2011 Program for Leading Graduate Schools by MEXT

Phoenix Leader Education Program(Hiroshima Initiative)
for Renaissance from Radiation Disaster
FY2016

Self Study Report
External Evaluation Report－Hiroshima University－

Contents,

FY2016 Self Study Report࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ ,,FY2016 External Evaluation Report࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭

1Ϩ. FY2016 Self Study ReportIntroduction
Since its adoption for the 2011 Program for Leading Graduate Schools by the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Hiroshima University Graduate School Phoenix
Leader Education Program (Hiroshima Initiative) for Renaissance from Radiation Disaster (hereinafter,“Phoenix Leader Education Program”) has aimed to foster global leaders (Phoenix Leaders) who canproperly address radiation disaster based on extensive interdisciplinary expertise, and lead recovery
efforts based on appropriate judgment and action, as well as a clear vision, and play leading roles in theinternational community.
In FY2016, the Program saw the first students complete the Program and a larger number ofstudents newly enroll than the previous year. To make the Program still more active and efficient, wehave devoted our efforts toward improvements. Additionally, the Radiation Disaster Medicine Course
admitted a student with a medical license for the first time, a milestone that the Course had long aimed
for. As a result, the Program has become able to develop human resources who are able to protect lives
from radiation disaster in a more real sense. Additionally, faculty members at the Graduate School ofIntegrated Arts and Sciences newly participated in the Radioactivity Social Recovery Course, and Dr.
Jacques Lochard, Vice-Chair of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), joined
us as a Visiting Professor. This means that the Program has become able to provide students even morevaluable opportunities to study.
We have more active exchanges with overseas organizations than before. The Program succeededin placing an activity base in Paris based on an agreement with the Centre d’Étude sur l’Évaluation de laProtection dans le Domaine Nucléaire (CEPN). We hope that more and more students will improve
themselves through academic exchanges with organizations in Europe. We also set up a base in an area
affected by the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, and introduced a system for supporting
exchanges between the Program’s faculty and staff members and local communities, to strengthen thesystem for learning from the fields. Moreover, the 2nd International Symposium of the Phoenix Leader
Education Program’s Industry-Academia-Government Consortium, to be held on February 9, 2017, will
see the participation of many people from the industrial, academic and governmental sectors in Japanand abroad, and contribute to the Program’s remarkable progress toward the construction of career paths
for leaders of radiation disaster recovery and networks required for those purposes.
This Self Study Report shows the results of self-evaluation of the Program’s activities, including
those abovementioned, according to 22 points under nine criteria as usual, and the progress ofimprovement of issues identified in the previous year. We hope that experts in the industrial, academic
and governmental sectors in Japan and abroad will offer us advice based on this report, and that, basedon such valuable advice, we will further develop this Program into a human resource development
program that can match the expectations of people around the world. We look forward to yourunreserved evaluation and advice.

January 2017

Kenji Kamiya
Program Director of the Phoenix Leader Education Program (Hiroshima Initiative) for
Renaissance from Radiation Disaster, Hiroshima University Graduate Schools
Vice President of Hiroshima University

5

FY2016 Self Study Report
Contents,I.

List of Issues from results of External Evaluation last year ࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ p.9
p.1 


II.

Evaluation of individual criteria

Criterion 1. Purpose of the Program
Point: Does the purpose of the Phoenix Leader Education Program㸦Hiroshima Initiative㸧for
Renaissance from Radiation Disaster 㸦hereafter “the Program”㸧comply with the
purpose of the Leading Program in Doctoral Education, sponsored by the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology㸦MEXT㸧 : fostering leaders who
have a broad perspective and creativity and who will be active in global academic,
industrial, and governmental arenas?



p.11
p.3

Criterion 2. Implementation Structure
Point 2-ձ Does the Program have guidance and student-support systems appropriate forachieving its purpose?
Point 2-ղ Does the Program have planning, operating, and partnership-building systems
appropriate for achieving its purpose? 㸦Issue 1㸧㸧

p.13
p.5
p.7
p.15

 Criterion 3. Program Members and Education Supporters
Point 3-ձ Does the Program have a clear policy to build an organization of faculty members?
Does it clarify the responsibilities of respective members for education andresearch activities?
Point 3-ղ Does the Program have faculty members capable of achieving the purpose of theProgram: to foster Phoenix Leaders, who will conduct interdisciplinary andintegrated management of recovery programs in regions suffering from complex
damage caused by radiation disasters?


p.17
p.9

p.18
p.10

Criterion 4. Status of Accepting Students
Point 4-ձ Does the Program have a definite policy and criteria for admitting students? Does
the University Publicize those criteria?

p.20
p.12

Point 4-ղ Does the Program employ an appropriate system to select students according to its
admission policy? Does the system function well?

p.14
p.22

Point 4-ճ Does the Program have a system to verify that screening methods comply with theadmissions policy? Are verification results reflected in improving the screening
methods?

p.24
p.16


 Criterion 5. Content and Means of Education
Point 5-ձ Does the Program have systematic curricula appropriate to fulfill its goal andsuitable for granting academic degrees? Are the subjects to be taught well arranged
in line with the purpose of the Program? 㸦Issue 2-11㸧

p.17
p.25

Point 5-ղ Does the Program have means to guide students of diverse backgrounds to the goalof obtaining degrees? Does the Program have means to allow students to confirm
their achievement levels?

p.29
p.21



7

Point 5-ճ Does the Program have advanced educational functions sufficient to offer
high-level practical curricula?

p.31

Point 5-մ Does the Program have a mechanism to develop students’ communication andnegotiation abilities so as to foster active leaders who will address global
challenges?

p.33

Point 5-յ Does the Program have appropriate syllabi in adherence with the spirit ofcurriculum organization and a system to use them effectively?
Point 5-ն Is the Program organized with due consideration given to students’ autonomy andstudents who take courses outside their own fields?
Point 5-շ Does the Program have and use appropriate means of education for adult students
in remote locations, etc., such as conducting classes using printed learning material(including corrections by mail), broadcasting classes, interview classes (including
face-to-face classes), and classes using IT media?

p.34
p.35

p.36

 Criterion 6 Outcomes of Education

Point 6-ձ Does the Program have an appropriate system to evaluate students’ achievementlevels in terms of their academic performances and credentials, as well as theirprogress toward the goal of developing abilities required for Phoenix Leaders?

p.37

Point 6-ղ From an analysis of the results of hearing students’ opinions, including
questionnaires, can it be concluded that the Program has produced favorable
educational outcomes?

p.38

Criterion 7. Student Support Systems
Point 7-ձ Does the Program offer an ideal environment where excellent students can inspireand compete with each other?

p.39

Point 7-ղ Does the Program offer financial support to students to enable them to concentrate
their efforts and time on studies and research activities?

p.41

Point 7-ճ Does the Program support students in preparing and carrying out their autonomousand original research plans?

p.42

Criterion 8. Facilities and Equipment
Point: Does the University have facilities and equipment sufficient for educational and research
activities of the Program, and suitable for providing the curriculums?



p.43

Criterion 9. System for Quality Enhancement and Improvement of Education
Point: Does the Program have an appropriate system to evaluate its implementation processes?



㻌

8

p.44

I. List of Issues from results of External Evaluation inlast year
We extracted the following 11 issues that had scored a rating below 3.5 out of 4
from the Phoenix Leader Education Program External Evaluation FY2015, andattempted to improve the program’s activities in FY2016 concerning these issues.
Details of the improvements are described below, with reference to major points
related to each issue.
No

Issue

Criterion

Page

1

An immediate discussion on the future of the Program following the endof MEXT financial support must be carried out.

Point
2㸫ղ



2

Subjects regarding radiation risks should be included in common
subjects.

Point
5Ѹձ



3

Subjects related to politics and religion should be included in lectures orprograms that address global activities.

Point
5Ѹձ



4

Practical training options at institutions that handle radiation
emergencies such as the Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/
Training site at the Oak Ridge Institute should be made mandatory for
all trainees of this program.

Point
5Ѹձ



5

A measure whereby a senior student is in charge of part of the lectures
or exercises for undergraduates should be introduced to deepen senior
students’ practical understanding, knowledge and experience.

Point
5Ѹձ



6

The senior students should learn firsthand about what is necessary to
work as a Phoenix Leader through experience that would launch a
project to be implemented and completed with the participation ofvolunteers (including local volunteers). Hiroshima University should
provide the necessary support if the project is deemed worthwhile andgains official approval.

Point
5Ѹձ



7

The survey and research results regarding problems and challenges
should be disclosed at the disaster recovery sites in order to enhance
students’ motivation to learn and grow. Thus far the results have only
been released in specialist magazines when in fact it is the generalpublic as a whole that needs this information. This expanded
information dissemination approach would increase overall awarenessthereby helping to promote a faster recovery.

Point
5Ѹձ



8

It should be clear just how competitive the Phoenix Leader Education
Program is, and the impact of the existing mechanisms for developing
students’ leadership abilities.

Point
5Ѹձ



9

9

Faculty members, the most advanced Students, in conjunction withexperienced, outside experts in the management of radiological disasters
and their long term consequences, should cooperate to contribute to the
management of the strategic issues of the program.

Point
5Ѹձ



10

The Program should consider offering practical training on how togather, organize and disseminate information, and on the approach tosetting up and effectively managing an organization, through internships
at emergency response and relief agencies, news organizations,metrological information agencies, etc.

Point
5Ѹձ



11

The diversity in society should be reflected in the Program internships
from the perspective of encouraging and promoting student diversity.

Point
5Ѹձ



10

II. Evaluation of individual criteria
In this self-evaluation report, the activities and achievements of the Program are evaluated based on
specific points set under nine criteria. With regard to the 11 issues identified by the External
Evaluation FY2015 (described earlier), the status of improvement is reported in connection with therelated points of each criterion. The description of each evaluation is followed by a list of major
reference materials, which are provided as concrete grounds for the evaluation. These referencematerials are contained in “Reference Materials for Self Study Report FY2016”. The numbers of the“major reference materials” listed in this self-evaluation report corresponds to those in the“Reference Materials for Self-Evaluation Report FY2015”.

Criterion 1. Purpose of the Program
Point: Does the purpose of the Phoenix Leader Education ProgramᲢHiroshima InitiativeᲣ
for Renaissance from Radiation Disaster Ტhereafter ßthe ProgramàᲣcomply withthe purpose of the Leading Program in Doctoral Education, sponsored by the Ministryof Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyᲢMEXTᲣ : fostering leaders
who have a broad perspective and creativity and who will be active in global academic,
industrial, and governmental arenas?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
Since its adoption by the MEXT “Program for Leading Graduate Schools,” the Program has
aimed to develop “Phoenix Leaders,” or global leaders who have the judgment and behavioral
abilities to take appropriate action in circumstances of radiation disaster and lead recovery with aclear philosophy and innovative knowledge across disciplines. To this end, we have established a
new academic field called “Radiation Disaster Recovery Studies,” which enables a multidisciplinary
approach ranging from medicine to environmental studies, engineering, science, social science,education and psychology.
In FY2014, this Program, which was accepted as one of the 2011 Programs for Leading Graduate
School, underwent an interim evaluation by the JSPS* Committee for Program for Leading Graduate
Schools. In March 2015, the Program was assessed as “Category A: Efforts have been made inaccordance with the plan and if ongoing efforts are continued, it is expected to achieve the purposeof the Program.
We held the 2nd Symposium of Phoenix Leader Education Program IndustryAcademia-Government Consortium for Human Resource Development in February
2017 to share understanding about the establishment of career paths for Phoenix
Leaders with participants from many organizations and companies, including MEXT,
and strengthen collaborative relationships with them, aiming to fulfill the purpose of
the Program.
* JSPS: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science11ƂReference Materialsƃ
21 Interim evaluation results of “Program for Leading Graduate Schools of FY
2011”
50 Program_the 2nd Symposium of Phoenix Leader Education Program IndustryAcademia-Government Consortium for Human Resource Development

12

Criterion 2. Implementation Structure
Point 2-ĬDoes the Program have guidance and student-support systems appropriate forachieving its purpose?

ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
To offer interdisciplinary research guidance, the Program has a guidance system
whereby each student has at least four advisors: one primary advisor and at least one
co-advisor from each of the three courses. To address the problem of the relatively
small number of Program members in the Radioactivity Social Recovery Course, which
had sometimes been raised thus far, two more instructors from the field of Human
Behavior Study, Graduate School of Integrated Arts and Sciences, and the Departmentof Management Studies, Graduate School of Social Sciences, were appointed as
Program members in the social science field in FY2016, to offer more thoroughguidance in social sciences.
Additionally, the Program provides students with opportunities to receive guidance
and advice on daily occasions such as classes and report meetings, with theparticipation of researchers from outside the University as Program members. This
guidance system based on cooperation across different graduate schools andorganizations has enabled the Program to offer education that complies with its
purpose of fostering “excellent students who are both highly creative andinternationally attuned, and who will play leading roles in the academic, industrial andgovernmental sectors across the globe,” through interdisciplinary omnibus lectures andpractical training.
Moreover, the Program signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with theCentre d’Étude sur l’Évaluation de la Protection dans le Domaine Nucléaire (CEPN) to
ensure the organizational collaboration with the Program in guidance and support for
students. The Program has agreeed to set up a collaboration base with CEPN for
student recruitment and educational and research exchanges in European countries.
Furthermore, MOU with the University of California Berkeley is planning to be signed
in FY2016.The Program’s efforts to establish world-class guidance and student-support
systems have been steadily progressing.
The Program has also established student-support systems to enhance students’solid understanding of interdisciplinary education, including the appointment in the
majority of compulsory subjects of excellent graduate students as teaching assistants(TAs), who provide language support, produce DVDs for review use, and offer otherkinds of support.
Furthermore, the Program adopted a system in FY2014 whereby teaching mentors,
student consultant mentors (staff members) and senior-student mentors provide

13individual consultations, and initiated lunch meetings with mentors and students in2015. The Program has thus established a mentor system to support students ininterdisciplinary learning activities and respond to their questions and anxieties on adaily basis.
ƂReference Materialsƃ
22 List of Program Members
23 List of Academic Advisers
24 List of Part-Time Lecturer
29 List of Lunch Meeting

14

Point 2-ĭ

Does the Program have planning, operating, and partnership-building systems
appropriate for achieving its purpose?

Issue 2: An immediate discussion on the future of the Program following the end of
MEXT financial support must be carried out.
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
The Hiroshima University Leading Program Organization (hereinafter, “theOrganization”), with the University’s President as Director, has succeeded incontinuing to systematically manage and operate the Program. The Leading Program
Organization Steering Committees as the Organization’s consultation body, with theparticipation of all the graduate school deans of Hiroshima University, is in charge ofmaking decisions on important issues, including financial aid measures for students
and successful examinees in entrance examinations or Qualifying Examinations(hereinafter “QE”), and successful candidates for program completion. The operation of
the Meeting of the Phoenix Leader Education Program (hereinafter, “the Program
Members’ General Meeting”), comprising this Program’s members, and the Steering
Committee for the Phoenix Leader Education Program (hereinafter, “the Steering
Committee”) has been improved in efficiency, with a smaller number of meetings thanin FY2015, through the attempts of each consultation body to upgrade the methods oftime schedule management concerning planning and operation and carefully selectimportant agenda items.
In FY2015, with the aim of maintaining and developing this Program after theperiod of MEXT’s support expires in March 2018, we revised the requirements forstudents’ program completion and newly planned more effective and efficient curriculaand budgets to achieve the purpose of the Program, making reference to cases of otheruniversities’ Leading Graduate Education Programs.
With regard to the organizational system, financial aid for students, and othermatters, suspension of tuition fee collection and other measures after the end of
MEXT’s support are under consideration, and the University plans to announce its
policy on these issues in the middle of 2017.
Additionally, to further develop the Program, we are planning to apply for anothersupport program of MEXT titled “iCODE Program (Program for inter-institutional,
inter-sectional Collaboration on innovative Doctoral Education) (provisional)” in 2018
FY and adopting as one of them will enable us to extend our educational activities andfinancial support for students. Building network for educational and researchcollaboration is essential requirement for the iCODE Program to realize students’learning opportunity in inter- institutional collaborative project, support system forpart time PhD students in inter-sectorial Collaboration and so on. Thus we are15

enhancing relationship with our partners and build new relationship with potential
partners. Concluding MOU with the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies,(GRIPS) and with the Centre d’Étude sur l’Évaluation de la Protection dans leDomaine Nucléaire (CEPN) in this February can be part of firm foundation of new
project.
We also held an International Symposium of the Industry-Academia-Government
Consortium to strengthen collaborative relationships in fostering Phoenix Leaders.
ƂReference Materialsƃ


25 Annual Plan
26 Agenda List of the Hiroshima University Leading Program Organization
Steering Committee
27 Program Members' General Meeting Agenda List AY2016
50 Program_the 2nd Symposium of Phoenix Leader Education Program IndustryAcademia-Government Consortium for Human Resource Development

16

Criterion 3. Program Members and Education Supporters
Point 3-Ĭ Does the Program have a clear policy to build an organization of faculty
members? Does it clarify the responsibilities of respective members
for education and research activities?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
The Program maintains a research guidance system whereby every student has atleast four advisors comprising one primary advisor and at least one from each course(including advisors other than Program Members), and an education system for
implementing the curricula with the participation of external partner academic
institutions and organizations.
The Program also offers classes taught by leading researchers and professionals inradiation disaster recovery from outside the University, who serve as part-time
lecturers in the Program. To help these external lecturers share understanding of thepositioning and goals of their classes with each other, in FY2015 we improved the
Teaching Handbook and added to it a Curriculum Map, which clearly illustrates thelearning objectives and goals of each class. Additionally, in FY2016, we revised the
Teaching Handbook again in the wake of the curriculum revision, and reconfirmed thepositioning of each class and the systematic structure of the curricula at the 8th
Education Seminar.
ƂReference Materialsƃ
23 List of Academic Advisers
05 Teaching Handbook
54 Flyer_ the 8th Educational Seminar

17

Point 3-ĭ Does the Program have faculty members capable of achieving the purpose of
the Program: to foster Phoenix Leaders, Who will conduct interdisciplinary
and integrated management of recovery programs in regions suffering fromcomplex damage caused by radiation disasters?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
In addition to establishing an interdisciplinary guidance system within the
University, the Program provides students with the guidance of external experts inradiation and radiation disaster recovery across different organizations and countries.
Annual international symposiums, which unite these experts, offer opportunities toconfirm the achievements of the Program through presentations made by students andspeakers’ discussions.
In FY2016, we succeeded in strengthening our system for fostering human resources
who can take charge of the management of recovery from radiation disaster from a
global perspective, by commissioning two leading experts working at internationalorganizations to serve as Visiting Professors, Dr. May Abdel-Wahab, Director of theDivision of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Dr. iceChair of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in the
Program. Dr. May Abdel-Wahab (IAEA), taught two classes on the compulsory subject“Large-scale disaster and international cooperation.” Discussions in her classes basedon the IAEA’s duties and the situation after the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant
accident have broadened students’ interest in disaster management across national
borders, leading to their stronger interest in career building in internationalorganizations. Additionally, a psychology expert newly participated as a Program
Member in the Radioactivity Social Recovery Course, taking charge of not only
research guidance for individual students but also common subjects. As a result, theProgram’s interdisciplinary guidance system is further improved.
Moreover, Program Members reconfirmed the positioning of classes and thesystematic structure of the curricula at the 8th Education Seminar.
In February 2017, we held the 2nd Symposium of Phoenix Leader Education
ProgramIndustry-Academia-Government

Consortium

for

Human

Resource

Development to strengthen our student support system, with external support basedon collaboration between industry, academia, and government.
ƂReference Materialsƃ
51 Flyer, Program_the 6th International Symposium
22 List of Program Members
24 List of Part-Time Lecturer
54 Flyer_ the 8th Educational Seminar18

50 Program_the 2nd Symposium of Phoenix Leader Education Program IndustryAcademia-Government Consortium for Human Resource Development

19

Criterion 4. Status of Accepting Students
Point 4-Ĭ Does the Program have a definite policy and criteria for admitting students?
Does the University Publicize those criteria?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
We created a student recruitment pamphlet and application guide for admission for
October 2016 enrollees (for the secondary registration) and October 2017 enrollees,
which spell out the educational goals of this Program, what type of students we seek,
our basic policy for student selection, and our admissions policy. We not only sent these
documents to universities in Japan and abroad, related organizations and Program
Members but also posted them on the Internet to broadly share information aboutadmissions. We also conducted domestic PR activities, including briefings on the
Program and the entrance exam, at the University and its Tokyo office. Basicallyaiming to have all Program Members involved in PR activities, we have held publicbriefing meetings not only under the Program’s name but also at the graduate schools
and academic societies to which the Program Members belong, as well as striving to
distribute materials. Moreover, we accepted three Indonesian missions (with a total of
46 members) to the University in FY2016, and held briefing meetings for them,
resulting in the admission of excellent candidates.
To learn what kinds of media are effective for spreading information, in August 2016
we asked 36 current Program students to reply to a questionnaire about what PR
media they had used to acquire necessary information on the Program before being
admitted. This questionnaire survey found that 36% of the respondents had obtained
information from Program Members, 29% from a member of the University (teacher or
student), 14% from the Program’s website, and 14% from other PR media. Based on
this result, we published admissions information on the University’s in-house bulletin
and its website for students, to ensure the dissemination of information within the
University. We also improved and simplified the Program’s website.
For PR purposes, information about the Program has been published in journals andother publications, including Kyoshoku Katei (lit. “Teacher training course”), Jikken
Igaku (lit. “Experimental medicine”), Cell Technology, the Journal of Radiation
Research, and Resident Note since FY2015. We have also posted information about theProgram on websites in Japanese on undergraduate and graduate education such as
Web Daigaku/Daigakuin-ten and Daigakuin e Iko.  ƂReference Materialsƃ
31 Application Guide for Admission
32 Flyer_Application Guide for Admission20

35 List of Overseas Explanation Meetings of Entrance Examination
34 List of Domestic Explanation Meetings of Entrance Examination
37 Questionnaire (media research)
38 List of Journals in which Application Notice were published

21

Point 4-ĭ Does the Program employ an appropriate system to select students according
to its admission policy? Does the system function well?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
We administered entrance examinations for the primary and secondary registration
to select October 2016 enrollees (fifth-term students).
All of these exams were administered with the participation of not only the Program
Director, Program Members whom examinees wanted to be their primary advisors, andother Program Members as internal members of the Selection Committee, but also
external members from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Chugoku Electric Power
Co., Inc. Students were selected from the perspectives of industry, academia andgovernment.
These exams comprised two steps: the first selection (examination of documents)
including an essay test for examining examinees’ expertise, reasons for hoping to join
the Program, and interdisciplinary application abilities; and the second selection (oralexamination) conducted in the form of a two-day-and-one-night camp, where individualinterviews, group interviews and presentation sessions were held in English to
examine students’ language proficiency, communication abilities, and presentation
skills.
As a result of the selections thus conducted, the Program admitted nine students as
October 2016 enrollees: seven through the general admissions procedure and two for
the Quota of Physicians Protecting Lives from Radiation Disaster. The students
admitted for the Quota, newly set in FY2016, included a physician engaged inadvanced emergency medical service and a licensed dentist. The three courses wereable to evenly accept three enrollees each, resulting in a cosmopolitan learning
environment where excellent students from 12 countries could develop themselves withmutual help in friendly rivalry.
While the entrance examinations for October 2017 enrollees, which wereadministered with the participation of Selection Committee members from inside andoutside the university, included individual and group interviews and presentations inEnglish as with the previous year’s exams, we improved the time schedule to lessen theburdens on Selection Committee members, enabling the oral examination to becompleted within one day.
Because it has been pointed out that the submission of documents for the
Preliminary Evaluation for Application Eligibility might impose an excessive burden on
international examinees, we have changed the rule so that only international students
who have learned Japanese are asked to submit these documents, though on an
optional basis.

