Japan-Nordic Symposium

On the Frontier of University Evaluation-Making the Most of Nordic SuccessesReport
Thursday 28 September 2006 9:30 am - 5:00 pm
United Nations University Tokyo
Organised by
National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE)
Supported by
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)
The Asahi Shimbun
Embassy of Denmark
Embassy of Finland
Embassy of Iceland
The Royal Norwegian Embassy
Embassy of Sweden

Contents
Programme ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 3
Curriculum Vitae････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 5
Welcome Addresses ････････････････････････････････････････････････ 13
Keynote Speech “How university evaluations are being innovated in Europe” ･････ 21
Nordic Success ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････ 37
Panel Discussion(1) “Impact of university evaluation on educational quality” ･････ 61
Panel Discussion(2) “Contributions of university evaluation to society” ･････････ 97
Summary and Closing Address ･･･････････････････････････････････････ 131
Distributed Materials [Slides: English] ･････････････････････････････････ 137

National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE)

1

2

Japan-Nordic Symposium
On the Frontier of University Evaluation -Making the Most of Nordic SuccessesThursday 28 September 2006
U Thant International Conference Hall, United Nations University

Programme〔Host：Toshio Kato

9:30 - 10:00

Executive Director, Secretariat for University Evaluation, NIAD-UE〕

Welcome Addresses
Tsutomu Kimura
President, NIAD-UE
Thordur Aegir Oskarsson Ambassador of Iceland

10:00 - 10:40

10:40 - 11:40

11:40 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:50

Keynote Speech
How university evaluations are being innovated in Europe
Christian Thune
Nordic Success

Executive Director, EVA, Denmark

Ossi Tuomi
Solrun Jensdottir

Secretary General, FINHEEC, Finland
Director, Department of Education, Ministry of Education, Science

Tove Blytt Holmen

and Culture, Iceland
Deputy Director General, NOKUT, Norway

Staffan Wahlen

Senior Advisor, National Agency for Higher Education, Sweden

Lunch
Panel Discussion (1)Impact of university evaluation on educational quality〔Panelists〕
Tisato Kajiyama

President, Kyushu University
Vice-President, The Japan Association of National Universities

Norikazu Kudo
Junko Kawamura

Vice-President, Keio University
Executive Director, Institute of National Colleges of Technology

Christian Thune
Ossi Tuomi

Executive Director, EVA, Denmark
Secretary General, FINHEEC, Finland

Tove Blytt Holmen
Deputy Director General, NOKUT, Norway〔Moderator：Seiji Kimura Dean, Faculty of University Evaluation and Research, NIAD-UE〕
14:50 - 15:00
15:00 - 16:50

Tea BreakPanel Discussion (2)Contributions of university evaluation to society〔Panelists〕

Tateo Shimizu

Editorial Writer, The Asahi Shimbun

Roger K. Abrahamsen
Fumio Isoda

Professor of UMB, Chair of NOKUT’s Board, Norway
Deputy Director-General, Higher Education Bureau,

Staffan Wahlen

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)
Senior Advisor, National Agency for Higher Education, Sweden

Solrun Jensdottir

Director, Department of Education, Ministry of Education, Science
and Culture, Iceland〔Moderator：Akihiko Kawaguchi Vice-President, NIAD-UE〕
16:50 - 17:00

Summary and Closing Address

17:30 - 19:00

Akihiko Kawaguchi
Vice-President, NIAD-UE
Reception （Venue：Reception Hall (2F), United Nations University）
National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE)3

4

Curriculum Vitae
Tsutomu Kimura

President, NIAD-UE

EDUCATION:
B.Eng.

University of Tokyo (Faculty of Engineering)

M.Eng. University of Tokyo
PhD.

Tokyo Institute of Technology

PROFILE:
1998-

President, NIAD-UE

1998-

Honorary Professor, Tokyo Institute of Technology

1997-1998

Professor, Tokyo Institute of Technology

1993-1997

President, Tokyo Institute of Technology

1982-1993

Professor, Tokyo Institute of Technology

Thordur Aegir Oskarsson

Ambassador of Iceland to JapanEDUCATION:
B.A.

University of Iceland (Political Science)

M.A.

University of Wisconsin – Madison (International Affairs)

Ph.D.

University of Wisconsin – Madison

PROFILE:
2004-

Ambassador of Iceland to Japan

2002-2004

Ambassador of Iceland to Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ambassador of Iceland to Hungary
Ambassador of Iceland to Slovakia

2000-2004

Permanent Representative of Iceland to UNOVPermanent Representative of Iceland to the IAEA
Permanent Representative of Iceland to the CTBTO
Ambassador of Iceland to Austria

1999-2004

Permanent Representative of Iceland to the OSCE

5

Christian Thune

Executive Director, EVA, Denmark

EDUCATION:
Ph.D.

University of Copenhagen (History)

PROFILE:
1999-

Executive Director of the Danish Evaluation Institute (EVA)

2004-2005

Chair of the Nordic Quality Assurance Network in Higher Education (NOQA)

2000-2005

President of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher
Education (ENQA)

1997-1999

Board of the Directors, the International Network for Quality Assurance
Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE)

1989-1999

Danish government director of the new Centre for Quality Assurance andEvaluation of Education

Ossi Tuomi

Secretary General, FINHEEC, Finland

EDUCATION:
M.A.

University of Tampere (Administrative Sciences)

Ph.D

University of Oulu (geography)

PROFILE:
2004-

Secretary General to FINHEEC (Finish Higher Education Evaluation Council)

2000-2003

Member of the International Advisory Board of the Journal of Audit andContinuing Education

2000-2001

Member of the Steering Committee of the European University Continuing
Education Network (EUCEN)
Member of the Editorial Board of Lifelong in Europe (LLinE)

1984-1988

Director of the Chydenius Research Institute (Finland)

6

Sólrún Jensdóttir

Director of an enlarged Office of Education,
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Iceland

EDUCATION:
B.A.

University of Iceland (Icelandic and History)

M.Ph.

London School of Economics and Political Science (Modern European History)

PROFILE:
2003-

Director of an enlarged Office of Education, the Ministry of Education, Science
and Culture

1993-2003

Director of International Relations, the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture

1984-1993

Director of the Office of Education, the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture

1983-1984

Special assistant to the Icelandic Minister of Education, Science and Culture

1970-1983

Teacher at Upper Secondary Schools and lecturer at the University of Iceland,
the London School of Economics and Political Science and University College
London1960-1965, 1969
Journalist at the Daily Newspaper Morgunbladid

Tove Blytt Holmen

Deputy Director General,
Head of Accreditation Unit, NOKUT, Norway

EDUCATION:
Cand. Agric (equivalent to a Master of Science)
University of Life Science, Norway (UMB)(Dairy Technology)
PROFILE:
2002-

Deputy Director General, Head of Accreditation Unit, Norwegian Agency for
Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT)

1998-2002

Deputy Director General, Department of Quality Assurance andDevelopment, Network Norway Council (NNR)

1995-1998

Director of Studies and of continuing education, Agricultural University of
Norway (NLH)

1994-1995

Head of Division, the Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture

7

Staffan Wahlén

Senior Advisor, Swedish National Agency
for Higher Education, Sweden

EDUCATION:
M.A.

University of Stockholm (Linguistics)

PROFILE:
1995-

Senior Advisor of Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

1994-1995

Senior Advisor, Office of the University Chancellor, Sweden

1981-1994

Educational Consultant, Stockholm University (half-time) and Head of the
University’s Centre for Languages for Specific Purposes

Tisato Kajiyama

President, Kyushu University
Vice-President, The Japan Association of National Universities

EDUCATION:
B.Sc.

Kyushu University (Polymer Chemistry)

M.Sc.

Kyushu University (Polymer Chemistry)

Ph.D

University of Massachusetts (Polymer Physics)

D.Eng

Kyushu University (Polymer Chemistry)

PROFILE:
2001-

President of Kyushu University

2000-2001

Dean, Faculty of Engineering, Kyushu University

1984-2001

Professor of Kyushu University

8Norikazu Kudo

Vice-President, Keio University

EDUCATION:
B.A.

Keio University (Business and Commerce)

M.A.

Keio University (Business and Commerce)

Ph.D

Keio University (Business and Commerce)

PROFILE:
2001-

Vice-President of Keio University

1987-

Professor of Keio University

Junko Kawamura

Executive Director,
Institute of National Colleges of Technology

EDUCATION:
B.A.

University of Tokyo (Law)

PROFILE:
2006-

Executive Director, Institute of National Colleges of Technology

2005-2006

Deputy Director-General, Science and Technology Policy Bureau (MEXT)

2003-2005

Director of Policy Planning and Coordination Division (MEXT)

2002-2003

Director of Arts and Culture Division, Agency for Cultural Affairs (MEXT)

1999-2002

Director of Scientific Research Aid Division*1999-2001: Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture*2001-2002: MEXT

1987-1988

Director of Research Cooperation Division, Tokyo Institute of Technology

1979-

Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture

9Tateo Shimizu

Editorial Board, The Asahi Shimbun

EDUCATION:
B.A.

Kobe University (Business Administration)

PROFILE:
2004-

Editorial Board, The Asahi Shimbun
Visiting Researcher, Hiroshima University

1994-

Chief Editor of “University Ranking”

1971-

The Asahi Shimbun(Reporter, Publications Division, Editorial Division)

Roger K. Abrahamsen

Professor, Department of Chemistry,
Biotechnology and Food Science,
Norwegian University of Life Science, Norway

EDUCATION:
Degree of Dairy Engineer (equivalent to Master Degree):
Norwegian University of Life Science (Dairy Science and Technology)
D.Sc. (equivalent to Ph.D.):
Agricultural University of Norway (Dairy Technology)
PROFILE:
1992-

Professor in Dairy Technology, Department of Food Science, Agricultural
University of Norway

1996-2001

Rector of the Agricultural University of Norway

10

Fumio Isoda

Deputy Director-General, Higher Education Bureau,
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)EDUCATION:
B.A.

University of Tokyo (Law)

M. Politics, M.Ed. Stanford University (Politics, Education)
PROFILE:
2006-

Deputy Director-General, Higher Education Bureau (MEXT)

2004-2006

Executive Vice-President, Tsukuba University

2002-2004

Deputy Director-General, Budget and Accounts Division (MEXT)

2001-2002

Director, Policy Division, Science and Technology Policy Bureau (MEXT)

1999-2001

Director, Local Affairs Division, Local Education Support Bureau (Ministry of
Education, Science, Sports and Culture)

1997-1999

Director, Research Aid Division, Science and International Affair Bureau(Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture)

1995-1997

Director, Overseas Japanese Children Education Division, Local Education
Support Bureau (Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture)

1977

Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture

Akihiko Kawaguchi

Vice-President, NIAD-UE

EDUCATION:
B.Sc.

Okayama University (Faculty of Science: Chemistry)

M.Sc.

Kyoto University

PhD.

Kyoto University

PROFILE:2006-

Vice-President, NIAD-UE

2002-

Honorary Professor, Tokyo University

2002-2006

Dean, Faculty of University Evaluation and Research, NIAD-UE

2000-2006

Professor, Faculty of University Evaluation and Research, NIAD-UE

1989-2001

Professor, Tokyo University

11

12

Japan-Nordic Symposium

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

Welcome Addresses

Tsutomu Kimura

President, NIAD-UE

Thodur Aegil Oskarsson

Ambassador of Iceland〔Host: Toshio Kato

Director, Department of University Evaluation, NIAD-UE〕

13Kato: I would now like to begin the proceedings of the Japan-Nordic Symposium, “On
the Frontier of University Evaluation—Making the Most of Nordic Successes.”
My name is Kato, Director of the Department of University Evaluation at the National
Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation. I will serve as your MC for
today.
The schedule for today is outlined in the program that has been distributed with othermaterials for this Symposium. If you are missing any materials, please make yourself
known to any member of staff.
Among the materials in front of you is a questionnaire sheet. Feedback obtained
through this questionnaire will help us in planning future symposia. We would
appreciate your cooperation in completing your questionnaire sheet and returning it tostaff as you exit the venue upon completion of today’s proceedings. Alternatively, you
can place it in the box located at reception on the second floor.
Kato: First of all, I would like to invite the President of the National Institution for
Academic Degrees and University Evaluation, Tsutomu Kimura, to make some opening
remarks.
Kimura:It is a great pleasure and honor for me to have this opportunity to say a few

words at the beginning of this very memorable event, the Japan-Nordic Symposium, On
the Frontier of University Evaluation, subtitled as “Making the Most of Nordic
Successes.”
First of all, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Norwegian Ambassador
Åge Bernhard Grutle and Icelandic Ambassador Thordur Aegir Oskarsson and Danish
Ambassador Freddy Svane for their participation. Your presence certainly graces thisimportant event to a great extent.
I also would like to express my deep thanks to our distinguished guests from Nordic
countries—Professor of UMB, Chair of NOKUT’s Board, Norway, Dr. Abrahamsen;
Deputy Director General, NOKUT, Norway, Ms. Holmen; Director, Department of
Education, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Iceland, Dr. Jensdóttir;
Executive Director, EVA, Denmark, Dr. Thune; Secretary General, FINHEEC, Finland,

15Dr. Tuomi, and; Senior Advisor, National Agency for Higher Education, Sweden, Mr.
Wahlén—who have flown a long, long way to attend this symposium.
From the Japanese side we also have distinguished guests: Dr. Kajiyama, President,
Kyushu University; Mr. Isoda, Deputy Director-General, Higher Education Bureau,
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT); Prof. Kudo,
Vice-President, Keio University; Ms. Kawamura, Executive Director, Institute of
National Colleges of Technology, and; Mr. Shimizu, Editorial Writer, The Asahi

Shimbun. Now I would like to show my thanks for their participation.
To our knowledge, Nordic countries started higher education reform in the 1980s and in
the year 2000 the external evaluation system was established firmly. In order to learn
the outcome of this positive attitude, as many as 277 Japanese universities have signed
up some sort of cooperation agreement with universities in Nordic countries.
In an attempt to raise the quality and increase the international competitiveness ofhigher education in the region, Nordic countries founded a network called NOQA, which
stands for Nordic Quality Assurance Network in Higher Education, completely separate
from ENQA, which covers the whole European region. We are extremely impressed withthis effort and solidarity of Nordic countries. Our observation as a member of APQN,
Asia-Pacific Quality Network, is that there are so many things to learn fromexperiences in Nordic efforts. This is the reason why we thought we should organise thisparticular symposium in Tokyo at this time. I really don’t know if our side has anything
to offer to the Nordic side, but my sincere hope is that the symposium will contribute to
the enhancement of the quality of higher education in both regions.
The symposium starts off with a keynote lecture by Dr. Christian Thune, Executive
Director, EVA in Denmark, followed by presentations from Nordic countries by
distinguished speakers in each country. Then we will have two panel discussion
sessions. For these two panel discussion sessions we welcome active input from theaudience.
Finally, I express my sincere appreciation to the Japanese Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, The Asahi Shimbun, and Embassies of Nordic
countries in Tokyo which enable us to organize this wonderful symposium. Let meconclude my opening remark by praying for great success of this symposium. Thank you

