Japan-Nordic Symposium

On the Frontier of University Evaluation-Making the Most of Nordic Successes-

Panel Discussion (1)Impact of university evaluation on educational quality《Panelists》
Tisato Kajiyama

President, Kyushu University
Vice-President, The Japan Association of National Universities＊Slides〔English〕： P. 180～187

Norikazu Kudo

Vice-President, Keio University＊Slides〔English〕： P. 188～200

Junko Kawamura

Executive Director, Institute of National Colleges of Technology＊Slides〔English〕： P. 201～211

Christian Thune

Executive Director, EVA, Denmark

Ossi Tuomi

Secretary General, FINHEEC, Finland

Tove Blytt Holmen

Deputy Director General, NOKUT, Norway《Moderator》
Seiji Kimura

Director, Department of Research for University Evaluation, NIAD-UE

61

Kato: We would now like to start the afternoon session.
This session will consist of two panel discussions. The first one will focus on “Impact of
university evaluation on educational quality.” The second one is on “Contributions ofuniversity evaluation to society.”
I would like to ask the moderator and panelists for the first panel discussion to comeforward now.
Allow me to introduce the moderator and panelists for this first discussion. The
moderator is Prof. Seiji Kimura, the Director of the Department of Research for
University Evaluation at NIAD-UE.
Next, the panelists. We have invited three individuals representing higher education in
Japan. These three panelists will be invited to speak first.
On the right side of the stage, Ms. Junko Kawamura, Executive Director of the Instituteof National Colleges of Technology.
Next to her, Prof. Norikazu Kudo, Vice-President of Keio University.
And Dr. Tisato Kajiyama, the President of Kyushu University and Vice-President of theJapan Association of National Universities.
They are joined by three panelists who made presentations in the morning representing
the five Nordic countries: Dr. Christian Thune;
Dr. Ossi Tuomi;
And Ms. Tove Blytt Holmen.
These six individuals will make up the panel for this discussion.
We were not able to spare time for questions and answers after the presentation by Dr.
Thune this morning, so immediately after the presentations for this panel discussion weare going to take time for questions.

63One request to those asking questions. There is a microphone installed at yourtables—just one for every three attendees. You will find a green on and off switch on the
microphone. Please turn it on before speaking, and off again after you have finished.
And before making your comment, please identify yourself and the organization thatyou belong to.
Now I would like to hand over the microphone to the moderator, Prof. Kimura, please.
Kimura: Please allow me to remain seated. My name is Kimura and I am the Director of
the Department of Research for University Evaluation.
In the morning session, our speakers explained how the five Nordic countries perceive
the need for university evaluation and under what framework it has been developed.
We heard how university evaluation bodies in those countries have establishedthemselves and taken a leading role in developing awareness of the need forevaluation—a kind of success story for university evaluation bodies.
The first panel discussion this afternoon is going to address the issue of how university
evaluation bodies have become accepted on, as it were, the other side of the hill.
University evaluation is supported in a variety of ways now, including by the national
government, but we want to look at how it has been received by universities themselves.
This will give us a more complete picture of both sides of the hill. In the morning session
we focused our attention on evaluation bodies in the Nordic countries, but in this firstpanel discussion we are going to examine some Japanese examples. Our panelists will
discuss how the evaluation process is viewed by universities and other higher education
institutions themselves, and how they are working to respond to evaluation. This will
include some concrete case studies from each of the institutions represented.

“Impact of University Evaluation on Educational and Research Quality”
Tisato Kajiyama (President, Kyushu University; Vice-President, The Japan Associationof National Universities)
Kimura: First I would like to invite Dr. Kajiyama to make his presentation.
(Slide1)
Kajiyama: My name is Kajiyama, from Kyushu University. I also serve as

64

Vice-President of the Japan Association of National Universities. Today I will talk fromthe standpoint of these two organizations, on the topic of what universities are doing toapply the results of evaluation to improve the quality of their educational and research
activities.
Before going into the PowerPoint slides that you have printed out in front of you, I
would like briefly to review the historical development of university evaluation in Japan.
This part of my presentation is not covered in the PowerPoint visuals.
As you know, in April 2004 national universities were transformed into corporations,with each one developing its own mid-term goal and plan. The first mid-term plan spansa six year period, and we are already in the third year. So 2010 will be the final year of
this period. But we will also undergo a mid-term evaluation one and a half years prior tothat, in September 2008.
The national university corporation evaluation will be conducted by the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. And we know that the first period
for evaluation will end in 2010. However, we national university corporations are not
yet to receive a full explanation of how this evaluation will actually be conducted, andhow the results are to be applied to the subsequent period—naturally the results must
be utilized in some way.
Having listened to the presentations by our Nordic colleagues this morning, I got the
impression that Japan is at least five years behind the Nordic countries in terms ofdeveloping official structures for evaluation. In the Nordic countries the first phase isalready over and they are moving into the stage of applying the results to enhancement
initiatives. I think their situation is different from ours.
We are, however, working to develop our mid-term goal and plan and to enhance quality
through evaluation. We could not survive if we did not do so. Furthermore, we are all
fully aware that we must do so in order to fulfil our obligations to students, thecommunity, and all stakeholders of our universities.
Apart from the national university corporation evaluation, we must also undergo thecertified evaluation and accreditation. Naturally, this means assurance of the quality of
our educational and other activities. This concept of quality assurance has been raised65

repeatedly in today’s proceedings. I’m not familiar with the details, but I got the
impression that the Nordic countries are able to conduct quality assurance andevaluation more or less in parallel with each other. In the case of Japan, they are notnecessarily part of the same platform, but this evaluation and accreditation is certainly
a very important form for us.
It involves evaluation by third-party evaluation institutions, one of which is the
National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation. This evaluation
and accreditation will be conducted once in seven years. Professional graduate schools
will undergo it once in five years.
Thus we are still only half way through the first phase of the process, so mypresentation will be about university evaluation at the embryonic stage. It will be very
valuable for us to consider how we can apply the kind of things our Nordic colleagues
talked about this morning.
(Slide2)
I plan to cover three points in my presentation.
Firstly, how we approach university evaluation as national university corporations.
Next I will refer to specific examples from Kyushu University. Finally, I will talk about
ways to enhance education and research quality through evaluation. These are thethree issues that I would like to address today.
(Slide3)
In regards to how we approach the issue of evaluation at national university
corporations, the first point is that we are facing new issues in a newly competitiveenvironment. As the slide states, the knowledge-based society has brought an expanded
role for universities and required them to respond to a greater diversity of social needs.
Higher demands are being placed on universities to contribute to the development of
human resources and the advancement of science and technology.
The second point is that higher education has entered the universal stage. Japan isexperiencing a dramatic decline in its 18-year-old population. At the same time, around50 percent of this population is now enrolling in universities or junior colleges, meaningthat we have reached the stage of universal participation in university education.
There is also growing public demand for efficient management of university finances.

