名古屋高等教育研究

第 8 号 （2008）

Toward Excellence in Graduate Education:
A Mixed Methods and Interdisciplinary Study
Gerald W. Fry＜Abstract＞
A conceptual framework is provided for assessing excellence ingraduate education: 1) quality of academic leadership, 2) quality offaculty, 3) quality of students, and 4) infrastructure.
The methodology consists of four triangulated approaches:• A meta-synthesis of literature about quality graduate education• Factor analyses of empirical data on the top 76 graduate programs in the field of education in the U.S. to ascertain key dimensions of quality• Participant-observation based on forty years of experience
graduate education• Observations and interviews conducted in Japan
Based on the empirical results of the study, a normative blueprint
for excellence in graduate education is proposed:• Graduate students need more rigorous training in research methodology, to become productive life-long learners and researchers.
• Graduate students also need exposure to interdisciplinary
perspectives.
• There must be recognition that not all graduates will become
academic researchers and requirements need to be more flexible.
• Advisor-student relationships need to be strengthened.
• In an increasingly globalized intercultural era, graduate students
need proficiency in other languages and intercultural competency.
• Future academics should be required to take an interdisciplinary
doctoral seminar related to becoming an effective academic
scholar and teacher.

Professor, College of Education and Human Development,
University of Minnesota, USA
Former Visiting Professor, Center for the Studies of Higher Education,
Nagoya University217

1．Conceptual Framework for the Study
A key problem in thinking about strategies for improving graduate
education is the complex issue of defining what is meant by quality andexcellence.

There is no agreed upon definition.

The tetrahedron is ageometric figure coming from the field of physics.

It is a useful device forproviding a visual image of the essence of excellence in graduate education.
The tetrahedron is particularly appropriate to use to depict four complexly interconnected and intertwined factors. The tetrahedron in Figure
1 shows the four key components of quality and excellence:
1)

Quality of academic leadership2)

Quality of faculty members

3)

Quality of students

4)

Quality of learning and research infrastructure

Of the four components above, the third, while still problematic, is
probably the easiest to operationalize.

In this study GRE test scores areused as a proxy for quality of students.

For quality of faculty members,

grant funding received is the key empirical indicator.

In the U.S. applying

for research grants is an exceedingly competitive activity and may serve
as a proxy for excellence in research.

However, assessing the quality ofteaching is much more problematic (Weinberg, Fleisher, and Hashimoto2007).

Student evaluations at the end of a semester are actually ameasure of student satisfaction with a class, not the genuine quality of the
instruction and learning.
The first and fourth factors are probably the most difficult to measure,but they are extremely important.

Many scholars have emphasized theimportance of decisive and visionary leadership as universities face incredibly new challenges in the 21st century.
Assessment of the physical infrastructure can be done through crude
quantitative indicators such as square meters of space, but an authentic
assessment clearly involves what Elliot Eisner (1998) at Stanford terms
connoisseurship.
Perhaps one of the best empirical indicators of quality is what happens
to graduates of a program.

218

Few universities do systematic and rigorousToward Excellence in Graduate Education:A Mixed Methods and Interdisciplinary Study

tracer studies of their graduates.
quality of a program.

Perhaps that is the true test of the

The Singaporean economist of education, Dr. PangEng Fong (1975, 1976) (Pang and Liu 1975) is the pioneer of trace studies
and emphasizes their importance in evaluating the quality of educational
programs. The University of Washington has just completed a study ofwhat happens to social science Ph.Ds five years and beyond (CRIGE 2007).
Figure 1

Components of excellence in graduate education
Quality of
Quality of
Leadership

Quality of
QualityofStudents

Quality
Quality ofof
Faculty

Qualityof
Quality of
Infrastructure

2．Methodology of the Study
This study is a mixed methods one, involving both qualitative andquantitative approaches (Creswell & Plano-Clark 2007).

Four primarymethods are:1)

Meta-synthesis of the literature related to quality of graduate
education and related problems and policy issues

2)

A factor analysis of data on the top 76 graduate programs ofeducation in The United States

3)

Participant-observation as an individual with many years of experience as an administrator of graduate programs in diverse
settings219

4)

Informal interviews with professors and graduate students at
various universities in JapanThe use of triangulated diverse data should strengthen the credibility
and rigor of the study.
2.1

A Meta-Synthesis

Fortunately, this task is greatly facilitated by previous research sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts (Nyquist and Woodford 2000, 3).

Thisinvolved:
An “environmental scan” to document current promising practices as well as concerns about Ph.D. education as identified byinstitutions preparing Ph.D.s, by graduate students, and by those
who hire Ph.D.s.
The research team for this project examined and synthesized over 400
articles and documents related to the state of doctoral education. In addition to their meta synthesis of related written and research materials,
the researchers conducted over 300 interviews, five focus groups, six setsof e-mail queries, and one major mail survey. Their interviews were withan incredibly diverse set of stakeholders representing nine key sectors.
Examples of organizations included in the study are Harvard University,
the Carnegie Corporation of New York, General Motors, American Councilof Learned Societies, Bell Labs, and many others.
2.2

Factor analysis of data on the top graduate programs in educationin the U.S.