16very much indeed for your attention.
Kato: Thank you very much.
Next, I would like to invite the Ambassador of Iceland to Japan, His Excellency Thordur
Aegir Oskarsson, to speak on behalf of the five Nordic countries. Ambassador Oskarsson,
the floor is yours.
Thordur Aegir Oskarsson: Prof. Kimura, President of the National Institution for
Academic Degrees and University Evaluation, representatives and colleagues from theNordic countries, representatives from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports and Technology, representatives from The Asahi Shimbun, distinguishedparticipants, it is both an honor and pleasure to address you on behalf of the Embassies
of Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Iceland on the occasion of this symposium
dealing with a very important topic for modern societies: quality assurances of higher
education.
The world community has in recent times been undergoing a globalization on a scale
never experienced before in the history of mankind. The process has manifested itself
mostly in industry and business. At the same time it has greatly influenced our societies
and social life in general. This has had a profound impact on education in particular as
one can argue that globalization is driven to a large extent by information business, ofwhich education, research and innovation are important components. That in turnproduces challenging demands on the educational system in order to sustain thisprogress.
Governments are now trying to meet increased competition on a global level by placing
the onus of policy on education to produce the human capital most relevant to the global
competition, which seems to have insatiable need for knowledge and information. Thisemphasis has highlighted and increased the importance of universities, as well as otherhigher education institution, as these are at the center of knowledge and innovation forsocieties´ most important sectors.
The rapid process of globalization shows no mercy to those that fall behind. Competitionin the future will be increasingly about the ability to innovate and produce
value-creating solutions that are difficult for others to copy. This will require the17establishment and perserverance of a strong and innovate culture and ability to use
one´s own core skills. So in order to be successful at the global level, you also have toenjoy the same success on the local level. It is here that the quality of the educational
system comes to play.
One of the major factors explaining the success of the Nordic countries in the modern
world is without doubt the level and quality of education that the citizens of these five
relatively small countries enjoy. The Nordic countries have developed social andeconomic systems that have created one of the most affluent regions in the world, where
the five countries constantly rank among the top ten in international comparisons inareas like welfare, competitiveness, technological level and creativity, to name a few
indicators.
The internationalization of the education system in the Nordic countries is not a newphenomena, since these countries have long and tested cooperation in the field of higher
education that has resulted in an extensive system of mutual recognition of conditionsof access and results at the university level. The cooperation in this context of Nordic
quality assurance had already started in 1992 when the relevant organizations began
exchanging views and experiences on developments in evaluation and quality
assurances in higher education.
As I indicated before, in the order to be able to meet the demands of the globalized world,
no one can rest on the laurels of past and present achievements. It is how you meet thechallenges of the future that counts. All of the Nordic countries have already or are in
the process of reviewing their legal framework for the level of higher education in order
to be better able to adjust to and meet the new international challenges and policies
facing education, while safeguarding quality.
The political leaders of the five Nordic countries are deeply aware of these newchallenges. And as to higher education, the Nordic ministers of education issued aspecial declaration on 9 June 2004 in Reykjavik, Iceland, where they emphasized theimportance of more intensive work for mutual recognition and assurances of quality ofthe education offered at the university level in the Nordic countries.
It is not only in the Nordic countries but in Europe in general that the focus on qualityof higher education has been moved to the forefront. A critical factor was the18establishment of the Bologna Process established in 1999, now including 45 European
states. Commitments under this process are not binding but the political aim is tocreate a pan-European educational system by 2010. This was underlined by theconclusion of the ministers of education of the Bologna member states at a meeting inBergen in Norway 2005.
It is our hope that this symposium will result in further cooperation and coordination
between the Nordic countries and Japan as to quality assurances and enhancement ofquality at the level of higher education. Although our embassies can never claim to haveany expertise in this field, the issue is important for our daily activities. There is astrong and growing interest for Japan in our countries and that is reflected in thenumber of inquiries that we get from students and also academic institutions looking
for cooperation partners. We have witnessed the same interest here in Japan for theNordic countries. In this context, it is therefore very important for the embassy staff tobe able to provide basic information in this regard, being assured that the propermechanisms for the evaluation of the educational quality are in place.
We therefore heartily welcome the initiative of the National Institution for Academic
Degrees and University Evaluation to hold this Japan-Nordic Symposium on university
evaluation and wish it every success. Thank you very much.

19

20

Japan-Nordic Symposium

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

Keynote Speech
How university evaluations are being innovated in Europe

Christian Thune

Executive Director, EVA, Denmark＊Slides〔English〕： P. 139～152

21

Kato: Now we would like to move on to the keynote address. The speaker is Dr.
Christian Thune, Executive Director, EVA. He is going to talk on the topic of “How
University Evaluations Are Being Innovated in Europe.”
I would like briefly to introduce Dr. Thune’s personal background. Dr. Thune completed
a doctoral course at University of Copenhagen, and his area of academic specialization
is history. He has held important positions in quality assurance and academic
evaluation in Denmark, and has also served as a member of the Board of INQAAHE,
the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education. In
addition, from 2000 through 2005, he served as the President of the European
Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, ENQA and played a leadingrole in European higher education, which has seen dramatic changes including theSorbonne Declaration and Bologna Process. He has also served as the Chair of theNordic Quality Assurance Network in Higher Education, NOQA. His current position as
Executive Director of EVA allows him to continue his leading contribution to issues ofquality assurance in higher education across Europe.
Dr. Thune, please.
(Slide1)
Christian Thune: Thank you for the presentation, and Mr. President, ambassadors,
representatives of the ministries, universities and other stakeholders, I am of course
honored to have been invited to speak at this highly-relevant occasion of the symposiumon Nordic-Japanese experiences in evaluation of universities.
(Slide2)
I have been asked to cover in my presentation developments and innovations at theEuropean, Nordic and Danish level, which certainly makes for a very comprehensive
effort on my part, and part of the journey I will be taking you through during the next
half an hour or so will be, more than anything, a helicopter tour a certain distance above
the many highly interesting details at the ground level. But I hope I will be able toprovide you with an idea of where the relevant developments and innovations aretaking place these years.
So I’ll start out by presenting the European and go on to the Nordic in the formal shapeof NOQA and end up with a few words on my own national’s quality assurance system
in Denmark.

23

(Slide3)
As it is, and that will be the conclusion I’ll be moving you forward through in terms ofwhat have been the developments in Europe, is that they have to a remarkable degree
been successful, but as we all started out in ’92, we weren’t that many in ’92, actually,
the British, the French, the Dutch and the Danes were first in place. I’m the only
survivor from ’92; there is an attrition rate in my business which is impressive. But as
we began already at that time to discuss frameworks for cooperation, exchange of bestpractices, there were distinct positive indicators for the future of European cooperation.
We were as a rule all government initiated and owned. Actually I know of not one single
European case where the universities were the initiators of external quality assurance;
it was a government process. But we were independents as agencies in terms of our
choice of methods and processes. We all applied the four-stage model, as we called it,
based on independent agencies, self-evaluations on the part of the higher education
institutions, site visits by experts, and finally, a public report. And that was more thananything what kept us together, this shared approach, in terms of basic methodology.
We also were all in the process of setting up regular, systematic cyclical review
activities in our national systems. We were positive towards the idea of getting the mostout of sharing best practices with our European colleagues. We had very strong back-up
from the European Commission, not least in terms of funding of traveling andconferences, much the same function which the World Bank has taken upon itself in
relation to the Asia-Pacific Quality Network. And this is important because one of the
major developments was that is the mid-nineties we had the European pilot projects
covering all the European Union countries, introducing the basic strategies andmethodologies also in those countries where national systems were not yet in place.
(Slide4)
There were also negative indicators. National approaches were still fragmented,
basically because in Western Europe we were improvement oriented, basically applying
evaluation strategies, whereas Central and Eastern Europe, after the democratization
process, oriented themselves towards more accountability accreditation processes.
There was what I call a considerable variance in professional capacity-building, andbehind that is that some of the agencies, especially in Western Europe, from the start
became sufficiently professional in terms of having the staff necessary to develop thecredibility and consistency of processes, whereas others, especially in Central andEastern Europe, did not possess from the start that professional capacity.

24

We had language and terminology problems. No wonder. Even basic terms such as“evaluation” had their various associations in the different countries.
And, not to forget, basically, we all had to face in the early nineties a general skepticism
and mistrust from universities towards these new strange ideas of external quality
assurance.
(Slide5)
But as we move ten years forward to 2002, we had national agencies in place in almost
every European country. My agency did a survey for ENQA and could identify at thattime that there were five top approaches in terms of methodologies. Accreditation ofprograms, somewhat to our surprise, was the winner, but that was because the Central
and Eastern European agencies all adapted accreditation methodologies. So evaluationof programs came in as a strong second, which was at that time basically the Western
European and Northwestern European especially approach. And audit of institutions
were beginning to come in strongly. I’ll return in a while to the concept of audit and let
further definition be for the moment.
(Slide6)
Then we had two formal processes which became extremely important in achieving theresults we have today in 2006. One was the Bologna Process, already mentioned by the
Finnish ambassador. This became an extremely important catalyst for European
developments. It started out with another governmental meeting in Bologna in ’99. And
I can give you the little anecdote that I was invited by the Danish government to go
along because there was something about quality assurance on the agenda, but I calledback and said, “Okay, just another governmental conference; you’ve seen one, you’veseen them all.” So I actually didn’t go to Bologna. That was a major misjudgment on mypart certainly, because what started in Bologna was very ambitious but became
eventually a process with fundamental implications for the participating European
countries, of which there is, I thought it was 44, but I trust the Finnish ambassador;
there are now 45.
The important themes in terms of what we are discussing here today was that from ’99
there was a distinct argument that what we needed was transparency, compatibility,
comparability and flexibility of European higher education, serving both the needs ofstakeholders, students, employers, whoever, in being able to discern what is credible
quality and to make European higher education fully adapted to the challenges of the25

globalization of higher education.
As the process moved on there became obvious and increasing focus on quality
assurance of higher education as a key issue, and along with that the key stakeholders,
university students, teachers, employers and society in general, also became fairly
acutely aware of the challenges of having a closer look on the setup of quality assurance
in the participating countries.
(Slide7)
The other formal development was the establishment of ENQA, the European
Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, which was formally set up
in ’99, but based surely on the informal network in sharing of best practices that had
started already in the early nineties. But by that time it became obvious that there wasa need for formalization. Membership soon began to grow rather drastically. There aretoday 42 member agencies. I was honored by my European colleagues by being elected
as the first President of ENQA until I stepped down a year ago, and part of my task wasin a sense to move the corroboration from the basic and original objective of sharing anddisseminating knowledge and best practice of quality assurance towards taking uponourselves the increasingly important political role and implications of being aprominent participant in the Bologna Process, and along that, the European Union
political process as well.
(Slide8)
And what I’m telling you here became certainly very obvious when the ministers in the
Bologna Process, who meet every other year, when they met in Berlin in 2003 they
invited ENQA in cooperation with institutions of higher education and the student
associations, to develop an agreed set of standards and guidelines for the quality
assurance of higher education as one task, and the other task, to set up an adequate
review system for external quality assurance agencies. And this to you may seem simple
enough as a task. I can tell you that the little term “agreed” made the next two years
rather heavy in terms of added workload for me and my colleagues in the ENQA board
because we had, in less than two years, till the next ministerial meeting in Bergen, to
set up these standards and guidelines. But we did succeed and it’s still to be regarded asquite an achievement that when the ministers met in Norway in Bergen in May 2005,
ENQA could present the report on “Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance inthe European Higher Education Area.” It had already been endorsed by ENQA
members and the European partners, and our standards and guidelines were adopted
by the European ministers. This was a highly important occasion because the26

implication of course is that we now have standards and guidelines for which there is aneed for all the European participants in the process to ensure that their individual
national quality assurance systems comply with the highest degree possible.
(Slide9)
I’ll try to give you an idea of the implications and content of the European standards
because I’m sure that we can agree that this is, as I say, a fairly crucial state in thedevelopment of European quality assurance.
We have now agreed European standards for the internal quality assurance within thehigher education institutions and for the processes adopted by the agencies. Thesestandards will now become the common reference points for higher education
institutions and their agencies. We have a system where it is obligatory that quality
assurance agencies themselves are reviewed at least every five years, and we will now
develop a so-called European register of quality assurance agencies. I’ll return to theimplications of that in a moment.
But one important point before I proceed is surely that this is not the end of a process;this is very much the beginning of a process, and to that extent not necessarily a very
easy process.
(Slide10)
Now for a few details in terms of the standards. The standards for the higher education
part I’ll cover as well, as I’ve said, internal as well as external quality assurance, andthey are applicable to all higher education institutions in the Bologna signatory states,
which, by geographical implication, is a territory going from Ireland to somewhere
pretty close to the Ural Mountains in the former Soviet Republic.
The purpose is to improve the higher education available to students, highly important
to assist higher education institutions in managing and enhancing their own quality,
and to form a background for the work of the agencies.
A few words on the standards problem, and I give you only the headings. Behind theheadings is the elaborate text and the guidelines, and I’ll give you in my final overhead
the links which will make it possible for interested Japanese to go into the proper text of
the ENQA report.
(Slide11)
The standards for internal quality assurance, as I say, these are the standards which27

universities now should apply for their internal processes, and so they must have inplace, when agencies come up through a university for a review, the university must beable to identify that they have policy and procedures for quality assurance which areevident in what you could call a quality culture in a university, and on that basis thatthey do, as a university, approve, monitor and review their own programs and rewards.
They must identify the criteria for the assessment of students that are appliedconsistently at the university and are in the public domain. They must identify theprocedures through which the university makes sure that the teachers of the students
are themselves qualified and competent for the work that they are doing.
They must provide documentation that there are adequate and proportional resources
available for the teaching and learning and the report of students. That they have, andthis is one which will cost a lot of extra work in many European universities, they must
be able to identify the information systems through which they collect, analyze and use
information for managing their programs and rewards. I can tell in this close circle thatnot many European universities have at the moment that kind of information system inplace.
And finally, and not least important, they must testify that in terms of public
information

they

provideup-to-date,

impartial

andobjective

information

tostakeholders on the quality and content of the programs and awards.
(Slide12)
The standards for the external quality assurance, these then by implication are thestandards supposed to be applied by agencies as they conduct their reviews ofuniversities. Firstly, of course, external reviews must make sure that they do in fact
look into the extent and quality of the internal quality assurance mechanisms of theuniversity. They must develop adequate external quality assurance processes. The
criteria for decisions taken on quality by the agencies must be based on publishedcriteria that are applied consistently. The processes must be fit for the specific purposesof the quality assurance. And there must be reporting on the results of quality
assurance and reported in a form which is readily accessible for the public.
There must be follow-up procedures for the quality assurance results, which arepredetermined, and again, applied consistently. The reviews must be periodic or
systematic. And finally, agencies must on a regular basis provide more system-wide28

analysis where they make reports that provide summary results of the reviews they
have been doing within the higher education sector.
(Slide13)
As I told you, external quality agencies are themselves now supposed to be reviewed atleast every fifth year. And the background is that there is a growing number ofEuropean external quality assurance agencies and, at the same time, operators fromoutside Europe, especially American professional agencies, such as ABET in theengineering field or some of the regional U.S. accrediting commissions. So we have as atarget group those quality assurance agencies primarily that operate in one or more
Bologna signatory states, and the idea of course is to make visible the professionalism,
credibility and integrity of the agencies.
(Slide14)
The standards applied for the agencies are that a review must identify what quality
assurance procedures are in place at the agency, that the agency is formally recognized
by a competent public authority, that its activities are regular, that is has resources forthe quality assurance work which are adequate and proportional with the task both inhuman and financial terms. And this again may seem easy enough but I can tell youthat quite a number of the European agencies, especially in the former Soviet Republic,
have distinct problems with that specific standard.
There must be a clear and public statement of the mission of the agency. And we comeinto the independence issue which, in terms of the necessary credibility for agencies, isa very essential one. That definition of independence applies in the standards is apragmatic one, considering the fact that most agencies are government-funded; we haveto accept that as a fact of quality assurance life. But the independence must be
established in the sense that the processes and methodologies applied by the agencies istheir autonomous domain and that no third party is able to interfere with theconclusions and recommendations in reports.
The criteria and processes must be published and in principle discussed with the higher
education institutions before they are settled.
And finally, and not least important, quality assurance agencies must have their own
accountability procedures in place, implying that they must be prepared to undertake or
to undergo these external reviews, and external reviews which, by the implication ofwhat I’m telling you, primarily will focus on the compatibility of the agencies with the29European standards. But agencies are also supposed now to have mechanisms thatprovide consistent and regular feedback from the universities and their experience ofthe quality assurance from stakeholders and other interested parties so each agency
will have a running, viable feedback system in terms of the quality of its activities.
(Slide15)
I told you that we are going to have a European register of quality assurance agencies,
and this is a difficult task to give you in a few sentences, the idea of the register, but I
can give you the short version which is that in Bergen the ministers invited ENQA andpartners to set up a European register as a proposal for their next meeting in London in2007. And the idea would be that we will have a register which will provide recognitionof the various agencies in terms of compliance with European standards and make itpossible for higher education institutions that are looking for qualified quality
assurance agencies to find the necessary information in the register. But I’ll be brief on
this because setting up the register is turning out to be a fairly complicated politicalprocess.
(Slide16)
So what are the main challenges for success in the European context: firstly, thewillingness of governments, higher education institutions and the agencies toimplement the European standards. At this time, one-and-a-half years after Bergen, thewillingness is impressive and I am very favorably impressed by the extent to whichgovernments, agencies and universities are taking this task very seriously in mostcountries.
There must be a balance between the national subsidiaries, which is the European term
for the concept, that what can be done satisfactorily at a national level we do not need tomove into a European level. And that’s a very important balance.
We must face that there are different interests and goals between governments,
agencies, institutions, students and other stakeholders, and these differences must now
to a last degree be reconciled in terms of fulfilling the ambitions of the Bologna Process.
And finally, there is, again to mention briefly, the register, the risk that this becomes apolitical rather than a professional instrument, and what I’m hinting at here is that theEuropean Union has the ambition that the possibility that the register should be a very
strictly European register only for European agencies compatible with the standards,
whereas the original idea was for a more inclusive register which also provided