66

This is one of the new challenges for universities in a competitive environment. In otherwords, in this time of strained national financial reserves, budgetary and personnel cuts
are being experienced even in national university corporations. There is strong pressure
for universities to be managed more efficiently.
These three points emerge as the major new issues for universities in this increasinglycompetitive environment.
(Slide4)Now, the question is how to respond to these new demands. First, there is the challengeof differentiating university functions. As stated by the Central Council for Education inits council report ”A Vision for the Future of Higher Education in Japan”, universities
are required to become more unique and diverse.
Secondly, it is vital to create frameworks for quality assurance of higher education andalso to develop international validity. With growing numbers of Japanese personnel
active on the international scene, it is particularly important for our universities toensure that the standards of qualifications provided in our name are valid ininternational terms.
Thirdly, we have to transform our organizational and financial structures to achieve
efficient and stable management. In other words, we must come up with anorganizational approach that makes best use of limited human resources and financial
reserves in the fulfillment of our responsibilities as universities.
(Slide5)Now we will look at evaluation in the context of the processes of structural reform,
through which our institutions are being transformed into national university
corporations.
The first issue is the formulation of a mid-term plan, and its evaluation. We also have toconsider how to use the evaluation to revitalize our organization and achieve an upward
spiral effect.
We are also expected to introduce private sector-style management techniques into ourorganizations. University presidents must exercise leadership in managing theuniversity.

67Thirdly, we must promote individualization according to principles of market
mechanism. In other words, national university corporations are expected to develop
educational and research hubs through procurement of competitive external funding.
(Slide6)
The following are some conclusions for this first part of my presentation, which has
focused on evaluation for national university corporations. The first conclusion is that
we must conduct self-evaluation/self-study to enable us to gain an appreciation of ourdistinguishing features and problem areas. Secondly, we must apply the national
university corporation evaluation and the certified evaluation and accreditation asmeans to improve our operations. Finally, we must revitalize our universities andcultivate their individuality.
In summary, in order to gain understanding and support from the community, we must
increase our accountability and institute a process of continuous improvement toaddress various issues our universities face.
(Slide7)
We now turn to the second part of my presentation. I would like to introduce a few
concrete examples of how Kyushu University is engaging with the issues of university
evaluation.
Kyushu University is seeking to transform attitudes within our organization. One aim
is to use evaluation as a means for faculty and staff members to recognize and reaffirm
the vision and objectives of education and research at our organization. This is not aneasy task, but if it is not dealt with, it will not be possible to achieve reform.
The next task is to create structures for quality enhancement and ongoing improvement
in order to realize our vision and objectives. This is not an issue for Kyushu University
alone, but for all national university corporations. We approach the evaluation processwith an awareness of these two points I have just mentioned.
(Slide8)Now, some practical examples of how Kyushu University is addressing the certified
evaluation and accreditation.
Our university is aiming to establish a culture of reform founded on evaluation. The
central focus is on our Education and Research Charters, together with our mid-termgoal and plan. Another core element is provided by the “4+2+4 Kyushu University

68Action Plans”. These Charters and Plans are a distinguishing feature of Kyushu
University’s approach, and I will talk about them in a moment. These are the main
pillars through which we try to achieve improvement.
(Slide9)In regards to the “4+2+4 Kyushu University Action Plans”, the first “4” refers to the four
fields of university activity—education, research, social contribution, and international
cooperation. I think these would be the same for any university.
What is likely to be different for each university is the “2” in our 4+2+4 plans. Thisrefers to the conceptions of the university’s future direction. For us, one of these is thedevelopment of new “creative” sciences. The other is an emphasis on Asia and theenhancement of relations with Asia, something which has been developed inconsideration of our geographical location and historical background.
These two future conceptions of developing new “creative” sciences and enhancing
relations with Asia form the vector along which our faculty members align their actions
as they engage in the four fields of activity. Support is provided by the last “4” in ourscheme. This entails supporting human resources, servicing facilities, supporting
budget, and expanding time for education and research.
These so-called 4+2+4 Action Plans may not be of much substance, but the point is thatthey are written out and distributed to all faculty and administrative staff members,
particularly faculty. I believe it is very important that activities are carried out inalignment with this vector.
(Slide10)
Here is another more specific example. Implementation of the 4+2+4 Action Plans is
supported through two means: organizational support and support for individual
faculty members. On this slide I have listed forms of organizational support—new
strategic centers that we have been working to establish since incorporation.
We have chosen five areas in which to establish educational and research centers for
Kyushu University with particular potential for high-level activity in five or ten years’
time. These are the Kyushu University Asia Center, the System LSI Research Center,
the Center for Future Chemistry, the Bio-Architecture Center, and the Digital Medicine
Initiative. These centers will operate in the fields of humanities, information, chemistry,
agriculture, and medicine, respectively. We will create new academic hubs by providing

69

active support to these centers.
(Slide11)
Another way we are working to implement the 4+2+4 Action Plans is through support
for individual faculty members. We must nurture individuals who have the potential in
five or ten years’ time to become leaders in their field in Japan, or at least at Kyushu
University.
We select some of these individuals from among leaders of 21st Century COE programs.
These are determined automatically. We also choose individuals with established statusas leaders in their field worldwide or within Japan. They are chosen with little regard
for age. These selections are made as a way of maintaining our current activities.
Other important selection categories are what I have called “junior” and “womenfaculty.” For juniors, we select individuals with a maximum age of 45, and nurture themas researchers who can become actively involved in the research centers that Kyushu
University establishes in the future. Naturally, we also work to cultivate leading female
researchers.
In this way, we are spelling out our research activities in a clear manner in order tofacilitate proper evaluation. It is important that we prepare our organization in advancefor the evaluation process.
(Slide12)
Research is obviously important for universities, but properly speaking, education iseven more important. Universities need to present the public with new systems foreducation. In regards to this, I would like to introduce one of our distinctive educational
systems.
This is the 21st Century Program, an attempt at a new model for education. This
Program was established to foster new human resources to meet the needs of the 21st
century. It may be a little difficult to comprehend, but we aim to cultivate highly
qualified generalists. Put more simply, we want students to take active roles
throughout the world, as international civil servants. If not civil servants, then otherroles in international fields. That’s what we are aiming for.
This Program employs a very distinctive method of selecting students for admission.
There is no need for applicants to take the National Center Test for University