22ƂReference Materialsƃ
36 List of Students and Attendees to Explanation Meeting of Entrance
Examination
33 Application Guide for Recommendation Entrance Examination

23

Point 4-Į Does the Program have a system to verify that screening methods comply
with the admissions policy? Are verification results reflected in improving
the screening methods?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
The Entrance Examination Committee of the Program verifies each fiscal year that students are
accepted appropriately in accordance with the purpose of the Program, and identifies areas for
improvement. Verification results are reflected, as needed, in improving the screening methods andPR activities for the following fiscal year.
In FY2015, the Program introduced a recommendation-based exam quota called the
Quota of Physicians Protecting Lives from Radiation Disaster, to acquire licensed
medical experts who can provide diagnosis and treatment in Japan, as students in the
Radiation Disaster Medicine Course. The new quota exam brought the course two
enrollees in FY2016.  ƂReference Materialsƃ
  33 Application Guide for Recommendation Entrance Examination24

Criterion 5. Content and Means of Education
Point 5-Ĭ Does the Program have systematic curricula appropriate to fulfill its goaland suitable for granting academic degrees? Are the subjects to be taught wellarranged in line with the purpose of the Program?
Issue 2: Subjects regarding radiation risks should be included in common
subjects.
Issue 3: Subjects related to politics and religion should be included in lectures orprograms that address global activities.
Issue 4: Practical training options at institutions that handle radiation
emergencies such as the Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/
Training site at the Oak Ridge Institute should be made mandatory for
all trainees of this program.
Issue 5: A measure whereby a senior student is in charge of part of the lectures or
exercises for undergraduates should be introduced to deepen senior
students’ practical understanding, knowledge and experience.
Issue 6: The senior students should learn firsthand about what is necessary to
work as a Phoenix Leader through experience that would launch a
project to be implemented and completed with the participation ofvolunteers (including local volunteers). Hiroshima University should
provide the necessary support if the project is deemed worthwhile andgains official approval.
Issue 7: The survey and research results regarding problems and challenges
should be disclosed at the disaster recovery sites in order to enhance
students’ motivation to learn and grow. Thus far the results have only
been released in specialist magazines when in fact it is the general public
as a whole that needs this information. This expanded information
dissemination approach would increase overall awareness thereby
helping to promote a faster recovery.
Issue 8: It should be clear just how competitive the Phoenix Leader Education
Program is, and the impact of the existing mechanisms for developing
students’ leadership abilities.
Issue 9: Faculty members, the most advanced Students, in conjunction withexperienced, outside experts in the management of radiological disasters
and their long term consequences, should cooperate to contribute to the
management of the strategic issues of the program.
Issue 10: The Program should consider offering practical training on how togather, organize and disseminate information, and on the approach tosetting up and effectively managing an organization, through internships
at emergency response and relief agencies, news organizations,metrological information agencies, etc.
Issue 11: The diversity in society should be reflected in the Program internships
from the perspective of encouraging and promoting student diversity.
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
Class instructors constantly refer to the Teaching Handbook and use theCurriculum Map and Rubric (guidelines for achievement criteria) to design and25

conduct classes, while confirming the positioning of each class and considering its
content and level. In FY2016, aiming to maintain and develop the Program after the
expiration of the period of MEXT’s support, we revised the curricula referring to thenumbers of credits required for program completion at other universities implementing
Leading Graduate Education Programs, to enhance both the effectiveness and theefficiency of our Program.
With regard to Issue 2, the Program’s learning goals include understanding “theimpact of radiation on the human body,” “the impact of low dose exposure on humanhealth,” and “the impact of radiation on children before and after birth.” While classes
in subjects related to these goals have dealt with radiation risks, we revised thesyllabus to make it more systematic.
The advice of the External Evaluation Committee from which Issue 3 is extractedmeans that activities on a global scale require understanding of the social backgroundof regional societies. In this Program, Issue 3 should be resolved using classes insubjects related to the learning goal of “Being able to make necessary decisions andcoordination in international groups to accomplish objectives.” After sharing this issue
at the 8th Education Seminar, we decided to deal with the social background ofregional societies during a short-term fieldwork. Additionally, as an extra-curricular
activity, we held a seminar in March 2016 to discuss scientific and technologicaldevelopments against the background of social contexts, with the participation ofProfessor Tateo Arimoto of the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS),
as an invited speaker. For FY2016, we are also planning to deepen students’
understanding of politics, religions and cultures through a seminar offered incooperation with GRIPS.
Concerning Issue 4, most Program students currently attend courses at theRadiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site (REAC/TS), Oak Ridge Institutefor Science and Education. After the expiration of the period of MEXT’s support, we
will continue to offer practical training through common courses using the Hiroshima
Phoenix Training Center (HiPTC) within the University, and participate in training
offered by the Hiroshima International Council for Health Care of the Radiationexposed (HICARE). Moreover we can give students various opportunity including
oversea trainings and build an independent education- training system with developed
resources within the iCODE Program mentioned regarding point2-2 and it is also an
important goal of the Program.
In response to Issues 5 and 6, we are planning to introduce in the Short-term
Fieldwork compulsory to first-year students, a problem-solving project that first-year
students will take the initiative in planning and implementing in collaboration with26

local NPOs and other parties, with senior students appointed as TAs to assist first-year
students, from the next time and onward.
To resolve Issue 7, we took the measure of creating a webpage on which students’achievements are showcased to the wider public, in order to enhance students’motivation.
Concerning Issue 8, we select students placing high priority on the criteria ofaptitude and the capabilities required to be a leader, including motivation andcommunication

ability.

We

define“globalskills,”“management

skills,”and“interdisciplinary skills” as the capabilities that all Phoenix Leaders should have, andsupervise students’ levels of achievement based on the Curriculum Map and Rubric
after their enrollment.
In response to Issues 9, we have experts who are in front line of research relating toradiation disaster or radiation as program members from Fukushima Medical
University, Fukushima University, Tohoku University, Nagasaki University and on.
And we have practitioners such as local medical doctor or officer of nuclear regulatory
agency as part-time teachers. Furthermore, we have Dr. May Abdel-Wahab (Director,
Division of Human Health at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)), Jacques
Lochard(Visiting Professor, Hiroshima University, International Commission on

Radiological Protection (ICRP)) as our visiting professors. Additionally, our annualinternational symposiums have been functioning opportunity of exchange among
teachers, students and experts from outside of university. We are going to held it titled“Reconstructing Radiation Disaster-Affected Communities: The mediator’s role in therecovery Process” involving public speakers from Fukushima as well as experts in our
discussion. We expect to extend those activities for exchange after adopting as theiCODE Program mentioned above.
In response to Issues 10 and 11, we have continued efforts to increase the number ofhost organizations of internship programs with the support of our partnerorganizations in Japan and abroad. In FY2016, we newly obtained the opportunity tosend our students to participate in long-term internship programs offered by theCentre d’Étude sur l’Évaluation de la Protection dans le Domaine Nucléaire (CEPN)
and the Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), both in France; theMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the Pennsylvania State University, bothin the U.S.; and the Association of Indonesian Alumni from Japan; and in short-term
internship programs offered by the MD Anderson Cancer Center in the U.S.
Additionally, the 2nd Symposium of Phoenix Leader Education Program IndustryAcademia-Government Consortium for Human Resource Development, held in Tokyo
on February 9, 2017 aimed to facilitate network building between industry, academia

27and government, and it is expected that the Program will use the results of this
symposium to provide students with more and better opportunities to learn outside theUniversity and participate in internship programs at a wider variety of hostorganizations. Moreover, following the opinion of external evaluation members, we
reviewed assignments of internship programs and find verity of activities. We willcontinue this review and hope to work with internship providers to give students
chance to gain necessary practical skills.

ƂReference Materialsƃ
05 Teaching Handbook
54 Flyer_ the 8th Educational Seminar
02 Code on the Curriculum Map
03 Effort and Achievement Rubric
01 By-Laws for the Completion
53 Seminar report_Prof.Arimoto
09 Short-term Fieldwork Schedule FY2016
57 List of Retreats
58 Guide_3rd Cross Disciplinary Exchange Forum
39 List of Internship 28Point 5-ĭ Does the Program have means to guide students of diverse backgrounds to thegoal of obtaining degrees? Does the Program have means to allow students toconfirm their achievement levels?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
We have an online system for supervising interdisciplinary coursework(systematic subject registration) and research work under the guidance of instructors
in different fields. Assignments of all classes are given and performed via the class
support system Bb9. We also distribute learning e-portfolios to students, to supervise
their level of goal achievement. The learning e-portfolio, designed based on the
Curriculum Map and Rubric, shows each student’s level of achievement based on
his/her academic record, the number of earned credits, and the papers he/she has
written. Students can upload their assignment papers for classes via Bb9 onto the
Learning e-Portfolio. This entire online system helps each student manage his/her own
learning, and enables his/her primary advisor and co-advisors to provide him/her witheffective and efficient guidance, while checking his/her level of goal achievement.
As a main feature of our learning process supervision system, we administer the
QE in the third semester for four-year-course students and in the fourth semester for
five-year-course students, the results of which are used to measure their levels ofachievement and decide whether they are qualified to continue attend the Program. We
have administered six QEs as of September 2016, and 25 examinees have passed them.
The QE contains written tests on expertise in multiple disciplines, an oral exam in
English on each student’s written research project, and an aptitude and capability test
based on the learning e-portfolio.
In FY2015, we decided that students in “Radiation Disaster Recovery Studies,”
which is a compulsory subject in the final stage of the Program, must write a“Radiation Disaster Recovery Studies Report” as the final product of their studies in
the Program, and make a presentation at the Radiation Disaster Recovery Studies
Report Meeting, which effectively serves as an examination in public for the program
completion, the results of which are used as a requirement for the credits in the subject.
In September 2016, two students completed the Program by fulfilling the requirements
for the completion of the entire Program, including the subject Radiation Disaster
Recovery Studies, and passed the PhD dissertation examination by the graduate school
faculty meeting.
ƂReference Materialsƃ
05 Teaching Handbook
02 Code on the Curriculum Map
03 Effort and Achievement Rubric29

01 By-Laws for the Completion
06 Guideline on the Learning e-Portfolio Operations
08 QE Examination Implementation Plan
07 Guide to Implementing Qualifying Examination
16 Code on Implementing Radiation Disaster Recovery Studies
17 Syllabus of Radiation Disaster Recovery Studies

30

Point 5-Į Does the Program have advanced educational functions sufficient to offer
high-level practical curricula?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
This Program offers education based on the latest results of the most advanced research andpractices in the field of radiation disaster recovery through classes taught by not only the university’sfaculty members but also external researchers and professionals appointed as part-time lecturers, allof whom lead this field. In 2016, we succeeded in providing students with the opportunity to directly
learn from a person in charge of world-class practices by inviting Dr. May Abdel-Wahab, Director of
the Division of Human Health, IAEA, to teach two classes on the compulsory subject “Large-scaledisaster and international cooperation” as a Visiting Professor.
The Program also continuously offers learning opportunities at research institutions
specializing in radiation and radiation disaster recovery and in disaster-affected areas. For example,
we continue to send students to the Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site
(REAC/TS), Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education to receive advanced practical training.
We also invite experts in the industrial, academic or governmental sectors to speak at biannual
retreats or seminars (held irregularly) and directly communicate with students. Students can submit
reports on these activities as assignments for Multidisciplinary Seminar subjects. Participation inthese activities, though not mandatory, enables students to acquire knowledge in various fields. The
Program also provides students with financial aid to cover travel and other expenses necessary forparticipating in domestic and overseas academic conferences, in order to encourage students to learn
the most advanced research achievements on their own initiative. Students are also allowed tosubmit reports on academic conferences in which they participate as assignments forMultidisciplinary Seminar subjects, on the condition of screening by the Education Committee.
Moreover, in FY2016, post QE students had the opportunity to deepen their understanding of selfhelp activities by residents of Fukushima Prefecture, through direct dialogues with the residents andsupporters under the guidance of Dr. Jacques Lochard.
To cap each year’s education, this Program holds an annual international symposium. Students
play the role of members of the working group for this symposium, and participate with highmotivation in discussions for preparation, from the early stage of defining the symposium’s concept.
This symposium has a valuable educational function, providing students with the opportunity to not
only learn the achievements of advanced research and practices but also share and discuss the resultsof their learning with a wider range of people.
  ƂReference Materialsƃ
  12 Syllabus, Natural Disasters and International Cooperation
48 Application Guide for Training Course of REAC/TS
55 List of Field Visits  57 List of Retreats31  52 List of Seminars
13 Guide to the Organization of Interdisciplinary Integrated Seminars
14 List of Interdisciplinary Integrated Seminars
51 Flyer, Program_the 6th International Symposium

32Point 5-į

Does the Program have a mechanism to develop studentsÞ communication and
negotiation abilities so as to foster active leaders who will address global
challenges?

ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
All compulsory subjects in this Program are taught in English, so students are
required to be always ready to communicate with others in English. Additionally, withoverseas internship programs and training at REAC/TS, etc., our educational system
works well in motivating students to test their own international communication andnegotiation abilities and devote their effort to further improving such abilities.
To enhance students’ English communication abilities, the Program offers the
subjects of Scientific English, English Communication, English Rhetoric, and English
Presentation, taught by native English speakers, which are designed to enable
students to experience real settings for communication in the global society. With fulltime instructors teaching these English subjects, we offer all classes in these subjects
at the two campuses to which the Program students belong. These small-group classes
can deal with specific issues on the students’ initiative. Building on a foundation ofprevious successes, the efforts by the Phoenix Leader Education program to ensurethat students’ English communication ability shows ongoing progress and improvement
continue to bear fruit. Some of the more concrete examples of this English language
development include: 1) an increase in conference oral and poster presentations; 2)
program professors reporting an increase in conversation participation, students’
willingness to communicate as well as an observed increase in speaking confidence; 3)a measurable improvement in graduate students’ ability to parse and summarize
academic papers; and finally 4) students’ specific desire to improve the “process” oftheir writing via the creation of “research area” and “laboratory” specific journal
writing templates and vocabulary databases.
From FY2015, students are required to prove their English proficiency with theirscores on English proficiency tests or other means, to participate in training orinternship programs abroad. This has helped increase students’ motivation to learn
English, resulting in many students meeting the requirement.
ƂReference Materialsƃ
39 List of Internship
19 Syllabi of Lectures in English
20 Phoenix Leader Education Program English Outcomes Report  04 Handling of Evaluation of Learning Achievement of English Education
49 Policies on the Language Requirements for Overseas Training

33

Point 5-İ Does the Program have appropriate syllabi in adherence with the spirit ofcurriculum organization and a system to use them effectively?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
The syllabuses of all the subjects are appropriately prepared, and are shown tostudents not only on the class support system Bb9 but also on the Hiroshima
University website, in both Japanese and English. On the occasion of the curriculum
revision in 2016, we revised the Teaching Handbook, and reconfirmed the connection
between classes and the direction of the new curricula at the 8th Education Seminar.
ƂReference Materialsƃ
54 Flyer_ the 8th Educational Seminar
05 Teaching Handbook

34

Point 5-ı Is the Program organized with due consideration given to studentsÞ autonomy
and students who take courses outside their own fields?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
The Program has a thorough learning support system, whereby students cancommunicate with their advisor and class instructors using the class support system or
Learning e-Portfolio wherever and whenever they want. The Program also has asystem that enables students to receive advice about their troubles in learning fromteaching mentors and senior-student mentors across the course boundaries.
As a form of consideration for Phoenix Program students undertaking independent
study, we have rooms with Internet connection and furniture for graduate students’
exclusive use. Additionally, to meet the needs of advanced-class students, who seldom
have to attend common classes, in October 2016 we opened an Interactive Lab withbooths exclusive to individual students, as spaces where students can study hard infriendly rivalry.
Moreover, to help October 2016 enrollees become accustomed to multidisciplinary
learning soon, faculty members and senior students assisted them in following
discussions at the 3rd Cross-disciplinary Exchange Forum held in October 2016. At thisforum, students in small groups, with faculty members as facilitators among them, hadactive discussions based on lectures by Dr. Seiji Yasumura, Professor at Fukushima
Medical University and a Program Member for the Radiation Disaster Medicine Course,
and Dr. Kiyoshi Shizuma, Professor by Special Appointment at Hiroshima University
and a Program Member for the Radioactivity Environmental Protection Couse.
ƂReference Materialsƃ
45 Mentor Handbook 2016
46 Current Situation and Improvement of Student-Owned Space58 Guide_3rd Cross Disciplinary Exchange Forum

35

Point 5-Ĳ Does the Program have and use appropriate means of education for adultstudents in remote locations, etc., such as conducting classes using printed
learning material (including corrections by mail), broadcasting classes, interview
classes (including face-to-face classes), and classes using IT media?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
This Program has built a system for continuously supporting students who study
in the Program in remote locations while working there. Students living in the Tokyo
metropolitan area can attend classes given mainly at Hiroshima University’s Tokyo
office. To offer tele-education-based classes, we prepared necessary equipment before
the Program started: for example, a teleconferencing system for establishing audiovisual connection mainly between Hiroshima University’s Higashi-Hiroshima andKasumi Campuses on the one hand and partner organizations such as Fukushima
University, Tohoku University, and the National Institute of Radiological Sciences on
the other, and a document camera and other related devices useful for administering
written examinations for students in remote locations and other purposes. Additionally,
aiming to appropriately assist students in remote locations in independent study before
and after their classes, we have provided interactive class education targeted at them,using a content recording and distribution system, which helps these students prepare
for and review their classes.
Moreover, mid-career students living in Tokyo had attended English classes givenby part-time lecturers at Hiroshima University’s Tokyo office until July 2015. In
FY2016, they completed long-term fieldwork, managing to spare the time for suchactivity despite their work. Their advisors accompanied them to the fieldwork sites togive them guidance. The students were evaluated on the content of their fieldwork andtheir presentation skills based on their written and oral reports.  ƂReference Materialsƃ
  47 Device List for Remote Teaching System
10 AY2016 Long-term Fieldwork Report36

Criterion 6. Outcomes of Education
Point 6-Ĭ  Does the Program have an appropriate system to evaluate studentsÞ
achievement levels in terms of their academic performances and credentials,
as well as their progress toward the goal of developing abilities required for
Phoenix Leaders?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
This Program has the clearly defined learning objectives and a system forevaluating students’ achievement levels based on the outcomes of their learning, andhas used this system for the QE. The interim evaluation by the JSPS, mentioned inrelation to Criterion 1, rated this system highly, stating, “In terms of a world-class,well-established quality assurance system, it can be evaluated that QE consists of awritten exam and an interview to check students’ understanding and achievementlevels, etc.”
We use the Curriculum Map and Rubric to evaluate students’ levels ofachievement of the Program goals, and integrate the entire system ranging from classdesign to evaluation. Regarding common goals, students are required to reach thesecond stage of the achievement standards specified in the Rubric by their QE, and toreach the fourth stage by their Program completion.
In FY2016, we created a webpage named “Student Achievements” on our website
and published students’ papers, etc., there, to showcase the achievements of theProgram.
Additionally, students have devoted their efforts to connecting their achievementswith their future career by creating a Career Portfolio.
ƂReference Materialsƃ
05 Teaching Handbook
02 Code on the Curriculum Map
03 Effort and Achievement Rubric
40 Career Portfolio (extract)   37

Point 6-ĭ  From an analysis of the results of hearing studentsÞ opinions, including
questionnaires, can it be concluded that the Program has produced favorable
educational outcomes?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
We ask students to evaluate the classes provided under this Program, using
Hiroshima University’s class questionnaire system.
With regard to short-term fieldwork in particular, we also conduct questionnaire
surveys about individual activities included in its five-day itinerary. The findings fromthe questionnaire surveys have enabled us to continuously improve the short-term
fieldwork and, as a result, receive participants from outside the university for threeconsecutive years. We have devoted our efforts to providing short-term fieldwork
participants with the opportunities to learn what can be learned only in the fields, withthe cooperation of Fukushima University, Fukushima Medical University, Minamisoma
City, Minamisoma City General Hospital and other organizations. In FY2017, we willorganize a seminar and workshop with the support of local organizations and NPOs,
aiming to further develop the short-term fieldwork into a learning activity in which
students play leading roles.
At the Faculty and Student Opinion Exchange Meeting, which we have held since
FY2013, most of the opinions voiced by students at first concerned their requests for
the Program’s support. However, many students are currently ready to discuss theirown ways of conducting activities, rather than making requests for support, at themeeting. We recognize this change as a favorable educational outcome of this Program.
ƂReference Materialsƃ


11 AY2016 Short-term Fieldwork Report
28 Code on Faculty and Student Opinion Exchange Meeting38

Criterion 7. Student Support Systems
Point 7-Ĭ Does the Program offer an ideal environment where excellent students can inspireand compete with each other?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
The Program offers an environment where not only students of the Program but
also those from other universities can inspire and compete with each other.
The Program often offers students belonging to the Program the opportunity tocommunicate with each other in compulsory classes, at optional seminars, and on otheroccasions. The compulsory subject Short-tern Fieldwork, during which students shareactivities with each other for about one week and exchange their views at the review
meeting every day, provides them with the valuable opportunity to identify challenges
to be solved in their learning. Every retreat also contains opportunities not only forstudents to listen to lectures, etc., but also for students and faculty members to discuss
their studies with each other and inspire each other in an informal atmosphere.
In addition to the opportunities to exchange views with people in the Program, theProgram offers students the opportunities to communicate with experts from outside
the Program, from which the students draw great inspiration. The annualinternational symposium offers students a place to showcase the progress of their own
research to a wide range of people. At the symposium, students are provided with theopportunity to make a presentation on their own research and obtain feedback fromthe wider community, including experts in Japan and abroad. The poster session, withawards given for excellent presentations, also facilitates competition among students infriendly rivalry. Additionally, in FY2014, Hiroshima University and other universities
implementing the Programs for Leading Graduate Schools launched a new initiative tofacilitate communication between students belonging to these universities, and theinitiative has steadily developed into a place where excellent students can competewith and inspire each other.
In FY2014, we began to call for participants from other universities to implement
the Programs for Leading Graduate Schools in the abovementioned short-term
fieldwork. In FY2016, we also called for participants from the University of California,
Berkeley and Colorado State University. As a result, we were able to have one
participant from each of the two U.S. universities, two from the Disaster Nursing
Global Leader Degree Program at Tokyo Medical and Dental University, and two fromthe Inter-Graduate School Program for Sustainable Development and Survivable
Societies at Kyoto University.

39ƂReference Materialsƃ
51 Flyer, Program_the 6th International Symposium
09 Short-term Fieldwork Schedule FY2016
11 AY2016 Short-term Fieldwork Report
57 List of Retreats40

Point 7-ĭ Does the Program offer financial support to students to enable themto concentrate their efforts and time on studies and research activities?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
Since its launch, the Program has offered students an environment where they
can concentrate their efforts and time on studies and research activities without
financial concern, through various support measures, including a monthly grant of
180,000 to 200,000 yen, housing support, the lending of laptops, financial aid forresearch activities, and participation in domestic and overseas academic conferences.
We also have rooms for the exclusive use of Program graduate students at both theHigashi-Hiroshima and Kasumi Campuses, so that they can freely use these rooms forvarious purposes, such as individual studies or academic journal club meetings.
Additionally, to address problems that can disturb students’ studies and research
activities in a timely manner, we monitor the situations faced by students using thementor system and regular Faculty and Student Opinion Exchange Meetings.
Moreover, in FY2015, we began to hold regular lunch meetings where students, faculty
members and staff members could frankly communicate with each other, to prepare
themselves to promptly handle the troubles that students face in their lives, etc.
ƂReference Materialsƃ
  41 List of Substantial Support
28 Code on Faculty and Student Opinion Exchange Meeting
29 List of Lunch Meeting41

Point 7-Į Does the Program support students in preparing and carrying out theirautonomous and original research plans?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
This Program has established the foundations for creative research throughinterdisciplinary, cross-organizational, and international education, which is clearly
distinguished from conventional graduate education. The Program also has a system
for facilitating each student’s research activities through such measures as financial
aid for students’ participation in academic conferences, compensation of long-term
fieldwork/internships costs, and financial aid for post-QE students’ research activities.
Soon after admission, students can receive financial aid for travel expenses toparticipate in academic conferences (100,000 yen for domestic conferences and 300,000
yen for overseas conferences annually). After they pass the QE, the financial aid is
replaced by Research Grant of the Phoenix Leader Education Program, which amounts
to a maximum of 500,000 yen per semester, to cover various expenses necessary for
doctoral dissertation research, including travel, devices and books. After students
submit a research plan, a cost estimate, etc., the screening committee consisting of theProgram Director, the Program Coordinator, and the Course Leaders decides theamount of the aid money, which is paid after the University President approves theplan. Students can decide whether to participate in long-term fieldwork or a long-term
internship, and can receive financial aid from the Program for travel andaccommodation expenses necessary for fieldwork and research activities at specificorganizations.
Additionally, the Program offers post-QE students the opportunities to participate
in an activity called the Global Field Visit, provided by the Program in Japan andabroad, according to their academic interests. In FY2016, we provided post-QE
students with the opportunity to participate in the Global Field Visit, which included
visits to the base of the NPO “Ethos in Fukushima” in the Suetsugi district, Iwaki Cityand its support office for people evacuated outside Fukushima Prefecture, located in
Yonezawa City, and participation in the ICRP Dialogue held in Kawauchi Village. Fivestudents participated in the Visit.
ƂReference Materialsƃ


