ಀ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ⮬ᚊⓗ࡞㉁ಖドࡢ≧ἣࢆ⏦ࡋࡲࡍ࡜ࠊ
ᑓ㛛⫋኱Ꮫ㝔ࡢྛศ㔝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡼ࠺ࡸࡃㄆドホ౯ᅋయࡀᩚഛࡉࢀ࡚ࡲ࠸ࡾ
ࡲࡋࡓࠋࡉ࡚ࠊබⓗ࡞㉁ಖドࠋ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡟࡞ࡾࡲࡍࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛࠸࠸ࡲࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ಖドࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᩍဨ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࢖
ࣥࣉࢵࢺࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ኱Ꮫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋỴࡋ࡚࢔࢘ࢺ࣒࢝ࡢಖド࡟ࡣ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋᩍ⫱᝟ሗࡢබ⾲࡟ࡘࡁࡲࡋ
࡚ࡶࠊ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅ࢔࢘ࢺ࣒࢝ࢆධࢀࡼ࠺࡜ᛮࡗࡓࢃ
ࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺ࠾ࡼࡧ࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺࡢ
බ⾲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᩍ⫱᝟ሗࡢබ⾲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⩏ົ௜
ࡅࡀ㈶ྠࢆᚓࡽࢀࡲࡋ࡚⩏ົ௜ࡅࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡲ
ࡋࡓࡀࠊಟᚓࡍ࡭ࡁ▱㆑࠾ࡼࡧ⬟ຊࡢタᐃ࡜බ⾲ࠊᐇࡣࠊࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࡶ⩏ົ௜ࡅࡋࡓ࠿ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸
ࡲࡍࠋ࠸ࢃࡤ኱Ꮫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࢔࢘ࢺ࣒࢝┠ᶆࢆᐃࡵࡿ
࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࡋࡓ࠿ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊᑂ㆟఍࡛ࡶ࠿࡞ࡾ཯ᑐពぢࡀฟࡉࢀࡲࡋ࡚ࠊṧᛕ࡞ࡀࡽࡑࡇࡲ࡛ࡣ㐍ࡵࡎࠊಟᚓࡍ࡭ࡁ▱㆑࠾ࡼࡧ⬟ຊࡢタᐃ࡜බ⾲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊດຊ⩏ົ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡜࡝ࡲ
ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋᚑࡗ࡚ṧࡾࡣ඲࡚኱Ꮫ
㛵ಀ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ⮬ᚊⓗ࡞ດຊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࠿࠿ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡓࡔࠊ⮬ᕫⅬ᳨ࠊ⮬ᕫホ౯ࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࡣࠊ࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࠊ࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺ࡟㝈ࡽࡎࠊᩍ⫱ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟㛵ࡍࡿⅬ᳨ࠊホ౯ࢆྵࡴ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠊࡇ
ࡢ⮬ᕫⅬ᳨ࠊ⮬ᕫホ౯ࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࠊ࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺ࠿ࡽ࢔࢘ࢺ࣒࢝࡟㏆࠸࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊⅬ᳨ࠊホ౯ࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣࡶࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ
Ꮫኈㄢ⛬ᩍ⫱ࡢ⟅⏦࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊ⡆༢࡟ࡇࡇ࡛ࡈ
⤂௓ࡋࡲࡍ࡜ࠊᏛኈㄢ⛬ᩍ⫱ࡢᵓ⠏࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࡣࠊ஧
ࡘࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆฟࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ୰㛫ሗ࿌ࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ㛫ඹ㏻ࡢ learning outcomes ࢆタᐃࡍࡿࠋ࠸ࢃࡤᏛኈຊࢆタᐃࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏᏛ⾡఍㆟࡟౫㢗ࢆࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡲ࡛࠸ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡍࡀࠊ᭱⤊⟅⏦ࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢⰍᙬࡀᾘ࠼ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊᩍ⫱㛵ಀࡢ୕኱࣏ࣜࢩ࣮ࡢタᐃࢆ㏻ࡌࡓࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ኱Ꮫ࡟ࡼ
ࡿᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ࡢಖド࡜࠸࠺࠿ࡓࡕ࡛ࠊ୰㛫ሗ࿌࡜᭱⤊⟅⏦࡛ࡣࡎ࠸ࡪࢇຊⅬࡀኚࢃࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
ࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࡶ኱Ꮫ㛵ಀ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ࡝ࡕ
ࡽ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ດຊࡍࡿࡢ࠿ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ΰ஘ࡶ⏕ࡌࡓせᅉ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
ࡉ࡚ࠊ࠸ࡼ࠸ࡼᮏㄽ࡛ࠊࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸ẁ㝵࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖドࡢⓎᒎ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡣࠊࡼ࠺ࡸࡃ኱Ꮫ㛵ಀ⪅ࡢດຊࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ
ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞◊✲ࡶᐇࡗ࡚ࡲ࠸ࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ࡝࠺࠸࠺
᪉ྥ࡛⮬ศࡓࡕࡀࡇࢀ࠿ࡽດຊࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡅࡤ࠸࠸
ࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࡢ᪉ྥ࡜┠ᶆࡣ᫂☜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࢃࡅ࡛
ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋᩍ⫱᝟ሗࡢබ⾲࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀࠊඛ࡯
࡝ゝ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟኱Ꮫタ⨨ᇶ‽࡛⩏ົ௜ࡅࢆࡋ
࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࡀࠊ࢝ࢼࢲࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔࡛ࡣࠊࡼ
ࡾᗈ⠊࡞ࡶࡢࢆἲᚊ࡛⩏ົ௜ࡅࢆࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ⫱ᡂࡍࡿேᮦീ࡜ಟᚓ࣭ᙧᡂணᐃࡢ
▱㆑࣭⬟ຊࢆタᐃࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆබ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜࠸
࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶࠊࡇࢀࡣດຊつᐃ࡛ࡣࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊ㐍ࢇ࡛ࡁ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᡂ⦼ホ౯࡟࠾ࡅࡿ GPAࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᤵᴗ⛉┠ࡢࢼࣥࣂࣜࣥࢢࠋࡇ࠺࠸࠺ GPA ࡞ࡾࢼࣥࣂࣜࣥࢢ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶࠊಟᚓࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢಖドࠊᩍ⫱ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢಖド࡟⤖ࡧ௜ࡃࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ᙜ↛ࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓࡶࡢ
ࢆ඲࡚ໟྵࡍࡿ࠿ࡓࡕ࡛ࠊᩍ⫱ࣉࣟࢭࢫࠊಟᚓࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆಖドࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟࢔࢘ࢺ࣒࢝ࢆಖドࡍࡿࠋ࢔࢘
ࢺ࣒࢝ࡢಖドࡀࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕᏛ఩ࡢᤵ୚࡛ド᫂ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡉ
ࡽ࡟࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃ࡛ࡣࠊࢳ࣮ࣗࢽࣥࢢ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ኱Ꮫ㛵ಀ⪅㛫࡛ྠ୍ࡢᏛಟᡂᯝࢆಖドࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺᪉ྥࡶ⏕ࡲࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡇ࠺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡇࢀ࠿ࡽ㉁ಖド࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠊ࡝࠺࠸࠺᪉ྥ࡛ࠊ࡝࠺࠸࠺ෆ
ᐜ࡛ດຊࢆࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺᪉ྥ࡜┠ᶆࡣ᫂☜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࡀࠊᐇ㝿ࡢྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࡣࠊ⥴࡟ᑵ࠸ࡓࡤ࠿ࡾ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋGPA ࡞ࡾࠊࢼࣥࣂࣜࣥࢢ࡜࠸࠸ࡲࡋ
࡚ࡶࠊゝⴥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࡀࠊࡇࢀ࠿ࡽᐇ㝿ࠊ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ࡜ࡋ࡚࡝࠺ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡃࡢ࠿ࠋGPA ࡣࠊጞࡲࡗࡓࡤ࠿ࡾ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡋࠊࢼࣥࣂࣜࣥࢢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࡇࢀ࠿ࡽ᳨ウࡍࡿ≧ἣ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡓࡔࠊࡇ࠺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖドࡀᙜ↛㐍ࢇ࡛ࡲ࠸ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆయ⣔ⓗࠊໟᣓⓗ࡟ᐇ⌧ࢆࡍࡿྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡀ࠶ࡿࡢࡔ࡜⚾ࡣ⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛Ꮫ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ⡆༢࡟⏦ࡋࡓ࠸࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋᚑ᮶
ࡢ᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡣࠊᏛ㒊ࠊᏛ⛉ࠊ◊✲⛉ࠊᑓᨷࢆ༢఩࡜ࡍࡿᩍ⫱࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ⤌⧊࡟౫ᣐࡍࡿᩍ⫱࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ౛࠼ࡤ‫ۑۑ‬኱ᏛᕤᏛ㒊ᶵᲔᕤᏛ⛉ࢆ༞ᴗ࡜࠸࠺༞ᴗド᭩ࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ᪥ᮏ࡟ࡣᶵᲔᕤᏛ⛉࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ
ఱ༑ࠊఱⓒ࡜࠶ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ኱Ꮫ࡛ࠊࡲࡗࡓࡃ
࡜ࡣゝ࠸ࡲࡏࢇࡀࠊ࠿࡞ࡾ㐪࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᩍ࠼࡚ࡶྠࡌᶵᲔᕤᏛ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᶵᲔᕤᏛࡢᏛኈࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠸ࡲࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࡢᏛኈ࡟㎸ࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿෆᐜࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀྠࡌ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᶵᲔᕤᏛ⛉ࢆฟࡲࡋࡓ࡜࠸ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ
▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ኱Ꮫࡈ࡜࡟ࡲࡗࡓࡃ㐪࠺ࠋᯝࡓࡋ࡚ࡑࢀ࡛኱Ꮫࡀᥦ౪ࡋࡓ
ᩍ⫱ෆᐜࡣࠊ࠸ࡗࡓ࠸ఱ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ಖドࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋせࡣࠊࡑࡇࡣಖドࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡣ༢࡟⤌⧊ࡀᥦ౪ࡍࡿᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬ࢆಟ஢ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆド᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ࠸ࢃࡤ
࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞▱㆑ࢆಟᚓࡋࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⬟ຊࡀᙧᡂࡉ
ࢀࡓ࠿ࡣ୙᫂ࡔࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࡲࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ
ึࡵ࠿ࡽ⫱ᡂࡍࡿேᮦീࢆタᐃࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡟┦ᛂࡍࡿᏛ఩ࢆタᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋᏛ఩ࡢෆᐜࡀࠊேᮦീࡢෆ
ᐜ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋᙜ↛ࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠊಟᚓࠊᙧᡂணᐃࡢ
▱㆑ࡸ⬟ຊࡢタᐃࡀࢭࢵࢺ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋᚑࡗ
࡚ࠊேᮦീࡢタᐃࠊಟᚓࠊᙧᡂணᐃࡢ▱㆑ࠊ⬟ຊࡢタᐃࠊࡇࢀࡀ୍␒௒ࡲ࡛࡜㐪࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࠊ
ࡇࢀ࡟ᛂࡌࡓᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬ࢆ⤌ࡴࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࢆᢸᙜࡍࡿᩍဨࡀࠊᡤᒓ⤌⧊࡜ࡣ↓㛵ಀ࡟ཧຍࢆࡍࡿࠋ」ᩘࡢࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆᑓ௵ྍ⬟࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ㐪࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ㛵ಀᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬ࢆ⤌⧊ⓗ࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡃࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊணᐃࡋࡓ▱㆑ࠊ⬟ຊࡢಟᚓࠊᙧᡂࢆุᐃᇶ‽࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮫ఩ࢆᤵ୚
ࡍࡿࠋ࠸ࢃࡤᏛ఩ࢆᤵ୚ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡣࠊணᐃࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ⬟ຊ࡞ࡾࠊணᐃࢆࡋ
࡚࠸ࡓ▱㆑ࡀ㌟࡟௜࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠊᙧᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆド᫂ࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸
ࡲࡍ࠿ࡽࠊ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡇ࠺࠸࠺ே≀ࢆ⫱ᡂࡋࡲࡍࠋࡇࡢᏛ఩࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚ࡣࠊࡇ࠺࠸࠺⬟ຊ࡜ࡇ࠺࠸࠺▱㆑ࡀ௜㝶ࢆࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ࡜ࡋ࡚
ࡇࡢᏛ఩ࢆฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ௨ୖࡣࠊࡇࡢ⬟ຊ࡜ࡇࡢ▱㆑ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆド᫂ࡋࡲࡍࠊ
࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡟Ꮫ఩ࡀ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࢃࡅ࡛ࡍࠋࡇࢀࡽࢆබ⾲ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࢫࢸ࣮ࢡ࣍ࣝࢲ࣮࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ࠊ≉࡟Ꮫಟᡂᯝࢆಖドࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ࡜
ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
ࡑ࠺࠸࠺኱ࡁ࡞ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⟃Ἴࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮
ࢻࠊ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫࡢヨࡳࢆࡶ࠺㸯ᅇ࠶ࡽࡓࡵ࡚⪃࠼ࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ⊂⮬ࡢ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ࡢಖドࡢⓎᒎࢆࠊࡶ࠺୍ᗘࡇࡇ࡛⡆༢࡟᣺ࡾ㏉ࡗ࡚ࡳࡲࡍ࡜ࠊ
ඛ࡯࡝ゝ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⟃Ἴࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࢆࡘࡃ
ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୰ᮇィ⏬࡟᭩ࡁࡲࡋࡓࡢࡀ 2003 ᖺ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋᐇ㝿࡟⟃Ἴࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࡀ࡛ࡁࡲࡋࡓࡢࡣ
2008 ᖺࠋࡇࢀࡀᏛ⩌ࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻ࡛ࠊᏛ㢮࣭Ꮫ⩌ࡈ࡜࡟࡛ࡁ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡇࡢᙜ᫬ࡣࠊࡲࡔࡲࡔᏛ఩ࣉ
ࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶᏛ㢮࣭Ꮫ⩌ࡈ࡜ࡢᩍ⫱ෆᐜࢆಖドࡋ࡚࠸ࡇ࠺࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛
ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࡽࠊᙜ↛ࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࡶᏛ㢮࣭Ꮫ⩌ࡈ࡜࡟ࡘࡃࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ 2011 ᖺ࡟ࡣ኱Ꮫ㝔ࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࢆ⟇ᐃ࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ
㝔ㄢ⛬ᩍ⫱࡟㛵ࡍࡿໟᣓⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡇࢀࡶࡸࡣࡾ᪂ࡋ࠸ᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖドࡢ⪃࠼᪉࡟ἢࡗ࡚ᨵᐃࢆࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ືࡁࡀࠊࡘ࠸᭱㏆ࡲ࡛⾜ࢃࢀ࡚ࠊࡼ࠺ࡸࡃ௒ᖺࡢ᫓࡟᪂ࡋ࠸ࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋෆᐜ࡜
ࡍࢀࡤࠊࡇࡇ࡟ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᩍ⫱άື඲యࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ໬ࢆぢᤣ࠼ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ࠸ࢃࡤᏛ఩ࢆ༢఩࡜ࡍࡿࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࡶ⟇ᐃࡋࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲ
ࡍࠋᏛ⩌ࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻ࡟࠾ࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᏛ⩌ࠊᏛ㢮࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊᏛ఩ࡈ࡜ࡢࢫ
ࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࢆタᐃࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ኱Ꮫ㝔ࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻ࡟ࡘࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ◊✲⛉ࠊᑓᨷ࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊ132 ࡢᏛ఩ࡈ࡜ࡢࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࢆỴࡵ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ࠸ࢃ
ࡤᏛ఩࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ᙧᡂࡍ࡭ࡁ⬟ຊࠊಟᚓࡍ࡭ࡁ▱㆑ࢆࡁࡕࢇ࡜᫂☜࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇ
ࢀ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬ࢆయ⣔ⓗ࡟⦅ᡂࡋࠊᐇ᪋ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ࢫ࣮࣒࢟ࡢ᭱
ึࡢ✺◚ཱྀ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࡀࠊࡶ࠺ࡍ࡛࡟ฟ᮶ୖࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈ
ࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࡢᵓᡂࠋ኱Ꮫ㝔∧ࢆ౛࡟ྲྀࡾࡲࡍ࡜ࠊேᮦ㣴ᡂ┠ⓗࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊ
ேᮦ㣴ᡂ┠ⓗ࡜ධᏛ᫬࡟ồࡵࡿேᮦࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ఩ᤵ୚ࡢ᪉㔪ࠋᏛ఩࡟ࡩࡉ
ࢃࡋ࠸⬟ຊ➼ࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬⦅ᡂ࣭ᐇ᪋ࡢ᪉㔪࡟ࡘࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᏛ఩࡟ࡩࡉࢃࡋ࠸⬟ຊ➼ࢆᾰ㣴ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬ࡢ᪉㔪ࠊෆᐜࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖド࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ㐩ᡂᗘホ౯ࠊホ౯㡯┠࡜ࡑࡢㄝ᫂ࠊᏛ఩ᤵ
୚ࡢయไࠊFDࠊಟ஢⪅ࡢ㐍㊰࡜᭩ࡃࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸
ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡓࡔṧᛕ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡏࡗ࠿ࡃ࡛
ࡁࡓࡤ࠿ࡾࡢ㈨ᩱࢆࡃࡉࡍࡼ࠺࡛኱ኚ⏦ࡋヂ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠊ⚾ࡶᩍ⫱௻⏬ᐊ఍㆟ࡢ୍ဨ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࡛ࡁࡓ
ࡤ࠿ࡾࡢ኱Ꮫ㝔ࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࢆࡘࡽࡘࡽ═ࡵࡲࡋࡓࠋ
Ꮫ఩ࡈ࡜࡟═ࡵࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊᑓᨷࡸᏛ఩࡟ࡼࡗ࡚グ㏙ࡣࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ఩ᤵ୚ࡢ᪉㔪ࡶ 3 ⾜ࡄࡽ࠸࡛᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡜ࠊ20 ⾜ࡄࡽ࠸ࠊ1 ࣮࣌ࢪ࡟ࢃࡓࡗ࡚᭩࠸࡚࠶ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁࡶࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࢀ࠿ࡽࠊホ౯㡯┠ࡶ 20 㡯┠ࡄࡽ࠸᭩࠸࡚࠶ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡜ࠊ
ᮏᙜ࡟₍↛࡜ 5 ⾜ࡄࡽ࠸࡛ໟᣓⓗ࡟᭩࠸࡚࠶ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡜࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲ
ࡍࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࡛ࡣࠊࡲࡔࡲࡔ⟃Ἴࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࡶࢃࢀࢃࢀ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ௙
⤌ࡳࡣࡘࡃࡾࡲࡋࡓࡅࢀ࡝ࠊ୰㌟ࡣࡇࢀ࠿ࡽ࡜࠸࠺࡜ࡇࢁࡔ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲ
ࡍࠋࡓࡔࠊࢫࢱ࣮ࢺ᫬Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ㛫㐪࠸࡞࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࠊࡇࡢ᪉ྥࢆࡼࡾ
ࡁࡕࢇ࡜ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡅࡤࠊ࠾ࡢࡎ࠿ࡽ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖドࡣᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡢࡔ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ⌧ᅾࠊᩍ⫱௻⏬ᐊࡢάືࢆ౛࡟࡜ࡾࡲࡍ
࡜ࠊ25 ᖺᗘ࡟ࡣࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢࢢࣝ
࣮ࣉࠊ⟃Ἴࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࡢ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡀ࠶
ࡾࡲࡋࡓࡋࠊGPAࠊ⥲ྜ⛉┠Ϫࠊ࢔ࢡࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣮ࣛ
ࢽࣥࢢࠊᒚಟⓏ㘓ୖ㝈ࠊTA ࢆỴࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᩍ⫱ࡢᐇ㉁໬ࡢ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡶࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ࠶ࡿ࠸
ࡣࠊࢺࣛࣥࢫࣇ࢓ࣛࣈ࣭ࣝࢫ࢟ࣝࢬ࡜࠿ࠊࢹࣗ࢔࣭ࣝ
ࢹ࢕ࢢ࣮ࣜࢆࡁࡕࢇ࡜ᐃࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡞኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ࡢྥୖ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡶࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋᤵᴗホ౯ࡶࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡉࡽ࡟ 26 ᖺᗘ࡟࠾ࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ⛉┠ࢼࣥࣂࣜࣥࢢࠊࢳ࣮ࣗࢽࣥࢢ➼ࡢ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢࢢ࣮ࣝ
ࣉࡶࢫࢱ࣮ࢺࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࡛ࠊ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ╔ࠎ࡜ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ヨࡳࢆ࡜ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊ⚾࡞ࡾ࡟ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊࡇ࠺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࡓࡔࡤࡽ
ࡤࡽ࡟ࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡁࡲࡍ࡜ࠊ኱Ꮫࡢඛ⏕᪉࠿ࡽࡣࠊࡇࢀࡶ࠶ࡿࠊ࠶ࢀࡶࡸࡿ࡜
࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࢃࡅ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊࡇ࠺࠸࠺ヨࡳࢆࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡜ࡋ୍࡚ඖ໬ࡍ
ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊඛ࡯࡝ࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡟࡞ࡾࡲࡍࡀࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡔࢁ࠺࡜ᛮࡗ࡚
࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡇࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡣࠊᙜ↛ࠊᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬࡞ࡾࠊGPA ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀᙜ↛క࠸ࡲࡍࡋࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ⛉┠ࢼࣥࣂࣜࣥࢢ࡟ࡼࡿ⛉┠ࡢࢶ࣮ࣜᵓ㐀໬࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶࠊᙜ↛๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊࡇ࠺࠸
ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡍࡿࡢࡀ⟃Ἴࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࡣᏛ఩ࣉࣟ
ࢢ࣒ࣛࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠊ⟃Ἴࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࡀୡ㛫ⓗ࡞᝟ሗࡢබ⾲࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࠸ࢃࡤᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬ࡢయ⣔໬ࢆಖドࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀࢼࣥࣂࣜࣥࢢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊGPA ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᪉ྥ࡟㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡃࡢࡔࢁ࠺࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ

ࡉ࡚ࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࠋከࡃࡢඛ⏕᪉࡟ࡍࢀࡤࠊ
࠸ࡗࡓ࠸ࡑࢀࡣఱࢆࡸࡿࡢࡔ࡜ࠋ⪺࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࡶ࡞࠸
ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡛ࠊࡲࡓ᪂ࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠾ᛮ࠸ࡢ
᪉ࡶ࠸ࡽࡗࡋࡷࡿ࠿࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࠊỴࡋ࡚ࡑ࠺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡣࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡏࢇࠋࡍ࡛࡟Ꮫ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ
࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊᏛෆ࡟ࡣᑟධࡉࢀࠊヨ⾜ࡋ࡚ࠊᐇ㊶ࡉ
ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ୍ࡘࡣࠊ኱Ꮫᅜ㝿໬ᣐ
Ⅼ஦ᴗࠋ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ 30 ஦ᴗ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᏛ఩
ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡀᑟධࡉࢀ࡚ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ♫఍ᅜ㝿Ꮫᩍ⫱ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀࡍ࡛࡟࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ
♫఍࣭ᅜ㝿Ꮫ⩌ࡢ♫఍Ꮫ㢮ࠊᅜ㝿⥲ྜᏛ㢮ࡢ」ྜ㡿ᇦࡢ᪂ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡀࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸࠿ࡓࡕ࡛ᐇ㝿࡟ື࠸࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡲࡓ⏕࿨⎔ቃᏛ㝿ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟ࡘࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ⏕࿨⎔ቃᏛ⩌ࡢ୰ࡢ⏕≀Ꮫ㢮ࠊ⏕≀㈨※Ꮫ㢮ࠊᆅ⌫Ꮫ㢮ࡢ㛫ࡢඹ㏻ᒚಟࢥ࣮ࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⌧࡟ື࠸࡚࠾ࡾ
ࡲࡍࠋ௒ᚋࠊ⏕࿨⎔ቃᏛ࣭Ꮫ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡬ࡢ㐍໬ࢆ┠ᣦࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ
ඛ᪥ࠊబ⸨ඛ⏕࠿ࡽࡶⓎ⾲ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ༤ኈㄢ⛬࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ኱Ꮫ㝔஦ᴗ࡟ࡼࡿᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡶࡍ࡛࡟ື
࠸࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋࣄ࣮࣐ࣗࣥࣂ࢖࢜ࣟࢪ࣮Ꮫ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࠊ࢚ࣥࣃ࣮࣓࣡ࣥࢺ
᝟ሗᏛࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡶࡍ࡛࡟ጞࡲࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇ࠺࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞᪂ࡋ࠸
⿵ຓ㔠࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ᪤Ꮡࡢᩍ⫱⤌⧊ࡢᨵ⤌࡟ࡼࡿᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡶ
㐍⾜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ♫఍ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ᕤᏛᑓᨷ࡛ࡣࠊ⤒Ⴀ࣭ᨻ⟇⛉Ꮫᑓᨷ࡜♫఍ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࣭࣐ࢿࢪ࣓ࣥࢺᑓᨷ࡜࠸࠺஧ࡘࡢᑓᨷࢆᨵ⤌ࡋ࡚ࠊᑓᨷ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ
୍ࡘࡢࡶࡢࠊ♫఍ᕤᏛᑓᨷ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࡓࡕ࡛ࠊ๓ᮇࠊᚋᮇࡢᑓᨷ࡟ࡋࡲࡋࡓࡅ
ࢀ࡝ࡶࠊࡑࡢᑓᨷ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ2 ✀㢮ࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ୍ࡘ
ࡀࠊ♫఍ᕤᏛᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛࠊࡇࢀࡀ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ Ph.D.ࢆ㣴ᡂࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞༤
ኈㄢ⛬๓ᮇ࣭ᚋᮇࡢࢥ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࢧ࣮ࣅࢫᕤᏛᏛ఩
ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࡓࡕ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡣ Master ࡔࡅࡢ㧗ᗘᑓ㛛⫋ᴗேࢆ⫱ᡂࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞Ꮫ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫࡣࠊ㛤Ꮫࡢẁ㝵࡛஧ㄢ⛬୪ิไ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᶆ
ᴶࡋࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊ♫఍ᕤᏛᑓᨷ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊྠࡌᑓᨷࡢ୰࡛஧ࡘ
ࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆేᏑࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ┿ࡢ஧ㄢ⛬୪ิไࢆᐇ⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛไ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఱࢆᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ࠶ࡽࡓࡵ࡚⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸࡜ᛮࡗ
࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋⓙࡉࡲ᪉ࡢከࡃࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤ GPA ࡛࠶ࢀࠊ⟃Ἴࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻ࡛࠶ࢀࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⛉┠ࢼࣥࣂࣜࣥ
ࢢ࡛࠶ࢀࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᖖ࡟╔ᡭࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡶࡢࢆ✚ࡳ㔜ࡡ࡚࠸ࡅࡤࠊࡑࢀ࡛༑ศ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ࠋᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ
࣒ࣛ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ࠶ࡿព࿡࡛ࡣ⤌⧊ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡲ࡛ᑟධࡋ
࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ༑ศ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ࡈពぢࡶࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࡢࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛไ࡟ࡼ
ࡗ࡚ఱࢆᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ࠶ࡽࡓࡵ࡚⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋタᐃࡋࡓෆᐜ࣭Ỉ‽ࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊᏛ⏕ࠊ฼ᐖ㛵ಀ⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ࢆಖドࡋࠊᏛ⏕ࡢ฼┈࡜࡞ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫࡢタ⨨ㄆྍࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࠋࡇࢀࡣබⓗ࡞ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࠋ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᏛෆ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑓᨷ➼ࡢ㛤タࡢ㝿ࡢᑂᰝࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ⏦ࡋࡲࡍ࡜ࠊࡇࢀࡣ࢜ࣇ࢕ࢩࣕࣝ࡞ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ೌࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊタ⨨ㄆྍ࡛ࡶ᭱ึࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊ㛵ಀࡢᤵᴗ⛉┠ࡀ㓄⨨ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢ㛵ಀᤵᴗ⛉┠࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡩࡉࢃࡋ࠸ᩍဨࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࡿࢃࡅ
࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ࡟ඛ⏕ࡀே஦␗ື➼ࢆࡍࡿࠋ࠶ࡿ࠸
ࡣࠊ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ࡞஦᝟࡛ඛ⏕ࡢᐃဨࡀḞࡅ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡑ࠺࡞ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿ࡜ࠊᮏ᮶ࡑ
ࡢᑓᨷ࡞ࡾࠊᏛ㢮࡛ணᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡓᤵᴗ⛉┠ࡢᤵᴗࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣࡀฟ⌧ࡋ࡚ࡃࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡛ࡶ⤌⧊࡛ᤵᴗࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㝈ࡾࠊ࡯࠿ࡢඛ⏕࡟ࡑࡢᤵᴗࢆࡸࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺࡜࠿ࠊࡑ࠺࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠿
࡞࠿࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࡢព࿡࡛ࡣࠊᮏ᮶ࡇࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟
㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡇࡢᤵᴗ⛉┠࡛ᵓᡂࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࡑࡢᤵᴗࢆᢸᙜࡋ࠺ࡿࡩ
ࡉࢃࡋ࠸ඛ⏕࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᩍ⫱ࢆᐇ᪋ࡍࡿࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆỴࡵࢀࡤࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜
ࡶᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢෆᐜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊඛ⏕᪉ࡢᡤᒓࡣᵓࢃ࡞࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡍ࠿ࡽࠊ
㛵ಀᩍဨࡀ༠ാࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᮏ᮶ᚲせ࡞ᤵᴗ⛉┠ࢆ㛤タࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛
ࡁࡲࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᒚಟࢆಖドࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡲࡍࠋ
࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤᮏᙜࡣࡇࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢࢥ࣮ࢫ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊࡶࡗ࡜㐪࠺࠶ࡢᏛ㢮ࡢࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ௚◊✲⛉ࡢ࠶࠶࠸࠺ᤵᴗࡶࡇࡢ୰࡟ຍ࠼ࢀࡤ࠸࠸࡜
࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀࡲࡏࢇࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ◊✲⛉࣭ᑓᨷࡢቨࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᩍဨࡢศᢸࡢၥ㢟࡛࡞࠿࡞࠿࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛
ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊ௚Ꮫ㢮ࠊ௚ᑓᨷࠊ௚◊✲⛉ࠊ௚Ꮫ⩌ࡢඛ⏕ࡶྵࡵ࡚ࠊࡩࡉࢃ
ࡋ࠸ᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬ࢆ⦅ᡂࡋࠊᚲせ࡞ᩍ⫱ࡢᐇ᪋ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡲࡓྠ᫬࡟ࠊྠ୍ศ㔝࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ㣴ᡂ┠ⓗࠊ⫱ᡂ┠ᶆ࡟ᛂࡌࡓ」ᩘࡢᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬ࡀᐇ᪋࡛ࡁࡲࡍࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟ࡩࡉࢃࡋ࠸Ꮫ఩ࢆᤵ୚ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࢃ
ࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡇࢀࡣࠊඛ࡯࡝ࡢ♫఍ᕤᏛᑓᨷ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊྠ୍ࡢᑓᨷࡢ୰࡛ࠊ࠸ࢃࡤ஧ㄢ
⛬୪ิไࢆᐇ⌧ࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⏦ࡋࡲࡋࡓࡅࢀ࡝ࠊࡇࢀࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶྠ୍ࡢ
ᑓᨷ࡛࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊᑓᨷࡀศ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸࡚ࡶࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤ Ph.D.ࢥ࣮ࢫ࡜
ࡋ࡚ࡣᗄࡘ࠿࡟ศ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡅࢀ࡝ࠊࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓ Ph.D.ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᚑ᮶ࡢ
ᑓᨷࡀᗄࡘ࠿୍⥴࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࠊࡼࡾᖜࡢᗈ࠸࣐ࢫࢱ࣮ࢥ࣮ࢫࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ
ྍ⬟࡞ࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ⤌⧊ࡢ஦᝟ࠊᩍဨࡢᵓᡂ஦᝟࡟ࡼࡽࡎࠊ┿࡟Ꮫ⏕࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᚲせ࡞ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ኱Ꮫ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ౪ࡍ࡭ࡁ
ᩍ⫱ෆᐜࡀᥦ౪࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
฼ᐖ㛵ಀ⪅࡟‶㊊ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡓࡵࡢᩍ⫱ࡢᥦ౪࡜࠸
࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ୍␒኱ࡁ࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛
࠶ࡲࡾ⣽࠿ࡃࡣゝ࠸ࡲࡏࢇࡅࢀ࡝ࠊ⚾ࡀ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࡢࡣࠊ༢࡟♫఍ࡢせồ࡟ᛂ࠼࡚ᤵᴗࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿ࡜
࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫࡢ⮬ᚊᛶࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡸࡣࡾ኱Ꮫࡣࠊࡁࡕࢇ࡜ࡋࡓᏛၥ
ࡢᗓ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑ࠺࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫࡀ⮬୺ⓗ࡟⪃࠼࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࠸ࡅࡲࡏࢇࡀࠊ༢࡟⊂ࡾၿࡀࡾ࡛
࠶ࡗ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ኱Ꮫࡀࡑࡢ┠ⓗ࡜౑࿨࡟ἢࡗ࡚ᩍ࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁࡶࡢ࡜ࠊ
኱Ꮫࡀ୺యⓗࠊ⮬ᚊⓗ࡟ࡼࡃ⪃࠼࡚ࠊࡑࡋุ࡚᩿ࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ
┿࡟฼ᐖ㛵ಀ⪅࡟‶㊊ࢆ୚࠼ࡿᩍ⫱ࡢᥦ౪ࡔ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛไ࡬ࡢ㌿᥮ࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟
ᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊඛ࡯࡝ࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡟࡞ࡾࡲ
ࡍࡀࠊỴࡋ࡚௒ࡲ࡛࡜㐪࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡾ
ࡲࡏࢇࠋ⟃Ἴࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⛉┠ࢼࣥࣂࣜ
ࣥࢢࠊGPAࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡲࡓᩍ⫱᝟ሗࡢබ⾲࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆᆅ㐨࡟ࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡶࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ࢔
ࢡࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࡶ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ᨵၿࠊ኱Ꮫࡢᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖド࡟ྥࡅࡓྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࢆ࠸ࡗࡑ࠺᥎㐍ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡀఱࡼࡾࡶᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛไࢆ
ᐇ⌧ࡍࡿᡭࡔ࡚࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊྠ᫬࡟Ꮫಟᡂᯝಖドࡢ⌮ᛕࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋᏛ
఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛไࡀࠊ᭱ࡶ௒ࡲ࡛ࡢ௙⤌ࡳ࡜㐪࠸ࡲࡍࡢࡣࠊಟᚓࡍ࡭ࡁ▱㆑ࠊᙧᡂࡍ࡭ࡁ⬟ຊࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࢆᏛಟ࢔࢘ࢺ࣒࢝࡜ࡋ࡚┠ᶆ໬ࡍࡿࠋࡑ
ࡢᏛಟ࢔࢘ࢺ࣒࢝ࡀ㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡔࡅ࡟Ꮫ఩ࢆฟࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲ
ࡍ࠿ࡽࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᏛಟᡂᯝಖドࡀᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᙜ㠃ࡣᑓᨷࠊᏛ㢮࡟ࡼࡽ࡞࠸ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࠊᑓᨷࠊᏛ㢮ࡢඹྠᐇ᪋