70Admissions or any other specific exams. Instead, they are required to attend lectures by
three university faculty members and write reports on them. They must express theirown opinions clearly. Applicants’ high school grades are also assessed in this firstexamination round. In the second round, applicants must participate in a debate andwrite an essay. We select students on the basis of their performance in these
examinations.
Students selected for admission are not affiliated with any particular department. They
must choose their own majors before proceeding to fourth year. Thus the students
create the curriculum themselves. As a result, provision of guidance is a major task.
Individual guidance is provided by tutors almost to the point of excess.
In order to prepare them to operate in the international arena in the future, students
are required to undergo intensive general education and language training. Lecturers
from outside the university present unique classes on various discrete issues. We hope
to use this approach as a representative means to reform the education system at
Kyushu University. Student numbers in this Program are not large, but we hope tobuild on experience to expand it into the future.
The first batch of students in the Program graduated earlier this year, and we plan to
conduct follow-up surveys. The majority of students have enrolled in graduate programs,
but several of them left the university upon completion of the undergraduate program.
We hope that tracking the progress of these applicants will help us develop a moreunique education system in the future.
(Slide13)This is the seventh and final example from Kyushu University. It is about various
initiatives for improving our organization.
We are evaluated every six years on the basis of our mid-term goal and plan. In addition,
our university conducts a self-assessment every five years, and modifies ourorganizational structure every ten years. This process has been enshrined in university
regulations.
When I became president, the first thing I noticed was that none of the university’s
departments had a clear conception of future direction. As I said earlier, if the vectors of
our activities are not aligned to some extent with the middle “2” of future conceptions in71

our 4+2+4 Action Plans, we will not make progress. It is imperative for our university todevelop as a single organizational unit rather than an aggregate of different interests.
Discussions are under way for the deans of each department to develop clearer concepts
for the future. We are investigating various tools to facilitate this, such as requiring thedeans to make a balanced scorecard.
Thirdly, we have established an Institute of Higher Education to guide the process ofeducational reform. I don’t know how other universities handle it, but at Kyushu
University we have tended to leave matters relating to education up to each individual
department until now. It is important that the university as a whole is maderesponsible for coordinating these matters. The establishment of the Institute of Higher
Education has created a system that requires the university to take responsibility foreducation.
We are implementing a system of faculty and staff evaluation to enhance the quality ofour personnel.
We have also set up an Office for Information of University Evaluation to conduct datacollection and analysis of university activities. We need to support a decision-making
processes in each department and information obtained through evaluation activities,
because this will provide further material to facilitate improvement. The office wasestablished to coordinate this process.
(Slide14)
I would like to wrap up my presentation by discussing how we can make university
evaluation contribute to enhancements in the quality of education and research.
I have listed three principles that I consider important in the context of university
evaluation. The first is to turn the results of evaluation into genuine improvements.
This means making sure that the process does not end with evaluation alone. We
actually need to put this into practice of course, but it is important to regard evaluation
as a means to improvement.
Next is to allow the experience of evaluation to inform a university-wide outlook on
future ideals and operational objectives that is carried over into action. This must be
pursued scrupulously.

72

Lastly, to employ outside perspectives in evaluation to gain the understanding andcooperation of the social community. This should provide the basis for the ultimate
process of reforming the university.
These are fairly vague concepts without much substantive content on the ground, butthey are approaches that I believe national university corporations must take at thishalfway point in the first stage of the evaluation process.
(Slide15)
I have included this table by way of reference. One of the aims of today’s proceedings is
to learn from the successes that Nordic countries have experienced in their university
evaluation initiatives. Obviously they are well ahead of us, as they are preparing toenter the next phase after completion of the first round of evaluation. It is very
important to learn from their experiences, but it is also clear that evaluation is not in
itself sufficient to bring about change in universities.
Reform cannot be achieved without sufficient support in terms of finance and personnel.
This table shows public expenditure on education as a percentage of gross domestic
product (GDP) in the 30 OECD countries for the year 2003. The countries shaded inblue are all Nordic countries. Public expenditure in Japan is 3.7 percent, almost thelowest of any country. The fact that public expenditure is low does not mean that total
spending on education is low. What it means is that individual households are required
to bear a very large burden.
Learning from Nordic successes, which is the theme of today’s symposium, we should
increase public spending on education to the same level as that of the Nordic countries.
I will conclude my presentation with this point. Thank you for your kind attention.
Kimura: Thank you very much Dr. Kajiyama. Your last comments really struck home,even though they weren’t directed at our particular organization. As you know, Kyushu
University is one of Japan’s largest national universities. Dr. Kajiyama’s presentation
provided some insights into how the university is pursuing structural reform and, inparticular, how it has clarified educational and research objectives under the mid-termplan that it has formulated as part of the evaluation process.
It was pointed out that financial reserves are a precondition to making best use of theevaluation process—maybe this is something that our organization should have73highlighted. We may ask to borrow your table at some stage later today.

“Some Remarks on the University Evaluation from a Viewpoint of Private Universities”
Norikazu Kudo (Vice-President, Keio University)
Kimura: We have set aside time later on to take questions on all presentations. For the
moment, let us continue with the program and ask Prof. Norikazu Kudo, Vice-Presidentof Keio University to come forward. He will be providing a private university
perspective on the evaluation agenda.
(Slide1)
Kudo: My name is Kudo. Dr. Kajiyama has just provided us with some very heartening
comments. In the course of my presentation I will demonstrate how private universities
are grappling with the problem of finance under conditions which are far more acutethan those faced by national universities.
As you have heard, I am now a Vice-President at Keio University. I have taught for
many years in Keio’s Faculty of Business and Commerce, and continue to do so; thismay explain why my presentation has a certain businesslike orientation. I would like totalk about how private universities perceive this issue of evaluation, and how Keio inparticular is working to address it. Last year, we applied for accreditation from theJapan University Accreditation Association, and received the results of their evaluationin March this year. My talk will be informed by this direct experience of evaluation.
(Slide2)
As Dr. Kajiyama has explained, the chronology of university evaluation in Japan can be
explained in terms of a shift from ex ante regulation to ex post checks, a shift that beganwith the deregulation of the standards for the establishment of universities in 1991, andis today manifested in a variety of structures for evaluation.
As it happens, I also chair the Evaluation Committee of the Japan Association ofPrivate Colleges and Universities. This position enables me to discuss evaluation issues
with individuals from a wide range of universities.
One theme I often come across is that of “evaluation fatigue.” Everything requires
evaluation these days. Universities have been subjected to external evaluation since1991, and now there is the certified evaluation and accreditation, started in 2004. In