18 List of Research Topic
44 List of Supporting Participation in Academic Meetings
42 Guide to Research Grant
43 List of Research Grant Payments
56 Student's Report on Global Field Visit

42

Criterion 8. Facilities and Equipment
Point: Does the University have facilities and equipment sufficient for educational andresearch activities of the Program, and suitable for providing the curriculums?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
Classes in the Program are continuously provided at Hiroshima Phoenix Training
Center, equipped with state-of-the-art devices. Students can use portable whole bodycounters, low-background Ge-detectors, whole-body decontamination shower devices,imaging analyzers, high volume air samplers, Geiger-Muller (GM) counters, and Nalscintillation survey meters, and other devices.
ƂReference Materialsƃ
  15 Device list of Hiroshima Phoenix Training Center

43

Criterion 9. System for Quality Enhancement and Improvementof Education
Point: Does the Program have an appropriate system to evaluate its implementation
processes?
ƂExplanation and Analyze the Situationƃ
Since this Program’s launch in 2011, a PDCA cycle has been working well throughthe activities of the relevant Committees and Councils, including the Evaluation
Committee. In FY2016 too, these Committees and Councils proposed plans andimprovements, many of which were carried out.
The Program’s system for incorporating students’ opinions into improvements has
continued to function well. In November 2016, a Faculty and Student Opinion
Exchange Meeting was held with the participation of five faculty members, including
the Program Director. At the meeting, students proposed that senior students
participate in an international symposium operational working group, which would
consist of new first-year students every year, and the decision to consider this proposal
was made. Additionally, the Student and Mentor Lunch Meeting provided the valuable
opportunity for students to ask faculty members questions and receive answers to
those questions before engaging in short-term fieldwork, and share the significance ofthe fieldwork.
Additionally, the Program is unique in that evaluation from viewpoints outside theProgram has greatly contributed to its improvements. Primary importance in terms ofimprovements of the Program has been placed particularly on a series of evaluations,
including External Evaluation commissioned to experts outside the university, followup reports on on-site inspection by the Program Officer appointed by the JSPS, andinterim evaluation by the JSPS Committee for the Program for Leading Graduate
Schools. The issues identified through evaluation from an external viewpoint have been
examined at Committees and the Program Members’ General Meeting. In FY2016,
these issues were resolved, resulting in representative measures to address issues andimprove the Program, to which this Self Study Report is dedicated.
ƂReference Materialsƃ


30 Tasks of Program Officer (extract)44

Conclusion
This year’s Self Study Report thoroughly examines and describes the activities in the
charge of each committee and the results of these activities according to nine criteria as
usual. In FY2016 in particular, we considered measures to continue the Program, so thisreport dealt with the results of the consideration in self-check and evaluation. We believe that
the Program’s continued progress and its possibility of devising new pioneering initiatives
have resulted from the support of members of the External Evaluation Committee, and theefforts of faculty and staff members, including the Course and other Committees.
The Evaluation Committee of Phoenix Leader Education Program would like toexpress its sincere gratitude to everyone for their generous cooperation.
Evaluation Committee,
Phoenix Leader Education Program (Hiroshima Initiative) for Renaissance from Radiation
Disaster, Hiroshima University Graduate Schools
Member of Evaluation Committee
Post

Name

Affiliation

Responsibility in Program

Vice President

Kenji Kamiya

Reconstruction Support/Radiation
Medicine

Program Director
Radiation Disaster Medicine Course

Professor

Masao Kobayashi

Institute of Biomedical & Health
Sciences

Program Coordinator
Radiation Disaster Medicine Course

Professor

Tetsuji Okamoto

Institute of Biomedical & Health
Sciences

Radiation Disaster Medicine Course

Professor

Makoto Iwanaga

Graduate School of Integrated
Arts and Sciences

Radioactivity Social Recovery Course

Professor(Special
Appointment)

Kiyoshi Shizuma

Institute of Engineering

Radioactivity Environmental
Protection Course

Student

Silvia Natsuko
AkutsuGraduate School of Biomedical &Health Sciences

Radiation Disaster Medicine Course

Student

Ooki Kurihara

Graduate School of Engineering

Radioactivity Environmental
Protection Course

Student

Kabir Russell
SarwarGraduate School of Education

Radioactivity Social Recovery Course

45ϩ. FY2016 External Evaluation ReportIntroduction
The Phoenix Leader Education Program was accepted by MEXT as a 2011 Program for Leading
Graduate Schools. Since welcoming the first students to enroll in our program in October 2012, we havecarried out yearly self-evaluations followed by yearly external evaluations done by both domestic andover sea’s experts.
The external evaluation committee members examine the state of the program based on the
self-evaluation report, program reference material and scoring sheets that include nine criteria andtwenty-two highlighted points for consideration. The evaluators also have the opportunity to verify theactual state of the Phoenix Program by meeting with faculty members and graduate students throughconsultation sessions at Hiroshima University. With this in mind, each committee member writes anexternal evaluation report, offers a rating for the criteria and standards using a four-point scale andprovides specific written commentary for each criterion and standard.
The aim of the external evaluation report is to identify possible problems and challenges within the
program based on the committee members’ average evaluation score and their individual comments. By
sharing and attempting to solve problems in cooperation with each committee member, we feel that wewill be better prepared and able to improve our program.
As a result of our repeated efforts to improve on challenging issues identified by the external
evaluation, our program has finally received our target high average scores and is achieving its statedgoals. This can be observed in the yearly increases in the program’s average evaluation scores and theencouraging commentary from committee members. However, despite this high overall evaluation, we
unfortunately received a poor evaluation with regards to the program’s future vision. In other words, thequestion of our program’s future continuity remains uncertain and we are taking immediate measures toaddress this uncertainty. We are also promptly attending to the other advice and recommendations inorder to increase the benefits of our program for students and society.
We would appreciate your understanding and continued support.
April 2017

Kenji Kamiya
Chairperson of the Evaluation Committee
Program Director of the Phoenix Leader Education Program (Hiroshima Initiative) for
Renaissance from Radiation Disaster, Hiroshima University Graduate Schools49

FY2016 External Evaluation Report
Contents
I. Phoenix Leader Education Program for Renaissance from Radiation
Disasters, External Evaluation Committee Meeting Agenda࣭࣭࣭࣭ p.55

II. Evaluation by criteria
Criterion 1: Purpose of the Program
Point 1:

Does the purpose of the Phoenix Leader Education Program (Hiroshima
Initiative) for Renaissance from Radiation Disaster (hereafter “the Program”)
comply with the purpose of the Leading Program in Doctoral Education,sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology (MEXT): fostering leaders who have a broad perspective andcreativity and who will be active in global academic, industrial, andgovernmental arenas?

p.59

Criterion 2: Implementation Structure

Point 2-ձ Does the Program have guidance and student-support systems appropriate forachieving its purpose?
Point 2-ղ Does the Program have planning, operating, and partnership-building systems
appropriate for achieving its purpose?
Criterion 2 Implementation Structure
Overall evaluation

p.61
p.61
p.62

Criterion 3: Program Members and Education Supporters

Point 3-ձ Does the Program have a clear policy to build an organization of faculty
members? Does it clarify the responsibilities of respective members foreducation and research activities?
Point 3-ղ Does the Program have faculty members capable of achieving the purpose of
the Program: to foster Phoenix Leaders, who will conduct interdisciplinary
and integrated management of recovery programs in regions suffering fromcomplex damage caused by radiation disasters?
Criterion 3 Program Members and Education Supporters
Overall evaluation

p.64

p.64
p.65

Criterion 4: Status of Accepting Students

Point 4-ձ Does the Program have a definite policy and criteria for admitting students?
Does the University publicize those criteria?
Point 4-ղ Does the Program employ an appropriate system to select students according
to its admission policy? Does the system function well?

51

p.66
p.66

Point 4-ճ Does the Program have a system to verify that screening methods comply
with the admissions policy? Are verification results reflected in improving thescreening methods?
Criterion 4 Status of Accepting Students
Overall evaluation

p.67
p.67

Criterion 5: Contents and Means of Education

Point 5-ձ Does the Program have systematic curriculums appropriate to fulfill its goaland suitable for granting academic degrees? Are subjects to be taught wellarranged in line with the purpose of the Program?
Point 5-ղ Does the Program have means to guide students of diverse backgrounds to
the goal of obtaining degrees? Does the Program have means to allow
students to confirm their achievement levels?
Point 5-ճ Does the Program have advanced educational functions sufficient to offer
high-level practical curriculums?
Point 5-մ Does the Program have a mechanism to develop students’ communication andnegotiation abilities so as to foster active leaders who will address global
challenges?
Point 5-յ Are appropriate syllabuses being prepared and utilized in line with the
purpose of the curriculum’s organization?
Point 5-ն Is consideration systematically given to students undertaking independent
study as well as students taking subjects related to fields outside their field ofspecialization?
Point 5-շ When conducting classes for mature-aged students etc., in remote locations,have implementation methods been prepared for teaching lessons using
printed materials, etc. (including correcting students’ work, etc.), broadcast
lessons, interview lessons (including screenings, etc.), or lessons using media,
and are appropriate guidance and supervision provided?
Criterion 5 Contents and Means of Education
Overall evaluation

p.69
p.69
p.70
p.70
p.71
p.71

p.72

p.72

Criterion 6: Outcomes of Education

Point 6-ձ Does the Program have an appropriate system to evaluate students’achievement levels in terms of their academic performances and credentials,
as well as their progress towards the goal of developing abilities required for
Phoenix Leaders?
Point 6-ղ Judging by the results of questionnaires and other hearings of students’opinions, are educational results and/or effectiveness improving?
Criterion 6 Outcomes of Education
Overall Evaluation

p.75
p.75
p.76

Criterion 7: Student Support Systems

Point 7-ձ Does the Program offer an ideal environment where excellent students caninspire and compete with each other?
Point 7-ղ Does the Program offer financial support to students to enable them toconcentrate their efforts and time on studies and research activities?
Point 7-ճ Does the Program support students in preparing and carrying out theirautonomous and original research plans?
Criterion 7 Student Support Systems
Overall evaluation

52

p.77
p.77
p.78
p.78

Criterion 8: Facilities and Equipment
Point 8Does the University have facilities and equipment sufficient for educationaland research activities of the Program, and suitable for providing thecurriculums?

p.80

Criterion 9: System for Quality Enhancement and Improvement of Education
Point 9Does the Program have an appropriate system to evaluate its implementation
processes?

p.81

III.Overview
1. Notably exceptional aspects are as follows.

p.82

2. Aspects requiring improvement are as follows.

p.84

3. Other aspects for which future improvement is desirable are as follows.

p.86

IV. Summary sheet of evaluation points࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭

p.87

V. Issues Pointed out by the External Evaluation Committee ࣭࣭࣭࣭

p.88

53

Ϩ. Phoenix Leader Education Program for Renaissance from Radiation Disasters
FY2016 External Evaluation Committee Meeting Agenda
1. Objective of FY 2016 External Evaluation
The Phoenix Leader Education Program (Hiroshima Initiative) for Renaissance from
Radiation Disaster (hereinafter referred to as “the Program”), which was adopted as one of
the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) FY2011 Leading
Programs in Doctoral Education, is a Hiroshima University doctoral program inaugurated in
October 2012. Since then, with the Program’s main purpose foremost in our minds we havebeen working to develop and foster global leaders (Phoenix Leaders), capable of undertaking
the best possible actions in a radiation disaster scenario based on extensive interdisciplinary
knowledge. The program graduates will be able to provide strong leadership during thedisaster recovery process by exercising appropriate judgment and having a clear vision forwhat is needed.
The Program produced its first graduates in FY2016 and welcomed five more graduate
students than the previous year. At the same time, the program continues to work towards
improvements that increase effectiveness and active learning.
The objective of the FY 2016 External Evaluation Committee Meeting is to gather
valuable suggestions from External Evaluation Committee members regarding the future
prospects of the program in order to make steady progress and improvement within the
program.