This part of the study is also empirically rich.

Key data on each ofthese graduate programs were brought together in an aggregated data set
comprised of 10 key empirical indicators.
These data are then factor analysed. It is initially hypothesized thatthese data can be largely explained by three factors:

1) program repu-

tation, 2) quality of students, and 3) quality of faculty.
2.3

Participant-Observation

For over forty years I have been involved with graduate education

220

Toward Excellence in Graduate Education:A Mixed Methods and Interdisciplinary Study

primarily at the University of Oregon but also at the University of Minnesota where I was a director of graduate studies.

Reflecting anddrawing on this diverse and rich experience also provides valuable practical information to the challenge of improving graduate education andachieving excellence.

This method is inspired by the book of reflections

by W.M. Chace (2006) titled 100 Semesters.
2.4

Interviews and observations in Japan

Being a relative newcomer in Japan and given my ignorance of Japan, it
is not feasible for me to study systematically graduate education in Japan.
Also there are wide variations across institutions, fields, and individual
professors. This makes any generalizations difficult and hazardous. Nevertheless, it is valuable to get some input from faculty members andgraduate students here in Japan about the topic of this research.
that will be a fourth and final set of data used in this study.

Thus,

These were

informal conversations and interviews with faculty and students conducted during the period October-2006 through February 2007 while I wasa visiting professor at Nagoya University in Japan. The tetrahedron shownin Figure 2 summarizes the methodology used in this study.
Figure 2

Methodology of the study: Mixed methods andinterdisciplinary approach

Meta
Synthesis
Meta Synthesis

Quantitative
Quantitative
FactorAnalysis

Participation
Participation-Ob-Observation

InformalInterviews
Informalin Japan221

3．Major studies of the meta-synthesis
3.1

Nyquist and Woodford study (2000)

This study of the status of graduate education funded by the Pew
Charitable Trusts is probably the most comprehensive ever undertaken.
As mentioned earlier, it is a mixed methods study with data from many
diverse sources, which enhances its rigor and credibility.
covers studies done up until 2000.

It basicallyIts major results are posted on the

project’s Web-site which is still being maintained by the University ofWashington (see Appendix I).
The authors start their study by noting the outstanding international
reputation of graduate programs in the U.S. and how they have contributed to advances in many fields such as engineering, medicine, andscience.

Thomas Friedman in his most recent book on globalization

states:According to a 2004 study by the Task Force on the Future ofAmerican Innovation, an industry-academic coalition, basic research
performed by leading U.S. Universities—in chemistry, physics, nanotechnology, genomics, and semi-conductor manufacturing— has createdfour thousand spin-off companies who hired 1.1 million employees andhave annual world sales of $232 billion (Friedman 2005, 265; see Clark
1998; Lyall and Sell 2006).
Major companies such as HP, Nike, and Google have their roots at
Stanford University which spawned world-renown Silicon Valley as acenter of innovation and technological dynamism (see Yusuf and Nabeshima 2007). China is also now beginning to foster such university-industry
linkages (Chen and Kenney 2005).

In Japan at Osaka University and in

the U.S. at Princeton, researchers are working on the development ofapplied practical hydrogen energy, which has tremendous implications forhuman welfare.
Among many doing cutting edge and useful (Lindblom and Cohen 1979)
research here at Nagoya University are Ryoji Noyori (Nobel laureate inchemistry); Isamu Akasaki (blue LEDs); Akira Tomimatsu, a physicist
having solved a major problem posed by Einstein;222

and Katsuo Hasegawa,Toward Excellence in Graduate Education:A Mixed Methods and Interdisciplinary Studya mathematician looking at the diverse functions of the human brain,
which has implications for many fields such as education, cognitive science,
linguistics and language learning, and sports performance.

The Akasaki

Institute has a special unit focusing on university-corporate relations.
Nagoya University also has a Headquarters for Industry, Academia andGovernment Cooperation headed by Professor Akihiko Watanabe.
Six major conclusions emerged from the extensive empirical work ofthis study:• Shortening the time to complete the Ph.D.; deciding what is its essence and absolutely essential (see Asahi Shimbun, February 12, 2007).
• Diversifying the doctoral student population.
• Enhancing doctoral students’ capability in understanding and using
technology in both teaching and research (see Bullen and Janes 2007;
Inoue 2007).
• Preparing doctoral students for a much wider variety of professional
options.
• Incorporating a global perspective into their training (see Dunning 2000).
• Making interdisciplinary work a more integral part of their training(Nyquist and Woodford 2000, 7).
One of the most alarming findings from the Nyquist and Woodford study
was the graduate students themselves and their reflections on the qualityof mentoring they have received in their doctoral studies.