74

addition, over 20 percent of public expenditure on higher education is now provided in
the form of so-called competitive funding. To obtain such funding requires universities
to submit to further forms of evaluation. Some individuals tell me that they are tired of
all this evaluation.
At the Evaluation Committee I mentioned earlier, we are currently discussing ways toengage with these evaluation trends in a more positive and forward-looking manner.
Our belief is that rather than submitting passively to evaluation, universities shouldtake a more proactive stance to it.
(Slide3)
Before getting into the details of this issue, I would like to take up one theme of Dr.
Kajiyama’s presentation and reflect a little on the situation of private universities. I
believe there are some members of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology present here today. I don’t intend to paint this as the major issue fortoday’s discussion, but in Japan, we have a peculiar system of distinguishing
universities on the basis of how they are funded. There are the governmental (state)
institutions, also called national universities. The funding basis for these institutions isgovernmental. Then there are those funded by municipal governments. And there arethose operated privately. This is how universities are distinguished. I have no inherent
objection to the idea of drawing distinctions between different institutions, but I would
like to suggest that there are more functional methods of classification employed inother countries.
Overseas, universities are often classified according to their functions, for example into
those which supply human resources at a nationwide level, those which operateregionally, those specializing in the liberal arts, research-oriented universities, etcetera.
For some reason, the prevailing approach in Japan is to pigeonhole universities basedon how they are funded—state, municipal, or private, and now, those established by
NPOs and private companies as well. I understand this to be a uniquely Japaneseapproach.
(Slide4)
Employing this method of classification, this year’s School Basic Survey reports that,568 of the 744 undergraduate universities in Japan—76 percent of the total—are
so-called private universities, and that enrollments at such universities account for 74
percent of all university students in this country.
(Slide5)75However, we are absolutely convinced that even though these are “private” universities,
they make a variety of important contributions to wider society through the individuals
they educate and the research they produce. As such, they have an aspect of external
economy.
Thus, we see private universities as those that engage in private activity within the
public sphere.
(Slide6)
Because these institutions are private, finance is inevitably a problem. As Dr. Kajiyama
explained earlier, government (state) subsidies account for only 10 percent of revenue inprivate universities. Other than this, university activity must be financed through othersources of funds. These sources include tuition fees, revenue from a variety of otheractivities—including, in the case of Keio, a medical service—as well as donations andmanagement of assets.
The bottom line is that we cannot survive without support from the public. We can only
continue our activities as long as we continue to solicit and receive public support.
We are faced with a dilemma in this regard. In order to obtain the approval of wider
society, we must give the public what it wants—that’s the surest way to garner support.
As universities, however, it is not sufficient for us simply to follow in the wake of social
trends. We have a mission to sustain and develop academic knowledge, or more broadly,
to contribute to the advancement of civilization as a whole.
Sometimes, pursuit of this mission comes into conflict with the demands of society.
Finding a balance between these two demands, while at the same time continuing toreceive public approval, can pose major problems.
So, the question is how to gain the necessary support in such a situation. I would like toexamine how evaluation can be related to this issue.
(Slide7)
Before that, allow me to talk briefly about Keio University. As it says on the slide, Keiois a private university. The next few slides provide an introduction to Keio, which I
invite you to peruse for yourselves in detail later. For now, let me just point out that we
pride ourselves on the fact that Keio is the oldest modern educational institution in
Japan—we will be celebrating our 150th anniversary in 2008.

76

Keio encompasses a range of educational systems, from primary school through topost-graduate level. Our library boasts one of the best and most distinctive collections inJapan.
Our university developed out of a strong sense of awareness of the need to cultivatemodern individuals, albeit defined in a Western sense, to match the process ofmodernization our country was experiencing.
(Slide8)
We have seven different campuses, nine undergraduate faculties, and eleven graduate
schools. As mentioned earlier we have primary, junior high, and senior high schools, aswell as overseas offices in the United States, United Kingdom, and South Korea.
(Slide9)
These are our student numbers. It says that our staff numbers are over 3,000, but thiswould exceed 5,000 if our hospital staff were included. The student numbers are shownon the slide.
(Slide10)This shows data on enrollments and degrees conferred. I won’t dwell on these figures.
(Slide11)
As I said, as a private institution, finances are central to our survival. If we can’t securesufficient fiscal resources, we can’t run our operations. Thus, we have to maintain cash
flow. We also receive credit ratings. In particular, we need to compete internationally,and for this reason we have obtained a rating from Standard & Poor’s.
(Slide12)
Other details such as budget and scale are provided here. Around 70 percent of ourbudget of 120 billion yen is provided by income in tuition fees and from the hospital’s
medical-related activities, which account for around 37 percent and 34 percent,respectively. A further 20 percent comes from donations, income from various forms ofasset management, and the like. The remaining 10 percent is in the form of subsidies
from the national government.
(Slide13)
In order to avoid being too lengthy, I will now move away from the focus on Keio andtalk in broader terms. Put simply, private universities today are faced with anextremely competitive environment, in both international and domestic terms. In thebusiness parlance with which I am most familiar, there is an incredible degree ofcompetition in the higher education market.

77

The market for higher education in Asia is particularly cutthroat. In OECD nations,
including the Nordic countries, the higher education market is already entering thesaturation phase. At present, demand for higher education is growing most rapidly in
Asia, led by China. The question is how to address this growing demand.
The universities of the U.S. and Europe are already rushing in to grab a share of thisEast Asian market for higher education, pursuing many initiatives for recruiting
students. In particular, universities in the U.S., UK, and Australia have moved tocapitalize on their advantage in English, the emerging international language, todevelop a high degree of competitiveness. No matter how hard we try, we can nevercompete on a level playing field with those who have been using English since birth.
Armed with the weapon of English, the universities of the U.S., UK and Australia aretaking the East Asian market by storm.
In this situation, while it is important for Japanese universities to develop their English
language capabilities, the most fundamental question is how to identify uniquely
Japanese elements that can add value to our educational offerings.
(Slide14)Turning to the domestic market, we see that there are 744 universities, and thatnational universities have embarked on a variety of new initiatives since incorporation.
Private universities must find ways to prevail in this keenly competitive domestic
marketplace. In other words, they must find means to enhance their competitive
strength, or alternatively find new markets in which to operate. It is vital that theydecide which areas they will compete in, and how they can maximize their strengths.
(Slide15)
We cannot compete with national universities on price. Private university tuition fee
levels are totally different from those of our national counterparts. We have no choice
but to charge high fees in order to survive. Thus, rather than price competition, we mustfind ways to compete on quality.
It is imperative that we initiate a cyclic pattern of quality-based competition, attracting
capable students, producing excellent research output and thereby attracting more
research funding, which can be ploughed back into educational initiatives, thus yielding
quality improvements and placing us on a growth trajectory.
(Slide16)78In order to survive as a player in this environment of intense competition, it is firstnecessary to ensure you are qualified to participate. There are many ways with which toensure participation, but one is through quality assurance.
I have many opportunities to talk about this issue of quality assurance at gatherings ofprivate university representatives. I always make it clear that variety is of the essence
for private institutions. Some say that evaluation is not compatible with variety, but I
disagree. Even if it is the lifeblood of private universities, variety means nothing if itcannot be measured by standards that enable comparison. Universities must not use
diversity or variety as an excuse for low standards.
Thus it is necessary to develop comparative standards. Then it must be decided how toevaluate universities against these standards. This issue of quality assurance is ofparamount importance.
I have also highlighted the issue of transparency—the need to take active steps to makeinformation publicly available. We are obliged to be accountable to our stakeholders.
This includes prospective students and their families, the businesses that employ our
graduates, and a variety of other parties. It even includes Japan’s taxpayers, because
we do receive some degree of support from public funds, albeit small. We need to be able
to produce information of the kind that is provided for the market as a matter of course
by listed companies in their financial statements. I tell universities that suchtransparency is a prerequisite for successful engagement with the market.
(Slide17)
At the same time—and this relates to my earlier point about positive engagement withthe evaluation process—it is imperative for private universities to convince the wider
community of the value of their activities. Evaluation provides a unique chance to win
the community over. It is an opportunity for us to demonstrate our characteristic
strengths.
As shown in point number two on the slide, I also believe that evaluation should beunderstood as the starting point for the processes of reform and change that will be vitalto survival and growth in the market.
(Slide18)
There are four stages to the evaluation process. The first is internal inspection andevaluation—beginning with internal inspection and then externally-verified evaluation.