࡟ࡼࡿࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆ㡰ḟ㛤タࡋ࡚࠸ࡇ࠺࡜⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࡋࠊ᪤Ꮡࡢᑓᨷࠊ
Ꮫ㢮࡟ࡘࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᖹᡂ 28 ᖺ࠿ࡽ᪂ࡋ࠸୰ᮇ┠ᶆᮇ㛫ࡀጞࡲࡾࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠊ
ࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓ࡞࠿࡛୰ᮇ┠ᶆᮇ㛫⛬ᗘࡢᮇ㛫࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᪤ᏑࡢᑓᨷࠊᏛ㢮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊᚎࠎ࡟㌿᥮ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡑࡢ㝿ࠊࡶࡕࢁࢇᑓᨷࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀࠊᏛ఩ࣉ
ࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟࡞ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࡀࠊ౛࠼ࡤ᪤Ꮡࡢᑓᨷࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࡶࠊࡍ࡛࡟ࢥ
࣮ࢫࢆ༊ศࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠿ࠊ」ᩘࡢᏛ఩ࢆฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࢫ༊ศࡸᤵ
୚ࡍࡿᏛ఩ࡢ༊ศ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣධᏛࡸಟ஢≧ἣ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࠊᚑ᮶ࡢᑓᨷ
ࢆ⣽ศ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ࡯࠿ࡢࡶࡢ࡜୍⥴࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡼ࠺࡞㌿᥮ࠊ෌⦅ᡂࡶᚲせ࠿࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓࡶࡢࢆ㏻ࡋࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ࡜ࡋ࡚ᚲせ࡜⪃࠼ࡿㄢ㢟ࠊෆᐜ➼ࢆ඲య࡜ࡋ࡚య⣔ⓗࠊᩚྜⓗ࡞ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜ࡋ࡚ᩚഛࡋࠊᏛ⏕࡟ᥦ౪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡲࡍࠋࡑࡢព࿡࡛ࡶࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ໬ࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᩍ⫱ෆᐜࢆ㏱᫂໬ࠊ࢞ࣛࢫᙇࡾ࡟ࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋぢ࠼ࡿ໬ࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࡽࠊᩍဨ┦஫ࡢ㛫࡛ࡶ࠶ࡕࡽࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡣࠊ
࠸ࡗࡓ࠸ఱࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊఱࢆᩍ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋࡑࢀ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ࠺ࡕ
ࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡣࡇ࠺ࡔ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࡓࡕ࡛ࠊ┦஫㛫ࡢయ⣔ᛶࠊᩚྜᛶࡀྲྀࡾ
ࡸࡍࡃ࡞ࡿࡢࡔ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
ࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓ࡞࠿࡛ࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛไࡣ኱ኚ࠺ࡲࡃ࠸ࡃࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆ⏦ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࡀࠊ࡞࠿࡞࠿㞴ࡋ࠸ၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋ୍ࡘࡣࠊ⌧⾜ࡢ኱Ꮫไᗘ࡜
Ꮫ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛไᗘࡣࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ┦࠸ࢀ࡞࠸㒊ศࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡈࡊ࠸
ࡲࡍࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ⌧⾜ࡢ኱ᏛไᗘࡣࠊᏛ㒊ࠊᏛ⛉ࠊ◊✲⛉ࠊᑓᨷ࡜࠸࠺⤌⧊ࢆ࣮࣋ࢫ࡟ࡍࡿࠊࡑ࠺࠸࠺ࡩ࠺࡟Ꮫᰯᩍ⫱ἲ࡟ࡶ᭩࠸࡚࠶ࡾࡲࡍࡀࠊࡑࢀࡔࡅ
࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ࡚ࠊタ⨨ㄆྍࡢ௙⤌ࡳ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ࡜࠿ࠊ
኱Ꮫ㐠Ⴀࡢ௙⤌ࡳ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ࡜࠿ࠊධᏛࠊ༞ᴗࡢ
௙⤌ࡳࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㐠Ⴀ㈝஺௜㔠⟬ᐃࡢ௙⤌ࡳࠊ⚾Ꮫຓᡂࡢ௙⤌ࡳࡶ඲㒊ࡇ࠺࠸࠺Ꮫ㒊ࠊᏛ⛉ࠊ◊✲⛉ࠊᑓᨷࢆ༢఩࡜ࡋ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠊᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࡢ࡯࠺ࡶࠊࡇࢀࢆ࠸ࡗ࡮ࢇ࡟Ꮫ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟㌿᥮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠿࡞࠿㞴ࡋ࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡲࡓྠ᫬࡟ࠊᏛ⏕ᐃဨ࡟ᛂࡌࡓேⓗ㈨※ࡢ᭱ᑠᢞධ㔞☜ಖ࡟ࡼࡿ㉁ಖド࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ⌧⾜ࡢ኱Ꮫไᗘࡢ᰿ᮏ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ࠸ࢃࡤ࣑ࢽ࣐࣒ࣜࢯ࣮ࢫࢆಖドࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࡀࠊࡑࡢ
㛵ಀ࠿ࡽᑓ௵ᩍဨࡢᐃဨࡀᴟࡵ࡚ࣜࢪࢵࢻ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸
ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ୍ࡘࡢᏛ⛉ࠊᑓᨷ࡟㝈ࡗ࡚ᑓ௵ᩍဨ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡩ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡀࠊᏛၥࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᛂࡌࡓ◊✲ࠊ⤌⧊ࡢ᪂タ࣭ᨵ⤌➼ࢆ࠿࡞ࡾ㜼ᐖࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㛫㐪࠸࡞࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ኱Ꮫタ⨨ㄆྍᑂᰝࡢሙྜࠊ౛࠼ࡤᕤᏛ⣔ࡢᑓᨷ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ◊✲ᣦᑟᩍဨࡀ 6 ே࠸ࡿ࡜࠿
5 ே࠸ࡿ࡜࠿ࠊ⌮Ꮫ⣔ࡢᑓᨷ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ༤ኈࡢ◊✲ᣦᑟᩍဨࡀ᭱ప 5 ே࠸ࡿ࡜࠿ࠊࡑ࠺࠸࠺ࡩ࠺࡟୍ᐃᩘࡢᩍဨࢆࡑࢁ࠼࡞࠸࡜୍ࡘࡢᑓᨷࡀ࡛ࡁࡲࡏࢇࠋ
౛࠼ࡤ᪂ࡋ࠸ග໬Ꮫࡢᑓᨷࢆࡘࡃࡾࡓ࠸࡜࠸ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࢀࡣ᪤Ꮡࡢᑓᨷ࠿ࡽ
ඛ⏕ࢆᢤ࠸࡚ࡃࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ▐㛫࡟᪤Ꮡࡢᑓᨷࡀಽࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ
࠺ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࢀ࡛ࡣ᪤Ꮡࡢᑓᨷ࡟ṧࡿඛ⏕᪉ࡣࠊ⤯ᑐ࡟཯ᑐࡔࠋࡇ࠺࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜ࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡛᪂ࡋ࠸ᑓᨷࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ኱ᏛࡢⓎᒎࢆጉࡆࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡇ࠺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ1 ே 1 ேࡢඛ⏕ࡀᗄࡘࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆᢸᙜࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ」ᩘࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᑓ௵࡜ㄆ
ࡵࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࡽࠊ⌧ᅾࡢ኱Ꮫไᗘ࡜ࡣࡕࡻࡗ࡜⪃࠼᪉࡟࠾࠸࡚཯
ࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ౛࠼ࡤᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆ௒ࡢᑓᨷࡢᩘࡈ࡜
ࡄࡽ࠸࡟タᐃࢆࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᑓ௵ᩍဨࡀ඲㒊᥃ࡅᣢࡕ࡛ࡸࡾࡲࡍ࡜࠸
࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆタ⨨ㄆྍ⏦ㄳࡋࡲࡍ࡜ࠊ┤ࡕ࡟タ⨨ᇶ‽㐪཯࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸
ࡲࡍࠋ౛࠼ࡤ◊✲⛉඲యࢆ୍ᑓᨷࡄࡽ࠸࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ୰࡛Ꮫ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆ
ᗄࡘ࠿㛤タࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࢀࡤࠊ⌧⾜ࡢ኱Ꮫタ⨨ᇶ‽࡟ࡶࡑ࠺᢬ゐࡋ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ⱝᖸࡢ౽ἲࡶࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࠊ࠸ࡎࢀ࡟ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡑ
࠺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫࡀ࠶ࢀࡇࢀᕤኵࡍࡿ๓࡟ࠊᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࡢไᗘࡀኚࢃࡿ
ࡢࡔ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
⌧⾜ไᗘ࡟ࡣ㝈⏺ࡀࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊᅜ㝿ⓗ㏻⏝ᛶࢆᣢࡗࡓ኱Ꮫࡢ㉁ಖドࡸᅜෆእࡢ኱Ꮫ㛫㐃ᦠ࡟ࠊ⌧ᅾࡢᏛ㒊ࠊᏛ⛉ࠊ◊✲⛉ࠊᑓᨷ࡜࠸࠺ไᗘタィ࡛ࡣᅔ㞴ࡀࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ⌧࡟⚾ࡀᢸᙜࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡋࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ࠊ኱Ꮫ㛫㐃ᦠ࡟ࡼࡿᏛ㒊࣭኱Ꮫ㝔ࡢඹྠタ⨨࡜࠸࠺ไᗘࢆࡘࡃࡾࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣἲไୖࡢ௙
⤌ࡳ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᏛ㒊࣭኱Ꮫ㝔ࡢඹྠタ⨨࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ࡚ࠊᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬ࡢඹྠᐇ᪋ࠋ
࠸ࢃࡤඹྠᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ኱Ꮫタ⨨ᇶ‽࡟᭩࠸ࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋ
࡚ࠊࡇࢀ௨እ࡟᭩ࡃ᪉ἲࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡍࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࡲࡓࠊࡘ࠸᭱㏆ࡶ୰ኸᩍ⫱ᑂ㆟఍ࡢ࡯࠺࡛ࠊࢪࣙ࢖ࣥࢺ࣭ࢹ࢕ࢢࣜ
࣮ࢆゎ⚗ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࠊࢪࣙ࢖ࣥࢺ࣭ࢹ࢕ࢢ࣮ࣜࡢᑟධࡢ௙
᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ⟅⏦ࡀฟ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛ࡣࠊᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬࡟࠾࠸࡚እᅜࡢ኱Ꮫ࡜᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ࡛ඹྠᐇ᪋⛉┠ࢆ㛤タࡋ࡚ࠊᑟධࡍࡿ࡜ࠋࡇࢀࡶ࠸
ࢃࡤ⤌⧊࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ࡚ࠊ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛ࡜࠿ࠊࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜ࡋ୍࡚⥴࡟ࡸࡿ࡜࠸
࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚ࢪࣙ࢖ࣥࢺ࣭ࢹ࢕ࢢ࣮ࣜࢆㄆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡍࠋࡍ࡛࡟
኱Ꮫ⾜ᨻࠊ኱Ꮫไᗘࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࠊ୍᪉࡛ࡣ⤌⧊ࢆ࣮࣋ࢫ࡜ࡍࡿไᗘタィࡶࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊᐇ㝿㠃࡛ࡢᑐᛂ࡛ࡣࠊࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆᇶᮏ࡜ࡍࡿࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ᑐᛂ࡟
㏣ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ࡞࡜ࡇࢁ࠿ࡽ࡯ࡇࢁࡧࡀฟ࡚ࡁ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
ṇ┤⏦ࡋࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ௒ᚋࠊ኱Ꮫࡢᅜ㝿ᒎ㛤ࡢ㐍ᒎࠊࡇࢀࡣ኱࠸࡟ࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛
ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࢫ࣮ࣃ࣮ࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ኱Ꮫ஦ᴗࢆ᥎㐍ࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࡽࠊ
࠸ࡸࡀᛂ࡛ࡶ᭷ຊ኱Ꮫࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠊ኱Ꮫࡢᅜ㝿ᒎ㛤ࡣ࡝ࢇ࡝ࢇ㐍ࢇ࡛ࡲ࠸ࡾࡲ
ࡍࠋࡑࡢ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࢪࣙ࢖ࣥࢺ࣭ࢹ࢕ࢢ࣮࡛ࣜࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ࡜࠿ࠊᩍ
⫱ㄢ⛬ࡢඹྠᐇ᪋࡜࠸࠺࠿ࡓࡕ࡛㐍ࡴࢃࡅ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ࡜ࡁ࡟Ꮫ㒊࡜࠿ࠊ◊✲⛉ࢆ࣮࣋ࢫ࡟ᩍ⫱ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜⮬యࡀࡶ࠺࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ
⚾ࡣ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫࡀࡑࢇ࡞࡟ᅔࡿᒁ㠃ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊไᗘࡢ࡯࠺ࡀ຾ᡭ࡟ኚࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡃ
ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᴦほࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
௒᪥ࡣࠊᩍ⫱Ꮫࡢᑓ㛛ࡢඛ⏕࡟ࡣศ࠿ࡾࡸࡍ࠸ヰ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊᩍ⫱Ꮫ௨እࡢඛ⏕࡟ࡣࠊᑡࡋศ࠿ࡾ࡙ࡽ࠸ヰ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࠿ࡶࡋࢀࡲࡏࢇࠋ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡟࡞ࡾࡲࡍࡀࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡣࠊࡲࡎ 25 ᖺ๓ࡢࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢඛ⏕ࡀ຾ᡭ࡟ࡤ
ࡽࡤࡽ࡛ࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿẁ㝵࠿ࡽࠊ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢᨵၿ࡜࠸࠺᪉ྥ࡛ࡢດຊࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ
ࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶ኱Ꮫ࡟ࡼࡿ኱Ꮫ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࡢᨵၿ࡛ࡈ
ࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊᅜ㝿ⓗ࡞㉁ಖド➇த࡜࠸࠺࡞࠿࡛ࠊ኱Ꮫእࡢேࠊࢫࢸ࣮
ࢡ࣍ࣝࢲ࣮࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ࢆಖドࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡛ࡢᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖドࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ྥ࠿ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡇࡢ㉁ಖドࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୺࡜ࡋ࡚
࢜ࣇ࢕ࢩࣕࣝ࡞ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ࡼࡿ㉁ಖド࡜ࠊ኱Ꮫ㛵ಀ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ୺యⓗࠊ⮬ᚊⓗ࡞㉁ಖドࡢ 2 ✀㢮ࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࠊ࢜ࣇ࢕ࢩࣕࣝ࡞㉁ಖドࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡜࠸࠺
ࡢࡣࠊ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶ᭱పᇶ‽ࡢၥ㢟࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࡽࠊ◊✲኱Ꮫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࡼࡾ
㧗ᗘ࡞ᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖド࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ኱Ꮫࡢ㛵ಀ⪅࡟ࡼࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ኱Ꮫ࡟ࡼࡿ
୺యⓗ࡞㉁ಖド࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ⌧ᅾ࡛ࡣࠊ⟃Ἴࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࠊGPAࠊ⛉┠ࢼࣥࣂࣜࣥࢢࠊࡑ࠺࠸
࠺ࡶࡢࢆ㞟኱ᡂࡍࡿໟᣓⓗ࡞௙⤌ࡳ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ໬ࢆ⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢព࿡࡛ࡣࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛไ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫࡀ㛤Ꮫࡋࡓࡢࡀ᫛࿴ 48 ᖺࠊ௒࠿ࡽ 40 ᖺ๓࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊࡑࢀ௨᮶ࡢດຊࠊ࠶
ࡿ࠸ࡣἲே໬ᚋࡢດຊࠊࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡣỴࡋ࡚↓⦕ࡢࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇ
ࢀࡲ࡛࡟✚ࡳ㔜ࡡ࡚ࡁࡓ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖド࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࡢດຊࠊࡑ࠺࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡢ
㞟኱ᡂ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ㌿᥮࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࡶ࠺୍ᗘ☜ㄆࡢࡓࡵ⏦ࡋୖࡆ࡚ࠊ⚾ࡢ࠾ヰ࡜ࡋࡲࡍࠋ
࡝࠺ࡶࡈΎ⫈࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ





࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ᆺࡢ኱Ꮫ㝔㒊㛛㸸᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ࡟ᙺ❧ࡘࣔࢹࣝ࡜࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿ࠿The American-type of Central Graduate Division:
Would it be a Good Model for Japan?
࣡ࢩࣥࢺࣥ኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱࢖ࣀ࣮࣋ࢩࣙࣥ◊✲ࢭࣥࢱ࣮㛗
Professor Maresi Nerad, Higher Education
Director of the Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education,
University of Washington
Introduction
Thank you very much for inviting me. This is mysecond visit to Tsukuba and I feel honored to be
invited back.

I have to admit that my Japanese isstill chotto; it is very minimal.
I would like to begin by explaining why I have chosento speak about the relevance of a central Graduate
Division for research universities and why I think acentral Graduate Division may be a useful model for
Japanese research universities.
During the last 10 years I have traveled to many
places around the world in order to understandchanges in doctoral education. At Nagoya University
where I have been a visiting professor over the last
three months, I came to understand that in the 1990s,
Japanese universities established graduate schools.
These are interdisciplinary units focusing on master’s
programs

anddoctoraleducationinmostlyinterdisciplinary fields such as environmental studies,international studies, nanosciences, nanotechnology,
etc.

These field-specific graduate schools are notwhat I am going to talk about today.

I argue for a central administrative

Graduate Division, a unit has the culture and mind of an educationallyoriented unit that is an advocate and champion for graduate students, theiroverall education and development, including quality assurance within aresearch university. The University of Tsukuba, known for its innovative
culture, may consider engaging with the idea of daigakuin honbu.
this term captures what I will describe in the following presentation.)(I hopeA note on the particular lens that I bring to myargument. I am German, and I lived and studied inGermany through the time when I earned my master’s
degree. I studied for my doctorate in the US at the
University of California, Berkeley, and I haveremained in the US ever since. It was at Berkeley that
I worked as Director of Graduate Research at the
University of California, Berkeley at its Graduate
Division. During the last 20 years I undertook

three national PhD career path studies, focusing
on the usefulness of earning a PhD degree, thequality of the doctorate, and combining family and career with a PhD.
Biannually since 2005, the Center for Innovation and Research in
Graduate Education at Washington University has brought together agroup of experts on doctoral education to assess the changes in
doctoral education worldwide. Two books resulted from thesemeetings, and a third book is in progress.

In my talk today, first I will provide the current
context of graduate education. Specifically, I
will
explaintheconnection
betweenglobalization, innovation policies, and graduate
education. Then I will analyze the effects ofthese external forces on graduate education at
the macro-and micro-level. I will argue that aparadigm shift in doctoral education has
occurred. Preparing the next generation of
PhDs to function successfully in and contributeto today’s and tomorrow’s global environment
requires an educational approach that goes beyond an apprenticeshipmodel. The approach I present institutes communities of practice thatshould include recognition of peers as learning partners. Coordinatedefforts are also needed across many levels insideand outside the university. Today’s doctoral
students become scholars by participating inseveral learning communities.
How will a central graduate division be useful increating communities of practice? How willsuch a unit support departments and graduate
programs in preparing their graduate students towork in a global world? How will such a unit

help prepare students to become ethical, critical, and compassionate
scholars and professionals who contribute to solving problems insociety or undertake basic research? In answering these questions
we first turn to the connection between globalization, innovation
policies and graduate education from a macro-level analysis.
Globalization: The Context of Doctoral Educationi
In our efforts to prepare the next generation of
PhDs, we need to accept that we live in a context
of globalization, and that globalization affects
universities as well as the preparation ofresearchers.
In the global economy today, knowledge isviewed as a critical national resource, andtheories about the so-called “knowledge
economy” are embraced by governments
worldwide. These theories argue that knowledge
is crucial to national economic growth and increased prosperity, andthey identify the cause of economic growth as novel ideas leading toscientific, technical, organizational, environmental, or healthinnovations. Innovations and technical changes are seen as theprincipal means of economic growth and sustained international
competitiveness. As theories about the knowledge economy spreadaround the world, national governments in many countries are turning
to master’s programs, doctoral education, and postdoctoral preparation
as a way of educating scientific and technical innovators.
Post-graduate education and academic research are now global
endeavors; now, not just nations, but also supranational organizations,such as the United Nations UNESCO, the European Union and theWorld Bank are developing policies to enhance the contributions ofdoctoral education to national and regional economic growth.
In the context of hope for economic growth and national capacity
building, governments are allocating substantial funds to increase theresearch and development capacities of their countries. The educationof high-quality researchers who are able to bring innovative changes
to their workplaces—whether in business, government, academe, or
nonprofit settings—is increasingly considered to be an aspect of
research and development activities, and as such, is included innational innovation policies. It is believed that the economic andsocial development of a nation is influenced not only by the supply ofhighly skilled people, but also by how widely academic knowledge isdisseminated. Or, to put this idea differently, new knowledge must be
effectively disseminated and absorbed, if innovations and economic
growth are to proceed from it. With regard to this approach, thenumber of researchers must increase, and the type of education theyreceive must be rethought. In short, knowledge economy theories andtheir subsequent approaches treat education as a commodity, and treat
higher education as market driven. In this line of thinking, national
governments want universities and colleges to become local andnational economic drives. These concepts are circling around theworld from Europe to Australasia, Asia, Africa, and North and SouthAmerica.
In many developed countries, such as the US, Central European
countries, as well as Japan, theories of knowledge economies go handin-hand with a reduction in governmental funding allocated to public
universities, and at the same time, these countries’ governments
encourage public universities to become entrepreneurial and bring inrevenues.
Effects of Innovation Policies at the Macro-Level
In light of national innovation policies,
governments have undertaken various steps:
1. In many countries, governments andtheir national funding agencies have actively
supported the increase in doctoral production.
In countries with centralized higher education
systems, such as Malaysia and China,
governments have set targets for the increase of
doctoral education. These targets are based on thepremise that an increase in the number of“knowledge workers” will bring economic
growth to the country. In small countries with a small age
cohort between 20-40, or countries with low birthrates,
increase in gradate education goes hand-in-hand with change
in immigration policy towards more openness.
2. Governments, both in developed (global North) and indeveloping countries (global South), have actively encouraged
universities to link closer to society, particularly to industry
and businesses, as well as to health and community caresystems. Governmental funding agencies have developed
separate research funding tracks for commercialization ofuniversity research findings and for research collaborations
with industry (see the many industrial cooperation grants ofthe US/National Science Foundation or the German/ DFG). In
turn, universities have established Technology Transfer
Centers, sometimes called Centers for Commercialization(University of Washington, Seattle). These offices support theprocess of knowledge transfer from the university to industry
and business sectors, which then produce products derived
from university-created knowledge. Some universities
establish their own incubator companies hoping to reap profits
from their innovation and create a new income source. In thisprocess, they hire local staff for administration, accounting,and legal services. These on-campus incubators function like
local economic engines. Some national governments, Chile forexample, offer tax reductions to industries that hire doctoral
graduates to bring new knowledge to companiesii. We cannote that universities were and are not passive towards thispressure, but instead, they became entrepreneurial and actively
connected with local governments, local businesses, as well asgroups and organizations, such as theater, museums, libraries,etc.
3. In terms of doctoral education,
governmental funding agencies have developed
calls for large research proposals on acompetitive base that fund entire doctoral
programs for 5 years, in the case of the US, or
3-4 years in the case of Europe. (The Japanese“Leading Graduate School” grant competition issuch a governmental initiatives). These new
doctoral programs mostly focus on “real world”
problems, such as on environmental issues,climate change, data security, nanotechnology, toname a few areas. These programs often form partnerships
with industry and companies where their graduate students
intern. These efforts are directed to create a more versatile
researcher who is able to work in multiple employment sectors,
from academia, industry, government, business, to non-profits.
4. Governments and regional organizations are encouraging andfunding international collaborations in research and degree
offerings. Universities are actively pursing these activities thatare now financially supported. For example, universities
have established a number of joint or dual graduate anddoctoral degrees. Research universities are keen to get thebest possible students to their campuses. They also connect
internationally with other universities in order to use
facilities and instrumentation they are lacking.
In addition, graduate programs offer their students
international research experience and introduce them tointernational networks. The European Union and the US
have established special programs for doctoral education withan international emphasis in forms of international summer
schools or time abroad in another lab, or the opportunity towork with another research group. These various international
networks and collaborations prepare researchers to function
globally.
5. Governments are eager to develop at
least one of their universities into a “top 100”
world-class university, ranked within Shanghai
Jiang Tong University rankings, or the London
Times educational supplement rankings. iii The
reason is not only to acquire prestige, but tosignal high research capacity and thus attract
investment in new industries and homegrown“Silicon Valleys” which they hope will emerge
fromresearch
findings.
Examplesofgovernmental efforts to create top, world-classuniversities are Germany’s and Malaysia’s“Excellence Initiative.” In 2005, Germany created an“Excellence Initiative,” which aims to make Germany a more
attractive research location and make it more internationallycompetitive. Between 2006 and 2011, the German government
provided €1.9 billion in additional funding to create more
graduate schools that promote young scientist, to implement
clusters of excellence, and to develop institutional strategies topromote top-level research. Similarly, in 2007, Malaysia
adopted an “Excellence Initiative” called the APEX university
to create excellent, world-class universities. China also
aspires to this end, striving for 40 world-class universities, andaccordingly, has increased appropriate funding.
6. The process of PhD education, long of interest primarily toacademic faculty and departmental administrators, isincreasingly an arena where many competing interests areconverging to affect policy and set standards. Today, at least
four other major stakeholders—governments and employers
worldwide, in addition to central university administrators anddoctoral students themselves—are expressing a new and keeninterest in these matters. As a result, there is a rapidly growinginternational movement to standardize quality assurance inresearch doctoral education. These forces and trends are
putting pressure on universities to produce doctoral graduateswho will be able fit with considerable uniformity into thesystems of employers all over the world, and to produce such
graduates by implementing a model of quality assurance that
resembles the classic input-throughput-output model used in
the business world. Since 1990s a number of countries havebegun a similar quality assurance process in doctoral education.
The most recent example (2010) is the European University
Association’s Council for Doctoral Education which has
devoted efforts to quality issues, employing the same
input-throughput-output model used elsewhere.
Changes in Micro-Level Practices in Graduate Education
Worldwide
Globalization is impacting graduate education
throughout the world, as seen in the following
micro-level developments:iv
There is not only an increase in PhD
production, but the doctoral student body has
become more diverse. More women, more older
students, more part-time students, moreinternational doctoral students are pursuing
doctoral degrees.
2. English has become the lingua franca of
doctoral education around the world and manyscholarly journals are published in English. Use of a common
language allows for more mobility of students. However, italso gives an advantage to English- speaking countries andpeople with access to English median schooling.
3. Selection and Admission—More and more countries allow
access to doctoral programs after a bachelor’s degree as
opposed to only after first earning a master’s degree. The
admission procedure has become defined, formalized andcompetitive. The days of asking a professor whether he or she
will accept another doctoral candidate are gone.
1.