30

information on non-European agencies. So much about the European dimension inquality assurance.
(Slide17)
Now a few words on the Nordic quality assurance cooperation, which today has theformal framework of NOQA. We did meet annually since ’92. Actually, I invited in theautumn of ’92 Nordic colleagues to a meeting in Copenhagen. At that time only theDanish agency was formally in place, but we began to exchange ideas of how to bringabout the best and most credible processes in the Nordic countries.
So by 2003 we decided that this informal cooperation should have a more formal
expression, not least because we were so heavily contributing to the overall ENQA
process, so we set up NOQA as a regional network under ENQA. Still the level offormalization was not very high. We have a rotating chairmanship—Sweden has thehonor of being chair of NOQA for this year—but apart from that we have not made an
over-bureaucratic and formalized network.
And I should add that in contrast to the European process where ENQA has had toaccept a very strong linkage to the European political process, we have no substantial
links to the Nordic political processes, which gives us the freedom of operation which I
personally find attractive.
(Slide18)
So what are the indications for Nordic networking? The positive ones are that allagencies are harmonious in the sense that they are national and they are government
initiated. We share the culture and tradition for Nordic cooperation. We have the added
pleasure that Nordic universities are generally positive or very positive toward theconcept of quality assurance. We share the language, especially the Scandinavian
countries, Norway, Denmark and Sweden. We share basically a language which makes
it possible to exchange experts. We have all of us a clear focus on the need to combine anaccountability and improvement-oriented approach and we share basically the same
methods, even in individual applications.
A negative indication is that we still, if you look closely, are remarkably different in our
distinct setup in terms of agencies and the processes. A primary reason here to my mind
is that when Nordic governments decide to change their quality assurance setup forhigher education, there is surprisingly little consideration of in what way the similar
processes are working in the Nordic countries. I think this is one of the problems we will31

have to tackle in the future.
(Slide19)
The main methods of quality assurance, just to give you the standards, the definitions ofevaluation, that’s the review of the quality of a program or institution with a focus on
input, output and processes. Audit is a review of the quality culture and internal quality
assurance of a university. That’s the definition of audit. You will I’m sure be perceptive
enough to realize that the European standards for internal quality assurance are very
closely linked to the audit concept.
And we have accreditation. That’s the review of the extent to which an institution or aprogram fulfills predefined standards and resulting in a formal “yes” or “no” decision oncompliance.
(Slide20)
The activities of NOQA, we have our annual conferences and at each annual conference
we decide on a joint project, which is very important. The agencies contribute one or two
staff members each to a joint project where we set up and report on a relevant theme forour mutual efforts. And as you look down the list you can see that the way in which wehave handled these joint projects has been very much sort of on the forward edge ofEuropean development. Actually, the first one was on the accreditation-like practices
which were at that time beginning to spread into Western Europe. We have had student
involvement. We have done last year a European study on the extent to which theNordic agencies are already compatible with European standards. And now this year weare moving into audit as a concept and a method. So no surprise.
(Slide21)
The third dimension of our results is that we have been able to contribute the results ofwhat we have doing into reports for ENQA as a whole. We have had a substantial
amount of staff exchanges; a Norwegian or Swedish staff member comes to Denmarkand stays at my agency for a period and discusses best practices and perhaps even gets
some new dimensions.
Very important is the element of consultation and clearing mechanism for external
experts. In all the reviews we do in Denmark, we use in the panel of experts at least one
expert from one of the other Nordic countries, sometimes two. So it’s highly importantthat we have viable consultation and clearing mechanisms.
And finally, I can say in all modesty that the Nordic countries have been able to work32

together in terms of being a very strong element in ENQA developments and policies.
(Slide22)
So what are the challenges? One challenge is because ENQA is moving so strongly,
because the political European process is demanding for the agencies, we must strive tomaintain still the Nordic dimension, and on the other hand, finding a good balance
between increased Nordic cooperation and convergence in quality assurance on the one
hand and the fact that we do have these national differences in policies for educationand quality assurance systems on the other.
(Slide23)
This brings me finally to the external quality assurance in Denmark of higher education.
We started out in ’92 with a center only for higher education which did a full cycle ofreviews and programs which became, again in all modesty, quite a success because theuniversities became in general acceptable of the concept we were offering.
So by ’99 we were almost overwhelmed by our own success because the parliament
decided that we were going to become a new institution the Danish Evaluation Institute,(EVA) with a mandate covering the whole educational system from pre-schooling touniversities. So EVA has been faced with a very comprehensive and demanding task.
We are independent, and independence more than anything is significant because wehave the right of initiative. No one, for example neither the ministry nor universities,
can tell us what reviews we are going to do and in which order.
(Slide24)
Our tasks, as you can see from the overheads if you read fast enough because I won’t
give you much time, is to make sure we are actually conducting external quality
assurance and having a dimension which has a research implication, development ofmethodologies, collecting on national and international experience. This has been ahighly relevant part of our mandate, which again is based in the law, and has given us
the possibilities for also taking upon us a fairly extensive international role.
(Slide25)
In the first phase from 2000, it was in a sense the experimental phase. We had follow-up
on our program reviews from the nineties. We did thematic review, drop-out rates,
career counseling in universities. We used our mandate to follow specific subjects
through the whole educational system, for instance, teaching and training in English
from primary school to universities. We have been doing cross-national reviews. The
last one finished this week is cooperation with the British Quality Assurance Agency for

33

Higher Education (QAA) on chemistry where the Danish departments have beenreviewed together with a number of British departments and the results from the twonational contexts combined in and compared in one report.
We do international bench markings, audits, accreditation, and we have a substantial
amount of revenue-generating activities.
(Slide26)
So this adds up to a second phase where we have now a system which is a combinationof audits at the university level of the 12 Danish university-level institutions. We aremoving there from national/Nordic panels into international panels. The implication ofthis is interesting: the audits are being conducted in English and the universities haveaccepted to provide the documentation in English, which adds substantially to theirwork effort. And we have moved from a fairly open format of audit into basing the audit,
no surprise, on the European standards.
We have selective criteria-based reviews of university programs where we take on these
programs where we perceive there may be a quality problem. And finally, 50 percent ofhigher education, which is the medium cycle on non-university higher education, theprofessional training programs, there we systematically certificate all programs.
(Slide27)
So what are the key challenges for Danish success? Firstly, I would mention that weshould be very careful in how we manage our very comprehensive mandate. And we dohave a coverage problem because I can tell you when we got the daycare institutions,
there are 6,000 even in a small country like Denmark, so we are going to look very
carefully into the methodologies which give credible coverage.
We have to continue to find a good balance between the original improvement focus of
our activities and the strong element of accountability coming into the life of most
European agencies, also the Nordic agencies, and certainly the Danes, because
governments have begun to become very fond of quality assurance procedures that havea distinct accountability focus. By implication, accreditation is moving in stronger.
We must find a good balance between the institutional and the program level. You
cannot concentrate your activities, neither on looking at the whole of a university,
ignoring the quality of the partial elements, that’s the programs, nor can you on theother hand only look at the programs and ignore the quality of the university as a34

whole.
We have, as I’ve said, a distinct acceleration in our profit-generating activities, that is,quality assurance reviews which are paid for by ministries, universities, local
authorities and which we take on alongside the activities funded by the taxpayers. Thisputs a strain on the organization in the sense that I have to expand my staff accordingly,
but basically on the fragile basis of our position in a market for this kind of activity.
I put in the information strategy toward the media, the authorities and the educational
institutions because it is so important. We give a distinct priority to make the results of
our activities known to the public, who in their shape of taxpayers basically fund theDanish institute, but we have the problem of course that the way to the public isthrough the media. What is relevant for the media in terms of quality assurance
processes? The sad bad stories of no quality, which gives us a problem because whatleads to follow-up in the universities? Reports which are fair and do not create a trenchmentality in those universities. So that is a continuing effort to achieve the rightbalance with the media.
And of course finally the compliance with European standards. This is an extremely
important issue. We had our external review in 2005 by the Swedish agency and it has
now been recognized by the ENQA board as making the Danish agency compatible with
European standards, so we have been one of the first agencies to take the path which all
the other 40-plus European agencies must now take, and it has been for us a very
rewarding and developing experience.
(Slide28)
So this is what I would like to give you today as an idea of development and innovation
at these three European levels. You’ll have the overheads and my abstract which will
give a little more detail. Apart from that, I invite you to go into the links for the threelevels: the ENQA link, the NOQA link and the EVA link for the Danish case. And as I’ll
use some of the time given me by the president and the Icelandic ambassador, I’m surethere is time available if any of you wish to pose a question to me in relation to what I
have been telling you, then you are very welcome. Thank you for your attention.
Kato: Dr. Thune, thank you very much. There will probably be some questions for you
during the course of subsequent proceedings, and we may need to call on you again then.
Thank you.

35

36

Japan-Nordic Symposium

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

Nordic SuccessOssi Tuomi

Secretary General, FINHEEC, Finland＊Slides〔English〕： P. 153～156

Solrun Jensdottir

Director, Department of Education, Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture, Iceland＊Slides〔English〕： P. 157～164

Tove Blytt Holmen Deputy Director General, NOKUT, Norway＊Slides〔English〕： P. 165～171

Staffan Wahlen

Senior Advisor, National Agency for Higher Education, Sweden＊Slides〔English〕： P. 172～179

37

Kato: Next, we turn to examine successful cases in Nordic countries, looking at how
university evaluation has been applied to improve quality in higher education.
Representatives from the Nordic countries will talk about their experiences of success.
Finland
Ossi Tuomi（Secretary General, FINHEEC, Finland）
The first speaker is Dr. Ossi Tuomi, Secretary General of FINHEEC. Dr. Tuomi
completed his doctoral studies at the University of Oulu in Finland, specializing in
geography. He has also served as Director of the famous Chydenius Research Institute.
Dr. Tuomi, please.
(Slide1)
Ossi Tuomi: Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a great pleasure to be invited to theJapan-Nordic Symposium and it’s an honor to be here in the United Nations University
and talk to an audience, an eminent audience like this, I think we are opening newdoors and roads with this cooperation.
(Slide2)
The FINHEEC evaluations can be classified like this. Our main focus now is on quality
audits and I will come back to that later. We don’t run program evaluations by now on
the regular basis.
We carry out program evaluations only in cases where some problems in education havearisen or in some extensive fields, but not regularly. Nowadays we hope that higher
education institutions take more responsibility of evaluating their own programs.
We have a lot of experience in evaluations focusing on centers for excellence and behind
this there is additional funding for higher education institutions for those who do welland I feel that this has been quite a success because institutions are very interested inthese evaluations, for example for the status of a quality unit or a center of excellence,but also for the extra funding.
(Slide3)
FINHEEC is very much for the enhancement-led evaluation. We can call it“enhancement-led” or development-oriented or improvement-oriented as ChristianThune just said. This does not differ much, this paradigm, from the paradigms other
Nordic agencies use, but perhaps we have made more noise with this compared to the39colleague organizations.
From FINHEEC’s point of view, the enhancement-led paradigm or premise means thatthe purpose is to support higher education institutions. I would say that the interest isin support and no so much in control, and this is my main point in this respect, and it
seems that this paradigm has suited very well to Finnish higher education tradition. We
are not evaluating towards a certain minimum standard or we don’t do any ranking
lists of higher education institutions. Reports are public and all of them include
proposals for further development.
(Slide4)
There are many fora in which there is discussion of evaluation policy and modes of
implementation between FINHEEC and higher education institutions. We haveplanning groups, external extensive seminars, et cetera, arranged by FINHEEC to havediscussions with institutions, and the aim of this is to secure the trust of higher
education institutions in evaluation, and I have the feeling that we have been quite
successful in this respect, because the way of thinking, the way of doing things, respects
the autonomy of the higher education institutions.
Here I would shortly point out the importance of student involvement. In all Nordic
countries we have students on our boards and we have students in planning groups, inevaluation panels and we have, I think my colleagues agree with me, that we have very
good experiences in this, and although we have been very much for this student
involvement, I feel that we still need new methods and new ways of doing it to involve
students more and more in evaluations.
(Slide5)
We have introduced the audit model two years ago to the Finnish higher education area
and it’s in order to show the international community that we have a valid quality
assurance system. Quality audits fit quite well with the enhancement-led principle, butof course here control comes into the picture as well because higher education
institutions either pass or, we don’t use the concept “fail”; we say that institutions either
pass or need a reaudit in two years.
(Slide6)
We were asked to point out something about the effects of the evaluations. We all knowthat this is quite a difficult task to prove that there are effects and what kind of effects
we have because there are other factors and interposing variables coming to the game
all the time. But I think we have something to show in this respect.

40

(Slide7)
Centers of excellence in teaching and learning, for example, we can see that they havedrawn attention to improving pedagogy in higher education institutions. As theevaluations are repeated, the improvement of pedagogical experience and innovation isclearly seen in processes when repeated. Teachers’ pedagogical skills have been
improved through systematic training and establishing units for further development ofteaching. There also been established tenured posts for pedagogical university lectures,
also outside the faculties of education.
In addition to providing teaching and research, the Finnish legislation for higher
education prescribes an influence in societal and regional development. It’s some kind of
third task for higher education institutions. And we have carried evaluation of centersof excellence in regional impact, and it seems that it has served to increase the interestof higher education institutions implementing the third task and the quality of thisthird task. And in the same way, nominations of quality units, (quality universities inadult education) have served to attract attention to life-long learning. It has been
included in university strategies and so on.
We can see evaluation policy effects, when implementing the quality audits because it
has made the entire Finnish higher education to build up quality assurance on asystematic basis, and they have also taken on board the European standards andguidelines. I think here we can see the effects of evaluation on development of higher
education institutions. I would say that with this kind of process, through evaluation
policy, it’s possible to steer the entire development of the higher education system.
And my conclusion here is that a positive, rewarding mode of guidance has been proved
to work. Thank you very much.
Kato: Dr. Tuomi, thank you very much.