79

My own experiences have shown me that a comprehensive internal inspection andevaluation is an excellent way to identify the problems that your organization is facing.
Before we started this, people in our organization often didn’t know what those in thedepartment next door were doing—now they have a clearer picture of how theorganization works.
External evaluation involves commissioning an external committee to evaluate theorganization’s activities and provide an objective assessment. Certified evaluation andaccreditation entails a public commitment to a process of reform.
(Slide19)
I would like to talk in very simple terms about Keio’s experiences.
It is often assumed that Keio has been engaged in internal inspection and evaluation fora number of years. In truth, however, it was as recently as 2003 that we firstestablished an organization-wide framework for this evaluation. This does not meanthat we had been totally inactive until then, just that our efforts had been fragmented.
In some ways, our initiatives were highly progressive compared with other Japanese
universities.
For example, we have had an external evaluation body for our Business School eversince it opened in the 1970s. Operating a school of business requires us to develop
connections with the business sector, so we recruited committee members from this
sector. Furthermore, our Business School was the first in Japan to apply for
accreditation from the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business in the
United States and the first to be accredited by this Association, in 2000.
Our Faculty of Science and Technology has received accreditation from JABEE, anorganization that accredits programs in engineering education. I understand that
another panelist will be talking more about this kind of accreditation later. We also
actively apply for funding from a variety of external sources, are currently pursuing 12
initiatives under the 21st Century COE Program, as well as over ten programs funded
under the “Good Practice” initiative.
(Slide20)
Thus, various parts of our organization have been exposed to external evaluation, but in
2003, we decided to take an organization-wide approach. In 2004 we conducted a variety
of internal activities as well as being evaluated by an external committee. In 2005, we80

applied for accreditation not by the National Institution for Academic Degrees andUniversity Evaluation, but through the Japan University Accreditation Association(JUAA), an organization of which we had been a member for many years. JUAA has
issued its evaluation report, and we are now working to institute feedback from thisreport.
(Slide21)
The report consisted of 98 separate statements and 34 articles of advice providing
suggestions on ways in which we could improve. However, the report did not reveal any
specific areas of deficit requiring reform.
(Slide22)
We are taking the results very seriously, and reviewing ways in which we canimplement the suggestions. Some require effort on the part of individual faculties, butmust also be pursued by the organization as a whole. There are some things that can
only be achieved through organization-wide effort.
For example, there is the issue of teaching evaluation. Each faculty and graduate school
has its own separate system for evaluating teaching practices, sometimes on a
voluntary basis. The university as a whole has not developed a comprehensive system ofclass evaluation. Nine of the 34 suggestions from JUAA were addressed to this issue, so
we are working to deal with it now.
Our Shonan Fujisawa Campus (SFC) has provided a benchmark for class evaluationand faculty development in Japan since its establishment in 1990. We are now
exploring ways to apply SFC’s experiences to Keio University as a whole.
In 2008, we will celebrate the 150th year of Keio’s founding. We view this not just as ananniversary, but as an occasion to embark on a ten year program of structural reform.
We are now developing a range of initiatives for this ten year period with the aim ofbringing the quality of our education and research up to world standard.
(Slide23)
The major problem we are facing in this regard is something that Dr. Kajiyama alluded
to earlier: development into a multi-versity as opposed to a university. Clark Kerr of the
University of California called this the “multi-versity syndrome”—the challenge offinding a balance between autonomy for different elements of the organization and theneed to pursue unified efforts.

81

Another point relates to one of our university’s distinguishing features: ourfundamental idea or spirit of “independence and self-respect,” which has been upheld
since the time of our founder, Yukichi Fukuzawa. The message behind this founding
spirit is that the process of refining one’s character can yield very positive results, but it
is also apt to lead in the direction of self-indulgence and self-centeredness. The point isthat one must strive for balance.
Perhaps my term “brand university” is too extravagant, but Keio does have a certain
degree of brand prestige, and a tendency to rest on its laurels as a result. We don’t havea sufficient sense of crisis. We know we must change the way we do things, but it isdifficult to bring about this sort of change.
(Slide24)
We are endeavoring to negotiate change through a variety of methods, but foruniversities it is difficult to force new initiatives from the top downward. So ourapproach is to send out the same steady message over and over again, and to approachnegotiations with a degree of patience. Eventually, different elements will adjust theirorientation and come to work together in the desired direction. Dr. Kajiyama talked
about the need to develop a vectorial pattern—that’s what we’re trying to achieve at
Keio.
As someone with responsibility for managing the university as a whole, I am working toreform our management practices and utilize our merits to become a model universitythat will be a leader in the 21st century.
(Slide25)
Turning to the future of private universities, we can see that university evaluation,
particularly the features of quality assurance and transparency, are vital to continued
existence as a market player. Evaluation can provide a forum for highlighting the

raison d’être of private universities, and a starting point for reform that will help ensure
survival and growth in the market. Private universities must rely on their own abilities
to survive, and thus should approach reform not defensively, but in a constructive
manner. This is what we are trying to achieve right now.
I apologize for being so long-winded. This concludes my presentation.
Kimura: Thank you very much, Prof. Kudo.

82

You mentioned that university evaluation is often regarded as a significant burden or
imposition. I’ve heard this sentiment often enough myself. Thank you for introducing
Keio University’s approach, which is to adopt a positive attitude to evaluation and use it
as a springboard for development.
I found your presentation inspiring and encouraging.

“Application of the Result of Evaluation to Colleges of Technology”
Junko Kawamura (Executive Director, Institute of National Colleges of Technology)
Kimura: Next, we will be hearing from Ms. Junko Kawamura, executive director of theInstitute of National Colleges of Technology.
(Slide1)
Kawamura: My name is Kawamura, and I am Executive Director of the Institute of
National Colleges of Technology. I am honored to be able to speak to you today at thisJapan-Nordic Symposium.
Yesterday, I actually conducted a self-assessment of my presentation materials, andmade a few minor changes. As a result, the slides I use contain some information that isdifferent from the printed materials in front of you. Please forgive me—evaluation cansometimes cause confusion!
I am going to talk about colleges of technology, usually referred to in Japanese by theabbreviation kosen. These are higher education institutions with a slightly different
setup to universities.
(Slide2)First, I will introduce the principal features of colleges of technology. Then I will explain
how these institutions utilize evaluation.
(Slide3)
The first colleges of technology were established in the 1960s, in response to strong
demand from the industrial sector. At the time, Japan had just entered an era of higheconomic growth, and was experiencing a shortage of engineers who could be deployed
as leaders in production sites and members of technical development teams. Great
expectations were placed on these colleges of technology as a new form of higher
education institution charged with the training of engineers.