In order to attract the best students, universities now offer
students several years of funding. In some countries, student
funding comes directly from the government; in othercountries, such as the US, students are funded indirectly, either
by the federal government through research grants or by state
governments through teaching assistantships.
Studentsincreasingly are offered a 3-4-year funding package.
4. Program Elements—Students have more than one supervisor
or adviser. A dissertation committee that includes a panel ofseveral people, guides doctoral each student throughout thedissertation process.
Given the new innovation policies mentioned above, education
and research training are increasingly organized according to a
problem-solving approach that uses multidisciplinary teams,
and includes participants from various sectors of society. Thisapproach is used in mostly in national flagship programs
mentioned earlier. These flagship programs introduce a formof knowledge production into doctoral education that has
become known as Mode 2—compared to Mode 1, which is the
traditional way of learning from one master scholar within one
discipline (Gibbons et al., 1994). Within Mode 2, not only
does research operate on the basis of its trans-disciplinary
application, but the process also involves multiple partners(universities, industries, businesses, and governments). In
other words, the research process does not stop at basic
research findings; instead, the research process includes
translation of basic findings into applications that respond tosocietal or business needs. Increasingly, students, especially inscience and economic fields, have the option to choose
between a traditional dissertation and a compilation of several
peer-reviewed articles based on their research. Universities are
beginning to adopt policies that recognize such articles andalso thesis chapters with multiple authors. Countries thattraditionally have not administered examinations duringdoctoral study are now introducing oral examinations.
5. AcademicandProfessional
Preparation—Doctoral students are prepared for avariety of careers, not just those in academia(such as professors), but also as researchers
within industry, business, governments andnon-profit
organizations.
Doctorates
areincreasingly seen in non-academic careers.
6. Not only are freshly minted PhDs
expected to know how to conduct research, butthey are also expected to be competent writers,
speakers, managers, and team members who cancommunicate their research goals and results effectively insideand outside the university. These competencies are called“professional” or “transferable” skills. They also include“translational” skills because not only are they transferablefrom academic to nonacademic settings, but they are also
necessary for the translation of research findings into societal
applications. Increasingly, opportunities to develop
professional competencies are introduced into doctoral
programs.
These
competencies
also
includeproject-management skills—managing people, budgets, anddemonstrate effective use of funds.
7. In addition, career planning and career development activities
are now integrated into many doctoral programs. Often, careerdevelopment activities go hand-in-hand with professional
development workshops because they are aimed at helping
doctoral students prepare for a variety of careers inside andoutside of academia. Additionally, universities aim to toprovide international experiences for their postgraduate
students.
8. University structures to guide growth and development of PhD
programs—Where not already in existence, graduate
schools/graduate divisions are established to develop overall
guidelines for the doctoral education process. These graduate
divisions are, in conjunction with academic departments,
developing codes of practice for supervising faculty members.
They increasingly offer training for supervisors and develop
evaluation surveys to assess what students think about theirprograms and their faculty’s advising. Departments andgraduate divisions offer incentives for effective mentoring
through special awards.
9. Increasingly, universities collect PhD career tracking as ameans of collecting outcome information.
More is Asked from the Next Generation
Due to globalization forces, more competencies
are being demanded from the next generation ofresearchers. We can group these needed
competencies into three categories:
1. Traditional academic skills and competencies.
These skills and competencies include in-depth
knowledge of the researcher’s field, knowledge
about the development of conceptual frameworks
and research designs, knowledge about theapplication of appropriate research methods, andskills in writing about and publishing research findings. Additional
skills in this category include critical thinking, analysis, synthesis,
research integrity, and ethical conduct of research.
2. Professional competencies. As mentioned earlier, the next
generation of researchers needs to communicate complex researchfindings to diverse audiences; work in multi-, trans-, orinterdisciplinary teams; write grants; apply knowledge incommercially viable, socially responsible ways; manage people
and budgets; and take on leadership roles in complex
organizations.
3. Cultural competencies. Increasingly, the next generation ofresearchers must possess competencies that are pertinent toeffective collaboration in international teams. This means working
with people of different backgrounds, races, ethnicities, cultures,
religions, and different perspectives than ours.
In order for the individual doctoral student tobecome a researcher who possesses the necessarycompetencies (traditional academic, professional,
cultural), universities must provide opportunities
for contextual learning at multiple levels. Masteryof these competencies is a process of professionalsocialization where the student learns the value,
norms, and conventions of a field or discipline. It
is an exciting process, but also often a painfulprocess during which the student transforms froma book-reading person to a “book-writing” person,
to use the example of a social science orhumanities student. Research has shown that without effective
cognitive and emotional support (not just financial support), thetime-to-doctoral completion may take unduly long. Even after
degree completion, some doctoral graduates may never feel
confident in their skills and mastery ofknowledge without this support.

A Paradigm Shift in Doctoral Education
How will we turn doctoral candidates into
independent researchers who possess traditional
academic,
professional,andculturalcompetencies?

A paradigm shift in doctoral education is neededin order to link these three sets of competencies
with the existing approach to graduate level
learning. This link can be established through amulti-level advising system that focuses on
creating appropriate learning environments. It
also requires coordinated efforts at several levelsof a university as well as interactions withnational and international learning communities.
In other words, to ensure that future researchers
are trained for tomorrow’s tasks, we need to
combine the work of imparting traditional, professional, and culturalcompetencies with the use of conceptual learning models thatencompass the entire learning context, including its various learning
communities. This is what I call the “global village” approach. (seealso endnote i Nerad, 2012)
Conceptual Approaches to the Education of PhDs
The Apprenticeship Model. (see endnote i)
The oldest and most widely accepted approach todoctoral training is the apprenticeship model,
which a recent Carnegie Commission study
called the “signature pedagogy” of PhD
education. In this model, teaching and learning
take place in a one-to-one arrangement between adoctoral candidate and a professor. In otherwords, a master passes knowledge to an
apprentice. But is the master always available?
And is the master necessarily the person who
knows the most about passing on the additional competencies that thenext generation of researchers need?
The Professional Socialization Model.
In the developmental model of professional socialization, the PhD
candidate moves in stages from being a “knowledge consumer” to a“knowledge producer,” from the status of novice to that of juniorcolleague. This is the process by which the student learns and adopts
the values, skills, attitudes, norms, culture, and knowledge of adiscipline. The model of professional socialization is criticized as a
top-down, rigid approach that sees the doctoral candidate as an empty
vessel into which information is poured, regardless of who thecandidate is and regardless of what the candidate brings to the process.
This model also ignores the larger environmental context in whichdoctoral education takes place.
The Community of Practice.
In the late 1980s, scholars like Resnick (1987) and Lave and Wenger(1988) challenged the assumption that learning is an individualized
process, independent of context. These scholars proposed a theory ofsituated learning, one that viewed learning as a function of the activity,
context, and culture in which learning is situated. They found that
newcomers became integrated into a “community of practice” byacquiring knowledge and skills from experts through participation in
everyday activities. These newcomers gradually moved from theperiphery to the center of the community, as shown by their taking on
more complex tasks and assuming greater responsibility for outcomes.
Peer Learning
Peer-to-peer learning is distinct from faculty-to-student learning
because it takes a horizontal approach, rather than top-down, and isbased in reciprocity. When students interact with one another, they arelike colleagues who learn from each other—a model that Flores andNerad (2012) conceptualize as a learning partnership approach.
The “Global Village” Approach to Doctoral Education
What I call the “global village” approach to doctoral education spans
six levels of learning communities, all of which operate with different
learning models and in different learning environments. These six
levels of learning communities are as follows:
1. At the advisor level, by way of theapprenticeship model, professors pass traditional
academic research skills to PhD candidates. This
type of preparation takes place in seminars or inweekly lab meetings, and during advising hours.
2. At the departmental level—within an
institute, or in a laboratory that forms the setting
for a community of practice—the professional
competencies pertaining to a discipline are taught
by way of programs and professional
development workshops as well as through social
community-building activities. In these ways,
novice researchers have opportunities to become juniorcolleagues.
.

3. At the level of the central graduate
school/division, in the typical US model, PhD
students attend workshops to acquire the skills ofprofessional researchers, and they haveopportunities to benefit from the developmental
offerings of career centers. Graduate schools may
also provide training in intercultural awareness toearly-career researchers before they leave theirhome countries, and to international scholars
when they arrive in their host countries. This isalso the level where postdoctoral networks are
created and fostered.
4. At the level of cohort or peer communities,
in formal and informal activities, PhD candidates
come together with their fellow students—theirpeers, or learning partners—both to provide
emotional support and to share specific content
knowledge as well as advice regarding one
another’s studies.v In this model, the institution
or academic program is organized around a groupof students who enter the program at the sametime, get to know each other, and move together
along a similar path through the program. Thus
the students within a cohort learn from one another’s different
types and levels of expertise, study new subjects together, andform study groups outside the official program. The creation of ashared workspace for doctoral students at a university facilitates
many forms of informal learning whereby students exchange
information about resources, prepare together for exams, and help
each other develop and pursue their research.
5. Professional associations are learning
communities outside the university. In the US,
theseprofessional
associations
discuss
disciplinary curricula changes, and provide careerdevelopment workshops and career fairs at theirannual meetings. For example, the Association ofAmerican Geographers (AAG) focuses on
improving theoretical and practical approaches toprofessional development in the field ofgeography for master’s and doctoral programs.
As a result of these efforts, AAG produced threebooks providing information on transitioning from student to careerprofessional, both inside and outside the university, such as Practicing
Geography: Careers for Enhancing Society and the Environment(AAG, 2013).
6. At the level of the global village, doctoral students acquire professional

competencies. These global villages encompass international
conferences and collaborations, joint degree programs, international
internships, and other activities and arrangements that require
coordinated efforts both within and beyond the boundaries of a single
academic institution and country. As students participate inprofessional gatherings and interact with researchers from different
countries, they also acquire cultural competencies.
Examples of the “global village” approach inaction can be found in the US, Germany,
Australia, the Netherlands, and the European
Union (through its Madame Curie program for
Initial Training Networks). In these countries,
governments have sponsored multi-year grants
requiring
innovative,
interdisciplinary,theme-oriented
doctoraleducationthat
purposefully structures the learning process
within a multitude of learning communities. In
Japan, the MEXT initiated flagship doctoral programs, known as
Leading Graduate Schools, most often display the global village
approach in action. I have discussed them earlier when I talk about
national flagship doctoral programs
Establishing a Central Campus Graduate Division: Increasing
Graduate Education and Assuring High Quality Output.
Why do I propose that the establishment of acentral Graduate Division would be of benefit toJapanese research universities?
Japanese research universities are currently
confronted with many challenges. These
challenges include: to increase the production ofmaster’s and PhD graduates; and to assure PhDeducation is of high quality so that their graduates will be poised tosolve the problems in Japan and in the world, inside and outside ofacademia. But Japanese universities also have to cope with a reductionof governmental resource allocation and the introduction ofcompetitive research grants for doctoral education.
I will describe the key function of a campus-wide Graduate Division,
which is both an educational and administrative unit, in order toillustrate how the existence of such a unit would benefit Japanese
research universities.
Key Functions
A central, campus-wide Graduate Division is an
educational

catalyst,

notanadministrative

octopus. This campus-wide division has fivebasic functions, and several specific roles:
1.

It is the executive policy body of an

academic senate committee that assures thequality of master’s and doctoral education acrossthe entire university.
2.

It is an administrative unit for all mattersof graduate and post-doc affairs.

As such, thisunit oversees basic requirements of admissions and degrees for
all doctoral and master’s programs at a university.

The unit

also ensures that basic requirements are the same across the
program and college.
3. It is a service unit for graduate programs and graduate students.
In this function, in connection with the campus career center,
this unit provides professional skills training to help doctoral
students hopefully succeed in a variety of employment
settings.
4. It is an institutional research unit for graduate matters,
collecting and analyzing data on various aspects of graduate
education at its university. Research topics include time-to
degree, attrition, career path information, exit surveys thatinquire about satisfaction with advising services provided at
the departmental and campus level. Institutional researchserves as a base for establishing policy for the Graduate
Council and the Graduate Dean.
5.

It is an initiator and catalyst for

innovation in master’s, doctoral, and postdoctoral
matters.
Organizational Structure
The central Graduate Division is closely linked to
the research agenda of the university. In fact, italigns graduate education with the university’s
mission and strategic plan. Universities vary in
how they ensure that policies and procedures thatgovern the research activities of the university are linked with theneeds of their graduate programs. In some instances, the same person
holds positions for both vice-president of research and graduate dean.
In other cases, particularly at universities with large medical schools,
these two positions are filled by two different people. Regardless of its
organizational leadership structure, the graduate dean and thevice-president for research are in the inner circle of the university
president’s cabinet.
Ideally, a Graduate Dean is someone who is a senior professor andrespected as a scholar by his/her peers, someone who successfully
graduated many doctoral students, and who has organizational andbudgetary experience, mostly as a department head or director of a
research unit with a large number of doctoral students. This person isa visible advocate for graduate affairs at the top administration, who
fosters innovation both in the curriculum and the organization oflearning of becoming an independent researcher.
It has to be understood that while the Graduate Division is anacademic and administrative unit, the primary locus of graduate
education is in the department, in its master’s and doctoral programs.
It is the academic staff in the department, the tenure-track and tenured
professoriate, who make the major decisions regarding a graduate
program. In designing a new program or deciding to change a
program, the professoriate complies with their departmental anduniversity-wide standards and policies in terms of graduate student
admission, student progress, and degree requirements.
These
standards are set by a university-wide professoriate committee, theGraduate Council, and they are administered by the Graduate
Division.
Examples for Specific Graduate Division Roles and Functions
Quality Assurance Coordination
Given this curricular independence of graduate
programs, the Graduate Division provides quality
control over all aspects of graduate education.
The Graduate Council, a subcommittee of theacademic senate, comprised of professors frommajor fields of study, sets the minimum
qualification for acceptance into a master’s ordoctoral program.
It also sets benchmark
indicators for student progress towards theirdegree goals. For example, if a doctoral student
hands in the dissertation in a time period thatpasses five years after the qualifying exam, thestudent has to repeat the qualifying exam.
In its role as quality controller, the graduate
school coordinates the cyclical department andprogram reviews undertaken by peers within andoutside the university. Typically a departmentin the U.S. is reviewed every seven or ten years.
The Graduate Division, in connection with the
Graduate Council, also approves all new
programs before the approval is sent up to the state higher education
coordinating board, in the case of a public university. The primary
purpose of program reviews is to evaluate academic excellence. A
secondary purpose is the emphasis on future oriented strategicplanning rather than retrospective accounting.
Initiator and Catalyst for Intellectual Innovation
An example of the Graduate Division’s role as initiator and catalyst is
its support of interdisciplinary doctoral programs. Doing so, thegraduate dean brings together professors from various departmentsthat offer interdisciplinary doctoral programs to discuss what works
well and what does not. Out of these collegial meetings new ideas
and strategies emerge, and the Graduate Division will try to supportand implement the ideas.
Another example is the Graduate
Division’s role in coming to a campus-wide agreement whether theuniversity will accept a series of published, peer reviewed articles as adissertation that has been brought together in a meaningful way withan introduction and conclusion. In support of doctoral programs thatwant to proceed along these line, the Graduate Dean will bring up this
topic at the regular meetings of the Graduate Council as a policy
decision item. If accepted, those programs that want to accept thisform as dissertation may do so, and those who choose to remain witha traditional dissertation may do so too. This discussion will alsoentail deciding how the university’s graduate community stands
vis-à-vis multiple authored chapters or publications. At the Universityof Washington, Seattle for example, referring to current scholarly
practice, one dissertation chapter may be written collectively. When
accepting peer reviewed publications as the main body of thedissertation, the doctoral student is required to be the first author, andit must be clear that she or he has done substantial research andwriting in this article.
Another example from the Graduate Division at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley is the semester-long, invitational seminars foracademic staff around a topic of campus relevance. At one point, thetopic was the “chilly (cold) classroom climate for women.” External
well-known speakers presented research findings and the invitedgroup discussed the relevance and implications for the Berkeley
campus. This discussion led to new ideas on how to improve theclassroom climate for female academics and doctoral students inscience and engineering fields.
Educational Support und Service Unit
As described earlier, the Graduate Division in its service function
initiates professional development workshops both for its students anddoctoral faculty advisors. Professional development workshops
include career planning and development activities, teaching training,as well as training in conducting research in a responsible and ethicalway.
Examples for workshops for faculty advisors are training around good
mentoring.
Australian graduate divisions provide dissertation
supervisor with special training. In some places these training series
result in certificates assuring that inexperienced academic staff are
introduced to their roles as supervisor. In the US, assistant professors
may not immediately chair a dissertation, but they are allowed toserve as a member on the dissertation committee. This standard
ensures that assistant professors are introduced slowly to the role ofmain advisor.