They state (p.

13):
Despite many engaging relationships between students and advisors, anoverwhelming number of students reported that the lackof quality mentoring and support they expect to receive from faculty was disappointing.

They stressed that mentoring needsto

begin earlier, to be more systematic, to be based on a multiple-mentor model and to formally include teaching and curriculum
concerns and career planning.
Several years earlier, the American Association of Universities (1998)
also presented recommendations for improving graduate education.

223

3.2

Reflections by former university presidents

As part of the meta-synthesis of this paper, written reflections byseveral former university presidents are analysed (see also Fisher andTack 1998; Padilla 2005).

The work of three past presidents are re-viewed: Akito Arima (former president of Tokyo University), James J.
Duderstadt (former president of the University of Michigan), and Donald
Kennedy (former president of Stanford University).

In fact, many former

prominent university presidents have written extensively about theirexperiences.

It would be valuable to conduct a meta synthesis of theirwritings as a means to develop a deeper understanding of excellence ingraduate education.
Akito Arimas perspectives on the future of higher education in Japan

In delivering the Third Annual Michio Nagai Memorial Lecture, heprovides an excellent overview of the major challenges facing Japanesehigher education.

Arima

pays tribute to Nagai’s (1971) critical analysis

of Japanese universities and its persisting relevance.

Arima notes thatthe greatest success in Japan has been in the improved funding for research, particularly after the passage of the Science and Technology Basic
Law in 1995. Arima also provides a valuable comparative table showing
how much various OECD countries spend on higher education. The UnitedStates is spending much more on higher education than countries such as
Japan, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. It is extremely interesting that Korea ranks number one in the world, primarily because of its
large private expenditures on higher education.

Among major countries,

Finland ranks number one in the world in public support for higher
education.
innovation.

224

Not surprisingly, it is often ranked number one in terms ofToward Excellence in Graduate Education:A Mixed Methods and Interdisciplinary Study

Table 1: Expenditures on higher education (public and private)(as a % of GDP)Country

PublicExpenditures

PrivateExpenditures

Total

Republic of Korea

0.44

2.07

2.51

United States

1.07

1.22

2.29

Canada

1.53

.32

1.85

Iceland

1.74

.04

1.78

Finland

1.68

x

1.68

France

1.01

.12

1.13

United Kingdom

0.83

.28

1.11

Germany

0.97

.08

1.05

Japan

0.43

.60

1.03

OECD average

0.93

.67

1.60

Source: Arima 2002, 9

China seems to be following the path recommended by Arima Sensei byinvesting in developing a select number of world-class universities(Mohrman 2006).

This is an integral part of their strategy to catch andpass the United States in this century to become the world’s economic
and technological leader.
Arima concludes his analysis by emphasizing several additional points:• There needs to be more emphasis on basic research and there currently is an over-valuation of application-oriented research.
• There needs to be more intense collaboration between universities andindustry, while preserving the university’s important intellectual
independence and autonomy.
•

Efforts must be made to enlarge public expenditures for higher
education in Japan.

• To promote internationalization, the size of the foreign teaching staff
needs to be increased.
Professor James J. Duderstadts (2001, 2005) reflections on preparing

future faculty members
Professor Duderstadt is the former President of the University of225

Michigan, one of the premier public research universities in the UnitedStates.

In an article published in the journal, Liberal Education, Du-

derstadt (2001) forcefully argues that the “currently highly specialized
form of research-dominated graduate education may no longer respond to
the needs both of our students and our society.”

He notes, for example,

that less than half of those entering academic doctoral programs evercomplete their degrees.

This represents both inefficiency and waste.

He also discusses the complex issue of the extensive utilization of graduate
students as undergraduate teachers, particularly in large research universities.
Professor Donald Kennedy calling for another revolution in higher education
Professor Donald Kennedy is the former President of Stanford University (1980-1991).

Writing for Change Magazine (1995) he calls foranother revolution in higher education.

He harshly criticizes the laissez

faire system which characterizes graduate education in the United States:
In the most distinguished research universities, faculty members
often have few prescribed teaching obligations, no regulations
governing their availability to students, no requirements with respect to advising, and no enforced limits on the time they spend
away.

….Even the most cautious application of productivity

analysis to such an enterprise suggests that such people are fallingshort of any reasonable standard.
Interestingly as described by Professor Kennedy the culture of graduate
education in the U.S. is surprisingly high context.

The French in re-sponse to this problem have introduced a low context system with explicit
contracts between faculty and graduate students with respect to explicit
and exact expectations for both faculty and students(Natsume 2007).
Kennedy mentions that at a Stanford symposium, a distinguished seniorscientist stated “that there is little point in trying to teach people how toteach; if one knows the subject matter, the rest simply follows.
not the good news.