83Colleges of technology offer a five-year integrated program of practical training intechnical areas for students who have completed junior high school. Currently, there
are 55 national colleges, six operated by prefectural or municipal governments, andthree by private organizations. Like national universities, the national colleges became
incorporated bodies in 2004. However, the colleges were not incorporated on an
individual basis, but rather one agency—the Institute of National Colleges ofTechnology—was established to oversee the operation of all 55 national colleges.
To date, a total of around 300,000 students have graduated from colleges of technology.
Graduates work mainly in the industrial sector, as engineers, researchers, managers,
and so on.
That’s a brief outline. I would like to go into a little more detail now.
(Slide4)This is a diagram of the education system in Japan from junior high school onward.
Around 98 percent of junior high school graduates go on to enroll in senior high schools.
The red section represents colleges of technology. Currently, around 1.2 million
students graduate from junior high school each year, and 10,000 of these go on tocolleges of technology. That’s less than 1 percent of the total cohort. However, those who
do choose our colleges have quite high levels of academic achievement and an interest in
studying science and technology.
(Slide5)After five years of study, students earn a Title of Associate. Around 15 percent go on toenroll in advanced courses, while around 30 percent transfer into other universities and55 percent seek jobs upon graduation from the five-year program. The proportion of
students who continue studying after the five-year program is now very high compared
to when colleges of technology were first established 40 years ago.
(Slide6)
I said that college of technology students account for less than 1 percent of their age
cohort. However, our graduates make up 12 to 13 percent of all engineers in Japan. In
terms of promoting science and technology in this country, it is clear that our colleges
have a very important role to play. Our institutions aim to foster creative individuals
with practical skills in technical areas.
(Slide7, 8)Here is the departmental structure of a typical college of technology, consisting of
mechanical,

information,

electrical/electronic,

84

civil,

andmaterial

engineeringdepartments. Each department has 40 students at each year level. The two-year
advanced program straddles these different departments. Upon completion of theadvanced program and an application procedure, students can be awarded a bachelor’s
degree.
In the first year at a college of technology, students start studying math and physics inearnest, along with basic education subjects. They also take their first specialized
subjects, which form the basis for manufacturing skills. In the second year, students
begin to take more specialized subjects. This includes participation in an internshipprogram for all students at national colleges.
(Slide9)This is a scene from a lab class in mechanical engineering. All colleges have practicalworkshops, and students in senior years have the opportunity to operate machinerythat is actually used in industry.
(Slide10)This is an actual scene from a fundamental engineering class. Faculty members haveactually worked in areas such as design and drafting for private companies. They imbue
class content with on-ground experiences and approaches.
(Slide11)
This is another scene from a fundamental engineering class.
(Slide12)This is a chemical science lab session.
(Slide13)This is a scene from the annual robot contest. Competitions are held between robots
designed and constructed by students themselves. One of last year’s events was ahurdles race. Students apply their knowledge and expertise in fields such as control andmechanical engineering to create their own robots for competition. The national
tournament is even broadcast on television.
(Slide14)This is a college dormitory.
The distinguishing feature of colleges of technology lies in the provision of engineering
education for students from the age of 15, taking advantage of that age group’s capacity
for flexible thinking. Backed with a solid grasp of fundamentals, our students areprovided with a curriculum that emphasizes experimental work.
(Slide15)85

Now we turn to the question of how evaluation is practiced in colleges of technology.
Our organizations are evaluated in three principal ways. A close analysis would reveal
other forms of evaluation too, but the following are the three major forms oforganizational evaluation.
This is what evaluation signifies for colleges of technology. First I have listed theinstitutional certified evaluation conducted by the National Institution for Academic
Degrees and University Evaluation. The aim of this form of evaluation is assurance andimprovement in the soundness of educational structures and the quality of educational
practices.
Next is evaluation of educational programs by the organization known as JABEE. Thisassures and improves the quality of engineering education in specialized areas.
Thirdly, there is evaluation of the Institute of National Colleges of Technology, theparent organization of the 55 National Colleges of Technology. In order for our Institute
to be evaluated positively, we must utilize the advantages that come from managementof all 55 Colleges under the one agency.
(Slide16)
I would like to analyze this situation a little more closely.
Firstly, Institutional certified evaluation. Self-assessment conducted by each college aspart of the evaluation process can expose issues such as whether faculty staffing is inaccordance with the criteria set by law. In this way, evaluation provides the opportunity
for reassessment, at an institution-wide level, of the basic systems through which
everyday practices are conducted and the objectives that underlie these practices.
Furthermore, third-party evaluation can provide an objective assessment of a college’s
strengths and weaknesses, which can then be applied to development of plans forreform.
Another point is that we plan for all 55 national colleges to undergo institutional
certified evaluation in the first three years of operation of this evaluation system—it
started in 2005 for colleges of technology too. All colleges have the same apprehensions
about the new system, but I would like you to know that we are endeavoring toapproach it in a bold and aggressive manner, undaunted by the potential difficulties.

86

(Slide17)
40 out of the 55 national colleges of technology are accredited by JABEE, or morecorrectly, they operate programs in engineering education that have received JABEE
accreditation. Many more national colleges of technology will undergo examination by
JABEE from this year onward. Last year, JABEE acceded to the Washington Accord.
This Accord, to which ten bodies responsible for accrediting engineering education
programs in the U.S., the UK, and elsewhere have acceded, recognizes the substantial
equivalency of programs accredited by these bodies. It covers engineering programs at
undergraduate degree level.
(Slide18)
How have colleges of technology been changed by JABEE accreditation? Firstly,
accreditation has aroused the interest of students. Those who complete accredited
programs can gain exemption from the first-round examination leading to the national
qualification of “professional engineer.” Colleges report that the potential for study intheir programs to lead to a high-level public qualification has not only provided new
motivation to current students, but has even contributed to an increase in the academic
quality of enrollees.
JABEE emphasizes practical aspects too, such as the requirement that all students
completing the programs must have gained basic communicative proficiency in a foreign
language. Colleges undergoing JABEE assessment have instituted new elements into
their educational programs to meet these requirements. We believe that enhancing
educational outcomes will benefit our students by providing them with more
post-graduation choices.
Thirdly, in the field of engineering education—the primary focus for colleges oftechnology—we undergo assessment and quality assurance according to exactly thesame standards as those applied to universities. This is an extremely important point,
as it enables us to prove to both domestic and international stakeholders that although
we have a shorter history than other institutions of higher education, we are of equal orsuperior status in terms of quality.
Some colleges have also found that JABEE’s accession to the Washington Accord has
facilitated exchange between their faculty and students and higher education
institutions in other countries.
(Slide19)87Since last year, the Institute of National Colleges of Technology undergoes an annual
evaluation based on the previous year’s outcomes. We collect and analyze data from our55 colleges, which, together with information on the activities of the headquarters of theInstitute itself, forms the basis of a report submitted to Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology’s Evaluation Committee.
This process highlights cases of good practice that can be shared among all colleges. It
provides insights into how best to divide responsibilities between our Institute and theindividual colleges.
Activities to increase enrollment numbers, for example, can be divided into tasks forwhich Institute HQ is responsible, such as production of common-use promotional
materials and liaison with bodies at a national level, and those best pursued byindividual colleges, for example promotional activities at the local level.
In addition, positive evaluations of the Institute itself can be presented to the public as
the sum of the wholehearted efforts of individual colleges in pursuing their goals—proof
that colleges of technology are working hard.
(Slide20)
As my presentation to this point has demonstrated, colleges of technology are
responding to the challenges of evaluation in a positive manner, employing evaluation
as a means to enhance educational quality and strengthen public awareness of theiractivities.
I explained earlier how colleges of technology provide students with a solid education,and send graduates out into the world with concrete abilities. However, owing to thefact that colleges of technology are far outnumbered by universities and junior colleges,
we are burdened with the problem of low profile. As well as improving the quality of theeducation we offer and revitalizing our educational programs, we hope to use evaluation
as a means for conveying with confidence our own worth to a larger audience.
(Slide21)
Nevertheless, we do face some challenges. Evaluation requires the preparation of alarge amount of corroborative material. Some forms of data are required by all thedifferent types of evaluation I mentioned earlier. If our Institute can develop a databaseof basic figures, information on educational content, reports on distinctive activities andthe like, this will facilitate sharing of information between individual colleges, enabling88