Iceland
Sólrún Jensdóttir（Director, Department of Education, Ministry of Education, Science
and Culture, Iceland）
Kato: The next presenter is Ms. Sólrún Jensdóttir, the Director of Department of41

Education in Iceland’s Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. Ms. Jensdóttir
completed a master’s degree at the London School of Economics and Political Scienceand her specialty is modern European history. After serving as a staff writer for the
Morgunbladid newspaper, she taught at universities in Iceland and the United
Kingdom before entering the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture as a special
assistant to the minister. She has since held various important positions in educationand international relations within the Ministry.
Ms. Jensdóttir, please go ahead.
(Slide1)
Sólrún Jensdóttir: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a very great honor
to have been invited to address this distinguished audience and I hope that we will beable to continue this interesting and fruitful cooperation with Japan in the field of
higher education.
(Slide2)This is the list of the content of my talk and I’ll go through it quickly. First I’m going totell you a few facts about Iceland, then the higher education system, development ofquality assurance, Icelandic relation to the Bologna Process, OECD thematic review ofhigher education, new law on higher education. Then I will explain the way in which wewill carry out the certification, qualification framework and quality assurance, and thenlastly explains how we see the way forward in Iceland.
(Slide3)
Before giving you an overview of the quality assurance and evaluation in the higher
education sector in Iceland, I would like to start by mentioning a few facts about thecountry to try to put the higher education system in the right context.
Iceland is one of the islands in the North Atlantic close to the Arctic Circle. Like Japan,
it’s a volcanic island with hot springs, where earthquakes happen frequently. The
official language is Icelandic, related to the Scandinavian languages and German andspoken by all Icelanders. Iceland is a republic with a parliament of 63 members. The life
expectancy in Iceland is one of the highest in the world, along with that of Japan: 79
years for men and almost 83 years for women. And infant mortality is among the lowest
in the world.
Iceland is an affluent country. In 2004, the GDP per capita was the seventh highest in
the world and surpassed the OECD average by around one fifth. This prosperity can be42

attributed to Iceland’s ability to utilize its comparative advantages by exploiting its
abundant natural resources, both marine and land based, as well as human capital.
Through the latter part of the 20th century the workforce moved from farming toindustrial production and from industrial production to the service sector, and in 2004
the service sector employed 71.2 percent of the labor force, industry 22.4 percent, thehighest agricultural sector 3.4 percent and fishing sector 3 percent. There is aconsiderable shortage of labor and unemployment is negligible.
(Slide4)
The modern Icelandic system of higher education dates back to the foundation of the
University of Iceland in 1911, still by far the largest education institution at the highest
in the country with several faculties and the only one to offer doctoral studies.
There are now a total of seven higher education institutions in Iceland, four public andthree government-dependent private institutions. The Ministry of Education, Science
and Culture administers two public and three private institutions. The two agricultural
institutions are administered by the Ministry of Agriculture.
The student population has grown dramatically in recent years and almost doubled
from 1996 when the total was 9,564 until 2004 when the total had reached 16,068
putting considerable financial pressure on the government, as seems to be the case inmost countries today. I think it is interesting for you in Japan to see these very small
figures compared to what you have got in your country.
The first legal framework for the higher education system was passed by the Icelandic
parliament in 1997. Up to that time, each institution had operated in accordance withspecial legislation. The main aim of the framework legislation was to increase autonomyof the higher education institutions and to secure a legal basis for the private
institutions.
As the law increased the autonomy of the higher education institutions, the role of thenational authority shifted from exercising oversight and control of input to monitoring
output.
(Slide5)
Systematic quality assurance in higher education does not have a long history in
Iceland. Until the legislation in 1997, there were no provisions for quality assurance in
Icelandic law. Quality assurance had however been under discussion for several years,

43and Iceland already participated in international cooperation in this field, both in theEuropean Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, ENQA, and theNordic Quality Assurance Network in Higher Education, NOQA. This cooperation
played an important role in the development of quality assurance in higher education in
Iceland.
In accordance with the law 1997, it is stipulated that the supervision of quality inhigher education is exercised by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. Basedon the law, the ministry issued rules, on both an internal and external evaluation
explaining the objectives of quality assurance, that is, to maintain and raise the qualityof teaching, to improve organization, to promote greater responsibility of theinstitutions and to ensure their competitiveness on the international arena.
According to the rules, the higher education institutions were obliged to set up formal
quality assurance systems and describe the systems publicly.
(Slide6)
The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture is responsible for the external quality
assurance. There has not been established a special agency in Iceland, but in the wakeof the law, in 1997 a special division of evaluation and supervision was establishedwithin the ministry to administer and coordinate the external evaluations. This division
has now been replaced by the Office of Evaluation and Analysis. According to the rules
on external quality assurance, the external evaluation are to be undertaken by a groupof three to six independent experts meeting some of the following criteria: qualificationsin the relevant field of scholarship; extensive experience of work in higher education,
and; experience in employing graduates. And for this last part we look towards firms
and also research institutions.
At least one of the group shall be employed outside Iceland. The institution to beevaluated produces a self evaluation report. The report of the review group is publishedin its entirety, and within three months the higher education institution publishes its
response, and within two years the ministry shall ascertain whether and how theinstitution has responded to the findings of the external review. The review may cover awhole institution, specific discipline or faculty, and can also extend to several
institutions or units simultaneously.
(Slide7)
Icelandic authorities decided in 1999 to become one of the 29 signatory countries to the44Bologna Declaration on cooperation in the European higher education area. The
introduction of the Bologna Process into the Icelandic higher education system has been
relatively unproblematic. The two cycle degree structure stipulated by the declaration
was already in place in most faculties. Other elements of the Bologna Declaration andthe process that followed are mostly in place in Iceland in accordance with the decisionsof the European education ministers at their biannual meetings. The emphasis on
quality assurance is at the forefront of the Bologna process, and at their meeting inBergen, as you have heard earlier, the Ministers adopted the Standards and Guidelines
for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area as proposed by ENQA.
Most of the standards regarding external evaluation were in line with the rules alreadyused in Iceland.
Another element in the Bologna Process that will strengthen quality assurance is the
Framework of Qualifications for the European Higher Education Area. Iceland has
already adopted a National Qualifications Framework for higher education based on theEuropean Framework.
(Slide8)During 2004 and 2005, Iceland participated in OECD’s Thematic Review of Tertiary at
Education, along with 24 countries, one of which is Japan. The review is organized in
two strands, and Japan and Iceland are among 13 countries that take part in the second
strand and are therefore visited by a team of experts from the OECD. The visit to
Iceland took place in the autumn of 2005 and the experts’ report was published on theOECD website on the 22nd August of this year.
Among the things scrutinized by the review team was quality assurance. The experts
were of the opinion that emphasis should be kept on internal quality assurance
mechanisms and the culture of evaluation already present in the system should bepreserved drawing on the institutional experience. The currently existing framework
for external evaluations should be maintained. The review team stressed that acomprehensive system of quality assurance should aim at improvement andaccountability and warned that such a system could degenerate into culture ofcompliance and imposition. The team stressed the necessity of finding more effective
procedures for the validation, approval and accreditation of educational programs. The
lack of quality assurance in research was also discussed, but it was noted that quality
assurance mechanisms were under development, and in practice much reliance wasplaced upon the well established incentive and bonus system based on the individual

45

research output of the academic staff, ensuring individual accountability for the qualityof the research.
(Slide9)
The University Act 1997 served the purpose to strengthen the base of private
institutions, establish quality assurance and encourage diversity and competition. But
at the end of 2005, it was decided to revise the act. A new Higher Education Institution
Act came into force on the 1st July this year. The main reason for the revision was thedevelopment and changes in higher education that had taken place since the law was
passed in 1997. The main aim of the new law is to strengthen the Icelandic higher
education system and improve quality so that Icelandic higher education can
successfully compete internationally.
The act in 1997 did not have provisions for accreditation; the lack of which has been
problematic as pointed out by the OECD and therefore it was decided during therevision of the law to introduce such a process. According to the act, the Minister of
Education, Science and Culture grants accreditation to higher education institutions.
This applies both to public and private institutions, including those already existing.
(Slide10)This slide shows the criteria the institutions need to fulfill to be accredited. They haveto define their role and policy, and their administration an organization, how they
organize teaching and research, personnel qualification requirements, administrativerequirements and students’ rights and duties, working conditions for teachers andstudents and services provided, internal quality system, learning outcomes inaccordance with the National Qualification Framework, and finances.
(Slide11)
The higher education institution shall apply for accreditation to the Minister of
Education, Science and Culture. The accreditation is limited to specific fields of study inaccordance with the definition by OECD’s Frascati manual, and these are; the naturalsciences, engineering and technology, medical sciences, agricultural sciences, social
sciences and humanities. When an institution has applied to the Minister, there isappointed a committee of three independent experts to evaluate the applications. The
Minister grants the accreditation if recommended by the experts. The accreditation of afield of study confirms that activities of the institution are consistent with theprovisions of the act.
If a higher education institution either fails to meet the provision of the act, adhere to46

the rules and regulations based thereon, or fails to meet the demands for teaching andresearch, the Minister can revoke their accreditation.
(Slide12)
The new act also stipulates that the Minister of Education, Science and Culture shallissue a National Qualifications Framework in accordance with the decision by the
Education Ministers in the Bologna Process in Bergen in 2005. The National
Qualification Framework has already been issued in Iceland based on the Framework of
Qualifications for the European Higher Education Area.
The National Qualification Framework is a systematic description of degrees anddiplomas with emphasis on learning outcomes and the competencies the students
should have attained at each level of study.
Higher education institutions are required to issue descriptions of learning outcomes forevery study program.
The National Qualifications Framework shall be issued both in Icelandic and English to
make the Icelandic higher education system more transparent internationally and to
facilitate student mobility.
(Slide13)
The procedure introduced by the law for quality assurance of teaching is based on
ENQA’s Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher
Education Area. A special process will be put in place for research in accordance withinternational criteria. The main objectives of quality assurance of teaching and research
are; to ensure that the requirements for accreditation are met, to ensure that the
Qualification Framework for higher education is respected, to improve the quality ofteaching and research in an efficient way, to increase responsibility of the institutions
for their own activities, and to ensure competitiveness at the international level.
(Slide14)
The evaluation of quality shall be both internal and external according to rules laid
down by the Minister of Education, Science and Culture. Each higher education
institution is responsible for internal evaluation to be carried out regularly and toinclude policy and objectives, study content, teaching and teaching methods,
assessment, research, research effectiveness, working conditions, administration andexternal relationships. Active participation of staff and students shall be ensured.

47

The Minister of Education, Science and Culture is responsible for the external
evaluation and proposes a three-year plan. The Minister can also decide to instigate a
special evaluation of an institution in addition to the plan if required. The Minister candelegate the administration of an external evaluation of teaching and research to acommittee, an institution, a company or other relevant agent, national or international.
But at least for the time being, the Ministry’s Office of Evaluation and Analysis will be
responsible for the administration. The implementation will be assigned to anindependent agent and the evaluation process involves both domestic and foreign
experts as well as student representatives.
(Slide15)
The aim is to have the accreditation for all institutions in place by mid-2008 or two
years after the coming-into-force of the legislation on higher education institutions. The
rules for external evaluation, both for teaching and research, on the basis of the new law
are being prepared and will be adopted before the end of the year. The drafts have been
sent to the higher education institutions for comments.
During the last decade the Icelandic higher education system has adjusted reasonably
well to a rapidly-changing environment both inside the country and in the outside world.
There is always scope for improvement, and that is our aim, by increasing the effort toassure the quality and efficiency of our higher education institutions and to put humancapital and financial resources to even better use.
(Slide16)
The Ministry is certain that the full implementation of the new law by all institutions
will strengthen the position of Icelandic higher education in an increasingly competitive
world where mutual trust is a prerequisite for cooperation and interaction in theinternational arena.
Kato: Thank you very much, Dr. Jensdóttir.
NorwayTove Blytt Holmen（Deputy Director General, NOKUT, Norway）
Kato: The next speaker is Ms. Tove Blytt Holmen, Deputy Director General of NOKUT.
Ms. Holmen completed her Master’s degree at the Norwegian University of Life
Sciences, specializing in engineering. She has served as a Head of Division in the
Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture and Director of Studies and of Continuing Education48

at the Agricultural University of Norway. Her current position is that of Deputy
Director General and Head of the Accreditation Unit at NOKUT.
Ms. Holmen, please come forward.
(Slide1)
Tove Blytt Holmen: Dear hosts and dear participants of this symposium, may also I
express my gratitude to be here today. I think it’s very interesting. I represent NOKUT,
which is the Norwegian agency for quality assurance, and this agency has a monopoly
situation in Norway assessing the quality of higher education. That monopoly situationis regulated by law.
(Slide2)
In Norway we have 42 state-owned institutions giving higher education today. Seventy
percent of the total student population will attend those state-owned universities, so it’squite an opposite of your situation. Those state-owned universities are fully financed
and they are not allowed to take fees from the students. Studies are free for them; living
is not, but studying is.
Another category of higher education institutions are the private ones. We have about
20 private institutions having partly and variably financing from the state also. Thirty
percent of the student population will attend those private schools, and they are allowed
to take tuition fees. So that’s different.
(Slide3)
In the past years, higher education in Norway has undergone an extensive quality
reform parallel and because of the Bologna Process that Christian Thune also
introduced to you earlier today. The quality reform has embedded a change ingovernance at the institutional level. It also has increased institutional autonomy, it
has led to new funding formulations for the institutions, and a part of that reform is
NOKUT, the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education.
If we proceed, we changed at the time, 2003, at the same time as NOKUT was
established, we changed from a rather specific Norwegian academic degree structure toa more European one, the bachelor, master’s and PhD degrees, three-year bachelor,two-year master and three years’ PhD. That’s our academic degree structure in Norway
right now.
We also got a new form for student guidance, evaluation and assessment, and that49

means a closer follow-up of each student is required. New financial support for students;
the students, they got even better financial support when, and the new act regulating
universities and colleges and into, well, when that was decided upon in 2002. And atlast, the ambitions of internationalization became much clearer and they were much
more ambitious now than they were before.
All these elements are now regulated in the new act for universities and colleges, andthis one act regulates all institutions, also the private ones. Universities, colleges,
state-owned and private, are regulated by the same university act in Norway.
(Slide4)
When it comes to governance at the institutional level, several things have happened,
but I would like to show you one thing that has been pointed out earlier also: student
involvement is very important to us in the Nordic countries. The board of a state-owned
institution will consist of several different representatives, but also, the most important
thing, two student members on each university board.
Also, student representatives should have at least 20 percent of the seats, two seats at
the minimum, to see that they are not alone on a board, in all executive bodies of an
institution. For the private institutions the law is a little bit different, but it says thatthe board for a private institution also should have a student representative. And thatis also because we regard the students as very important in governing higher educationin Norway today.
(Slide5)
About institutional autonomy, this is rather hard to explain to you but I’ll try as best as
I can. We have different categories of institutions, higher education institutions. If you
look to this column, the universities, the university is within a category that has the fullpower to establish bachelor, master and PhD within the whole classical breadth ofuniversity, the full scope of university. They have the power to establish whatever
degree they want to. For a specialized university they have the same power concerning
depth of the studies but not the breadth. The specialized university may be like a schoolof economics. We have a specialized university in physics, music, veterinarian medicine
and so on. They have the full depth of establishing their degrees but not go beyond theirlimits.
Then we have the certified university colleges, which is a category that is only allowed
to give a bachelor degree by themselves, but they really can offer any bachelor degree

50they want to. They are quite ambitious, the certified colleges in Norway. They want also
to give master’s and doctorate degrees, but if they do they have to apply to NOKUT, I
will show you later on, to get those certified. That’s what accreditation of programs is allabout.
The non-certified institutions, they are the private ones. In the beginning, in 2003, theprivate institutions were not allowed to offer any study program unless they appliedearlier to the ministry, nowadays to NOKUT, to get these programs certified. But ofcourse building up competency, running degrees, made them a little bit impatient. They
also wanted the same institutional freedom as the others because they felt as good as,
and now after they have run bachelor degrees for some years, examined candidates forat least two years, they may apply to NOKUT to get accredited as a university college,
then they will have increased freedom to give whatever they want to a bachelor degree.
When you are in this category, they get impatient to become a university of one kind, sothey will apply to NOKUT to become accredited as a university, a specialized university,
having more freedom. I hope this will explain a little bit of the certification system andthe freedom also with having different kinds of powers to give degrees.
(Slide6)
About the NOKUT mandate, I don’t think I shall go into that too much, but I can saythat our main tasks: it is to monitor quality and quality systems in the university
institutions; it is to control that the quality is sufficient that it satisfies our criteria,
standards and criteria for educational quality. And also, we have evaluations forenhancement purposes, but that is a smaller field. I do believe, however, you might say
what you want about accreditation, it is an assessment for control, but I also think it
has quite a deal of enhancement drive within it.
We do something else: approval of shorter vocational education and recognition offoreign education.
(Slide7)
The Norwegian model of quality assurance, the basis for that is of course the higher
education institutions and their portfolios. This new act that regulates universities andcolleges says that every institution, certified or not, that is given higher education has
to have sufficient quality assurance systems in place. NOKUT is established then to
perform the audits. Every sixth year we will return to an institution and see to it that it
has sufficient quality assurance systems.