As a convener for various groups involved in graduate education, theGraduate Division is a place that creates learning communities ofacademic staff and of doctoral students.
In its role both as an advocate for graduate matters and as educational
support unit, the Graduate Division works closely together with theofficial graduate student representative body of the university.
Institutional Research Unit
In its function as an institutional research unit,
the graduate school collects and maintains
databases on all matters of post-graduate
education: numbers of annual applicants, annual
admits and newly enrolled postgraduate students,
numbers of annual advancement to candidacy,
time to master’s and doctoral degree, completion
rates, numbers of prestigious fellowships
awarded to its students, supervisor/student ratio,type of student funding by program, comparison
to peer institution in terms of time-to-degree,completion rates, and faculty student ratios. The analysis of thisinformation in return serves as basis for policy setting within theuniversity. An example of institutional research is the annual
graduate student exit survey of master’s and doctoral students.
Students complete such a survey when they file their dissertations
with the Graduate Division The survey inquires about the students
experiences in their programs, the quality of mentoring received, as
well as the support they have received in professional skill
developments, in preparing for exams and dissertation writing, and in
career planning.
Provider of Information to the Graduate Community
The Graduate Division as an administrative unit
disseminates
essential
information
todepartments and students on all matters relevantto the education process. This information
includes deadlines and guidelines for fellowship
applications, new federal policies andregulations regarding anything related tograduate and post-doctoral education. Analysisof statistics collected about input, throughput,and output measures such as time-to-degree,doctoral completion, satisfaction with theadvising, and results of surveys of students’experiences with their programs are included.
The overall staff, including dean and associatedeans of a Graduate Division at universities with
about 10,000 graduate students (master’s anddoctoral students) and about 100 different
graduate programs, can include up to 30 people.
This staff works closely with the professors andthe graduate staff administrators of these 100
graduate programs.
The Graduate Division
hosts meetings on a semester basis with dedicatedprofessors, who take turns in their responsibility
for graduate affairs in their departments. During
such meetings, arising problems are discussed,
information on new policies is provided andfeedback is solicited.
Creating such a designated “home” for graduate
education may support the endeavor of expansion
and change in doctoral education in Japan byproviding a high quality of graduate education throughout the campus.
I hope that my arguments and descriptions of a Graduate Division
have given you ideas of what maybe useful for the University ofTskuba to successfully face the challenge in the current state ofgraduate education.

i

See also Nerad, M. (2012). Conceptual Approaches to Doctoral
Education: A Community of Practice. Alternation, 19(2), 57-72.
See Chiappa (2015) presentation at University in the Knowledge
Economy Conference, “Academic Capitalism in Chile: An analysis of
the role of Chilean public universities in the discussion of innovation
policies,” Auckland February 10.
iiiii

By now there exists 10 major global university ranking or league
table as the British call it. See CHEA International Quality Group,
Policy Brief # 4, 2015



iv

See Nerad, M. (2010). Globalization and the Internationalization of
Graduate Education: A Macro and Micro View. Canadian
Journal of Higher Education, 40(1), 1-12.

v

See Flores, E. and Nerad M. (2012).

Peers in Doctoral Education:
Unrecognized Learning Partners. New Directions for Higher
Education, 157(Spring 201), 73- 83.





㉁␲ᛂ⟅㸭Question and Answer‫ྖە‬఍㸸 ࡇࡇ࠿ࡽ㉁␲ᛂ⟅࡟ධࡾࡓ࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊᚫỌඛ⏕࡜ Nerad ඛ⏕ࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜๓ࡢ࡯࠺࡟ᗙࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡔ࠸࡚ࠊྠ᫬࡟㉁ၥࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠸
ࡲࡍࠋࡶࡋࡈ㉁ၥࡀ࠶ࢀࡤࠊᮾி࢟ࣕࣥࣃࢫࡢ࡯࠺࡟ࡶኌࢆ᥃ࡅࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠸
ࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠊࡼࢁࡋࡃ࠾㢪࠸࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡍࠋ
࠶ࡽࡓࡵࡲࡋ࡚ࠊᚫỌඛ⏕ࠊࡑࢀ࠿ࡽ Nerad ඛ⏕ࠊ㈗㔜࡞ࡈㅮ₇ࢆᮏᙜ࡟
࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ࠾❧ሙ࠿ࡽࠊ௒ࠊ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫࡀ┠ᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ኱Ꮫ㝔ᨵ㠉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ㠀ᖖ࡟่⃭ⓗ࡞᝟ሗࠊࡑ
ࡋ࡚ࠊࣜࢥ࣓ࣥࢹ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋ࡚࠶ࡾࡀ
࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࢆ࡝࠺⏕࠿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࠿࡜࠸
࠺ࡢࡀࠊ⚾ࡓࡕࡢၥ㢟࠿࡞࡜࠸࠺ࡩ࠺࡟ᛮ࠺ࡢ࡛ࡍ
ࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ᩍ࠼࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ
࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡲࡎࣇࣟ࢔࠿ࡽ㉁ၥࢆ࠾ཷࡅࡍࡿ๓࡟ࠊࡏࡗ࠿ࡃ
࡛ࡍࡢ࡛ࠊࡈㅮ₇ࢆ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓ࠾஧ேࡢඛ⏕࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡈឤ᝿࡞࡝ࢆ࠾⪺࠿ࡏ࠸ࡓࡔࡅࢀࡤ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲ
ࡍࠋࡲࡎᚫỌඛ⏕ࠊNerad ඛ⏕ࡢࡈㅮ₇࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊఱ࠿ࡈឤ᝿➼࠶ࢀࡤࠊ࠾⪺࠿ࡏࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ

‫ە‬ᚫỌ㸸 ኱ኚ⣲ᬕࡽࡋ࠸ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊෆᐜࡢ࠶ࡿㅮ₇ࢆ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸
ࡲࡋࡓࠋ኱ኚឤ㖭῝ࡃ࠾⪺ࡁ࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ
஧ࡘឤ᝿ࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ⚾ࡣ࠶ࢇࡲࡾⱥㄒࡀୖᡭ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࡢ࡛ࠊ᪥
ᮏㄒ࡛࠾ヰࢆ࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡍࠋ
⚾ࡣ 1991 ᖺ࠿ࡽ 1992 ᖺࡲ࡛ࠊNational Science Foundation ࡛໅ົࢆࡋ࡚࠾
ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ࡜ࡁ࡟࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ኱Ꮫࠊ≉࡟኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱ࡢ≧ἣࢆぢࡓ࠸࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ࠊ࡝ࢇ࡞࡜ࡇࢁ࡬⾜ࡗࡓࡽ࠸࠸࠿࡜࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ࠾⪺ࡁࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ⚾ࡣ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢼࢩࣙࢼ࣭ࣝࢹ࢕ࣅࢪࣙࣥ࡜࠸࠺࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ᒓࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ࡜ࡁ
࡟⚾ࡀࠕ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡣ࡝࠺࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠖ࡜ゝࡗࡓࡽࠊ┤ࡕ࡟ࠕࡑࢀࡣࢫ࣮ࣞࣈࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋࡑ࠺࠸࠺᫬௦࡜ࠊ௒
࠾ヰࢆ⪺࠸࡚࠸࡚ࠊ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕ࡀ࠸ࢃࡤ◊✲⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫᩍဨ࡜
ࡋ࡚ࠊࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ࢫ࢟ࣝࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࢥࣥࣆࢸࣥࢩ࣮ࢬࢆ㌟࡟௜ࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡟
ᕤኵࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡶࡎ࠸ࡪࢇ᫬௦ࡀኚࢃࡗࡓ࡞࡜࠸࠺ࡢ
ࡀ୍ࡘࡢ༳㇟࡛ࡍࠋ
ࡑࢀ࠿ࡽ୍ࡘ࠾⪺ࡁࡋࡓ࠸Ⅼࡀࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ᪥ᮏ࡛ࡶ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱ࡢᨵၿ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࡣࠊࢺࣛࣥࢫࣇ࢓ࣈࣝࢫ࡛࢟ࣝࡍ࡜࠿ࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ࢥࣥࣆࢸࣥࢩ࣮ࢬࠊ
࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᖜࡢᗈࡉ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࢆᢸಖࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ2006 ᖺࡄࡽ࠸࠿ࡽࢥ࣮ࢫ࣡
࣮ࢡࢆᑟධࡍࡿࠊ኱Ꮫ㝔ඹ㏻⛉┠ࢆᑟධࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࡓࡕ࡛㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫࡶ኱Ꮫ㝔ඹ㏻⛉┠ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑࡢࢥ࣮ࢫ࣮࣡ࢡࠊ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ࡞◊✲ᐊࢆᐃᮇⓗ࡟࣮ࣟࢸ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥぢࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࡶࡸࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
ࡲࡓྠ᫬࡟ࠊඛ࡯࡝ឤᚰࡋࡲࡋࡓࡢࡣࠊࡑ࠺࠸࠺ᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬⦅ᡂୖࠊᩍ⫱άື࡜ྛ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᩍဨࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑࡢ㛵ಀ⤌⧊࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᨭ᥼ࢆࡋࡓ
ࡾࢧࢮࢫࢳࣙࣥࢆࡋࡓࡾࠊ
┤᥋ᣦᑟࢆࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞⤌⧊࡜ࡋ࡚ Graduate Division
44࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀ⤌⧊ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡍࠋ᪥ᮏ࡛ࡶከࡃࡢ኱Ꮫ࡛ࡑ࠺࠸࠺኱Ꮫᩍ
⫱ࡢᨭ᥼ࢆࡍࡿ⤌⧊ࢆࡘࡃࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠊ᪥ᮏࡢሙྜࠊ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚ࡶ኱
Ꮫ㝔ඹ㏻⛉┠ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊᩍ⫱άືୖࡢࣇ࢓ࣥࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡞ࡾࢥ࣮ࢫ࣮࣡ࢡࢆࡁ
ࡕࢇ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞୍✀ࡢᩍ⫱ࢥ࣮ࢻ㒊ศ࡜ࠊࡑ࠺࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᨭ
᥼ࢆࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ౛࠼ࡤ኱Ꮫ⥲ྜᩍ⫱◊✲ࢭࣥࢱ࣮ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡑ࠺࠸࠺࡜ࡇࢁ࡟࠸ࡿඛ⏕᪉ࡣࠊࡈ⮬㌟ࡢࣜࢧ࣮ࢳࡢ࡯࠺ࡀ୰ᚰ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋ
ࡲࡗ࡚ࠊ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࢧ࣏࣮ࢺࢆࡍࡿ࡜࠿ࠊࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢࢆࡍࡿ࡜
࠿ࠊ࢔ࢻࣂ࢖ࢫࢆࡍࡿ࡜࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ኱Ꮫࡢᩍဨ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᚲせ࡞ࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥ
ࢢࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ᶵ⬟ࡀ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚ࡶኻࢃࢀ࡚ࠊࢭࣥࢱ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㛵ᚰ஦㡯࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲࡟㔜Ⅼࢆ⨨ࡁࡀࡕ࡛ࡍࠋࡅࢀ࡝࢔࣓࡛ࣜ࢝ࡣࠊඛ࡯࡝ࡢ
Graduate Division ࡟ࡶከᩘࡢ࣋ࢸࣛࣥࡢ኱Ꮫ㝔ࡢඛ⏕ࡀ࠸ࡽࡗࡋࡷࡿࢃࡅ࡛
ࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࠊࡑ࠺࠸࠺ඛ⏕᪉ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ㝔඲య࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡢ୍✀ࡢࢧ࣮ࣅࢫᶵ⬟ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ࢔ࢻ࣑ࢽࢫࢺ࣮ࣞࢩࣙࣥᶵ⬟࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࢆࡈ⮬㌟ࡢ◊✲࡜ࡣู࡟ᥦ
౪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊఱ࠿ᕤኵࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺࠿ࠋ᪥ᮏࡣ௙⤌ࡳࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ࡞࠿࡞࠿࠺ࡲࡃ࠸ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ࡇࢁࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡐࡦ࠾ఛ࠸ࡋࡓ࠸࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ

‫ྖە‬఍㸸 ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋNerad ඛ⏕ࠊࡼࢁࡋࡃ࠾㢪࠸ࡋࡲࡍࠋ
‫ە‬Nerad㸸 Yes, of course. As you know, professors in the US are also

very involved in their research, and in the labs and other centers.
The Graduate Division ensures that in each doctoral program, there is
one professor (whose term is usually two years) who is responsible forgraduate education. Each graduate program has one staff person(who usually possesses at least a bachelor’s or master’s) who is
responsible for supporting the administrative tasks involved in
graduate education.
Each semester the Graduate Division brings
together the professors who are responsible
this year for the graduate education affairs
in their departments. The professors arejoined by their departmental administrative
staff. During these meetings the Graduate
Division reports on: what is new in the US
at the national educational policy level that
may impact graduate education; what is
new at the local university; topics that theGraduate Division have been working on;
and what improvements they would like to see. At the University ofCalifornia, Berkley, we learned that these administrative staff persons
are very important to the graduate students and to the Graduate
Division. A quote from a students’ exit survey illustrates this:“These angels, these pearls really helped me, because they know
where the students are, and what is going on with them.” Focus groupinterviews indicated that students rely heavily on administrative staff
because these staff persons know the specific ins and outs of aprogram and the university’s general graduate education policies.
Not all professors know what is going in their departments. However,administrators know the particulars of what is going on in theirdepartments.
I mentioned earlier that in monthly professorial seminar meetings, theGraduate Dean brings the latest research findings on graduate
education to the campus. These research findings are presented byscholars from other universities. For example, maybe you’ve heard
about the scandal regarding cold fusion some years ago. As it turned
out, the research that was conducted on cold fusion was not correct.
It could not be replicated. The Graduate Division organized a
discussion of this topic: what were the conditions which lead to apossible falsification of data; how to prevent data falsification; andhow to introduce this issue to students as a way to teach ethics inresearch and responsible conduct.
Through these kinds of
discussions in invitation seminars, the Graduate Division addresses
pertinent “current issues” related to graduate education.
Each Graduate Division is different because the particularities of each
unit depend upon the university where it exists. At the University ofCalifornia, Berkley, the Graduate Division includes 40 people,
including staff who administer a training center for graduate student
teaching assistants as well as staff that organize the selection processof campus students for national fellowship awards such as theFulbright Fellowship. In other universities, the Graduate Division issmaller, and may consist of between 5 and 20 staff persons.
Regardless of size, the Graduate Division impacts graduate educationin many ways that benefit everyone involved.

‫ྖە‬఍㸸 ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ᫬㛫ࡢ࡯࠺ࡶ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠊ௒ᗘࡣ
Nerad ඛ⏕࡟ᚫỌඛ⏕ࡢ࠾ヰ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࡈឤ᝿ࠊࡈ㉁ၥࡀ࠶ࢀࡤࠊ࠾㢪࠸ࡋࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ

‫ە‬Nerad㸸 On the issue of quality assurance, individual universities
experience pressures from internal and external sources. For
example, today doctoral students can choose any university in theworld to attend for graduate studies. They can choose Tsukuba, orSingapore, or Hong Kong, or the University of Washington, or TU
München. From a university perspective, having transparent
admission criteria to attract the best minds to attend one’s university isadvantageous.

To attract the best minds, universities must havemore universally accepted standards. One ofthese global standards is to make English theuniversal language at the graduate level;otherwise, universities attract only limited
international graduate student populations. I think
the need to learn English—the language now
commonly used in academia—is what is so
attractive about universities in the US, Australia,
the UK, and now also Germany and all of Europe.
Not only do universities in these countries award
fellowships to international students, but theiracademic language at the graduate level is
English. This means that international students
will be exposed extensively to English.
In following with what your vice-president said, aconsistent curriculum (not just individual coursesthat reflect a particular professor’s area ofexpertise), is built on a systematic developmental
learning concept based on how a junior person
becomes a scholar. I use the analogy of a house as
a way to describe the establishment of a curriculum. If you want tobuild a house, you have to think about the whole house. You need tothink about the basement, the next floor up, and so on. You can’t think
only about a particular window or only about the kitchen.
Another pressure on universities is that many national governments
allocate less money to their higher education system. For instance, theGerman government after unification allocated less money to its
universities, while simultaneously providing them with moreautonomy.
This forced German universities to become more
entrepreneurial in order to increase their revenues. In the US since the1970s, state governments allocated less money to its public higher
education institutions. American universities and colleges began “fundraising” from private donors and private foundations, as well as
putting more emphasis on grant acquisition. Going back to theexample of Germany, now this country has a number of private
foundations that universities and colleges target for financial support.
One example is the VW Foundation, which has supported thetransformation of German universities in a substantial way.