them to gain a better idea of their own position in comparison to other colleges.
I believe that the issue is not just one of how to produce materials for purposes of
evaluation, but also of how to use evaluation as a tool for exploring directions for reformin each individual college.
In addition, in order to make evaluation meaningful, it is imperative that a relationshipof trust is developed between the evaluators and those being evaluated. As well asworking to link evaluation with quality enhancement, we aim to foster personnel toengage in the actual task of evaluation. The challenge for our organization from now on
is to raise the consciousness of faculty and staff in colleges of technology and produce
individuals who can implement the evaluation process as peers.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Kimura: Thank you very much for your presentation.
I should have mentioned at the start that although the existence of colleges oftechnology is fairly widely known, their actual state of affairs is far from being wellunderstood by the general public. These colleges have launched into the external
evaluation process enthusiastically, and are working hard to improve their courses.
Just recently we heard that their educational programs were assessed very highly by aninternational body, and Ms. Kawamura provided some insights into this experience.

Discussion
Kimura: Now we move into a general discussion.
This morning, Dr. Thune asked if anyone had questions about his keynote address. We
didn’t have time for questions then, but fortunately Dr. Thune is here on the stage again
now, so we would welcome anyone who wishes to ask for clarification on any points fromhis presentation this morning. Are there any questions?
As there are no questions forthcoming, we will now move into a more general discussion.
We have just heard from representatives of Japan’s university community about how

89their institutions are responding to evaluation, and how they are utilizing it; they haveprovided us with the evaluatees’ perspective. I would welcome questions from Dr.
Thune or any of the other three panelists. Before that, however, allow me to make one
request.
Two or three of the presenters in the morning session commented that it is no easy task
to ascertain the actual effects of evaluation. When asking questions I would like you,either before or after the answers, to make some comment on how your universities
have changed since evaluation. I realize that immediate results may be dubious, but itwould be informative, for example, to hear experiences of reform or restructuring as aresult of evaluation, or how a university’s stance as a whole has changed, how thefaculty has reacted. Not only positive reactions but negative ones too—whether there
have been any complaints or criticism directed at evaluation.
Also, if there have been any such reactions, how the institution responsible for
evaluation has responded to them. So if you have a question for Dr. Kajiyama or any of
the other panelists, I would request you to accompany it with a comment on thesematters.
Christian Thune: Interesting presentations. Good to get into the sort of ground level ofwhat we are talking about, how universities handle the challenges of quality in theirplacement in higher education, including a very competitive market situation for atleast one of the universities. I think there was one issue, which was in that sense going
through all three presentations. The issue is how quality assurance and evaluation areperceived from the perspective of individual teachers and staff of the universities. I
could term this as the problem or the relationship between the horizontal and thevertical dimension.
And to take the vertical first, I think probably most evident in Prof. Kajiyama’spresentation, the distinction between the perspectives on quality assurance seen fromthe level of a strong management versus the perspective seen from the ground level ofindividuals, including heads of departments. Is there really a linkage between top andbottom of a university in the perceptions of quality and quality processes?
My point would be that this is probably a slightly underrated problem in quality
assurance and in the relationship between universities and external agencies. Quite a90

number of universities have now moved to the level where top management is not only
strong, but fairly much in command of the basics of quality assurance and of creating
good relationships with external agencies. The question is to that extent this culture at
the top level of universities does really pervade true to, sorry the term, the “lower ends”
of the university? My hypothesis would be that this is not only a European problem, but
potentially also a Japanese problem. So the next question is what instruments can beapplied to solve it and make sure that quality assurance processes are not only
top-down in the universities but also have a bottom-up perspective?
This issue is linked to what I would call the horizontal problem, which I think was also
very prominent in all three presentations, probably most eloquently put by Prof. Kudo
when he introduced the excellent term multi-versity. What do we do in a situation
where, as Prof. Kudo put it, we have on the one hand the leadership and on the other
hand we have the department heads and the staff? Do they perceive their university as
a whole or do they perceive themselves primarily as a very partial element of the wholeof the university? My hypothesis would be that at the ground of level of many
universities the perception is we are in our department or in our program and thetotality of the university is a rather distant phenomenon mentioned by the president inspeeches and formal statements. But if the broad and comprehensive quality of auniversity is not a reality for those in the departments, then we have a motivation
problem.
So to quote Prof. Kudo again, he spoke about “evaluation fatigue”. And true enough at
the level of departments and programs many speak today of getting tired of a flood of
evaluations. I think this reflects again the fact that at the level of programs anddepartments it’s not really perceived and understood and appreciated why evaluations
and external quality assurance seem to hit the university from different angles andwith different perspectives. This leads to my question to the colleges of technology, how
do you handle the fact that you have these three different perspectives of external
evaluation, which I guess must presuppose some kind of translation problem to yourstaff to your departments? Or to put it another way, do staff department heads,
programme leaders, perceive a linkage between what are the results of NIAD-UE
evaluations at the level of the total institutions and the program reviews of JABEE?
Or is it left to you and your top management colleagues to give the complete picture?
This is a part of what I consider some of the very basic problems in getting what Prof.

91

Kawamura called a reliable relationship between evaluator and institutions. I think you,like most others today, at the end of your presentation were rather pressed for time so
you didn’t get around to the answer. What are the instruments available to create that
reliable relationship, which I think is another very pertinent question?
I have some further comments but I think I will let this by my first contribution to thediscussions. Thank you.
Kimura: Can you think of any examples relating to my question earlier regarding how
universities have changed as a result of evaluation, or how their programs have been
improved? Any concrete examples of improvement, from an evaluator’s perspective.
Thune: Well, it’s the question which my colleagues and I in the quality assurance field
have always found difficult. Universities are changing to the better these days, but toisolate precisely the effect of external evaluations may be difficult. However, there is to
my mind little doubt that there are many cases from Europe and from Denmark wherestrong quality assurance has really transformed or reformed a university. Here I verymuch take the point actually made by all the three presenters that in external quality
assurance there is a double goal—one to assure and demonstrate the quality to the
public and in the market, and secondly, to act as a catalyst for reform of the university.
Both goals are important even if my focus in what I’m saying today is very much on the
improvement angle.
Anyhow my point would be that a strong committed university management isabsolutely crucial, and there is in Europe and Denmark a generation shift these years
where most of the universities have fairly new leadership which to a surprising extent
accept external evaluation as this catalyst for reform and for a steering instrument intheir universities, and that’s where we have an effect. But as I said in my first remarks,
we do have the problem that motivated and inspired university leadership is thenecessary condition for reform that the rest of the university has to follow on before weachieve real reform, real follow-up on evaluation.
So my answer to your question is, another way of making my point, that, yes, we have
universities where remarkable follow-up has taken place but basically it has been partof a top-down process where I would very much like a bottom-up process to be visible as
well.