51

Through this, we have experienced through these three years we have existed then,three or four years, that the institutions organize their quality work better than before.
This auditing we believe has an effect not only on the quality systems themselves, butalso in the way they organize and develop their programs.
It might occur, though, that we get suspicion of lacking quality while we are visiting theinstitution, auditing, and then we are able to initiate a revision of certificationorre-certification of the program or the point where we got the suspicion of lacking quality.
So we are not only working at the systems, but that is the basis; we also go into theirportfolio, their actual program.
If you look back to the table I showed you about institutional autonomy, the institutions,whenever they want to give a program outside their power, they may apply to NOKUT
for a certification such programs, and we have set standards for what is expected as
good educational quality. We have set, NOKUT has set the standards and the criteria
for that quality picture.
Once every year the board of NOKUT will decide for a national revision of certification
or a national re-accreditation. Last year the board decided that we should go throughand look into all the Norwegian programs, bachelor programs in nursing. This year it
will be, this coming year it will be master and doctorate degrees in law, in pharmacy
and in dentistry.
(Slide8)
There have of course been some tumble-stones along our way. I won’t go deeply into thestories of how we tumbled, but I will tell a little bit about the most important results.
The division of labor and responsibility between NOKUT and the ministry is very
important. NOKUT conducts what should be reliable independent academic
assessments, and the ministry is the owner and political instant. May I be so free to saythat they have learned and they are in Norway really the political instance towards ouracademic assessments.
The ministry may not instruct NOKUT in excess of what is laid down by the law andmay not revise certification judgment by turning them from a “no” to “yes.” If we say“no,” they are not good enough, the ministry may not say “yes.”
Through the years, higher education institutions have been heard thoroughly when52

designing models for quality assurance, also when designing or setting up the standards
and criteria, and we listened to them in our very beginning and we found that very
valuable. We all agree upon the standards and criteria even though it was NOKUT that
decided upon them.
All evaluations conducted by NOKUT are public and NOKUT shall make efforts toensure that they are made known to the public. Of course that also relates to theEuropean standards for such work, but it is very hard sometimes to keep up with that.
You can have rather tense situations when publishing material.
(Slide9)
When quality fails, we may withdraw the power but the institution will have one or two
years to improve before we finally take that decision.
(Slide10)
We also have an appeals board so the institutions may appeal primarily the negativedecisions by NOKUT; they have an appeals board to seek to. It doesn’t however go to theexperts’ judgments, the experts’ advice, but it goes to the process of NOKUT only. It has
to be shown that we had something wrong in our procedures.
(Slide11)
A little bit about the basic fundaments of our standards and criteria for the program
certification. First of all, an important paragraph in the act regulating universities is asfollows: “Universities and university colleges shall promote the purpose of the Act byproviding higher education on the basis of the foremost within research, academic andartistic development work and empirical knowledge.” This basis of the “foremost within”
is very important to us. It really is a fundament for putting a high threshold so that
institutions should really show active research and that is involved, the results are used
for education, and there are also highly academic professional personnel among theteachers.
We look into curriculum, staff, the internationalization strategies and results; we lookat infrastructure and the way they do their quality assurance.
These past years, we, I think I might say, that we can register improvement incurriculum, the way that they are better in formulating their aims and ambitions andthinking that in connection with the content and the pedagogical methods. They arereally putting aims, content, pedagogical methods, more into a system now than they
did three years ago in fact. The institutions also put more interest in the academic

53

profile on staff and in general they are better documenting their quality than before andthat may sit transparent to all of us.
(Slide12)
I won’t say that much about criteria. I don’t think time will give room for that. You canread it yourself.
(Slide13)
But I will sum up. I started it all by telling you about this quite extensive quality reformthat was politically-driven, and there were two main reasons for the reform. The one ofcourse was to achieve improved quality in higher education and research. Anotherreason was to follow up internationalization, specifically through the Bologna process
and Norway’s obligations in this respect. I think I can say that our minister at the time
wanted to be in the forefront joining the Bologna Process.
Years of cooperation between the parties, the higher education institutions, NOKUT
and the ministry, show that we are moving in the right direction, at least for my sake,doing the quality assurance work, I can say that we are getting an improved quality outof this all. Yes, I think that will be it. Thank you for your attention.
Kato: Ms. Holmen, thank you very much.

SwedenStaffan Wahlén（Senior Advisor, National Agency for Higher Education, Sweden）
Kato: The final presentation on successful cases in Nordic countries comes from Mr.
Staffan Wahlén, Senior Advisor to the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education.
Mr. Wahlén completed a Master’s degree in linguistics at the University of Stockholm.
He has for many years served as an Education Consultant at the University of
Stockholm and Head of the University’s Centre for Languages for Specific Purposes.
Mr. Wahlén, please go ahead.
(Slide1)
Staffan Wahlén: I am truly honoured by this kind invitation and by having been given
the opportunity to share with you some of the ideas and some of the elements of theSwedish system of quality assurance in higher education.

54

Speaking last on an occasion like this is both an advantage and a disadvantage. It’s anadvantage because I can draw upon what has already been said and make reference tothat, but it is also a disadvantage in that some of what I’m going to say will necessarily
a repetition of things that have already been told, and I hope you will bear with me forthat.
(Slide2)
The background that I would like to sketch summarily is first the size of higher
education in Sweden. We have today something like 340,000 undergraduate students.
The number has doubled over the past ten to 15 years, so there is a substantial increase,which is part of the government’s policy. We also have a similar increase in the numberof post-graduate students.
In our higher education system, we have 14 state universities and three semi-private
institutions, one of which is a major university of technology. There are 22 small
institutions, what we call university colleges, including seven colleges of visual andperforming arts.
(Slide3)
The degree system involved a three-year bachelor’s degree, and on top of that a one-year
master’s degree and then a four year PhD programme. We are now, however, somewhat
late in comparison with several European countries, including our Nordic neighbours,
introduction the Bologna system with a three-year bachelor, two-year master and athree-year PhD. At the same time we will retain the former degrees for the time being,so, in fact, over the next six or seven years there will be a substantial, and somewhat
confusing, number of university programmes.
In this context, The Swedish National Agency for Higher Education operates as the only
quality assurance organization. We’re a bit different from our Nordic sisterorganisations in that we deal not only with evaluation and similar activities, but wealso have a largish statistics department, responsible for higher education statistics,
whose work we can draw on in our evaluation activities. We also have a substantial
information department, a department of legal supervision and, like in Norway, adepartment dealing with recognition of foreign degrees.
(Slide4)
In Sweden, as in most countries, the objectives of evaluation are three-fold. One isassurance, or control. The reason for this is primarily to make sure that Swedish higher
education meets the goals set up in the Higher Education Act. This has become more55

important in the light of the government’s goal of a 50 per cent participation rate. The
second goal is improvement or enhancement, of the provision of higher education.
Finally, there is also the need to provide information on the quality of higher education
to the public, to taxpayers, to the government, employers and other stakeholders. This
information is not disseminated in the form of league tables or ranking.
(Slide5)
Our evaluation activities include four basic ingredients. One, which has now been put
temporarily on hold, is institutional quality audit. It will be re-introduced in 2006. The
second is accreditation, i.e. an evaluation for a formal decision, “yes” or “no” for the
introduction, re-introduction or continuation of a program. Thirdly, since 2001, we havebeen conducting subject and program evaluations, covering all provision leading to adegree offered at Swedish universities and colleges across the country. And for each
evaluation, and I’ll be coming back to that in a while, we have made accreditation
decisions as to whether these programmes should be allowed to continue or not.
Fourthly, and finally, like in Denmark, we conduct thematic evaluations, and I’ll comeback to that as well.
(Slide6)
Accreditation for new programs involves primarily certification for master’s degrees,
including the new two-year Bologna master’s. These evaluations concern university
colleges, since full universities have the right to award all degrees except what we call
professional degrees. For these degrees leading to professional qualifications (law,engineering, teaching, medicine, nursing, etcetera) all higher education institutions
have to apply and be certified.
Accreditation also includes the possibility, like in Norway, of allowing university
colleges to apply for full university status, i.e. conducting their own research andawarding PhD degrees.
(Slide7)
For about seven years two rounds of institutional quality audit were conducted with theprimary aim of enhancement, reviewing their institutional quality work, through thefamiliar processes of self-evaluation, peer review, site visit and public report. What we
assessed in, particular, was academic leadership as a tool for development of an
academic organization. The ideal was not necessarily strong leadership, but rather
incisive and informed leadership as a tool for development of the academic organization.
(Slide8)
We tried to assess the level of cooperation with stakeholders as a means of enhancing

56the quality of institutions. The active participation of teaching staff and other staff inquality work and the extent to which quality work was actually integrated in otherprocesses at the university were other elements. We also took for granted that internal
evaluation processes and follow-up activities should be part of the quality work of thehigher education institutions as well as internationalization. Finally, the question ofgender equality in higher education, which has not been mentioned before, was and isincluded in the quality assurance domain.
(Slide9)The quality audits were discontinued, for a number of years, when, in 2001, the Agency
introduced a subject and program review model, which, was, a still is quite extensive. It
involves the evaluation of all subjects and programs across the country leading to adegree. This means that by now we have been conducting about 1,700 reviews, which isan average of about 275 each year. It is a peer review model, which has involved about
900 peers, over the years – experts from Sweden, from the other Nordic countries andalso from the rest of Europe and, in a few cases, the United States. Reviews are
conducted in Swedish, so international experts will have to have at least a working
knowledge of the language.
We also include students as a matter of course in the review panels, and in the cases ofprofessionally oriented programs we also include relevant stakeholders.
The evaluation results in a decision by the agency as to whether the program meets thequality standards required by the Higher Education Ordinance. If it does not, theuniversity is given one year in which to improve, and a re-evaluation then takes place. If
the standards are still not met, the agency has the right to close down the program. Thishas happened on only one occasion so far, mostly because the institutions have adapted
or, in some cases closed down the program themselves.
(Slide10)
In our reviews we look at the prerequisites of the program. What are the resources andteacher qualifications, the quality of the library and laboratories etc? To what extent
does the program have its own quality assurance? Does the program have a functionalorganization? And does it lead to good results? We look at processes, such as teachingand examination methods. And, finally, we examine results in terms of the quality oftheses and completion rates.
(Slide11)
The fourth element is the thematic quality audits. We conduct special investigation into

57

various quality aspects across the higher education institutions. One such investigation
has dealt with internationalization and how it is used as a tool for quality improvement.
Another has concentrated on the cooperation of institutions with society and business. A
third has studied the role of student influence in universities. Such studies have also
been done in the other Nordic countries, but it is possible that they have been morecommon in Sweden.
(Slide12)
So what do we see as the specific elements of Swedish evaluation of higher education?
Well, like the other Nordic countries, we see student involvement, including that of PhD
students, as experts in our panels. This is indeed important and rewarding. Secondly,
through our subject and program evaluations, we get a complete national picture ofeach program, and this is regarded by many as very rewarding, not only by the students
and academic staff, but also by the general public. Thirdly, the sanctions imposed incase a program does not meet adequate standards are also a specific element which isseen as important and quality driving. Fourthly, in contrast to many other countries, we
include PhD programs and, fifthly, we conduct systematic follow-up activities after a
few years, to see what has happened as a result of the evaluation, and we also publish
the results of these.
I might also add another aspect, which is perhaps not self-evident: through our programand subject evaluations, which have affected the whole system, including both
institutional leadership, administration, staff and students, there has developed anawareness and knowledge of at least one method of evaluation of higher education
among all those involved in the process through self-evaluations and discussions withpeers during the site visits.
(Slide13)
What then is the impact of all these activities? When it comes to the audits, we haveseen improvement of quality work in university leadership and strategic operations, wehave also experienced improvement of student influence and how that has helped toenhance teaching processes. Further, cooperation with stakeholders has helped to focus
teaching and learning. But in the end, it is difficult to measure the real impact of audits
and of internal quality work in universities. That is an important subject for further
discussion.
(Slide14)
The impact of program and subject reviews is seen more easily. The threat of closing
down programs that do not meet reasonable standards has been effective. Only one

58program has actually been closed down by the agency, but action has been taken to
avoid such a thing happening, either through significant improvement or by theinstitutions themselves discontinuing the program that have not been deemed to be
viable.
Clear improvement has been identified when it comes to teaching staff qualifications.
Additional staff have been hired, with better qualifications. Staff development has
become a more prominent feature of university strategies.
The most conspicuous impact was seen in the wake of a particularly tough program
evaluation of teacher education. The very critical report resulted in the government
introducing immediate changes in the higher education ordinance. Changes inorganization and syllabi, course materials and examination processes introduced by theuniversities themselves were other consequences. We still have not seen the last ofthese consequences, but this particular review demonstrates that evaluation of higher
education can lead to very important impacts.
It might be added that some of the general observations made in a number of
evaluations have to do with the need for greater cooperation among higher education
institutions, with the need for specialization, in the sense that all institutions should
not necessarily provide the same programmes, and with the need for concentration of
resources to certain universities. These observations have led to action taken by thegovernment and by a number of higher education institutions, which are now
developing strategies along the lines suggested.
(Slide15)
Finally, any quality assurance agency must practice what it teaches. In other words, it
must assure the quality of its own activities, as Christian Thune mentioned inconnection with the Standards and Guidelines of Quality Assurance in the European
Higher Education Area. So the Swedish Agency regularly conducts internal monitoringof what we do. We also provide an annual analytical summary of evaluation activities,
and collect and make use of feedback from various actors. Our activities are also
regularly monitored by an external advisory board, and we submit ourselves to external
reviews.
(Slide16)
We are, finally on the brink of establishing a new quality assurance model, which isreally a combination of the methods that we’ve been using so far. The model will59

emphasize the higher education institutions’ own quality assurance and enhancement
systems, and thus, in a sense, we are back where we started 12 years ago, with theaudits, but drawing on all the experience of other methods that we have been using
throughout this period.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Kato: Thank you very much, Mr. Wahlén.
That concludes the program for this morning.
The afternoon session begins at one o’clock. We request that after taking lunch, you
return to your seats by the starting time. Please leave the simultaneous interpretation
receivers behind when you leave your seat. We also request that you remember to keep
your nametags on as you enter and leave the hall.

60

Japan-Nordic Symposium

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

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

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

Norikazu Kudo

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

Junko Kawamura

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

Christian Thune

Executive Director, EVA, Denmark

Ossi Tuomi

Secretary General, FINHEEC, Finland

Tove Blytt Holmen

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

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

61

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

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

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

64

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

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

66

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

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

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

69

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

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

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

72

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

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

74

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

76

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

77

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

79

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

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

81

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

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

82

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

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

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

information,

electrical/electronic,

84

civil,

andmaterial

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

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

86

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

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

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

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

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

91

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

92

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

93

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

94

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

96

Japan-Nordic Symposium

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

Panel Discussion (2)Contributions of university evaluation to society《Panelists》
Tateo Shimizu

Editorial Writer, The Asahi Shimbun

Roger K. Abrahamsen

Professor of UMB, Chair of NOKUT’s Board, Norway＊Slides〔English〕： P. 212～221

Fumio Isoda

Deputy Director-General, Higher Education Bureau,
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)

Staffan Wahlen

Senior Advisor, National Agency for Higher
Education, Sweden

Solrun Jensdottir

Director, Department of Education, Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture, Iceland《Moderator》
Akihiko Kawaguchi

Vice-President, NIAD-UE

97

Kato: We will now begin Panel Discussion 2. The moderator is the Vice-President of
NIAD-UE, Dr. Akihiko Kawaguchi.
I will also introduce the panelists. We have invited two individuals from Japan’s higher
education sphere to participate, and one representative from the five Nordic countries. I
will introduce each one starting from the right side of the stage.
Tateo Shimizu, Editorial Writer from the Asahi Shimbun.
Roger K. Abrahamsen, Professor of UMB and Chair of the Board of NOKUT in Norway.
Fumio Isoda, Deputy Director-General of the Higher Education Bureau, Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
This panel is joined by two representatives from the Nordic countries who also madepresentations this morning.
Mr. Staffan Wahlén.
Ms. Solrun Jensdóttir.
I will now hand over the microphone to the moderator, Vice-President Kawaguchi.
Thank you.
Kawaguchi: I would now like to commence the proceedings of this second afternoon
session.
I begin with an apology and a request from the organizers. So far today, thepresentations have been delivered so zealously that we have almost run out of time, andhave been unable to accept questions from the floor. I’m sure your stress levels are on
the increase, but I assure you that we will encourage many questions from the floor at
the end of this session. Your cooperation would be appreciated.
Now let us move into the substance of this session.
The objective of this session relates to a theme that has been raised consistently

99throughout today’s proceedings: namely, what is the aim of evaluation? It is said thatthe primary aim is improvement in the universities evaluated, and the secondary aim is
to develop accountability.
Prof. Kudo commented that evaluation should be used extensively as a tool foruniversities to persuade or obtain approval from the general public. In international
circles, it is said that the results of evaluation—information on how a university isassessed by a third party—are equally or even more important than information
disseminated by the university itself.
Therefore, the principal reason for scheduling this second panel discussion relates topublication of the results of evaluation. We certainly disclose the results of university
evaluations undertaken by our organization. But how is this information communicatedto wider society? Mr. Shimizu may be one to point out that in fact, there has been afailure to disseminate the information properly. This is one point I would like the panel
to discuss. I personally do not think that results have been communicated properly. I
hope today’s discussion provides an initial attempt to address the issue of how better tocommunicate the results of university evaluation, and how to make those results
understandable to the general public.