226

That isThe good news is the audience actually booed.”Toward Excellence in Graduate Education:A Mixed Methods and Interdisciplinary Study

Unfortunately, reflecting these views of that professor, many doctoral
students in the U.S. receive inadequate training related to becoming aneffective teacher.
Kathryn Mohrmans analysis of Chinas aspirations to create

world-class higher education (2006)
Professor Mohrman is Director of the Washington office of thewell-known Nanjing Center for Chinese and American Studies.

She hasrecently written an insightful article about China’s future strategies related to its higher education sector.

China clearly aspires to pass both theUnited States and Japan economically and technologically in the current
century to make it the China Century.

To accomplish this lofty ambition,

China realizes that it is imperative to create a group of world-class universities (about 40 in number). China’s goal is to have its top 40 universities be comparable to the top research universities in the U.S. and world(Lu 2006). Related to this goal is so-called Project 985, which provides
special funding to the top targeted elite universities.
In a major study of Chinese higher education cited by Mohrman done by

McKenzie Quarterly, Farrell and Grant (2005) are highly critical of thequality of Chinese higher education arguing that many Chinese professors
expect their students to memorize textbooks and lectures rather than todevelop creative insights.

Farrell and Grant also found that 90 percent ofyoung engineers in China lacked linguistic and intercultural skills to work
effectively in internationally-related jobs.
Mohrman concludes her study by praising China for realizing that it
must invest in knowledge production and educate people who will advance
intellectual discovery.
The keen competition among China, Japan, Europe, and the UnitedStates to have the best system of graduate education should bring many
global benefits as this competition will contribute to innovations anddiscoveries, which will benefit mankind.

227

4．Quantitative Data Analysis
4.1 Research questions and related objectives of the quantitative
analysis
The basic question to be addressed by this dimension of the research is
to assess empirically the factors associated with quality graduation education in the United States and the relative importance of each major
factor.

A secondary question is then to rank 76 graduate education

programs in the U.S. based on results of the first analysis and compare
these rankings with those of the U.S. News and World Report Magazine(2005).

Rankings will also be compared based on the use of factor weights

versus unweighted indicators. This will represent a sensitivity analysis.
4.2

Data Set

The data set for the quantitative part of this research is comprised often key empirical indicators related to the quality of graduate programs in
education. The data are for the 76 top ranked education programs in the
country (U.S. News & World Report).

The ten empirical indicators andvariables are indicated in Table 2
4.3

Factor analysis of data set: 10 empirical indicators related to program quality

The factor analysis presented in Table 5, is based on a principal factors
analysis with an oblique varimax rotation, which allows factors to becorrelated with each other. Three key factors emerge from the analysis,
which explain 67.2 percent of the variance in the data.
quality of students and program selectivity.
gram reputation and productivity.

The first factor is

The second factor is pro-

The third factor is faculty quality.

Table 3 presents the explained variance results of the factor analysis.

228

Toward Excellence in Graduate Education:A Mixed Methods and Interdisciplinary Study

Table 2: Factor analysis of 10 variables related to quality of graduate programs
VariableGRE (V)GRE (Q)
Ph.D.Ed.D.
acceptance rate
Peer assessment
Percent of doctoral
students
Superintendent
assessment
Number of
Ph.Ds/Ed.Ds
granted
Funded research/faculty member
Funded research(total)Student/faculty
ratio

Loading on
Factor I.91.86

Loading on
Factor II.07.28

Loading on
Factor III
.07
−.04

−.67

.19

−.25

.41

.77

.30

−.16

.74

−.11

.34

.66

.23

−.21

.61

.51

.07

−.22

.75

.07

.19

.91

.02

.16

.66

Table 3: Three factors and relative variance explained
Factor

Percent of Variance Explained

Factor I: Quality of students and program selectivity

34.1

Factor II: Program reputation, size, and productivity

19.5

Factor III: Quality of faculty

13.6

Using the factor scores from the factor analysis, the education programsof the 76 universities are ranked.

Also the universities are ranked using

simple z scores for the 10 empirical indicators.
indicator has an equal weight.

This means that each

The third ranking is that reported by U.S.

News and World Report. Their rankings are also derived from subjectively weighting the various indicators.

Their weights are based on

experts’ judgments. The rankings of the top 20 programs are shown in
Table 4.

229

Table 4: Top 20 Universities by three alternative indicators and methods
Score

Z scoreU.S. NewsandWorld Report

1. Harvard University*

1

2

1

2. Teachers College, Columbia University*

2

1

2

3. Stanford University*

3

5

4

4. Vanderbilt University*

4

5

5

5. UCLA53

6

6. University of California- Berkeley

6

6

7

7. USC

73

28

8. NYU

817

11

9. Northwestern*

9

16

10

10. University of Wisconsin--Madison

10

9

8

11. University of Michigan

11

11

9

12. University of Pennsylvania*

12

13

7

13. University of Texas--Austin

13

10

16

14. University of Minnesota—Twin Cities

14

8

12

15. Michigan State University

15

12

14

16. Indiana University--Bloomington

16

14

20

17. University of Virginia

17

15

20

18. University of Illnois—Urbana-Champaign

18

19

18

19. University of Washington

19

18

13

20. University of Georgia

20

21

23

FactorInstitution*Private universities

The Kendall Tau’s nonparametric correlation among these rankings isin the range .73-76, reflecting how the rankings are rather sensitive tomethods used, since the empirical data base for all three rankings are
identical.