92

Kimura: Thank you. Now, Dr. Tuomi, could I ask you to respond to the same question?
Tuomi: To the question how universities change, I think that all over the world there is
restructuring of universities going on, and for example in Finland there is now
discussion about merging polytechnics, merging perhaps some polytechnics with someuniversities, universities with universities. This is on the discussion level now but it’son the table and I’m sure that something perhaps not so radical but for the efficiency ofhigher education there will be changes in the institutional structure .
But what it comes to quality assurance, I also picked up the headlines from the slide, aflood of evaluations and institutions getting tired of evaluations. From the quality
assurance agency point of view, I’m sure that we understand this. I think it’s always
important to try to find the balance because evaluation, it’s not a value itself, because
we are here for improving the activities and operations of universities, so I’m sure that
we are, in quality assurance agencies, very well aware of this attitude in universities
and try to make evaluations of quality assurance operations as light as possible.
We could see evaluations as an application of sustainable development and efforts are
made to minimize the workload of universities. This is the point from the agencies’ side.
I think that the main purpose for our activities is to introduce new blood for institutions.
Control and evaluation or accountability, they are not values in themselves. Thank you.
Holmen: I will tell a story about when I left the university from being a director ofstudies eight years ago, and my colleagues at the university then, they asked me with agreat deal of surprise why I dared to leave this university and enter work at a quality
assurance agency because that couldn’t have a future in any way. People in the
researchers were themselves the best to do the quality assurance of their own work;
how could we at the bureaucracy imagine that we could do such things? That was theskepticism. Another thing they said was the money spent on the national accreditation
agency could best be spent at the university to develop the quality. That was eight years
ago.
However, at the same time, the private institutions in Norway, they were in favor ofthis agency because they looked into a future with probably a better, a greater
autonomy if they pass the quality thresholds and got that approval.

93

Also the students were very positive. They were in favor of such an external quality
assurance agency because they have always something bad to tell about their teachers.
And those two were at the moment very strong actors for establishing the agency, inspite of the resistance in the other sector, the state-owned.
Another saying was that, please don’t over-flood us with too many and too-detailed
criteria; don’t come here and tell us what good quality is. And that’s one of our first
lessons because in the beginning NOKUT suggested a lot of very detailed criteria andwe got a storm from the institutions against us, and we listened to them. From 33
criteria on what is a good quality assurance system, we reduced it to ten. And suddenly
the university saw that, we are not on each side of something; we are really working
together for quality. They became more receptive through this process.
Still, we have to show that quality pays and it doesn’t in financing of the institutions;money doesn’t follow this. But still, the universities now feel that it is really stimulating.
It pays in a way to have other people looking into your business, especially when theother experts tell you that you’re really performing good, and we publish that report and
we get more and more awareness and others are looking into that report and they takeon the good suggestions that are there. Therefore, we have more and more motivateduniversities. It also pays, as I said, in autonomy, increased autonomy.
I will also say when I heard this that it is hard to make a top-down approach in a
mandatory way. The management of the universities is very fond of NOKUT because it
gives them an extra power to say, NOKUT has told us to do, the national agency andtheir standards and criteria, they say that we have to do this and that, and it gives themextra strength to do something the management didn’t really dare to put forward, andin that respect also the quality assurance institution as well.
But we can see educational quality has improved. I would say that. I would say it
because we had that response from the institutions themselves. They say, we haven’t
done actually research work on it, but we register all the recommendations or all thesayings, reactions we get from the institutions, and they say they work in a more
systematic way, and that makes them more efficient. They say that by documenting
better today than they did before, it also makes them more able to do proper resource
allocation internally. And it says that all the good advice that the expert committee
gives, they listen to them and they use them and they develop their work.

94

So when we started we thought that maybe a national agency could be loved, but now
we have changed our minds: we want to be respected. We see that we can’t be loved but
we will be respected and we feel we have that respect from the institutions because we
do something that they feel is useful, namely, contribute to the enhancement of theeducational quality.
Kimura: Thank you. Actually, I came to my current position after working at auniversity, so some of your comments struck a chord with me.
Do you have any particular questions for the three Japanese presenters, or anythingelse you would like further clarification on? Dr. Kajiyama.
Kajiyama: If you would permit, I would like to ask a question.
It relates to quality assurance, and in particular assurance of educational quality. I
would venture to say that from a student’s point of view, educational institutions yield asignificant output, in terms of physical quantity, systems, and organization. I think thatthe concept of quality assurance should include outcomes as one measure of quality. I
think it’s possible to evaluate inputs such as how and why education is conducted in avariety of settings within the university. But I would also like to know if you areconsidering ways to evaluate how useful that education proves to be once students
graduate and begin to participate in wider society. I would be interested to hear yourthoughts on this.
Kimura: Thank you very much. Who would like to respond to this? Dr. Thune? Ms.
Holmen?
Thune: This is a very pertinent question. You must have been traveling in the UnitedStates because that’s the sort of serious reflection they’re beginning to have in their
100-year-old accreditation system, that they do not really focus on results but on input
and processes.
Obviously, a focus on results can be a very difficult issue to take up but I think allagencies have to face the need to go into a mature phase where they do haveresults-based elements in their processes. In my view the way forward is taken now by anumber of European agencies, including the Danish, with a combination of audit-like95reviews at the university level and then program reviews which are very much focusedon results.
And as we heard from Prof. Kawamura, the Washington Accord is basically very much a
results-qualification-oriented exercise which of course makes it very interesting to theengineering profession. So that may be the way in which we are moving, but inmethodological terms and in the demands to the experts responsible for reviews we aremoving one step up in seriousness I would say. So your point is a very good one.
Kajiyama: Thank you very much.
Kimura: We would also like to invite questions from the floor, but we are running out oftime. We will conclude this first panel session for now, but time is being set aside after
the end of the second panel session, so please keep your questions until then. Thank you
everyone.
Kato: Thank you very much to all the panelists and to Prof. Kimura.
Before we proceed to the next panel discussion, we will have a ten minute break. Coffee
is available in the reception hall on the second level. I’m sorry that time is so short, butplease make the most of this brief opportunity to relax.
Panel Discussion 2 will commence at 3:00 p.m. I would appreciate it if you could return
to your seats by that time. Please leave your simultaneous interpretation receivers at
your seats. Thank you.

96