“What Kind of University Evaluation Does Society Want?”
Tateo Shimizu (Editorial Writer, The Asahi Shimbun)
Kawaguchi: First, we will hear from a panelist who works in a sector outside higher
education, Mr. Tateo Shimizu, Editorial Writer for the Asahi Shimbun. Time is limited,
so I would ask you to refer to the materials in front of you for details of Mr. Shimizu’s
career. Thank you.
Shimizu: Thank you for your introduction. My name is Shimizu and I am Editorial
Writer for the Asahi Shimbun. I do have one other official title, that of chief editor of the
publication called Daigaku Rankingu (University Rankings). I have worked on this bookon a voluntary basis for the past fourteen years. The theme of this discussion is how tocommunicate university evaluation to wider society. This obviously requires us toconsider what kind of university evaluation society requires, and what society wants to
get out of university evaluation. My presentation will focus on these issues.

100Firstly, I would like to look back on what kind of society Japan was when we firststarted to publish our university rankings.
The book was first launched by the Asahi Shimbun in 1994. Since then, we havepublished it every year, renewing data each time. 1994 was three years after the
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (then known as
Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture) decided to relax the standards forthe establishment of universities, and request all universities to commence
self-assessment and produce a self-assessment report. This deregulation or relaxation of
the standards for the establishment of universities brought the term “university
evaluation” into wider use in Japan.
The relaxation of the standards for the establishment of universities provided greater
freedom for universities in terms of faculty and departmental organization, and gavethem room to explore new curricular structures. It enabled universities to develop theirindividuality. As a result, we saw the emergence of many new interdisciplinary faculties,
transcending the traditional discipline-based framework. Faculties of liberal education,
which had until then provided liberal education to new enrollees, were abolished infavor of programs that offered professional education from an earlier starting point.
This was also the period in which graduate universities began to appear. In other words,
this period marked the beginning of an era in which universities would pursue theirown individual directions.
In addition, the 18-year-old—university entrance age—population had reached a peakin 1992, and it was already well known that the population would decline from thatpoint. There is no more certain predictor of future trends than population projections.
The era of “universities choosing students” was nearing an end. It would be replaced byan era of “students choosing universities.” Higher education practitioners throughout
Japan were beginning to prepare themselves for these realities.
Naturally, these developments provided universities with a new incentive tocommunicate information on their educational and research activities to as many
prospective students as possible. Normally, university evaluation should attract theattention of the general public, as a means of comprehending the changes universities
are undergoing and as a tool to communicate the individual characteristics of each
university. Unfortunately, however, the self-assessment reports hardly saw the light of101

day outside the universities that produced them.
Why did this happen? I think it could be attributed to the following facts.
Firstly, these evaluations were conducted primarily for faculty, staff, and othermembers of the university organizations being evaluated. Secondly, the method
employed was one of defining missions and objectives for each university and thenassessing whether or not they had been achieved: a qualitative, or even absolute,evaluation. The third fact is that the missions and objectives were set by theuniversities themselves. As a result, they lacked objectivity. For these three reasons,the self-assessment reports at all universities ended up being little more than praise for
one’s own wares. It was difficult to ascertain any difference between universities. Thus,
the reports failed to attract the interest of wider society.
Universities are of course part of wider society, but for universities themselves, society
exists outside their doorsteps. Among the various stakeholders in this “society,”prospective students and the corporate sector are particularly important. Students haveto choose which university they will enroll in. Companies have to employ university
graduates. They also have to choose partners for research. In any event, suchstakeholders must choose a handful of suitable universities from among the 744
institutions that exist across the country. Thus, they need university evaluation.
Prospective students, companies, and other stakeholders require universities to beevaluated in a manner that is, if possible, quantitative and enables direct comparisons
to be made. Put another way, the type of university evaluation demanded by wider
society is quantitative and comparative evaluation.
Have universities communicated the results of this kind of evaluation? Have they been
disseminated by public bodies responsible for educational administration? No, they
have not. So mass media organizations such as ours have stepped in to fill the gap. In
1992, before we started our publication, the economic magazine Diamond Weekly
started publishing a “human resource output ranking” based on surveys of corporate
officers responsible for recruitment of new employees. Two years later, our organization
produced the first edition of the university rankings for prospective university students.
Such rankings all take the form of commercial publications. They are published with102the aim of generating profits. I do not think it is true, however, that the pursuit of profit
has been the sole purpose of publication. The data that forms the basis of our rankings
is provided by a variety of bodies including universities themselves, governmentorganizations, companies, and senior high schools. It is my belief that all theseorganizations provide data because they appreciate the social value of the rankings we
produce.
The fact that our university rankings have been judged useful in social terms is what
has enabled us to continue producing them. This refutes suggestions that ours is just acommercial publication produced with the aim of making money. I’m trying to show youthat our publication has been recognized to have a certain degree of social utility.
In contrast to our university rankings, why has systematic university evaluation suchas the certified evaluation and accreditation—which is the theme of today’s
symposium—not been absorbed into wider society?
I believe that one explanation is that the universities that have undergone such
evaluation and accreditation have been reluctant to communicate to wider society thefact that they have received certification.
University evaluation in Japan has progressed from the initial system “self-assessment
reports” through an external evaluation system focused on third party peer review, tothe current systematized approach of certified evaluation and accreditation. As I said
earlier, however, in spite of these developments, university evaluation has not captured
the attention of the public, nor are stakeholders making use of the results of evaluation.
I have also pointed out that the principal reason for this is that universities have nottaken active steps to promote the fact that they have undergone certified evaluation andaccreditation.
I would like to give you an example of this fact, taken from Rikkyo University. Rikkyo
underwent certified evaluation and accreditation in 2004. The report produced as aresult of this evaluation is a huge document of around 650 pages. I found it to be adetailed and thorough report. Owing to its size, it has been published on CD-ROM.
However, the fact that Rikkyo has received such certification does not even get amention in any of the brochures produced by the university for recruitment of103

prospective students, despite the fact that such students are the primary target for
dissemination of information about the university.
The reason for this omission lies in the fact that the actual results of theevaluation—facts such as that “the quality of education and research at the university
is assured,” and that “the university is conducting research and education of a levelsuitable to its designation as a university”—are, for a university with the prestige andtradition of Rikkyo, matters of course that do not require any special mention. For
society outside the university, for example for high schools students or companies, theresults are no big news. Thus the university doesn’t promote them, and neither donewspapers or television report it in any significant way.
I have heard that in the U.S., universities that are unable to gain accreditation are
subject to extremely serious penalties, including disqualification of their students from
eligibility for scholarships, and in some states, suspension of the right to grant academic
degrees. Under such conditions, whether a university gains accreditation or not is amatter of considerable concern to students. In Japan, however, certified evaluation andaccreditation is not conducted in such a harsh manner. I think this provides anotherexplanation for the low degree of public recognition of the results of evaluation.
I would like to reverse the question and ask: what kind of universities will capture theattention of the public when they are evaluated? The answer is the exact opposite of
top-class, traditional institutions. For instance, up until 1991, very strict standards
were applied to the establishment of new universities. These standards were relaxed tosome extent after 1991, and even further later on. Thus, universities establishedpost-1991 should attract more public attention when they undergo certified evaluation
and accreditation. In recent years, private companies have been permitted to establish
universities in certain designated zones. Permission for establishment has been granted
according to standards regarding university assets and other matters that are far morelenient than those previously applied to new universities. Some of these developments
have been subjected to criticism in the National Diet. Wouldn’t certified evaluation andaccreditation have attracted more attention if these kinds of universities were made thesubjects of it first? Since the certified evaluation and accreditation system started, theNational Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation, the Japan
University Accreditation Association, and other organizations have been publishing
results of many evaluations. Most have generated only small articles in the press. There104

was only one occasion when these evaluation results made headlines. This was when
the Japan University Accreditation Association announced that it had suspended
accreditation for two institutions it evaluated in 2005. This was the equivalent of
issuing a yellow card in a soccer game. That’s why it received so much media coverage.
With this in mind, as I said earlier, evaluators should give priority to newly-establisheduniversities or those that are under-enrolled and experiencing financial difficulties,
even if means delaying the evaluation process for traditional prestigious universities. I
believe that such an approach would help university evaluations gain wider exposure.
Earlier on I suggested that the existing forms of university evaluation, including
certified evaluation and accreditation, do not reflect the needs of stakeholders. However,
our ranking system also has many limitations. After 14 years of producing theserankings, I, more than anyone else, am aware of these limitations.
Firstly, performance in research fields can be quantified in various ways. The amount ofgrant-in-aid for scientific research, the number of papers published, and citations aresome of the many quantitative indicators that can be used. However, there are virtually
no sources of data that can quantify educational quality. We have hunted high and low,
but our search has been fruitless. About all we can come up with is data relating to thephysical educational environment. In essence, educational quality is manifested inindividual students. The form it takes is dependent on the individual in question, andvery difficult to process statistically. Therefore, rankings cannot adequately assess thequality of education.
The second limitation is that it is not easy to check the reliability of data. A primeexample can be found in the term “job placement rate.” Figures are available on rates ofjob placement for graduates in Japan. The prolonged economic downturn has meantthat great importance is placed on these figures by students and parents. However, thedefinition of job placement rate differs from university to university. It should express
the percentage of graduating students who have secured a job as a proportion of those
who have sought one, but there is no set definition of either of these concepts. As aresult you end up comparing things that are not suitable for comparison, and for thisreason we do not use this slipshod measure. However, there is an abundance ofrankings that do use it.

105Thirdly, there are many cases where universities will not provide proper data. For
instance, outcomes of entrance examinations provide probably the most important basic
form of data for prospective students, and we ask universities to provide it throughfigures such as numbers of students taking general entrance examinations, numbers ofapplicants, numbers of students actually accepted, numbers of students actuallyenrolled, and numbers of students accepted and enrolled through recommendation
systems. However, 150 out of the 700 universities treat some or all of these figures asconfidential. Even for something as basic as data on entrance exams, it is not easy togather figures that are complete and reliable.
It is my view that these limitations and problems mean that rankings should neverform the mainstream of university evaluation. The cornerstone for evaluation should bea public evaluation system such as certified evaluation and accreditation that, founded
on a relationship of trust between the evaluation institution and the university,
requires all forms of data to be provided and subjects them to a full analysis. The factthat the results of this kind of evaluation are currently not communicated to wider
society is, frankly, a waste.
I would really like to see the bodies responsible for evaluation work together with
universities to find ways to communicate the outcomes of public evaluation such as
certified evaluation.
That concludes my talk. Thank you.
Kawaguchi: Thank you.
If I may just add one point: as you know, our organization implemented a program oftrial evaluation from the year 2000. As part of our review of this program, we conducted
a questionnaire survey, the results of which revealed a point related to that raised justnow by Mr. Shimizu. Respondents stated repeatedly that although their university was
disseminating information about evaluations, it wasn’t getting through to the public. I
got the impression that universities were pursuing this without any analysis of whatkinds of information should be disseminated to which stakeholders, or exactly what was
required of them. It was an interesting point to note.
But if I start talking we’ll run out of time, so let’s move on to the next speaker.

106

“Contribution of University Evaluation to Society: University Evaluation in Norway”
Roger K. Abrahamsen（Professor, UMB; Chair, NOKUT's Board, Norway）
Kawaguchi: We now welcome Prof. Roger Abrahamsen, who has come from Norway.
Prof. Abrahamsen holds posts both at a university and at an organization that conducts
evaluation. We hope to hear his comments from this dual perspective. Prof.
Abrahamsen, please go ahead.
(Slide1)
Roger Abrahamsen: Mr. President, Your Excellency, dear colleagues, also for me it’s anhonor and a privilege to participate in this very interesting symposium today and tovisit your nice country. I will take you through my presentation in a slightly reduced
model compared to what you have in your documents.
I was asked by the organizers, and I quote, “to focus on the goal of university evaluationin the Nordic,” and I prefer then to refer to Norway. I was also asked, “How should thegovernment,

universities

andqualityassurance

institution

satisfywiththeaccountability of university evaluation.” The third question was raised like this: “Howshould universities utilize the result of the evaluation for improvement?”(Slide2, 3)
I would like to take you very briefly again into the evaluation and assessment carriedout by NOKUT, which I represent here. Which is on the screen, has been mentioned toyou earlier today, so I don’t need to go through each individual point here.
(Slide4)
So I take you to the next slide because this slide says something about the more generalconsideration concerning the evaluations and assessment carried out by our agency.
And it’s very important to underline that all evaluations are carried out by external
committees or expert panels established by NOKUT. And I would underline that all thereports from these committees are public and we have to publish them and we thinkthat the society would like to read them.
The reports are comprehensive and present basic information about the higher
education institution. And it’s also right to say that these reports are a kind of thoroughevaluation, which is spelled out in the recommendations, as well as more formal
conclusions. And then the reports are very important tools for the institutions’ further
work with quality development. They have told us clearly that that’s the case. And theeducational institutions normally express great satisfaction with the reports and often

107

underline their practical usefulness in their own work. We have the understanding thatthe institutions pay considerable attention to the recommendations.
(Slide5)
A few words about the quality audit it’s very important to remember or to understandthat the educational institutions are required by law to have satisfactory internal
quality assurance systems and that’s the platform for all other kind of assessment or
evaluations. And the quality assurance system will be assessed by NOKUT in periods ofa maximum of six years. It’s a very important point to underline that higher education
institutions themselves carry the responsibility for the quality of their own educational
provision. They have to carry out a robust internal quality assurance, and this is in
their own interest. We have to convince them that this is in their own interest. If they
can realize that, the institution has a good possibility to develop an institutional quality
culture. I think the society should be aware of the fact that a number of Norwegian
institutions have developed what we can call a quality culture because of theseevaluations.
(Slide6)
The next point I would like to draw your attention to is that the educational institutions
have the freedom to design their own quality assurance system within a given frame ofreference. We consider this freedom as important. The concept of freedom for the
institution to design their own quality assurance system is supposed to foster a sense ofownership and broad participation among the institutions’ staff and students. We
strongly believe in this, but we still don’t know if we can have this so to say bottom-up
reaction. But the ownership and broad participation is considered important, and I
think this is a pillar in the development of the quality required also by the society.
(Slide7)
The next point is that the quality audit cannot directly lead to the loss of certification
but it could reveal indications of poor quality, and NOKUT may follow up these
indications by carrying out revision of certification. And it’s probably right to underlinethat the link between institutional quality audits and revisions of certification can beconsidered as the central pillar in the Norwegian system.
(Slide8)
The quality audits are important for the educational institutions, for the students andfor the society because the quality assurance system should be used as a two-foldinstitution to pay continuous attention to the improvement of the educational systemand the educational provisions. The feedback to the student about actions for
improvements is crucial. If we don’t show the student that we do an improvement, then108

we are in a bad situation. But I would like to conclude concerning the effect of thequality audits by saying that the fact that the institutions have established and are able
to operate a reliable quality system may be crucial for the trust and reliability
expressed from the society to the Norwegian institutions for higher education.
(Slide9)So a few words about what we call the institutional certification. It’s right to say thatcertification of institutions is an instrument which makes it possible to change
institutional category. My colleague, Tove Blytt Holmen, expressed this to you earlier
today. NOKUT carries out institutional certification based on applications to change
category. The aim of this system is to achieve academic expansion. It is a political will in
Norway that an institution can apply to be placed in a higher category of institution. If,
for instance, a university college would like to get the status of a university, there is aneed to increase the institution’s academic competence and quality. And this may havea very important effect in the society because this may create the political will toallocate additional resources at the governmental level. It may mobilize particularsupport from the regional or local politicians, society and industry. And it may increase
the regional competence platform and again create regional innovation and new
professional activities in the region.
(Slide10, 11)
We also have what we call the initial accreditation of programs and courses, and in thiscontext accreditation of programs of study is an instrument to secure the standard of
new programs. And I feel very strongly that the society should be aware of the fact that
we have such a certification of programs. Certification is carried out by NOKUT when
an institution applies for the accreditation of a new course or program that theinstitution status doesn’t allow it to provide automatically. And the reason behind thissystem has been explained to you this morning.
(Slide12)
So I take you further to the importance for the society when it comes to initialaccreditation of programs because in order to achieve governmental support, or agovernmental-supported student loan, a study program has to be accredited.
Accreditation of new programs is an important prerequisite in the Bologna process
signed by the Norwegian government. And a very clear goal set by the Norwegian
government is that certification may be considered as an important tool to achieve thenational, political and institutional goal, namely, to secure that the quality of higher
Norwegian education is at a high international level. Accreditation of new programs
establishes in that way an increased confidence to the institutions from the society.