5. Participant-Observation
In a fascinating book on higher education, W.M. Chace (2006) reflects on
his experiences as a student, teacher, and university administrator.

In-

spired by his book, I would like to do something similar in this study.

I

230

Toward Excellence in Graduate Education:A Mixed Methods and Interdisciplinary Study

have now been involved with graduate education for over 40 years. Reflecting on these diverse experiences, I would like to share the following
thoughts:• Crucial to quality graduate education is the advisor-student relationship.
Faculty need to demonstrate a deep commitment to their students andhelping them to be the best they can be (Tsukuba 2004).

Manystudents across the globe feel that they do not get adequate attention
from their mentors and advisors.
• In an era where complex problems cannot be adequately understood byany single discipline, there is great value in interdisciplinary studies(Kline, 1995; Klein, 2005).
• In an era of globalization and rapidly increasing intercultural contacts
and connections, the development of intercultural competency and thelearning of other languages is essential for our graduate students. In
addition to their native tongue, graduate students should haveknowledge of one Western and one non-Western language. This also
greatly enhances their inquiry skills. The idea of language or statistical skills to meet doctoral requirements is a totally false dichotomy.
Graduate students need both of these important skills.
• The notion of research versus teaching is also a false dichotomy in
top-flight research universities.

6.

Reflections on Graduate Education in Japan
Given my ignorance of Japan and my relative short stay here (a little

over five months at the time of this being written), these reflections should
be considered tentative and heuristic.

They are based on observations

and informal conversations/interviews of faculty and/or graduate students from Nagoya University, International Christian University, Waseda
University, Kyoto University, Aichi University, Nagoya University ofForeign Studies, Aichi University of Education, Osaka Seiki University,and Kyoto Womens’ University.

Most of the observations and interviews

were at Nagoya University, where I was based.

Also an important qua-

lification is that there, of course, important differences across universities,

231

fields, and individual professors.
6.1

Five major areas of concern

Too many professors, particularly senior ones with strong researchcapabilities are spending excessive time on bureaucratic matters such as
meetings and report writing.

Perhaps under the new policy of autonomy

there is less trust, requiring extensive monitoring and bureaucratic requirements.

Also, the important Japanese cultural value of nemawashi

also means extensive discussions and meetings prior to decisions being
made.

However, all of these activities represent serious opportunity

costs taking professors away from their most serious responsibility,
teaching and mentoring well and producing new, useful knowledge.
The second concerns that those becoming professors in Japanese universities and colleges have not been adequately prepared to be effective,
dynamic teachers.

Thus, it is important that Japan has establishedcenters such as CSHE to deal with this national problem and issue.
The third area is that stressed by President Arima above, the inadequate public funding for universities.

With Japan trying to catch theUnited States in graduate education and with Korea, China, and India
chasing Japan, it is imperative that Japan enhance funding for higher
education.

The winners in the race to the future will be those that havethe best graduate education.

The case of Finland illustrated by data

presented above provides strong evidence supporting this assertion.
The fourth area relates to the shrinking college age population in Japan(Akihiko 2006).

Thus, Japan’s graduate schools face a daunting challenge

in terms of having adequate numbers of high quality graduate students.
Thus, international initiatives such as AC-21 at Nagoya are criticallyimportant.
Fifth probably too much time is spent teaching students things that they
will not really use.

In an age in which knowledge production is exploding

exponentially, what is critical is not to give students fish, but to teach them
how to fish.

There is probably not enough attention given to preparing

students to be committed life-long learners and teaching students how tolearn.

232

Toward Excellence in Graduate Education:A Mixed Methods and Interdisciplinary Study

6.2 Major areas of strength
Though it is certainly less strong than in the past, Japan still retains asystem of research groups, particularly prevalent in the natural sciences,focusing on graduate students who are part of a “lab” directed by a seniorprofessor and his kohai professors.

Among the graduate students, there

are similarly important senpai-kohai relations with much mutual learning
taking place at all levels.

In fact such system epitomizes the ideal ofcooperative wet rice culture.

As a concrete example, Nagoya’s Nobel

laureate, Ryoji Noyori, as a doctoral student at Kyodai was part of theresearch group of Professor Hotosi Nozaki.

Lindsay, et al. (2003) andWard (2003) have stressed that quality group work needs to be enhanced
in U.S. universities (see also Walker, et al. 2007).
In terms of its structure, doctoral education in Japan is much moresimilar to Europe than the United States with students taking far more
responsibility for their own learning.