As a result of available funding for higher education from a variety ofsources—government, grants and contracts from public and private
funders, and private donations—funders want to know how theirmoney was spent. Similarly, students on fellowships must show
proof that funds received are being used to achieve a tangible goal.
To this end, data on student enrollment is not the only valuable pieceof information. Time-to-degree, degree completion rates and career
information, which are collected locally by universities and at thenational level, are also valuable. Now, educational outcomes areassessed, not just outputs. In the broadest sense, the contributions ofhigher education to society are being focused on , and measures of its
assessments are being developed.
Assessing the outcome of education is not only a result of identifying
how money is spent, but it also assures its quality. Quality assuranceof doctoral education has become an important issue worldwide as
PhD recipients are pushed to become more mobile in order to findadequate professional employment. Academic and non-academic
employers worldwide want assurance of the quality the new
employees bring with them. Linked to finding employment, doctoral
education is increasingly seen as means toward an economic goal.
In addition, with our extensive web-based technology system, adoctorate may sit somewhere in South Africa while working for a
Polish Company. That company in Poland may hire someone in
another country who earned his/her PhD from Denmark. Still, thatcompany wants assurance that whomever they hire will possesscertain skills and competencies necessary for the job. The demand on
doctorates to become independent researchers who have professional
competencies puts extra pressure on graduate students.
The age when people decide to engage in doctoral studies is changing.
In certain fields, students begin a graduate program in their early-to
mid 30s. Now students come with work experience and want to be
assured that their educational efforts lead to a quality education
outcome.
In Europe, a strong organization representing doctoral candidates andjunior researchers emerged in 2002. Known as EURODOC, thisorganization is the European Council of Doctoral Candidates andJunior Researchers. The organizations’ objectives are:x

To promote the circulation of information on issues regarding
young researchers; organize events, take part in debates and assistxin the elaboration of policies about higher education and researchin Europe.
To establish and promote co-operation between national
associations representing doctoral candidates and juniorresearchers within Europe (see website for more information:
http://eurodoc.net/sample-page).

In the US and Australia, doctoral students have organized into unions.
Just as universities are forced to become economic enterprises,
students use means of the labor market to assure their rights.
Worldwide external and internal forces are
putting pressure on universities to produce
doctoral graduates who will be able to fit withconsiderable uniformity into the systems of
employers all over the world. As elaborated in
my talk, external forces to PhD education are
arising from economic globalization, frominnovation policies within countries, and fromnational governments’ aspirations to house
world-class universities within national borders.
Internal forces are products of universities’
greater internationalization, of a context in which competition andrankings have become increasingly international in scope, and ofincreased mobility among today’s PhD students, who look beyond
their home countries for superior doctoral programs that may facilitate
their entry into attractive jobs after graduation. These forces andtrends have lead to the global implementation of a model of quality
assurance that resembles the classic input-throughput-output model
used in the business world.
In a research doctoral program, the inputs are theprogram’s successful applicants who areadmitted and become PhD candidates; theprofessors who teach, advise, or otherwise
participate in the program; the program’s
research infrastructure and that of its sponsoring
institution; and the political context in which theprogram exists.
Concretely, this means in US research
universities that, on the input level, about 25% ofdoctoral applicants are accepted. Professors arealso screened, first during the hiring process as well as during theprocess of earning of tenure—and this process is taken very seriously.
In terms of infrastructure, quality assurance translates to mean that
universities should have: very good libraries, labs andinstrumentations, sufficient space for students, effective transportation
to and from the university, campus housing, good services including
health insurance, child-care facilities, and safe environments.
Throughput measures are quality advising and supervising, ascaffolded curriculum with exam steps that lead to a quality
dissertation, and structured professional development workshops forthe doctoral students. Quality advising and supervising means
regular contact between professors and doctoral students. As I said
earlier, some universities (mostly in Australia) now require that certain
qualifications be met before the right to supervise a doctoral thesis isgranted; these universities also may require contract-style agreements
between the supervisor and the supervisee. (For further information on
this topic, see also the recent CIRGE book (2014) on Globalizationand its Impact on Quality of the PhD Worldwide, Nerad, chapter 5).
In the US, many universities require a special vote by the relevant
department, and approval from the central graduate school, in order
for an academic staff member to join the graduate faculty and gain
permission to chair a dissertation committee.
Output measures of doctoral education are first the production of ascholar whose acquired skills and aptitudes have been validated by auniversity, quantified in the number of PhD degrees awarded, and thedissertation research and the various forms of research publications
that doctoral graduates may produce. Dissertations are assessed byinternal and external reviewers, and research articles are reviewed
through a mostly blind review process. In both approaches, quality
assessment is always involved.
After 1990 in the US, the use of output measures was expanded at theinstitutional level. Quality assessment was no longer just a question ofcounting up the doctorates that were completed every year. Now trend
data was analyzed in connection with the time that elapsed between
admission to doctoral study and completion of the doctoral degree,
and doctoral completion rates were assessed per entering cohort ofcandidates. In the mid-1990s, on the one hand there was concern
about not producing enough highly skilled people for the rapidly
expanding field of information technology and the emerging healthand bioengineering sectors. On the other hand, students who wereabout to complete their doctoral studies in such fields as theoreticalphysics, English, history, and philosophy were worried about findinggood jobs after graduation. Questions were raised such as: Was the US
producing enough PhDs for the near future in a changed job market?
What jobs would new doctoral graduates be able to find? Would they
have the skills needed to work outside academia? Were new PhDs
having trouble finding employment? Were they finding the jobs theywanted? Did they expect to be able to apply what they had learned intheir doctoral studies? Did they think that studying for a doctorate had
been a valuable personal experience, apart from its benefit for theareas in which they worked?
These were all outcome questions. Outcomes and outputs are not thesame thing, of course, even though there is a tendency to use the terms
output and outcome as if they were interchangeable. Outcomes are thedifference made by its outputs. At the societal level, the outcomes ofdoctoral education may include important new theories, newknowledge that solves many types of social problems, the creation ofvaluable new products, and so on—and, as we have just seen, doctoral
education also raises questions about outcomes at this level. Therefore,
it became logical to undertake PhD tracking studies so as to examine
the longer-term outcomes of doctoral education. The hope was that
doctoral graduates, once they began to use their skills in their new
workplaces, could provide more meaningful evaluations of theirdoctoral education. The first of these studies was launched at
University of California, Berkeley, and was endorsed by the
Association of Graduate Schools and the Council of Graduate Schools
in 1996.
In recent years, Europe (European Science Foundation, 2013) is also
moving beyond assessing the outcome of doctoral degrees in terms ofthe number of degrees awarded and the length of time it takes tocompete the degree. A three-year time to doctoral degree completionin Europe does not include the time leading up to the development of
a dissertation proposal. Doctoral candidates are admitted with theirdissertation exposé in hand. A preoccupation with three-year degreecompletion disregards the more important goal of a quality
dissertation, and the time it takes to conduct high quality research.
Besides career tracking as describable outcome measure, universities
can make visible the impact of doctoral research in the local
community. Here is one example, and please do not take this as
propaganda for the University of Washington. This university’s
website has a homepage that changes weekly and shows how theuniversity’s students contribute to the Puget Sound, to Seattle, or tosociety at large. In other words, the homepage shows what theuniversity’s students are doing, and how their work relates to otherpeople.
‫ྖە‬఍㸸 ࡑࢀ࡛ࡣࠊࣇࣟ࢔ࡢ࡯࠺࠿ࡽ㉁ၥࢆ࠶ࢇࡲࡾከࡃࡣཷࡅࡽࢀࡲ
ࡏࢇࡀࠊ2㹼3 ࠾ཷࡅࡋࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋఱ࠿ࡈ㉁ၥࡀ࠶ࢀࡤࠊࡼࢁࡋࡃ࠾㢪࠸ࡋࡲࡍࠋ‫ࡢࡽ࠿࢔ࣟࣇە‬㉁ၥ㸸 I am in the education department if I may say

so, and I would like to say thank you for just not it was enlightening, it
is really enlightening, but professionally also because I had last 2 daysa research management skill course under our Graduate General
Education Courses Program, which Professor Tokunaga has
mentioned. I think hearing from you the Global Village we shouldchange the name to Global General Education Community would bevery nice. I would like to say thank you that you have trained me
today to be more professional and I was bit vindicated that I have beenteaching my students last 2 days, they were master’s students by theway, something on the same lines, so I maybe need your permission toquote some of your material in the next year class. So, thank youvery much. To the questions I have two questions. One is related to
the faculty, you have mentioned a lot of initiatives for the doctoral
students, so how do we get the human resources to move forward
these initiatives. We may train the doctoral students to be future
researchers, but to run these initiatives we need the faculty right now,and how do we put that in practice to run those initiatives. Second ison the students; you said university or society demands more ofresearchers more and more, so how much more is enough? Is lessmore; by less I mean maybe we need, as you mentioned, it is very
competitive to get into Ph.D. and 3 years is not an option, so does lessmean more efficient or productive Ph.D.s? Thank you.
‫ە‬Nerad㸸 I think this is an excellent question.
We have to rethink what it is we are doing, and we need to eliminate
what is not working. When we revise our doctoral curricula, we needto ask, “Do we still need to teach this?” The answer to this question
might be to start out with a philosophy of science course in order tointroduce basic knowledge creation concepts. This philosophy ofscience class would address the following questions: How do weknow what we know and what we regard as evidence? What do weregard as valid data in our disciplines and in other fields? Where are
the limits of our disciplinary approaches and our particularly methods
used? These are the basic questions that we need to ask whenworking with our doctoral students because they will help studentsdevelop relevant questions for their dissertation research. Further, weneed to identify what knowledge and information students alreadybring with them, and when we find that a student already posses thenecessary background and method’s skills, the curriculum should
allow for flexibility so that the student can be freed from certain
requirements.
Developing a doctoral level curriculum that is not only based onprinciples of research learning but is also flexible enough toaccommodate individual students’ academic background, requires
constant collaboration and dialogue between colleagues. For instance,
we need to openly discuss the criteria of an excellent dissertation, agood one, an acceptable one, and distinguish these from anunacceptable one.
Let me give you an example of the process of such a dialogue: My
department just restructured our master’s in higher education program.
My colleagues and I met once every three weeks over a period of two
years to discuss how to turn the existing academic master’s program,which was geared to prepare part-time students for the doctorate, into
a professional master’s degree. Traditionally, at the master’s level inthe field in higher education, students worked while simultaneously
completing academic studies as part-time students over a period of
two or three years. However, now we are increasingly receiving
applications from younger applicants—whose goal is to to become
student affairs officers that help first generation college-goers
transition from high school to college to successful college graduates.
We also notice a sharp increase in the number of international students
who are full-time students. We spent a lot of time analyzing local
student enrollment trends, undertaking expert interviews with college
presidents and university deans about their estimated need for student
affairs officers, and inquired about current and future competencies
that student affairs and other higher education officers would need. In
addition, we examined what was done at peer institutions in the fieldof higher education. We considered the students’ financial situation. At
the end, we decided to make the master’s program into a one-year
tract for full-time students. During this two-year process, we
examined each course syllabi carefully, noting overlaps, missing
concepts and knowledge relevant for the future. This procedureallowed us to eliminate a number of traditional courses, and as a result,created room to add new courses. For example, one new course we
added focused on the impact of globalization and internationalization
on higher education. As you said, more is not always better. Better inthis context means being more efficient within a certain timeframe,and making sure that a future-oriented, high-quality curriculum isbeing created about which all colleagues in our program agree.
‫ࡢࡽ࠿࢔ࣟࣇە‬㉁ၥ㸸 ௒᪥ࡣࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾ㏱᫂ᛶࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ
ࡼࡾ㉁ࡀಖドࡉࢀࡓไᗘ࡬ࡢ⛣⾜࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ࡇࢀࡣ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸࠿࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᚰࢆ᪂ࡓ࡟ࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ ࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓ࡞࠿࡛㉁ၥࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ୍ࡘࡣࠊ⌧⾜ࡢ኱Ꮫ㝔ࡢไᗘ࡛ࡣࠊࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛ࠶ࡿᑓᨷࡢୖ࡟◊✲⛉ࡀᣢࡓࢀ࡚࠸࡚ࠊ◊✲⛉ࡀ㞟ࡲࡗ࡚኱Ꮫࢆࡘࡃࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊࡼࡾᏛ㝿ⓗࠊࡼࡾὶືⓗ࡞ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡍࡿ࡜࠸ࡗࡓሙྜ࡟ࠊ౛࠼ࡤᩍဨࡢㄆᐃไᗘ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ
⌧⾜࡛ࡣ◊✲⛉࡛ࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᙺ๭ࡀ࡝࠺࠸࠺࠿ࡓࡕ࡟ኚࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ
࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ௒ࡢࡲࡲ࡛࠸࠸ࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀ୍ࡘ┠ࡢ㉁ၥ࡛ࡍࠋ
 ࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢ㉁ၥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡑ࠺࠸࠺ᩍဨࡢㄆᐃ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࢆ⪃࠼ࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ࠊ
ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡀࡼࡾ௒ࡲ࡛௨ୖ࡟Ꮫ㝿ⓗ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞ᑓ㛛ᛶࢆᣢࡗࡓᩍဨࡀࠊࡓࡃࡉࢇࡢࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛᩍဨ࡜ࡋ࡚ാࡃ
ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࡲࡍࠋ㏫࡟࠸࠺࡜ࠊᩍဨ⤌⧊ࡢ୰࠿ࡽㄡࡀࡇࡇࢆᢸᙜࡋ࡚ࠊㄡࡀ
ࡇࡇࡢࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆᢸᙜࡋ࡚࡜࠸࠺࠿ࡓࡕࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶᚲせ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿ
࡜ᛮ࠺࡜ࠊᩍဨㄆᐃไᗘ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡀࠊࡇࡢே࡟᮶࡚ࡃ
ࡔࡉ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࠸࠿࡞࠸ࡢࡔࢁ࠺࡜ᛮ࠺ࡋࠊࡑࡢࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆᢸᙜࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿᩍဨࡢ㉁ࡢಖドࢆࠊࡑࡢࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ࡯࠿ࡢศ㔝ࡢᩍဨ࡟ࡣࡼࡃศ࠿
ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛௨ୖ࡟ከࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࢀࡀᩍ
ဨㄆᐃ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡼࡃぢ࠼࡞࠸࡞࡜ᛮ࠺Ⅼ࡛ࡍࠋ ஧ࡘ┠ࡣࠊᏛ఩ࡢᑂᰝ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚࡛ࡍࠋᏛ఩ࡢᑂᰝ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ⌧⾜ࡣ୺ᰝ1 ேࠊ๪ᰝ 3 ே⛬ᗘࡢᏛ఩ᑂᰝጤဨ఍ࡀ୰ᚰ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࠊ᫬㛫ࢆ࠿ࡅ࡚ᑂᰝࢆ
⾜ࡗࡓୖ࡛ࠊ◊✲⛉ࡀಖドࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ไᗘࢆࡘࡃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮ࠺ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠊ
ࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓࢶ࣮ࢫࢸࢵࣉࡢಖドไᗘࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸Ꮫ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ
࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡗࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ࠊࡼࡾᏛ㝿ⓗࠊὶືⓗ࡞Ꮫ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢᑂᰝࡢࢢࣝ
࣮ࣆࣥࢢࡀὶືⓗ࡛࡞ࡃ࡚࠸࠸ࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࡍࠋࡼࢁࡋࡃ࠾㢪࠸ࡋࡲࡍࠋ