109

(Slide13, 14)
We also have the revision of certification or re-certification if you like. Thisre-certification is related to programs and institutions. Based on different indications,
NOKUT may conduct an evaluation of an institution or a program of study with a view
to do revision for a previously-granted certification. The revision may be triggered byindications from the institutional audit, which I mentioned earlier, of the quality
assurance system or by other indications of inferior quality.
So what is the importance of this re-certification for the society and for the institutions?
Well the reports from the expert panels contain recommendations of how theinstitutions could develop the quality beyond the minimum level. The experience showsthat institutions follow up the experts’ recommendations—that’s important—and we
consider certification as a strong instrument for obtaining the goal of continuous
improvement of higher education, which again is a very strong goal for the parliamentand expressed in the parliament. The decision to revoke the accreditation of a program
or institution will obviously create a considerable set of activities in order to retain thequality necessary for accreditation. So this is a quality-driving force in what we could
call the quality wheel.
(Slide15, 16)
We also do evaluation of significance to assessment of the quality of higher education,
and we can decide to do that and we can also be asked by the ministry or the ministry
may instruct us to carry out such evaluations. We consider these evaluations as animportant source of information for the ministry and for the educational institutions
and even for the society in their decision-making and allocation of resources for
improvement of higher education. And these assessments may indicate to NOKUT if arevision of accreditation of a program or an institution is necessary or relevant.
(Slide17, 18)
If you look into the Norwegian system it can be concluded that it is what we could callan integrated system, a balance between internal and external quality assurance with afocus on the institutions’ responsibility for the quality on their provisions. And thisbalance,combinedwith

confidence

in

the

institutions,

make

the

systemresource-effective. We consider that as important.
So besides getting more out of the existing system by improving processes andprocedures and following up other challenges, the following steps could be taken:
systematize the accreditation instruments more, so we will look further into criteria and110

procedures; and we will give higher priority to work with the examination of the effectsof the different instruments on the aims and objectives, and; we will also achieve more
knowledge on the effectiveness of the different methods used and how to reduce the costin quality work without reducing the quality.
(Slide19)
So my main conclusions, which are rather general. The various types of evaluations of
the quality assurance system in higher education create an increased focus on quality
development in higher education which in general is important for the society. It’s
important for the country. It’s important for the students and of course for theeducational institutions. And a comprehensive quality assurance system and theevaluation tools used create increased confidence between the society and theinstitutions. It creates a better contact between the society and the institutions and abetter contact between the industry and the institutions. And both the society and theindustry may have the opportunity to influence the curriculum and the educational
program if they like. It will also create a better platform for decision-making, forallocation of resources, both at the institutional and governmental level, a better
platform

for

other

political

decisionsandanincreased

possibility

forinternationalization within higher education which is a prerequisite for further
development.
So I will end this introduction by saying that the lack of an appropriate national quality
assurance system in higher education will result in a loss of confidence in the modern
society, among students and among politicians. Thank you.

“Existing Situation of University Evaluation in Japan”
Fumio Isoda (Deputy Director-General, Higher Education Bureau, Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT))
Kawaguchi: Up to this point we have heard from two individuals: Mr. Shimizu from theperspective of wider society, and now Prof. Abrahamsen representing both a university
and an evaluation body. Now Mr. Isoda of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology will make some comments. Then we will move to discussion.
Thank you.
Isoda: I was told I have 15 minutes to speak, and at this stage in the proceedings I don’t111think it’s really useful for someone from the national educational administration to talkabout the certified evaluation and accreditation system. Instead, I will try my best to
make some comments on the points already made.
First there is the issue, raised by Mr. Shimizu, of why university representatives don’t
provide the wider community with more information about their activities. Universities
would point to the fact that in the era of high economic growth in Japan, despite theincreasing prosperity of the nation, the amount of public funds directed to universities
was fairly low. As you know, public funding allocations to higher education institutionsin Japan are quite meager compared to Europe.
For this reason, in the past there was little expectation that universities would
disseminate information about their internal activities. Students, one of the stakeholder
groups mentioned earlier, were most concerned with the deviation-value scores, whichindicated how selective the entrance exams were at different universities. Their
motivation did not come from, for example, a desire to take Prof. (Kazuo) Akagi’s classes
at Kyoto University or to learn about decentralization of administrative power fromProf. (Naohiko) Jinno at the University of Tokyo. Instead, they were just interested inchoosing the university with the highest scores.
Companies also relied on these entrance scores to indicate the potential capabilities of
future employees, and sometimes recruited students on the basis of which university
they had attended. So in the past, universities gave students an opportunity to raise
their skills through academic pursuits, but also provided an environment for personal
development and formation of a broader outlook on life and work.
This situation was combined with the low levels of public funding in comparison toother countries to generate a blithe attitude towards evaluation among universities.
From the early 1970s, however, universities were subjected to severe publiccondemnation in the wake of revelations that some of them had enrolled excessive
numbers of students. This prompted the national government to impose more stringent
quantitative restrictions on universities in a new plan for higher education. This planrequired universities to take steps to rectify their over-enrollment problems, as well as
imposing basic constraints on university expansion, and particularly controls on growth
in major urban areas. In return for these new constraints, the government instituted asystem of subsidies for private universities.

112

The next major turning point was reached, I believe, at the time of the Nakasone
cabinet. This was an era when not only Japan but also the Regan administration in the
U.S. and the Thatcher government in the UK were all promoting neoliberalist policies ofstructural reform.
In Japan, this political current was reflected in more relaxed regulatory structures,increased elasticity and flexibility, and eventually, as mentioned earlier, the dawning of
the era of evaluation in 1991.
At this point, in return for relaxation of restrictions, a new system of self-assessment
was introduced. As has been pointed out, however, this system required members of theuniversity organization to evaluate their own efforts to improve education and research
quality. This meant that evaluation centered on qualitative issues and that its mainconcern was not to produce reports that could be read through with ease or enable
comparison between universities.
Another more recent development is the shift from an ex ante to an ex post model forsupervision of private university activities. The traditional relationship between thenational government and private universities was one of advance regulation combinedwith government subsidies—a convoy system, as it were, to protect universities fromthe vagaries of the market. In order to reform or even revolutionize universities, policies
have now been developed to allow the entry of new players into the university sector,
most typically private corporations. This shift is one of the major currents ofneoliberalism in recent years.
The new system was instituted by the 2004 revision to the standards for theestablishment of universities. The magnitude of this revision can be seen in the factthat now, applications for establishment are judged strictly by reference to pre-set
criteria: if an application accords with the standards, the Ministry is compelled toapprove it. In addition, despite the dramatic decrease in the 18-year-old population
discussed earlier, in 2004 the enrollment capacity of private universities in this country
actually increased by over 6,000. For the private university sector, we have now enteredan era of uncertainty in which universities face the specter of bankruptcy. Private
universities are struggling to find ways to protect their students and preservelong-standing traditions and progress achieved in educational and research fields, atthe same time as confronting the successive emergence of new players in the sector.

113

One further point is that now that we’ve reached this stage, I think it can be said that it
is no longer possible for universities to operate in isolation from the wider community.
One reason is that as was explained earlier, the decrease in the population of
18-year-olds means that from the 2007 academic year, all students who wish to enroll inuniversity will be able to gain a place. The balance between supply and demand has
been reversed completely. I agree with the observation that universities must now do all
they can to promote their education and research activities to prospective students.
I understand that this issue does not relate simply to evaluation, but requires aparadigm shift for universities. As you know, debate on higher education
administration in our country focused for many years on the issue of how to get more
students accepted into higher education institutions and how to educate themeffectively. The principal issues were those of how to ensure that selection for university
entrance was conducted fairly, how to alleviate the intense competition in the selection
process, and how to ensure senior high school students attained an appropriate
academic level in preparation for university study. As forces of supply and demand arereversed, however, we now need to reassess the system for university entrance in its
entirety, and also achieve a wide-ranging shift in focus for educational content.
In other words, there must be a fundamental change to the framework that waspredicated on a competitive system of university entrance and the assumption thatgetting into university is inherently difficult. I believe that evaluation is a major issue
in this respect.
I also want to comment further on the point that the general public has not displayedmuch interest in the actual content of education provided by universities up until now. I
realize that in the past, universities have collaborated with industry in certain ways
such as developing close relationships between specific researchers and research
institutes at specific companies or working jointly on specific projects, and that suchcollaborations have been the subject of some evaluation. However, I am not talking
about evaluation of such individual relationships between researchers and researchbodies. Universities are assuming greater importance in wider society. For example, avery large amount of funds is injected into universities through competitive funding
schemes established in recent years, and one out of every two 18 year olds now enrollsin university. This means, I believe, that the community will no longer tolerate
universities operating as isolated entities.

114

The labor market is a case in point. Traditionally, companies have recruited students on
the basis of potential shown at the time of enrollment in university: their performanceon exams for admission to university from high school. Upon induction into thecompany, new recruits would be provided with extensive training to equip them with
the qualities and abilities required by that company. At most companies, this
employment system is now undergoing change, with new emphasis placed on recruiting
personnel with top-level abilities who are of immediate use in company activities. Manycompanies are choosing to recruit students with Master’s degrees, or even PhDs, inpreference to those with undergraduate degrees only. In order to address changes incorporate capacity to nurture human resources, or shall we say to respond to rapidlychanging conditions, there is a growing expectation that the university sector shouldtake more responsibility for human resource development.
In addition, although it is probably a transient phenomenon, in the period after Japan’s
economic bubble burst, many companies have closed their central research units andhave come to rely instead on universities to meet their basic research functions. I
believe that this led to the acceptance in wider society of the research function ofuniversities as organizations.
We are aware of a need at this time for the university sector to communicate to thecommunity, and to students, the results of a thorough process of self-evaluation andmonitoring. Addressing the question of how this is to be labeled or graded has, in the
postwar era, been a major responsibility of the Japan University Accreditation
Association. Basically, we think that the most appropriate system is one in which auniversity association undertakes mutual evaluation and accreditation of member
organizations, and in which a variety of intermediary organizations or functions help topromote communication between universities and wider society. One of our greatest
hopes is that players from a variety of sectors, including the mass media, will help topromote the development of these processes of exchange.
There is one final point I would like to make. I have already said that the decline in the
18-year-old population is resulting in fundamental changes to the quality of evaluation,
particularly to how it is presented to the community and above all to prospective
students. One other factor, however, is globalization, which is also one of the
explanations for changes in the corporate sector I discussed earlier. As is clear from thediscourse in forums such as UNESCO and the OECD, the trends to globalization and115

the international cross-border movement of people, goods, and intellectual property aremaking the issue of international quality assurance in the higher education sector amajor concern.
We believe that in relation to international quality assurance, our Ministry must fulfill
its responsibility to global higher education by working to improve the evaluation
system, so we can communicate to the world an assurance of the quality of our higher
education institutions. Thank you.
Kawaguchi: Thank you very much. Now we would welcome comments from our two
Nordic panelists.
Wahlén: Just a brief intervention. I’d like to make a brief comment on Mr. Shimizu’s
inspired talk in favor of ranking. As Mr. Isoda said, we all know that universities areaccountable to society and stakeholders generally for their provision and their results.
The question is, who are really the stakeholders? Who wants to know what? I think thisis an important question. And in this light, I’m afraid, sometimes rankings, as least as
I’ve seen them, may become too simplistic, they over-simplify and over-state simple
figures, which taken together may be significant, but do not necessarily correspond towhat individual students and other stakeholders think is important for them.
It’s true that a lot of information is needed, and a lot of it is indeed available. In Sweden,
as in several other countries, there are databases with input concerning most aspects ofhigher education, providing figures number of students, number of new students, theirprogression, their number of years of study, graduation rates. Results of evaluations arealso included. But figures with regard to employment are not available, unlike what isthe case in, for example, the UK. Through our evaluations, we encourage universities to
conduct such investigations themselves, because it is, after all their responsibility to dothem and to make the results publicly available.
So for ranking purposes, what are the data we need, and how reliable are the ranking
lists? Do they actually include such information as students, prospective students,
employers and other stakeholders need to make informed choices.
Shimizu: I think Mr. Wahlén’s point is well made. I am of the same opinion myself. In
Europe, the Times Higher Education Supplement produces world higher education

116

rankings, but the results are unaccompanied by any explanation about the sources ofthe data or of the rationale behind the weightings accorded to each indicator.
You also said that rankings are too simplistic. Given that universities’ scale and faculty
structures vary widely, trying to transpose university information into a single figure
for ranking purposes is a task which, I believe, is impossible.
We produce rankings according to 72 different indicators, but we do not produce anoverall ranking. We think it is impossible to combine all the indicators. At a conference
attended by parties involved in university evaluation, held by UNESCO in Berlin
earlier this year, the Berlin Declaration was adopted. This declaration stated theprinciple that all published data must be substantiated, and that evaluators have a
responsibility to explain weighting methods and other equations used. I believe that
this principle should also be followed by all those involved in the production of rankings.
This declaration will help change rankings for the better.
Kawaguchi: Thank you very much. Go ahead.
Isoda: I would like to make one related point. At present there is a lot of debate over
who our stakeholders actually are. In the past, when confronted with the concept of
stakeholders, we university people tended to use the excuse that we were contributing
to the intellectual wealth of humanity as a whole, or to the development of the state orsociety in general, or to the improvement of the general citizenry. We must come toterms with the fact that we have not made enough effort to reflect on the actual qualityof education or research at our universities.
One simple example comes from a private university in the Kansai region. This is aforeign language studies university, and its current account is well and truly in theblack. It has also been able to move to a new campus location in a short time and very
efficiently. However, because this is a private university, its mission precludes it fromcovering all academic fields.
In contrast, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies maintains programs in foreign
language and regional studies representing a significant proportion of the world’s
regions. This has enabled it in recent years to provide cooperative educational support
in Afghanistan and to facilitate academic assistance and human resource provision in a117

variety of contexts for relations between Japan and other countries, including in Iraq. I
always think that in such situations it is extremely difficult to evaluate the ways inwhich universities are contributing to the development of students, the corporate sector,
and other elements of society, or to take a broader perspective, what role they play inthe development of Japan, or of our citizens, or even of the human race as a whole, andin the long-term enhancement of knowledge for humankind. This is my current concern.
I believe that the market principles of neoliberalism do not provide a full solution to thisissue. We need to consider ways in which we can build this issue in to our evaluation
practices.
Kawaguchi: Thank you very much.
Sólrún Jensdóttir: Just a few words. Firstly, I must say that I was very inspired by Mr.
Shimizu’s presentation because when one looks at the heading of this panel discussion,
contributions of university evaluation to society, the main point in evaluations of higher
education for society is pretty obvious from my point of view at least.
The contribution of evaluation is to make both students, who are the main stakeholders
I would say, and also industry and businesses aware of what quality they are gettingfrom the supplier, which is the university, and therefore it’s very important to giveinformation to these stakeholders about the quality of the institutions. And as has been
said here by many, the publication of evaluation reports is very necessary, as well as
general information about the university institutions.
In Iceland we are so few and small that it’s very easy for us, i.e. for the Ministry, to say
to universities, if we are to give them contracts for financing, they have to fulfill several
criteria and one is to have a good information system towards society. But as we weretalking about the press and media, unfortunately, the media doesn’t seem to be very
interested in good reviews. But if they are bad, then everything breaks loose and you
have this large heading for several days. This one is terrible, I mean, I never heard
anything so bad as this. But fortunately, the institutions, even those who get bad
reviews, get the opportunity to improve themselves, and we in the Ministry follow andtry to help them because, as has also been said here often today, one of the main
objectives of evaluation and quality assurance is to give the institutions the impetus todevelop and improve. That’s all for the moment I think.

118

Kawaguchi: I’m sure everybody would like to reply to some of these points, but pleaseallow me to press on.
We have just heard about stakeholders and the information provided to them. Over a
period of two years I visited all the Nordic countries and was introduced to the methodsof evaluation employed in those countries.
One point of major difference from university evaluation in Japan was that
representatives of the student body participate in the evaluation process. In Japan,
there would be endless debate over whether Japanese university students should be
entrusted with such responsibility. But the involvement of students is something wewill have to think about in the context of issues such as how to communicate evaluation
results to prospective student stakeholders.
There is another point, one that our organization often emphasizes when conducting
evaluations, and that was reflected in the opinions of this morning’s speakers. The pointis that evaluation is a joint operation based on a relationship of tension between theevaluating body and the university being evaluated. That’s what we need to achieve. As
pointed out by Dr. Kajiyama earlier, the Nordic countries are one cycle ahead of Japanin terms of creating this relationship. I think we have just managed to take our firstunsteady steps, but there is a history going back ten years, or at least more than five
years, in the Nordic countries. It became clear to me that they have probably just got tothe end of the first round or cycle, and are now reviewing their progress and possible
directions for future years. This is the reason why we came up with the idea of holding
this symposium as a source of ideas for university evaluation practices in Japan.
Earlier on—I think it came up at the end of the first panel discussion too—there weresome comments made to the effect that evaluating bodies have also worked to reflect theviews of universities in making improvements to their activities. I would like to invite
anyone from the floor who has a short comment—perhaps it will be difficult to keep it
short—to make in this regard, particularly from a university perspective. I’m sure manyof you would like to say something, so please use this opportunity to make your opinions
heard. We would welcome questions about challenges faced by Nordic countries andhow they dealt with them, or any other general points. Would someone like tovolunteer?