The United States system remains

highly structured with many formal course requirements. While both
systems have their advantages and disadvantages, the Japanese system ismuch more consistent with the need to enhance the productivity of higher
education in the age of the Internet by having students do much more of
their learning on their own (dokugaku) (see Fry 2002).

7．Blueprint for Excellence in Gaduate Edcation
Based on the results of the four basic mixed methods of this study, I
would like to propose the following blueprint for excellence and quality in
graduate education. This is a heuristic blueprint intended to encourage
debate, discussion, and criticism.
1)

Whatever their field, graduate students need rigorous training inresearch methodology, to enable them to be productive life-longlearners and researchers.

Better training in methodology will

also result in higher quality dissertations and their potential for
publication.

As part of their training to become researchers,

graduate students also need exposure to interdisciplinary perspectives. Related to training in methodology is the need to also befamiliar with the latest technologies related to their field (Inoue

233

2007).
2)

Within doctoral training, there must be recognition that not all
graduates will become academic researchers and requirements
need to be adjusted accordingly, with more track options.

3)

Advisor-student relationships need to be strengthened. The
French policy to have expectations become explicit in contracts
as described by Natsume (2007) deserves careful scrutiny.

In

U.S. graduate education, for example, too much remains implicit
with respect to expectations of advisors and mentors. The
Japanese Tokugawa tradition of teaching being a sacred profession and of teachers having a high level of dedication andself-sacrifice is a noble ideal as relevant today as it was then(Rohlen 1983, 214; Murata 1996; JICA 2004).
4)

In an increasingly globalized and intercultural era, graduate
students need proficiency in other languages and interculturalcompetency. Each graduate student, in addition to their mothertongue, should acquire proficiency in one Western and one
non-western language. Each graduate student should spend at aminimum one semester at an institution of higher education inanother country.

5)

Each doctoral student should be expected to collaborate with aprofessor in jointly publishing one research article in a refereed
publication.

6)

Those doctoral students planning to become future faculty
members should be required to take an interdisciplinary doctoral
seminar related to becoming an academic scholar and teacher(Kennedy 1995; ACE 1999; Applegate 2002; Austin and Wulff
2004; Johnson 2007). As part of this course, they should observeand report on the pedagogies of some of the most outstanding
teachers on their campus.

This seminar should also cover im-

portant ethical issues.
7)

All doctoral students planning to become an academic should
jointly teach a course with one of the professors in their department. This apprenticeship should be viewed as an integral

234

Toward Excellence in Graduate Education:A Mixed Methods and Interdisciplinary Study

part of their graduate training.
8)

If possible, graduate students should be responsible for editing
and publishing an academic journal.

This is an important tra-dition of many law schools and some elite universities such as
Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia.
9)

There should be ample opportunities for unstructured, informalinteraction between faculty and graduate students to create agenuine intellectual community (Walker, et al. 2007).

In a new volume, Walker (2008) calls for a rethinking of doctoral education and how we prepare scholars.

8．My Dream for Nagoya University and the CSHE
It is my dream for Nagoya University and CSHE to play a leadershiprole not only in Japan but around the region and world in promoting a
blueprint for excellence in graduate education.

This can be done throughthe CSHE Web-site, its newsletter, publications of its staff, its journal,
special training workshops and conferences, and consultation.

Recently,

for example, Masahiro Chikada of CSHE was at the Vietnam National
University—Ho Chi Minh, helping with faculty development there. GSID
faculty are currently helping the Royal University of Phnom Penh to establish a quality graduate program in Development Studies.
Also in developing this blueprint, Japan can draw upon its impressive
eclectic tradition of taking the best from various models around the world.
Excellence in graduate education will have an important influence on acountry’s potential for innovation and its being a global leader in improving the quality of life, not only for its own people but for all the peopleof our planet.

In the race to the future among Europe, North America,

Japan, China, Korea, South and Southeast Asia, the quality of graduate
education will be a key factor influencing the outcome.

235

Appendix: Some important Web-sites related to excellence in graduate
education.
The Lilly Conferences on College Teaching, (http://www.iats.com/)
Preparing Future Faculty

http://www.preparing-faculty.org/

Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education,(http://www.podnetwork.org/)TLT Group on Teaching and Technology http://www.tltgroup.org/
Web-sites of exemplary U.S. universities in terms of preparing future faculty:
University of Washington (one of the best)
Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education (CIRGE),(http://depts.washington.edu/coe/cirge/)
Harvard University’s Center,(http://bokcenter.harvard.edu/)
Searle Center at Northwestern University

http://teach.northwestern.edu/

Stanford University’s Center, (http://ctl.stanford.edu/)
http://www.cultural-typhoon.org/

example of interdisciplinary initiative

University for Peace, (http://www.upeace.org/)
Relevant Web-sites from France related to contracts between faculty andgraduate students and charte des theses:
Model by Ministry of Education,(http://www.education.gouv.fr/bo/1998/36/sup.htm)
Database of the contracts by some Universities,(http://cdt.jeunes-chercheurs.org/Chartes/)(http://sceco.univ-aix.fr/ecoledoctorale/chartes.htm)
Education Revolution Hall of Fame,(http://www.educationrevolution.org/halloffame.html)
References
ACE.