‫ە‬ᚫỌ㸸 ࡇࡢࡈ㉁ၥࠊ࡞࠿࡞࠿ࡲࡔヲ⣽࡞ไᗘタィࡀ࡛ࡁ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡏࢇ
࠿ࡽ㞴ࡋ࠸࡜ࡇࢁ࡞ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠊ⚾ࡀࡑࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ⱝᖸᴦほⓗ࡟⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࡢࡣࠊ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫࡣࠊ࠿ࡘ࡚ࡣᏛ⣔࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡓ⤌⧊ࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢⅬࡀࡸࡣࡾ࡯࠿ࡢ኱Ꮫ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ኱ࡁ࡞࢔ࢻࣂࣥࢸ࣮ࢪࢆⓎ᥹ࡍࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࡜ᛮࡗ
࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡸࡣࡾ⣔ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᪧᏛ⣔࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆ๓ᥦ
࡜ࡋࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ࠊࡸࡗࡥࡾ኱ࡁ࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࢃࡅ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊඛ࡯࡝ゝࡗࡓᩍဨࡢㄆᐃ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࠊ࡛ࡍ࠿ࡽࠊࡑ࠺࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡣࠊ୍ᐃࡢỈ‽ࠊᏛၥⓗ࡞Ỉ‽ࢆಖドࡍࡿព࿡࡛ࡢ⣔ࡢၥ㢟ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ࡯࠺
࡛ࢥ࣮ࢹ࢕ࢿ࣮ࢺࡍࡿ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࠊࡇࡢඛ⏕࡟᮶࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚ࡣࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ࡯࠺୍࡛ᐃࡢㄆᐃࢆࡋࡲࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࠊ㏫࡟࠸࠺࡜࠾ࡗࡋࡷࡿ
ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⣔ࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࠊࡇࡢඛ⏕ࡤ࠿ࡾฟࡎࡗࡥࡾࡔ࡜࠿ࠊࡇࡢඛ⏕ࡣ࡝࠺ࡔ࡜࠿ࠋ࠶ࡿព࿡࡛ࡣࠊᩍဨࡢᡤᒓ⤌⧊࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁࡢ⣔ࡀࠊࡑ࠺࠸࠺࢚ࣇ࢛
࣮ࢺ⟶⌮ࡢព࿡࡛ࡶ㠀ᖖ࡟㔜せ࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿
࡜ࠋࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࡇࡇࡣࠊ௒ࡲ࡛ࡶ⤌⧊ⓗ࡟ᶵ⬟ࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࡢ࡛ࠊ
ࡇࢀࡣ᏶඲࡟⚾ࡢಶேⓗ࡞ឤ᝿࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ⏦ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࠊࡑࡢព࿡࡛
ࡣࠊ⣔ࡢാࡁࢆࡼࡾᙉࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡲࡓࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢࣛ
࣒ࡢࢥ࣮ࢹ࢕ࢿ࣮ࢱ࣮࡜ྛ⣔࡜ࡢࢿࢦࢩ࢚࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡞ࡾࠊ㐃⤡࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀ
ព࿡ࢆᣢࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ ࡑࢀ࠿ࡽࠊࡶࡕࢁࢇᏛ఩ࡢᑂᰝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡣᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜࡛ࡸࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࠊᙜ↛ࠊᚑ᮶௨ୖ࡟ከᵝ࡞ศ㔝ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࢥ࣮ࢫ
࣮࣡ࢡ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࢆ㔜どࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢥ࣮ࢫ࣮࣡ࢡ࡞ࡾࠊከ
ᵝ࡞ศ㔝ࡢᏛಟ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡟ࡩࡉࢃࡋ࠸࠿ࡓࡕ࡛ࡢᑂᰝయไࢆ☜❧ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛ࡍࡀࠊࡑࡇࡢ࡜ࡇࢁࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᏛ఩ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ㈐௵⪅ࡀồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡶ
ࡢ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢุ᩿࡛࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠸࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡩ࠺࡟ࠋ
࠾⟅࠼࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ศ࠿ࡾࡲࡏࢇࡅࢀ࡝ࠊࡑࢇ࡞ࡩ࠺࡟⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ‫ྖە‬఍㸸 ᚫỌඛ⏕࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋࡶ࠺᫬㛫ࡶࡔ࠸ࡪᢲࡋ࡚࠸
ࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠊࡲࡔ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁࡈ㉁ၥࡣ࠶ࢁ࠺࠿࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊࡇࡇ࡛ពぢ஺᥮ࢆ⤊஢ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ

㛢఍ᣵᣜ㸭Closing RemarksΎỈ୍ᙪ ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ๪Ꮫ㛗㸭Dr. Kazuhiko Shimizu, Vice President, University of Tsukuba
Dr. Nerad thank you very much for yourwonderful presentation, Danke schön. ᚫỌඛ⏕ࠊஂ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࠾⟅࠼ࡣࠊࡶࡕࢁࢇồࡋࡪࡾ࡟ᚫỌ⠇ࢆ࠾⪺ࡁ࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺

ࡵࡲࡏࢇࡀࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟⚾ࡣឤࡌࡲࡋࡓࠋ

⪺࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢ 20 ᖺࡢࣛࢢࢆ࠶ࡽࡓࡵ࡚ᐇឤࡋࡓḟ➨ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ25 ᖺ㛫ࡢ㧗➼ᩍ⫱⾜ᨻࡢኚ㑄࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢᨵၿ࠿ࡽ኱Ꮫࡢᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ಖド࡜࠸࠺࡜ࡇࢁ࡛ࠊ௒᪥ࡢ FD ࡣࠊ࣮࣡ࣝࢻࢧࢵ࣮࢝ࡢࢻ

ࠕᨵၿ࠿ࡽ㉁ಖドࠖ࡜࠸࠺ὶࢀࡀࠊⓙࡉࢇࡶ㠀ᖖ࡟࢖ࢶᑐࣈࣛࢪࣝᡓ࡟༉ᩛࡍࡿ࡯࡝ࡢ(!?)኱ኚ⣲ᬕࡽࡼࡃศ࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ

ࡋ࠸ FD ࡟࡞ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋFD ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏ࡛ࡣ 2007 ᖺ࡟௒᪥ࠊ࠾஧ேࡢ࠾ヰࢆ⪺࠸࡚ࠊ୍ࡘឤࡌࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ

኱Ꮫ㝔࠿ࡽ⩏ົ໬ࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓࠋᐇࡣࠊࡇࡢ FD ࡜࠸ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊࢃࡀᅜࡣࠊ௒ࠊ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱ࡢ࠺ࡢࡣࠊࢡࣞࢪࢵࢺࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࠊࡘࡲࡾ༢఩ไᗘ࡜㠀ᵓ⠏࡜࠸࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࠊᩚഛࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿẁ㝵࡛ࡍࡀࠊࡑ

ᖖ࡟ᐦ᥋࡞㛵ಀࡀࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ࢔࣓࡛ࣜ࢝ࡣ 130ࡢ୰࡛࠸ࢃࡺࡿ Ph.D.ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜ᑓ㛛⫋Ꮫ఩ࢆఱᖺ๓࡟ࢡࣞࢪࢵࢺࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆᡂ❧ࡉࡏࡲࡋࡓࠋࢡࣞ

࡜࠿࠺ࡲࡃࡘࡃࡾୖࡆࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺ດຊࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ

ࢪࢵࢺࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ࡝ࢇ࡞⛉┠ࡶㄡࡀᩍ࠼

௚᪉ࠊ࢔࣓࡛ࣜ࢝ࡣࠊPh.D.࡜ࣉࣟࣇ࢙ࢵࢩࣙࢼࣝ

ࡼ࠺࡜ࠊ࠸ࡘᩍ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ࠊࡳࢇ࡞ྠࡌᩍ࠼᪉࡛࡞࠸

ࢹ࢕ࢢ࣮ࣜ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀࠊ࠺ࡲࡃఫࡳศࡅࡉࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚

࡜Ꮫ⏕࡟୙฼┈ࢆ⿕ࡿࠋࡔ࠿ࡽࠊᩍ࠼᪉ࡔࡅࡣࠊࡳ

࠾ࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏࡶࡑࢀࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠊ

ࢇ࡞ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ࡋࡲࡋࡻ࠺࡜࠸࠺࡜ࡇࢁ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡲࢀ

ඛ࡯࡝ Nerad ඛ⏕ࡢࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝࣅࣞࢵࢪ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ

ࡓࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࡛ࡍࠋࡑࡢព࿡࡛ࡣࠊࢡࣞࢪࢵࢺࢩࢫࢸ

࡜࠸࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࠊࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝࣅࣞࢵࢪࣔࢹࣝࢆ⪺ࡁࡲ

࣒ࡢⓏሙ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊFD ࡀጞࡲࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡍࠋ

ࡍ࡜ࠊࡔࢇࡔࢇ Ph.D.࡜ࣉࣟࣇ࢙ࢵࢩࣙࢼࣝࢹ࢕ࢢࣜ
࣮ࡢ༊ูࡣࠊ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ឤࡌࡲ

ࡶ࠺୍ࡘᛀࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊࢡࣞࢪࢵࢺࢩࢫ

ࡋࡓࠋ᪥ᮏࡣࠊࣉࣟࣇ࢙ࢵࢩࣙࢼࣝࢹ࢕ࢢ࣮ࣜ࡜

ࢸ࣒ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓ࡜ࡁࡢᐃ⩏ࡣࠊ㸯༢఩ࡣࠊ㐌㸯ᅇࠊ㸯

Ph.D.ࢆ࠶ࡽࡓ࡟ᵓ⠏ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊࡶ࠺᭱

Ꮫᮇ㛫ࡢᤵᴗࣉࣛࢫ‶㊊࡞Ꮫಟᡂᯝ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ

ඛ➃࡛ࡣࠊࣉࣟࣇ࢙ࢵࢩࣙࢼࣝࢹ࢕ࢢ࣮ࣜ࡜ Ph.D.

ࡇࡢ‶㊊࡞Ꮫಟᡂᯝ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ

࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ࠶ࡲࡾఫࡳศࡅࢆࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚࠸࠸ࡼ࠺࡞

‶㊊࡞Ꮫಟᡂᯝ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ௒ࡢ࢔࣓࡛ࣜ࢝࠸࠺ࢢ

༳㇟ࢆᣢࡕࡲࡋࡓࠋ⚾ࡣࠊᖖ᪥ࡈࢁࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ㧗➼ᩍ࣮ࣞࢻ࣭࣏࢖ࣥࢺ࣭࢔࣮࣋ࣞࢪ㸦GPA㸧࡞ࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ

⫱ࡣࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ㧗➼ᩍ⫱ࡼࡾ 20 ᖺ㐜ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃ࡘࡲࡾ࢔࣓࡛ࣜ࢝ 130 ᖺ๓࡟༢఩ไᗘࢆ㛤Ⓨࡋࡓ࡜࠼࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ኱Ꮫࡢ኱⾗໬ࡀࠊ࢔࣓࡛ࣜ࢝

ࡁ࡟ࠊFD ࡜ GPA ࡣࠊࡲࡉ࡟ࢭࢵࢺ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚⏕ࡲࢀ

ࡣ 1941 ᖺ࡟࠾ࡇࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋ᪥ᮏࡣࠊ1963 ᖺ࡟኱⾗ࡓࡢ࡛ࡍࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠾໬࡟✺ධࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾ 20 ᖺ࡯࡝ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀࡈࡊ࠸

ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋᡓᚋࠊ᪥ᮏ࡟༢఩ไᗘࡀᑟධࡉࢀ࡚࠿ࡽ

ࡲࡍࠋࡑࡢᕪ࡞ࡢ࠿࡞࡜ᛮ࠸࡞ࡀࡽࠊ௒᪥ࡢ࠾ヰࢆ60 ᖺᚋ࡟ FD ࡀࡸࡗ࡜⩏ົ໬ࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓࠋGPA ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ඲య࡛ゝ࠼ࡤࡲࡔ඲ᅜ 3 ๭࡟ࡶ‶ࡓ࡞࠸ࠋ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ࡛ࡶࡼ࠺ࡸࡃ࢔ࣥࢲ࣮ࢢࣛࢹ࢚ࣗ࢖ࢺ࡛ࠊ1 ᖺ⏕ᑐ㇟࡟ᑟධࡋࡓࡤ࠿ࡾ࡛ࡍࠋ㝈ࡾ࡞ࡃḢ⡿ࡢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ᪥ᮏࡣྲྀࡾධࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠊࡑࢀࡀ᪥ᮏ
ࡢไᗘ࡜ࡋ࡚ᐃ╔ࡍࡿࡢ࡟㠀ᖖ࡟᫬㛫ࡀ࠿࠿ࡗ࡚࠸
ࡲࡍࠋ࡛ࡍ࠿ࡽࠊࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡜࠿ࠊไᗘࡔࡅࡣ࠸ࢁ࠸
ࢁධࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠊ࡞࠿࡞࠿ࡑࢀࡀ᪥ᮏࡢࢩࢫ
ࢸ࣒࡜ࡋ࡚ᐃ╔ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ࠶࡜ 50 ᖺࠊ100 ᖺᚋ࡟ࡣࠊ
ࡕࡻ࠺࡝௒ࡢ᫬ᮇ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ㧗➼ᩍ⫱ࡀⱞࡋࢇ࡛ࠊ
ࡶࡀ࠸࡚ࠊ࠶ࡢ࡜ࡁࡣࡲࡉ࡟᪥ᮏᆺࡢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆࡘ

ࡃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡁࡔࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺᫬௦ࡀࡸࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࡼ࠺

ࡕࡻࡗ࡜వィ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡲ࡛ゝࡗࡓ࠿ࡶࡋࢀࡲࡏࢇࡀࠊ

࡞Ẽࡀࡋࡲࡍࠋࡑࡢព࿡࡛ࠊࢃࢀࢃࢀࡣ௒ࡇࡑ㠀ᖖ⋡┤࡞ឤ᝿ࡶྵࡵ࡚㏙࡭ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋࡇ

࡟ᝎࢇ࡛ࠊⱞࡋࢇ࡛ࠊ㆟ㄽࡋ࡚ࠊ኱࠸࡟⤖ᵓ࡞ࡇ࡜ࢀ࡛ FD ࢆ⤊஢ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡍࠋ௒᪥ࡣࠊ㛗᫬ࡔ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ

㛫࡟ࢃࡓࡋࡲࡋ࡚ࠊከᩘࡈཧຍ࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋ࡚ㄔ࡟

ࡇࡢ FD ࢆዎᶵ࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ㒊⨫ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ◊࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ㔜ࡡ࡚ Nerad ඛ⏕ࠊᚫỌ✲⛉ࠊ⣔࡛ࠊ௒᪥ࡢࢸ࣮࣐࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜

ඛ⏕ࠊᮏᙜ࡟࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ

ࢆ⚾ࡣᮇᚅࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ

ᅜ❧኱Ꮫࡢᶵ⬟ᙉ໬ࠕᅜ㝿ⓗ㏻⏝ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿᩍ⫱ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢᵓ⠏ࠖ஦ᴗ᥎㐍ࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛグ㘓㸦ᖹᡂ 26 ᖺᗘ➨ 3 ᅇ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ FD ◊ಟ఍㸧ࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ໬࡟ྥࡅࡓᩍ⫱ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ᨵ㠉㸫ᩍ⫱ࡢᅜ㝿ⓗ஫᥮ᛶࡢྥୖ࡟ྥࡅ࡚㸫The Innovation of the Educational System toward Globalization
㸫International Compatibility Improvement in Education㸫
ᖹᡂ 27 ᖺ 3 ᭶⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱௻⏬ᐊ࣭ᩍ⫱᥎㐍㒊ࠛ305-8577 Ⲉᇛ┴ࡘࡃࡤᕷኳ⋤ྎ 1-1-1࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ  http://www.tsukuba.ac.jp/