2. Date & Venue
1㸧Date: Saturday, February 11, 2017, 10:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.
2㸧Venue: Medium Conference Room, 1F of Koujin Kaikan Conference Hall,
Kasumi Campus, Hiroshima University55

3. Members of External Evaluation Committee FY 2016
Name

Title/Post

Tokushi Shibata

Adviser, Oarai Research Center, Chiyoda Technol Corporation

Kiyoshi Miyagawa

Professor, Graduate School of Medicine of the University Tokyo

Tomohide Karita
ᲢDocument evaluationᲣ

Chairman, Chugoku Economic Federation

May Abdel-Wahab

Director of the Division of Human Health at the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA)

Albert Lee Wiley

Senior Physician and Scientific Advisor of REAC/TS, and Head of the World
Health Organization (REMPAN) Collaborating Center at Oak Ridge

Thierry Schneider

Director, Centre d'étude sur l'évaluation de la protection dans le domainenucléaire (CEPN)

Tom K.Hei
ᲢDocument evaluationᲣ

Professor and Vice- Chairman of Radiation Oncology,
Columbia University Medical Center56

4. Members of Phoenix Leader Education Program
Post

Name

Affiliation

Responsibility in Program
Program Director
Chairperson, the Evaluation
Committee, the Degree Examination
Committee, the Career Paths
Committee

Vice President

Kenji
KamiyaReconstruction
Support/Radiation Medicine,
Medical Policy Office

Professor

Masao
Kobayashi

Institute of Biomedical & Health
Sciences

Program Coordinator

Professor

ShinyaMatsuura

Research Institute for Radiation
Biology and Medicine

Radiation Disaster Medicine Course
LeaderChairperson, the Education
Committee

Professor

SatoruNakashima

Natural Science Center for Basic
Research and Development

Radioactivity Environmental
Protection Course Leader
Chairperson, the Hiroshima Phoenix
Training Center Acting Committee

Professor

SatoruEndo

Institute of Engineering

Chairperson, the Entrance
Examination Committee

Professor(Special
Appointment)

Hironori
Deguchi

Graduate School of Science

Chairperson, the Student Life
Committee

Professor

Toshinori
Okuda

Graduate School of Integrated
Arts and Sciences

Chairperson, the International
Exchange Committee

Professor

Chisa
Shukunami

Institute of Biomedical & Health
Sciences

Chairperson, the Information
Promotion Committee

Student

Silvia Natsuko
AkutsuGraduate School of Biomedical &Health Sciences
Biomedical Science Major

Radiation disaster Medicine Course

Student

Ooki Kurihara

Graduate School of Engineering
Civil and Environmental
Engineering Major

Radioactivity Environmental
Protection Course

Student

Kabir Russell
SarwarGraduate School of Education
Psychology Major

Radioactivity Social Recovery Course

57

5. Agenda
Time

Event

Person

10:00

Opening Remarks

Program Director

10:05

Guidance on Evaluation Process

Program Director

10:10

Explanation and evaluation of program areas inneed of improvement identified following the
FY2015 External Evaluation

Program Coordinator

10:40

Break

10:50

Discussion

All Participants

11:20

Discussion and Sum up of the morning’s activities

Program Director

11:30

Closing Remarks

Program Coordinator58ϩ. Evaluation by criteria* The evaluation scores are calculated based on selection by each committee member withassignment of points as follows: 4 points for “satisfied,” 3 points for “mostly satisfied,” 2 points for“requires partial improvement,” and 1 point for “requires major improvement.”* Final evaluation is indicated by placing a check mark in the box next to the appropriate
evaluation, with an average score of 0 to less than 1.5 being “requires major improvement,” 1.5 toless than 2.5 being “requires partial improvement,” 2.5 to less than 3.5 being “ mostly satisfied,”and 3.5 and higher being “satisfied.”

Criterion 1: Purpose of the Program
Point 1

Does the purpose of the Phoenix Leader Education Program (Hiroshima Initiative)
for Renaissance from Radiation Disaster (hereafter “the Program”) comply with the
purpose of the Leading Program in Doctoral Education, sponsored by the Ministryof Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT): fostering leaders
who have a broad perspective and creativity and who will be active in global
academic, industrial, and governmental arenas?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
  ‫ ܇‬Criterion 1 is satisfied  Ƒ Criterion 1 is mostly satisfied  Ƒ Criterion 1 requires partial improvement  Ƒ Criterion 1 requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

59

[Comments]
Member B:
Necessary improvements are being made every year in order to achieve their purpose.
Member F:
This is a great challenge to address transdisciplinary approach and the Phoenix programme is aclear contribution in this perspective.
Member G:
The Phoenix Leader Education Program is, as in the past, on target with its educational
missions.

60

Criterion 2: Implementation Structure
Point 2-ձDoes the Program have guidance and student-support systems appropriate forachieving its purpose?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Point 2-ձ is satisfied
Ƒ Point 2-ձ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 2-ձ requires partial improvementƑPoint 2-ձ requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

3.86

Point 2-ղDoes the Program have planning, operating, and partnership-building systems
appropriate for achieving its purpose?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
Ƒ Point 2-ղ is satisfied‫ ܇‬Point 2-ղ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 2-ղ requires partial improvementƑPoint 2-ղ requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

3

3

4

3

3

3.43

61

Criterion 2

Implementation Structure
Overall evaluation[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Criterion 2 is satisfiedƑCriterion 2 is mostly satisfiedƑCriterion 2 requires partial improvementƑCriterion 2 requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

3.86

[Comments]
Member A:
In the self study report, it says that they developed a new curriculum and budget in order toeffectively maintain and achieve further growth of this program even after the end of assistancefrom the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology; however, we would liketo see a more detailed input.
Member B:
As for the program’s continuity, since discussions are proceeding with highly specificconsiderations, we can now expect to see further development in the future.
Member C(Regarding issue 1)
Regarding policies after the end of assistance from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology, I believe there is a need to clarify as soon as possible, in particular, about
financial assistance measures for students.
The final evaluation of this program—in other words, the international recognition of the valueof the academic degree of this program—will have a large impact on how future graduates of thisprogram are able to work in the global environment. There is also a need to organize a support
structure (career path, place for exchanging information) toward graduates.
Also, I believe that the program should encourage the acquisition of licenses, etc. issued bypublic organizations both in and outside of the country, so that it would be of help for students inselecting a career path after graduation.
Member F
As mentioned above, the main point would be to reinforce the pluridisciplinary in the research

62

works.
Member G
For Point 2.2 As mentioned in my overall program assessment, the future of the Phoenix
program rests with successful application of the iCODE program through MEXT. A contingency
plan should be in place just in case the funding for the new program is not immediately approved.

63

Criterion 3: Program Members and Education Supporters
Point 3-ձDoes the Program have a clear policy to build an organization of faculty
members? Does it clarify the responsibilities of respective members foreducation and research activities?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
  ‫ ܇‬Point 3-ձ is satisfied  Ƒ Point 3-ձ is mostly satisfied  Ƒ Point 3-ձ requires partial improvement  Ƒ Point 3-ձ requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

3.86

Point 3-ղDoes the Program have faculty members capable of achieving the purpose of theProgram: to foster Phoenix Leaders, who will conduct interdisciplinary andintegrated management of recovery programs in regions suffering from complex
damage caused by radiation disasters?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Point 3-ղ is satisfied
Ƒ Point 3-ղ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 3-ղ requires partial improvementƑPoint 3-ղ requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

4

2

4

3.71

64

Criterion 3

Program Members and Education Supporters
Overall evaluation[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Criterion 3 is satisfied
Ƒ Criterion 3 is mostly satisfiedƑCriterion 3 requires partial improvementƑCriterion 3 requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

[Comments]
Member A:
An educational guidance structure for all students has been amply developed, with one head
instructor and at least one sub-head instructor designated from each course. Learning goals andlearning objectives have been defined, which are presented to the students in an easy tounderstand manner. Meanwhile, when looking at the structure of responsibility, I believe that there
are no documents that show how the responsibilities are divided among the instructors. Although I
believe that in actuality, the structure enables instructors to coordinate amongst themselves to takeappropriate responsibilities, the responsibilities should be written out.
It says that the support structure for students has been strengthened, but I would like to see its
details written out.
Member B:
The instructors’ organization is being enhanced every year.
Member F
As mentioned above, it would be beneficial to reinforce the involvement of the supervisors forresearch to also have a pluridisciplinary view of the situation of post accident.

65Criterion 4: Status of Accepting Students
Point 4-ձDoes the Program have a definite policy and criteria for admitting students?
Does the University publicize those criteria?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Point 4-ձ is satisfied
ƑPoint 4-ձ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 4-ձ requires partial improvementƑPoint 4-ձ requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

3

3

4

4

3.71

Point 4-ղDoes the Program employ an appropriate system to select students according to
its admission policy? Does the system function well?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Point 4-ղ is satisfied
ƑPoint 4-ղ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 4-ղ requires partial improvementƑPoint 4-ղ requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

3.86

66

Point 4-ճ

Does the Program have a system to verify that screening methods comply withthe admissions policy? Are verification results reflected in improving thescreening methods?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Point 4-ճ is satisfied
ƑPoint 4-ճ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 4-ճ requires partial improvementƑPoint 4-ճ requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

3.86

Criterion 4

Status of Accepting Students
Overall evaluation[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Criterion 4 is satisfiedƑCriterion 4 is mostly satisfiedƑCriterion 4 requires partial improvementƑCriterion 4 requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

3.86

67

[Comments]
Member A:
The entrance exams are being conducted in a very careful and attentive manner. The program
also accepts outstanding foreign students, as well as applicants with medical licenses and dental
qualifications, and they deserve high appraisal for the positive results that they have demonstrated.
Member B:
The number of enrolling students had been declining until academic year 2015, but it has begun
to increase in academic year 2016, demonstrating that steady results are being produced from theefforts that had been made toward student admission.
Member C
Since the submission of grade certificates from Japanese language proficiency tests, etc. havebecome an optional factor, the obstacle for non-Japanese students to enter the university has been
reduced.
Member G
In order to continue to attract top students into the Phoenix program, a rigorous admission
policy coupled with enrollment advertisement will be helpful. The student support and financial
incentive of this program is excellent and should be able to bring highly motivated, well qualified
students into the program.