See American Council on Education.

2006. Shrinking-population economics: Lessons fromJapan. Tokyo: International House of Japan [translated from the Japanese by

Akihiko, Matsutani.
Brian Miller].

American Council on Education. 1999. To touch the future: Transforming theway teachers are taught: An action agenda for college and university
presidents. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, American
Association of Universities (AAU). 1998. Graduate education: Report236

Toward Excellence in Graduate Education:A Mixed Methods and Interdisciplinary Studyand recommendations. Washington, D.C. AAU.
Applegate, James L. 2002. Engaged graduate education:

Seeing with neweyes. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Arima, Akito. 2002.

The future of higher education in Japan.

Tokyo: United

Nations University. The Third Annual Michio Nagai Memorial Lecture.
「文系の博士号、難しすぎ? 理系の 3 分の 1 以下」 Asahi Shimbun, February
12, 2007.
2004. Paths to the professiorate:
Strategies for the preparation of faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bullen, M. & Janes, D. P. 2007. Making the transition to e-learning: Strategies and issues. Hershey, PA: Information Sciences Pub.
Chace, W. M. 2006. 100 semesters: My adventures as a student, professor, an
university president, and what I learned along the way. Princeton: PrinAustin, Anne E. and Donald Wullf.

ceton University Press.
Chen, K. & Kenney, M. 2005. University/research institute-industry linkages in
two Chinese cities: Commercializing technological innovation. Paper presented at Universities as Drivers of the Urban Economies in Asia meetingsponsored by the World Bank and Social Research Council, May 24-25.
CIRGE (Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education).

Social science PhDs—Five + years out.

2007.

Seattle: CIRGE, University ofWashington.
Clark, B. R. 1998. Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational
pathways of transformation. Oxford: IAU Press, Pergamon.
Creswell, John W. and Plano-Clark, Vicki.

2007. Designing and conducting

mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
2000. A university for the 21st century. Ann Arbor:

Duderstadt, James J.

University of Michigan Press.
Duderstadt, James J. 2001. Preparing future faculty for future universities.

Liberal Education 87.
Envisioning a transformed university. Issues in Science and Technology (Fall).
Dunning, John H. 2000. Regions, globalization, and the knowledge-based
economy. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Eisner, Elliot W. 1998. The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and theenhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill,
Duderstadt, James J. et al. 2005.

Farrell, Diana and Andrew J. Grant.

2005.

China’s looming talent shortage.

The McKinsey Quarterly: The Online Journal of McKinsey & Co. 4.

237http://www.bm.ust.hk/mbainfo/Library/Files/China's̲looming̲talent̲shorta
ge.pdf1988. Leaders on leadership: Thecollege presidency. San Francisco; London: Jossey-Bass.
Friedman, Thomas. 2005. The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first
century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Fisher, James L. and Martha W Tack.

Fry, Gerald W. 2002.

The interface between experiential learning and theInternet. On the Horizon 10, 3: 5-11.
Inoue, Yukiko. Ed.

challenges.
Group Inc.

2007.

Technology and diversity in higher education: New

Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub., an imprint of Idea

2004. The history of Japan’s Educational Development: What implications can be drawn for developing countries today? Tokyo: JICA.

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).

JICA.

See Japan International Cooperation Agency.

Johnson, W. B. 2007.

On being a mentor: A guide for higher education faculty.

Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Educational pathways: A faculty development
resource. Clifton Park, N.Y.: Thomson Delmar Learning.
Kennedy, Donald. 1993. Making choices in the research university. Daedalus 122.
Kalanick, Kathryn A. 2007.

Kennedy, Donald. 1995. Another century’s end, another revolution for higher
education. Change 27, 3 (May-June): 8-15.
Klein Julie T.

2005. Humanities, culture, and interdisciplinarity: The changing

American academy. Albany: State University of New York Press,
Kline, Stephen J. 1995. Conceptual foundations for multidisciplinary thinking.
Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
2006. The true genius of America at
risk: Are we losing our public universities to de facto privatization?

Lyall, Katherine and Kathleen R Sell.
Westport,CT: Praeger.

Lindblom, Charles E. and David K Cohen. 1979.

Usable knowledge: social

science and social problem solving. New Haven: Yale University Press..
Lovitts, Barbara E. and Cary Nelson. 2000. The hidden crisis in graduate
education: Attrition from Ph.D. programs.

Academe 86: 44-50.