68

Criterion 5: Contents and Means of Education
Point 5-ձDoes the Program have systematic curriculums appropriate to fulfill its goal andsuitable for granting academic degrees? Are subjects to be taught well arranged
in line with the purpose of the Program?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
Ƒ Point 5-ձ is satisfied‫ ܇‬Point 5-ձ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 5-ձ requires partial improvementƑPoint 5-ձ requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Point 5-ղDoes the Program have means to guide students of diverse backgrounds to thegoal of obtaining degrees? Does the Program have means to allow students toconfirm their achievement levels?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Point 5-ղ is satisfied
ƑPoint 5-ղ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 5-ղ requires partial improvementƑPoint 5-ղ requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

3.86

69

Point 5-ճ

Does the Program have advanced educational functions sufficient to offer
high-level practical curriculums?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Point 5-ճ is satisfied
ƑPoint 5-ճ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 5-ճ requires partial improvementƑPoint 5-ճ requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Point 5-մDoes the Program have a mechanism to develop students’ communication andnegotiation abilities so as to foster active leaders who will address global
challenges?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Point 5-մ is satisfied
ƑPoint 5-մ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 5-մ requires partial improvementƑPoint 5-մ requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

3.86

70

Point 5-յ

Are appropriate syllabuses being prepared and utilized in line with the purposeof the curriculum’s organization?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Point 5-յ is satisfied
ƑPoint 5-յ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 5-յ requires partial improvementƑPoint 5-յ requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Point 5-նIs consideration systematically given to students undertaking independent study
as well as students taking subjects related to fields outside their field ofspecialization?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Point 5-ն is satisfied
ƑPoint 5-ն is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 5-ն requires partial improvementƑPoint 5-ն requires major improvement
Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

3

4

4

4

4

4

3.86

71

Point 5-շ

When conducting classes for mature-aged students etc., in remote locations, have
implementation methods been prepared for teaching lessons using printed
materials, etc. (including correcting students’ work, etc.), broadcast lessons,interview lessons (including screenings, etc.), or lessons using media, and areappropriate guidance and supervision provided?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Point 5-շ is satisfied
ƑPoint 5-շ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 5-շ requires partial improvementƑPoint 5-շ requires major improvement
Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

3.86

Criterion 5

Contents and Means of Education
Overall Evaluation[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Criterion 5 is satisfied
Ƒ Criterion 5 is mostly satisfiedƑCriterion 5 requires partial improvementƑCriterion 5 requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

3

4

4

4

4

3

4

3.71

72

[Comments]
Member A:
The program can be highly commended for having implemented improvement measures foreach of the many issues that were brought up at the previous evaluation.
After submitting the Radiation Disaster Recovery Studies Report, are they requiring that thecontents of the report be submitted as a paper in an academic journal that undergoes peer review?
Since I don’t believe that there are any academic journals specializing in the field of Radiation
Disaster Recovery Studies, I think it would be fine if the paper were submitted to an academic
journal in a related field. I mention this because I believe many of the universities require that thedoctoral thesis be submitted to an academic journal that has peer review.
Since I cannot tell how many students are participating in remote classes, I cannot comment on
what kinds of equipment are necessary.
Member B:
The educational contents are being enhanced every year, but there is probably a need to consider
creating an educational environment that, in some areas, do not specialize too much in the field ofexpertise, so that the students are encouraged to study voluntarily, which is a necessary aspect innurturing leaders within society.
Member C‫( ۑ‬Regarding issues 10 and 11)
I believe there is room for improvement to be made in the organizations accepting internships,
and in the contents of the internship programs, in order to further improve the benefits of theinternships. I believe that with internships, students experience how the company and otherorganizations contribute to society through the products and services that they provide, regardlessof the type of industry or job, and the students receive the educational benefit of being able tovisualize how they would be able to contribute to society through their area of expertise after
graduation. In this program, the objective is to nurture leaders who promote radiation disasterrecovery efforts; thus, I believe it would be even more beneficial if students were able to becomeaware of for whom their work is being performed through their educational experiences gained
outside of the university. I also think that more practical internships that would lead to enhancing
the career of the student (on site of disaster recovery, government offices responsible for disasterprevention, etc.) must also be implemented.
‫( ۑ‬Regarding issue 3)
I think it is highly meaningful that an opportunity to inspire a sense of responsibility wasprovided to the students through the seminar that takes a renewed look at the relationship between
science and society/politics. I look forward to the promotion of education that gives students avision of how global leaders should ideally be, in addition to the relationships with religions.
‫( ۑ‬Regarding issue 7)73

With regards to the public announcement of research results, while making such announcementson the website is an effective means because it enables such information to be disseminatedthroughout the world and would also serve as a reason for having exchanges with researchers inother countries, I believe it is also necessary to create opportunities to make presentations to thegeneral public using language that can be understood by everyone. When we are at the site of adisaster, there are many cases where the use of technical terms only leads to further confusion, so
I believe it is necessary that students receive training on enabling the other person to understandthrough the use of easy-to-understand language.
Member F
More development on the skills to engage dialogue with local inhabitants affected by the
Fukushima accident would be quite valuable. In addition, further considerations on thedevelopment already performed since the Chernobyl accident would allow to put their work in an
historical perspective and to point out the need for further researches and supports induced by the
Fukushima accident.
Member G•This external reviewer is very appreciative that corrective measures in response of my previous
concerns/ issues have been incorporated into the revised overall program.
•Through my interaction and meeting with several Phoenix students, I believe that the students
have excellent communication skill.
•As I stated in my beginning overall assessment, while social program such as ecology andreligions have been recommended by some panel members, in the humble opinion of thisreviewer, these subjects are only secondary to a first rate training in radiological sciences.
•In my meeting with the students, a concern was raised that Journal Club, which serves as aforum to sharpen student's assessment on a subject of interest through reading and discussion of apublished article, was not well supported by faculty, as there was usually no faculty attending who
could serve as a modulator or a referee.

74Criterion 6: Outcomes of Education
Point 6-ձDoes the Program have an appropriate system to evaluate students’ achievementlevels in terms of their academic performances and credentials, as well as theirprogress towards the goal of developing abilities required for Phoenix Leaders?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Point 6-ձ is satisfied
Ƒ Point 6-ձ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 6-ձ requires partial improvementƑPoint 6-ձ requires major improvement
Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Point 6-ղJudging by the results of questionnaires and other hearings of students’ opinions,are educational results and/or effectiveness improving?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Point 6-ղ is satisfied
ƑPoint 6-ղ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 6-ղ requires partial improvementƑPoint 6-ղ requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

3.86

75

Criterion 6

Outcomes of Education
Overall Evaluation[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Criterion 6 is satisfiedƑCriterion 6 is mostly satisfiedƑCriterion 6 requires partial improvementƑCriterion 6 requires major improvement
Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

[Comments]
Member A:
It is highly commendable that the program is producing improved results, such as succeeding
for three consecutive years in having applicants from outside of the university participate in the
short-term fieldwork, and in seeing changes to the contents being discussed at meetings between
instructors and students with the passage of the years.
Member E
One of the desirable outcomes of any educational program is the practical aspect of obtaining agood job -and the job market for the Phoenix students should be good in both industry andgovernment. But, some graduating students are having problems; and I think it should be a
responsibility of all the faculty and the external advisory members to be as much help as they canto the students by providing contacts and references. These students are very speciallyeducated/trained and needed by all countries; and they deserve any help possible to obtainsustainable incomes and opportunity.

76

Criterion 7: Student Support Systems
Point 7-ձDoes the Program offer an ideal environment where excellent students caninspire and compete with each other?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Point 7-ձ is satisfied
ƑPoint 7-ձ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 7-ձ requires partial improvementƑPoint 7-ձ requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Point 7-ղDoes the Program offer financial support to students to enable them toconcentrate their efforts and time on studies and research activities?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Point 7-ղ is satisfied
ƑPoint 7-ղ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 7-ղ requires partial improvementƑPoint 7-ղ requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

77

Point 7-ճ

Does the Program support students in preparing and carrying out theirautonomous and original research plans?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Point 7-ճ is satisfied
ƑPoint 7-ճ is mostly satisfied
ƑPoint 7-ճ requires partial improvementƑPoint 7-ճ requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

3

4

4

4

3

4

3.71

Criterion 7

Student Support Systems
Overall evaluation[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Criterion 7 is satisfiedƑCriterion 7 is mostly satisfiedƑCriterion 7 requires partial improvementƑCriterion 7 requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

78

[Comments]
Member A:
The program has a good educational environment, such as hosting daily general reviews anddebates during short-term fieldwork, retreats, and interactive seminars. Their short-term fieldwork
and international symposiums attract participation by students from both in and outside of thecountry, for which the program can be highly commended.
It would be good if we could find out the details of the interactive seminars.
Member B:
As we become able to see the overall research trend with the passage of each academic year,
there is always the issue of seeing, on the other hand, a decline in the originality of the research.
Thus, in the future, consideration needs to be given toward developing originality.
Member E
The poster and verbal presentations at this years’ symposium were all excellent ; and, thosestudents who won special recognition had obviously carried out remarkably advanced andimportant research which will be accepted by peer reviewed journals. This is clear evidence of theexcellent laboratory facilities and the excellent guidance provided them in their research projects!
Member F
Due to the difficulty for students as well as for RP experts to address transdisciplinary approach,it would be useful to reinforce the capacity of students to handle their research work in such aperspective. For this purpose, further considerations on their exchange with senior experts andstakeholders engaged in this pluralistic approach could be useful and develop the autonomy of thestudents in the future.
Member G
The Phoenix program provides superb student support, both financially and programmaticallywhen compared to most other graduate training programs in developed countries.

79

Criterion 8: Facilities and Equipment
Point 8Does the University have facilities and equipment sufficient for educational andresearch activities of the Program, and suitable for providing the curriculums?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Criterion 8 is satisfiedƑCriterion 8 is mostly satisfiedƑCriterion 8 requires partial improvementƑCriterion 8 requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

[Comments]
Member G:
The Phoenix program at Hiroshima University has excellent research facilities and equipment
available to the students.

80

Criterion 9: System for Quality Enhancement and Improvement of
Education
Point 9Does the Program have an appropriate system to evaluate its implementation
processes?

[Evaluation Result] Please place a checkmark in the box next to the most appropriate evaluation.
‫ ܇‬Criterion 9 is satisfiedƑCriterion 9 is mostly satisfiedƑCriterion 9 requires partial improvementƑCriterion 9 requires major improvement

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average

Score

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

[Comments]
Member C:
With regards to students’ evaluations (opinions, wishes, etc.) regarding the overall program,please consider including it in the reference materials for the self-study report.
Member G:•The Phoenix program is unique in its educational missions, that of training the next generationof radiological scientists who are proficient in communication skill and with an understanding andmeans to deal with public emotion during a radiological event.
•Overall system for quality enhancement and educational improvements are in place and isfunctioning well.

81ϪOverview* To protect personal information and ensure fair evaluation, each external evaluation committee
member is indicated anonymously by assignment of a letter of the alphabet.
1. Notably exceptional aspects are as follows.
Member A:
The entrance exams for students are conducted in a very careful and attentive manner. The
program also accepts outstanding foreign students, as well as applicants who have medical
licenses and dental qualifications, and deserve high appraisal for the positive results that the
program has demonstrated.
As for the educational contents of the program, they can be commended for having
implemented measures to improve each of the many issues that had been pointed out at theprevious evaluation that was made by an outside evaluator.
The program has a good educational environment, such as hosting daily general reviews anddebates during short-term fieldwork, retreats, and interactive seminars. Their short-term
fieldworks and international symposiums attract participation by students from both in and outsideof the country, for which the program can be highly commended.
Member B:
The program has implemented unique educational methods to enhance studies designed toencourage problem-solving abilities, and have steadily improved the quality of their education,
for the purpose of nurturing global leaders. There is also a well-established structure for the
management and operation of the entire program, and offers a graduate school education that canbe highly rated at an international level.
Member C:
Diverse disciplinary fields have been integrated across various faculties for the Radiation
Disaster Recovery Studies. Also, an educational program has been established that serves theobjective of nurturing human resources that can contribute toward disaster recovery, centered on
the area of specialty of each student. The program also offers broad financial assistance programsfor students, and a well-developed study environment/facilities, thus steadily advancing theirobjective of “nurturing students who can exercise leadership at a global level.”
Member D:
The Phoenix program, supported by its leadership, has gone through an excellent transformation
over the years to a much stronger program and significant improvements have occurred. The
program is well on its way to achieving an ever greater reputation. The holistic approach to theissues and the overlap in knowledge and exposure yields well rounded students. Observation of
the students when they first enter the program versus when they are near the end shows thetransformation of students to independent, analytical, knowledgeable , confident experts who82

understand the true dimensions of what they are dealing with.
Member E:
The uniqueness of this program is what makes it exceptional -i.e. , there is no comparable PhD
program which educates and trains students to manage the many aspects involved in masscasualty disasters, including technical , organizational , communications(including risk
communication) ,politics and psycho-social factors.
Member F:
Due to the specific situation for the renewal of the agreement for the Phoenix programme, itwould be quite valuable to establish or reinforce the commitments with internationalorganisations in the perspective of providing input on preparedness for emergency and recovery
situation. Those commitments could increase the utility of the Phoenix programme worldwide
and call for support for the future.
Member G:•The program management team of the Phoenix Leader Education program is exceedingly
responsive to the concerns/ suggestions made by the members of the External Evaluation
Committee.
•Well defined corrective approaches are introduced to augment existing programs in response toreviewers' comment.
•The Phoenix Leader Education program continues to perform well and recent graduates of the
program have entered into the dedicated career field and is an endorsement of excellent training
outcome of the program.
•In anticipation of the conclusion of funding support of the Phoenix program from the Japan
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), the program leadershiphas created a new partnership as the Program for Institutional, Inter-sectional Collaboration on
innovative Doctoral Education, iCODE, a provisional title, as a new mechanism to continue themission of Phoenix program in the next funding cycle.