Lu, Mu-lin. 2006. The making of world class research universities in an age ofglobalization-components and challenges. November.
6\http://English.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem-92&ctNode=369

238

&mp=1

Toward Excellence in Graduate Education:A Mixed Methods and Interdisciplinary Study

Lindsay, Joceyln, Daniel Turcotte, and Estelle Hopmeyer.

2003. Crossing

boundaries and developing alliances through group work.

New York:

Haworth Press.

The true genius of America at risk: Are welosing our public universities to de facto privitization? Westport, CT:

Lyall, K. and K.R. Sell.

2006.

Praeger.
Mohrman, Kathryn 2006. Degrees of change: Aiming for world-class higher
education. SAISSPHERE Winter.
http://www.sais-jhu.edu/pubaffairs/publications/saisphere/witer06/mohrm
an.html
Murata, Yokuo.

Ed. 1996. Education in Japan: A bilingual text: Historicaldevelopment. Tsukuba: Institute of Education Tsukuba University.
Nagai, Michio. 1971. Higher education in Japan: Its takeoff and crash.
Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press

Natsume, Tatsuya.

2007. Improvement of the quality ofgraduate educa-tion in France: Foundation and improvement of the ‘Ecole Doctorale’.

Nagoya Journal of Higher Education 7.
2000. Re-envisioning the Ph.D.:
What concerns do we have? Seattle: Center for Instructional Develop-

Nyquist, Jody D. and Bettina J. Woodford.
ment and Research,
Padilla, Arthur.

2005.

University of Washington.

Portraits in leadership: Six extraordinary university

presidents. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
Pang Eng Fong. 1975. Labour force growth, utilisation and determinants in
Singapore. Geneva: International Labour Organisation.
1975. Education, socioeconomic status andlabour market success: A case study of manufacturing workers in Singapore. Geneva: International Labour OfficePang Eng Fong. 1976. Education, earnings and occupational mobility in
Singapore. Geneva: International Labour Office.
Rohlen, Thomas P. 1983. Japan’s high schools. Berkeley: University ofPang Eng Fong and Pak Wai Liu.

California Press.
Trautmann, N.M. & Krasny, M.E. 2006. Integrating teaching and research: A
new model for graduate education”. BioScience 56, 2 (February): 159-165.
Tsukuba University.

2004.

Tributes from former foreign students to Prof.

Murata. Tsukuba: Comparative Education Program, University of Tsukuba.
U.S. News and World Report. 2005. Rankings of professional-school programsin business, education, engineering, law, and medicine.

239

Vest, Charles M. 1997.
Research universities: Overextended, underfocused,
overstressed, underfunded. In The American University: National treasureor endangered species, ed. Ronald G. Ehrenberg. Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University Press.
Walker, George E. et al. 2007.

The importance of intellectual community.

Chronicle of Higher Education, December 3.
Walker, George E. 2008. The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral
education for the 21st century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ward, David. 2003. Where has real group work gone? In Crossing boundaries and developing alliances through group work. Eds. Jocelyn Lindsay,
Daniel Turcotte, and Estelle Hopmeyer.

New York: Haworth Press.

Weinberg, Bruce A., Belton M. Fleisher, and Masanori Hashimoto. 2007.
Evaluating methods for evaluating instruction: The case of higher education.

NBER Working Paper No. 12844. January.
Weinstein, M. 2007. Making a difference colleges: Distinctive colleges to makea better world. San Anselmo: SageWorks Press.
Yusuf, Shaid and Kaoru Nabeshima. 2007. How universities promote economic growth. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

240

優れた大学院教育のための方法論と学際的研究の重要性
ジェラルド・W・フライ＜要

旨＞

本稿では大学院教育の卓越性を評価するために、リーダーシップの質、教員の質、学生の質、教育インフラに関する概念枠組みを提示する。その方法論は次の４点から構成される。
・ 大学院教育に関する先行研究のメタ統合
・ 全米におけるトップ 76 の教育学系大学院プログラムに関する実証データの要因分析を通して、プログラムの質を決定する要因を明らかにすること
・ 40 年間以上にわたる大学院教育への参与観察
・ 日本の大学院教育に関する観察とインタビュー
実証結果に基づき、優れた大学院教育のための標準的なデザインについて、次のように提案したい。
・ 大学院生は、生産的かつ生涯にわたる学習者・研究者となるた
めに、研究方法論について綿密に学んでおく・ 大学院生は学際的な視野をもつ・ 大学教員はすべての大学院生が大学教授職に就くわけではないということを認識し、大学は履修すべき内容についてより柔軟に対応する
・ グローバル化と国際化が進みつつある現代では、大学院生は外国語に習熟し、異文化コミュニケーション能力を身につける・ 将来大学教員を目指している大学院生は、優れた学者・大学教員になるために、大学院生用の学際的なセミナーに参加する

ミネソタ大学 教育人間開発学部・教授
名古屋大学高等教育研究センター・元客員教授

241