83

2. Aspects requiring improvement are as follows.
Member A:
After submitting the Radiation Disaster Recovery Studies Report, are they requiring that thecontents of the report be prepared as a paper and submitted to an academic journal that undergoes
peer review? Since I don’t believe that there are any academic journals specializing in the field ofRadiation Disaster Recovery Studies, I think it would be fine if the paper were submitted to an
academic journal in a related field. I mention this because I believe many of the universities
require that the doctoral thesis be submitted to an academic journal that has peer review.
Member B:
Since there are ample educational efforts being provided to enhance the quality of the students
as a leader, in the future, the program needs to give consideration toward further enhancing thelevel of the research conducted by each individual.
Member C:
In order to further enhance the benefits of internships, there is room for improvement to bemade by the organization accepting the interns, and in the contents of the internships. It ismeaningful to work on different issues at diverse internship sites, but it is necessary for students tohave an understanding of the objectives of the internship, such as on what they need to learn
during their internship, and be clear about the significance of studying outside of the university.
Activities implemented at usual fieldwork generally tend to consist of looking at the actual
recovery site from its perimeters. However, through internship at local governments and otherorganizations that are involved in disaster recovery, students are able to experience the actual stateof recovery from the inside as one of the persons involved in actual efforts. The experience gained
at a department responsible for disaster prevention, where they develop evacuation methods andother measures when a disaster occurs, may also be effective in enhancing one’s career. It is also
believed to be meaningful to work at nuclear power plants and other such sites to study thedevelopment of frameworks to prevent disasters from happening, and to learn about theimportance of daily inspections as well as maintenance and management operations.
Member D:
1. Collate a list of target institutions for employment of graduates and collate requirements forjobs by institution after seeking feedback from these institutions. This includes listing ofadditional licensing or certification needs eg industry symposium participant suggested 2
categories of certification for surveyors.
2. Improve internship benefit to the students by planning in advance to ensure the presence of
the interns at a time consistent with major training/ conferences and projects at the institution
where they will intern.
Member E:
The program has improved remarkably over the past few years such that there are now no major
deficiencies; but there is always a need for some additional education; and wherever the
curriculum permits or leads to legal issues, I suggest including discussions and seminars on
international law and domestic Japanese law.

84

I also think the students would benefit significantly, if they were allowed to attend/observe alarge national or international nuclear power plant exercise.
Member F:
One of the key features of the Phoenix programme relies on its transdisciplinarity approach.
Although the workshop with the presentations of all students provides a key opportunity forexchanging and learning on the different facets of the programme, it seems that most of theresearches developed by the students are still mainly focused on one single discipline.
Furthermore, the professors in charge of following the students do not have necessary in mind thetransdisciplinary approach. This could be further improved in the future.
Member G㸸
•At a time of competing resource for research in many parts of the world, there is a lack of
discussion of what would be a back-up plan should the iCODE program not selected for
immediate funding by MEXT. What is the contingency plan for support of students already in the
program.
•While social sciences such as ecology and religion are useful, the program must make sure thatour graduates are proficient in radiological sciences, upfront and foremost, as they will be thefront-line scientists in time of any radiological events. People expect them to know radiation
biology and radiation physics in order to disseminate accurate information at a time of need in a
professional manner.

85

3. Other aspects for which future improvement is desirable are as follows.
Member B㸸
In formulating the future career of the student, it would be better if there were more measuresthat give specific assistance, based on the assumption of diverse possibilities.
Member C㸸
In order for graduates of this program to become active at a global level and be able to makegreat contributions to society, it is necessary for the value of the academic degree of this program
to gain international recognition. In order to achieve this, we need continuity even after the end ofassistance from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and toestablish a structure to give continuous support to graduates of this program (career options,provision of information, etc.).
Member D㸸
a. Determine profile for the different tracks and consider validated vocational/ personality
assessment test (SHL) for Entrance evaluation.
b. Review the need for an international certification of this or other programs? Consider where
the graduates would fall in the ILO listing?
c. Determine financial targets and sources for funding of the program for the future: companies,
grants etc.
Member E㸸
Please see suggestions in the above question (2).
Member F㸸
It is important to continue the development of fieldwork and connection with the life of
inhabitants affected by Fukushima accident. This is clearly an added value for the students todevelop their skills for engaging dialogue with local inhabitants and to have a better view of thehuman dimensions of the post-accident management. In this perspective, further considerations
could be devoted to the development of radiological protection culture.
It would also be useful to reinforce the inclusion of Chernobyl and Post-accident frameworks
developed in the world. Notably when the students start their researches it could be useful tomention the state of the art and to emphasize the main new development in comparison to what
has be done after Chernobyl.

86ϫ. Summary sheet of evaluation points
The Evaluation points and average points of each member (anonymous) are shown in the list.
The average overall score for all of the items increased from last year’s score of 3.80 to 3.88 this year.
All evaluation scores for each criterion earned a total of 3.7 points or higher.
However, the score of Point 2-ղ (Criterion 2) was 3.43, which was lower than the average score.

Criterion 2
Criterion 3
Criterion 4
Criterion 5
Criterion 6
Criterion 7

Member

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Average/Criterion

Criterion 1

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4.00

Point ձ

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

3.86

Point ղ

4

4

3

3

4

3

3

3.43

Overallevaluation

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

3.86

Point ձ

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

3.86

Point ղ

4

4

4

4

4

2

4

3.71

Overallevaluation

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4.00

Point ձ

4

4

4

3

3

4

4

3.71

Point ղ

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

3.86

Point ճ

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

3.86

Overallevaluation

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

3.86

Point ձ

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4.00

Point ղ

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

3.86

Point ճ

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4.00

Point մ

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

3.86

Point յ

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4.00

Point ն

4

3

4

4

4

4

4

3.86

Point շ

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

3.86

Overallevaluation

3

4

4

4

4

3

4

3.71

Point ձ

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4.00

Point ղ

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

3.86

Overallevaluation

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4.00

Point ձ

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4.00

Point ղ

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4.00

Point ճ

4

3

4

4

4

3

4

3.71

Overallevaluation

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4.00

Criterion 8㻌

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4.00

Criterion 9㻌

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4.00

Average/Member

3.86

3.93

3.96

3.82

3.82

3.82

3.96

3.88

87

Ϭ. Issues Pointed out by the External Evaluation
Committee
On the four point evaluation scale, the average overall score for all of the items increased from last year’sscore of 3.80 to 3.88 this year. All evaluation scores for each criterion earned a total of 3.7 points or higher.
In fact, for each discreet Point the majority of the evaluation scores were 3.7 or higher,. These consistently
high scores indicate clearly that the completeness of the program was very strongly evaluated. Moreover, thisyear’s score for Point 5-ձ (Criterion 5) increased significantly from last year’s score of 3.38 to 4.0 as a result of
implementing multiple corrective measures.
However, the score of Point 2-ղ (Criterion 2) which was about the continuation of the program was 3.43,
which was lower than the average score. Therefore, on this specific point issues need to be clarified and remedial
measures need to be taken in order to address the comments made by the External Evaluation Committee
members.
The following section summarizes the comments and issues on these Points and offers an Overview Evaluation.

1. Issues related to “Point2- ղ : Does the Program have guidance andstudent-support systems appropriate for achieving its purpose?”, “Criterion 2:
Implementation Structure”[Evaluation Results]
The average score for Point2-ղ increased to 3.43 from last year’s 3.25.

It was highly evaluated that the

program has signed memorandum of understandings (MOU) with institutes and universities and also set up acollaboration base for new financial arrangements On the other hand, concerns were raised that alternative plans
were unclear in the case of ongoing funding not being approved according to the proposed plan.
[Issues]
The issues are shown below ձ - մ.
ձ To improve the international recognition of the value of an academic degree from this program.ղ To organize a long term support structure (career path, place for exchanging information) for graduates.
ճ To encourage the acquisition of licenses, certifications, etc., that are issued and recognized by publicorganizations both inside and outside of the country. These qualifications would be of help to students inselecting a career path after their graduation.
մ A contingency plan should be in place in case the funding for the new program is not immediately
approved.

88

2. Issues Related to “Point5-ձ: Does the Program have systematic curriculums
appropriate to fulfill its goal and suitable for granting academic degrees? Are
subjects to be taught well arranged in line with the purpose of the Program?”,“Criterion 5: Contents and Means of Education”[Evaluation Results]
The average score for Point5-ձ increased to 4.0 from last year’s score of 3.38. It was evaluated highly thatthe program has implemented multiple positive actions for each of the issues raised at last year’s external
evaluation.

On the other hand, there is still room for improvement according to the advice that was made by

the External Evaluation Committee members.
[Issues]
The issues are shown below ձ - մ.
ձ To provide students the opportunities to clearly understand for whom their work is being performed.
This awareness is to be gained through educational experiences outside of the university that are basedon one of the program’s stated purposes: To nurture leaders who promote radiation disaster recovery
efforts. With internships students experience how companies and other organizations contribute tosociety through their products and services, regardless of the type of industry. Furthermore, students
receive the educational benefit of being able to visualize a possible manner in which they can contributeto society through their area of expertise following graduation.
ղ To adopt more practical internship opportunities that will enhance the career options of the students (onsite for disaster recovery, government offices responsible for disaster prevention, etc.).
ճ To create opportunities for students to make presentations about their research results to the generalpublic using language that can be understood by everyone.
մ To improve students’ ability to engage in dialogue with the local inhabitants affected by the Fukushima
accident.

3. Issues Related to the Findings in the Overview Evaluation[Evaluation Results]
The issues listed are based on “aspects requiring improvement” for the Overview Evaluation.
[Issues]
Overview 1:
To collate a list of target institutions that may offer positive opportunities for employment for program
graduates. Once this list is compiled, identify the requirements for jobs at these institutions and make thisavailable for current students. This would include a list of additional license or qualification requirements.

89

Overview 2:
To improve internship benefits for the students by coordinating in advance their participation at a time thatcoincides with any major training, conference and/or projects occurring at the institution where they will beinterning.
Overview 3:
To plan discussions and seminars on both international and domestic law.
Overview 4:
The students should attend/observe a large national or international nuclear power plant exercise.
Overview 5:
To promote research with a transdisciplinary approach.

90

Conclusion
Having reached the final year as a Program for Leading Graduate Schools as accepted by
MEXT, we recognize that the evaluation by the external evaluation committee indicated that ourprogram has achieved our original aim. The only remaining concern raised by the committee
members is the continuity of our program and how to maintain our current educational system
structure following the next fiscal year. Despite this it is very encouraging to have proposals thatlook beyond the conventional plan for future development of the Phoenix Program that includes
internship methods and international project planning. In order to effectively respond to
expectations, we are eager to further develop our program not only to simply continue, but tobecome a hub of world safety and security here at Hiroshima University. Therefore, the contents ofthis report will be shared with all program members and decision-makers with the goal of making
lasting and far-sighted improvements.

Masao Kobayashi
Professor of Graduate School of Biomedical & Health Sciences
Program Director of Phoenix Leader Education Program (Hiroshima Initiative)
for Renaissance from Radiation Disaster, Hiroshima University Graduate Schools

91

䛆/ŶƋƵŝƌŝĞƐ䛇dŚĞKƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ>ĞĂĚŝŶŐ'ƌĂĚƵĂƚĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶWƌŽŐƌĂŵ͕,ŝƌŽƐŚŝŵĂhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ
ŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝŽŶKĨĨŝĐĞŽĨĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůKĨĨŝĐĞ
ϭͲϭͲϭ<ĂŐĂŵŝǇĂŵĂ͕,ŝŐĂƐŚŝͲ,ŝƌŽƐŚŝŵĂ͕ϳϯϵͲϴϱϮϰd>䠖ϬϴϮͲϰϮϰͲϰϲϴϵ䞉ϰϲϯϴͲDĂŝů䠖ƉŚŽĞŶŝǆͲƉƌŽŐƌĂŵΛŽĨĨŝĐĞ͘ŚŝƌŽƐŚŝŵĂͲƵ͘ĂĐ͘ũƉ
hZ>䠖ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬƉŚŽĞŶŝǆƉƌŽŐƌĂŵůƉ͘ŚŝƌŽƐŚŝŵĂͲƵ͘ĂĐ͘ũƉͬĞŶͬ