119Question 1: Before I ask my question I would like to say that I listened to therepresentatives of the Nordic countries with a strong sense of respect and a certain
degree of envy. This is because the Nordic countries are both part of Europe and at thesame time have developed an organic and integrated approach to evaluation among
themselves. I was deeply impressed by this. I just wanted to say that at the outset.
My question relates to the work of Mr. Shimizu who we heard from in the afternoon
session. It was one of the major themes of this session—the issue of rankings. If I am
not mistaken, during the morning session the point was made two or three times that
the Nordic countries do not use rankings or league tables.
This can be contrasted to the situation in the neighboring United Kingdom. Mr.
Shimizu also touched on the point that in the UK, rankings are published prominently
in the press. I would like you to comment further on the reasons for this difference inthe use of rankings.
I realize that rankings vary depending on whether they are quantitative or qualitative,
and that the ease or difficulty with which they can be produced depends on factors suchas whether they evaluate research or education. I would be grateful if you could talkabout these points with reference to the Nordic countries.
Wahlén: You’re referring, I think, to the difference between the Nordic countries andthe UK. It’s a striking phenomenon that rankings are most often or nearly always madeand published by the press, i.e. newspapers or magazines. Some of them are good, suchas the ones you mentioned, The Times higher education supplement and so on; Some ofthem are not so good. I think one of the reasons why rankings are not looked upon sofavourably in the Nordic countries is that we are after all small communities, and there
isn’t enough interest on the part of the general public, so that publication of league
tables would increase circulation. Rankings of Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Finnish
and Icelandic universities would not arouse sufficient interest.
Abrahamsen: Yes, I think you are right. It has something to do with the size of thecountries. In Norway, when we started the evaluation as we have talked about today,
there was a saying from the sector that they were afraid that the evaluations should be
used as a kind of point of departure for ranking for the future. And we had then toconvince them that that was not the reason why we introduced all the evaluations.

120

There are a number of arguments put on the table because in a small country, like
Norway, there are quite few fully-fledged universities, and if you look upon these
universities they are different in the way that they are specialized in certain areas. It
means that the University of Bergen may be better than the University of Oslo in one
particular field and that’s the only place probably in Norway where this field is taught
or given attention. So in a small country there is a tendency to greater specialization
within certain subjects. So ranking is not very meaningful for that reason.
The other thing we know is that the Norwegian student seems not to look too much intothat kind of quality. They will ask, where is this university located geographically in the
country. That’s one of the main reasons for the choice of university.
Another reason could be the social way of life for the students, and it was mentioned
here the job opportunity, we have no information that there are better job opportunities
if you go to this university or that university. We have more information about job
opportunities regarding the subject you have studied. So in a small country we have tofulfill all of the requirements by higher education seen together and it’s an open choiceby the students, so ranking doesn’t mean too much for the students and probably not forthe society. Thank you.
Shimizu: May I make one brief comment?
I was deeply moved by one comment made by Dr. Kajiyama from Kyushu University inan earlier session today. He made the very important point that we must pay attention
not only to the structures for input into the evaluation process, but also to the results or
outcomes. Rankings are all about results. Number of papers, number of citations,amount of research grants-in-aid, amount of subsidies—they’re all outcomes, all results.
Having listened to the comments just made, I can see that certainly the countries are
small and have a limited number of universities. But I think that it’s still possible andmeaningful to evaluate results, even in the Nordic countries. So whether rankings arenecessary is not merely a matter of size or geographical conditions—it is whether or not
we focus on outcomes. I think this is an important standpoint for evaluators.
Kawaguchi: Thank you very much.

121

Wahlén: Just a brief comment. I agree very much that we should pay attention to
outcome; that is essential. But I noticed that when you gave examples, you referred to
the world of research, using things like citation indices and so on. The huge Chinese
league table of 500 universities refers almost exclusively to research outcomes. This is
not without complications in the way that it has an impact on the way research projects
are carried out and published, but it is feasible and has a certain credibility. When it
comes to teaching and learning, variables are more difficult and complex.
Kawaguchi: Allow me to move on to the next topic. I would like to ask all speakers toprovide their name and the organization to which they are affiliated before they maketheir comment. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Now, I would like to invite questions and comments preferably on issues other thanrankings. Yes, the person in the back, please go ahead.
Question 2: Thank you for an extremely valuable discussion today.
If I understand correctly, at the end of his presentation Mr. Shimizu made comments
about the limitations of rankings and how he hoped that universities and evaluatingorganizations publish evaluation reports produced on the basis of a trust relationship.
In the Nordic countries, I’m sure it’s taken for granted that the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ ofaccreditation should be made public, but what about recommendations for improvement
and points that were evaluated positively—the actual substance of the evaluation? To
what extent are these matters disclosed? My knowledge of the Japanese situation is alsolacking, so I would like you to explain how far disclosure goes in Japan, too.
Wahlén: In Sweden, and generally in the Nordic countries, everything is public.
Self-evaluations are also public, and, in fact any kinds of results found by quality
assurance agencies or the universities themselves are available to the public.
Kawaguchi: Prof. Kimura, would you make a comment about the situation in Japan?
Kimura: Well in the case of Japan, or rather the case of our organization, we disclose
the self-assessment report produced by the university, any formal objection to the result
filed by the university as well as our response to it, the final results of theevaluation—everything is made public.

122

Kawaguchi: So your answer is that everything is open.
Kimura: Of course we tell the universities in advance that they need to agree to the factthat the entire evaluation process will be made public.
Abrahamsen: Everything is public, but for instance the regulation for NOKUT, ouragency, says that we should not only in a passive way make it public, we should have an
active attitude to get the report published so we should pay attention to the publication
activity as well. Thank you.
Kawaguchi: The person up the back. Go ahead.
Question 3: Education in the Nordic countries is held in high regard and is famousthroughout the world. But as far as university evaluation and accreditation is concerned,
from the global viewpoint, do practices in the Nordic countries have a good reputation?
What are your distinctive features? Having listened to the presentations today, I could
not see any particular difference between the practices employed in Europe, the Nordic
countries, and Denmark. Why has the focus of this symposium been placed on theNordic countries? I would appreciate it if you could talk about what distinguishes yoursystems of evaluation, or what underlying features make your systems strong.
Kawaguchi: Just one initial point. The certified evaluation and accreditation in Japan
does not accord precisely with the evaluation used in Nordic countries in terms ofcontent. With this in mind, are there any comments?
Abrahamsen: I feel we have to start it all over again in a way. We have been invited topresent some of the main efforts from each and every country concerning evaluations.
And you have seen that some of the presentations have a model that is more or lesssimilar and at the same time given explanations why there are differences. But Dr.
Thune’s first presentation today was opening with the European perspective and thatwas because we should be able to see the Nordic activities in the EU perspective. So I
don’t think I’m in the position to comment on this in another way than saying just this.
Thank you.
Isoda: I would like to share with you briefly what we in the bureaucracy feel.

123

Until recently, models for public administration in Japan had consistently been drawn
from the U.S. or the UK. This trend was noticeable in higher education policy too. As
has been pointed out, however, even in the case of university evaluation, there are many
limits to the neoliberalist reforms carried out under Thatcher or by the Regan
administration in the U.S. There is an awareness that we must shift our focus and try tolearn from countries other than the U.S. and the UK. In the EU in particular, we seethat a variety of countries with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds haveworked to develop a common, interchangeable system of evaluation. I believe that there
are points from which we can learn even if there are many areas of similarity with the
UK. If there are points of difference, we can examine why they are different—whether it
has to do with the size of the country in question, or perhaps the taxation system, orother social structures. I appreciate your candid opinion, and would like to make the
doubts you expressed part of our own learning process.
Kawaguchi: Thank you very much.
Are there any other questions? Yes, go ahead.
Question 4: On several occasions during today’s presentations, mention was made of thefact that Nordic universities have realized a high degree of student participation indecision-making processes as well as evaluation. By what means do you select thestudent representatives involved in these processes? I would like the parties currently
on stage to elaborate on the actual ways in which students are chosen.
Jensdóttir: Thank you. Speaking for Iceland we do have several student unions andthese student unions nominate students to sit on the board of the universities.
Kawaguchi: How does it work in Sweden and Norway?
Wahlén: In Sweden it works in the same way. Students are nominated by the student
unions to sit on various kinds of boards and committees within the universities.
Belonging to a student union in Sweden is compulsory in Sweden. This has been
discussed and debated, and the students unions and the National Union of Students
have a large mandate.
Kawaguchi: How about Norway?

124

Abrahamsen: Basically we have the same way of doing this, but when a student has
been participating in an evaluation, the students also go into a pool of recognized
students which can be used again and again, as long as they are students. Sooner orlater they have to leave the pool because they are no longer students, hopefully. So we
get some very good experience with the best students, of their approach and how theyfunction in the groups. Thank you.
Thune: Well, not really Denmark, more Europe. The issue of student participation,
which is part of the European standards, is actually a consequence of the fact which I
mentioned in my presentation and which is that the standards had to be agreed upon by
the European partners, including the very strong political student organizations. But it
is almost a stone, so to speak, around the leg of the European standards because it isexceedingly difficult to convince some of the European agencies that they should have intheir expert panels representatives of the student unions if these have very politicalplatforms.
So these agencies argue that you cannot have a panel of experts going into a university
with three or four eminent experts within each their academic field and then there isalso a student representative whose main objective may be to advance the student
political platform in more general national terms. So it is a difficult situation for those
who, like me, do believe that it is important that students have a role. The student
organizations themselves have made this issue more complicated by insisting in somecountries that students should be nominated by the political student unions. They are
not serving their cause very well by taking that stand. Thank you.
Tuomi: In Finland, the administration of universities the mechanism is similar with
Sweden, Norway and Denmark, and we have, also like in Norway, a pool of student
representatives for evaluation groups, but mainly we start with asking student unions
make a proposal for student members.
Kawaguchi: Are there any other questions?
Question 5: I was particularly interested in what Dr. Tuomi from Finland had to say. It
was about the need not just to evaluate accordance with the minimum requirements foraccreditation, but also to conduct evaluation with a view to strengthen and provide
support to universities. In other words, Dr. Tuomi talked about the practice of125

evaluation through proposing ways to strengthen the universities.
My main point of interest is whether or not this will become the dominant approach in
Nordic countries in the future. If we tried it in Japan we would soon be criticized fortrying to control universities. But I found it very impressive that an evaluating bodypromotes the notion of developing proposals that provide positive support andassistance to universities. I would like to ask if this is the direction that will be taken in
Nordic countries from now on.
Tuomi: I would ask my Nordic colleagues to answer this because I don’t have anything
to say after this comment from the floor.
Wahlén: At the moment we don’t have such commendable procedures but we will
actually be introducing them in our next cycle of evaluations, partly following theexample of Finland. Norway, too, has a similar program of awarding excellence inhigher education institutions. So I’ll hand over to Roger.
Abrahamsen: Well, this is also a little bit difficult question but we, in Norway,
established the awarding of center of excellence to different universities, but that’s
basically decided because of excellent research activities. These centers of excellence areresearch centers, but of course when they are centers of excellence of research in acertain area that has to influence the educational program related to the same area. So
good results in the research area should increase the quality of the related education.
Jensdóttir: Yes, thank you. In Iceland we are still developing our quality assurance
system, I’m sure that, we will also take our cue from Finland and proceed in this way
because it is very important to make the universities cooperate with us. So we’ll try toemulate Finland even though we don’t go as far yet.
Kawaguchi: Dr. Thune, do you have any comments?
Thune: Well, it’s another very complicated issue. The British tried to solve it in thenineties by having five different levels going from Excellent down to Not Acceptable.
That was an attempt to give the universities the possibility to achieve a result whichmarked their level above a minimum standard, and we did more or less the same in
Denmark.

126

The problem is that as you move into a system of accreditation, as many European
countries are doing at the moment, you run into exactly the problem which they havebeen having in the U.S. for so many years, and one of the reasons you can go to elite
universities such as Harvard, Yale and the Stanford and you can look for a while before
you can find any indication that they were every accredited because they couldn’t careless. What does it mean for an elite university such as Harvard to find that in an
accreditation process the same minimum standards apply to Harvard and to what
Harvard could perceive as inferior universities? Certainly that is not a very relevant
situation from the Harvard perspective.
And that to my mind is the main issue and problem with accreditation that compliancewith minimum standards is not very motivational for the better universities.
Either you accredit against standards and give a yes or no as to whether a university or
program meets these standards at a minimum level, or you have to use all themethodologies such as evaluation or audit. In my mind you cannot really saveaccreditation from this basic problem. You have to take that as one of your criteria forchoosing in the national system what weight and what priority you will giveaccreditation.
Accreditation is in principle primarily accountability-oriented and based on minimum
criteria. Therefore quality universities and quality programs may loose their motivation
once they realize that their excellence or potential excellence does not become evident inan accreditation process. So I guess this may be a general international experience inthat respect.
Kawaguchi: I think most of our questions have been from university people. I know
there are people here today from other institutions, for example from colleges oftechnology, and from bodies that conduct evaluations. Are there any questions from
non-university parties? We would really like to hear from you. Please go ahead.
Question 6: This has been a very interesting symposium, and I think it will be very
useful in our efforts to reform our education systems.
I would like to ask one thing about experiences in the Nordic countries. How are yourevaluation and accreditation assessed by the corporate sector? From our point of view it

127

seems that in Japan, companies do not necessarily show much appreciation for certified
evaluation and accreditation. I would like to hear your experiences and the state ofaffairs in your countries.
Abrahamsen: I’m not quite sure if you have a long experience concerning the company’s
appreciation of evaluation, but let me guess. Within a few years, when the industry gets
more information, they learn to know that we are doing this kind of evaluation, they
will probably look very tightly into the evaluations, and this again will create, as I tried
to underline in my presentation, a better communication between the industry and theuniversity. And if the industry is smart, they may pay attention to good sides and weaksides of the report and possibly support the university to carry on in a good way. For
instance, they may have something to say about the study curriculum in certain areas,
and that should be welcomed by the university, that the industry, the society gives themsome kind of feedback of how to proceed in the area, and support quality development
within certain areas. Thank you.
Wahlén: The Board of the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education has at least
two representatives of business and industry. And the Chair of the board is andindustry person. Through him we are also able to recruit high-ranking members of ourexpert panels, who take part in evaluations of programs and previously also in our
audits. They will most certainly also be included in the coming quality audits.
The interest shown by the Chairman of the board is very keen and he serves as a sort ofcatalyst, as a person who can actually share his knowledge of the university world withhis friends in some of the large Nordic companies. So that’s one answer to the question.
Kawaguchi: We have run out of time, but I will take just one more question from anyone
who has something that they simply must ask before leaving today.
Question 7: Just one straightforward question.
In Japan, there is an extremely deep-rooted “beneficiary pays” principle in relation totuition fees. The beneficiaries would be the students themselves or their families inJapan’s case. Does this beneficiary pays concept exist at all in Nordic countries? If not,what is your attitude towards tuition fees? This is the one point I would like you toanswer.

128

Wahlén: Well, there are no tuition fees in the Nordic countries at all so that all higher
education, except in some private colleges perhaps, is free.
Jensdóttir: Thank you. No, I just wanted to say that in Iceland we do have three private
universities and they are free to take tuition fees and they do. But on the other hand, we
do have a student loan fund and the students can get a loan to pay their tuition fees
which they do not have to repay until several years after they graduate, and then in
relation to their salaries.
Kawaguchi: Are there any other comments?
We have run a little over time, but thank you for all your comments, including yourquestions relating to this morning’s proceedings. I would like to express my gratitude to
you all on behalf of the organizers.
I will now declare this session closed and pass the baton over to the MC.
Kato: Panelists, Vice-President Kawaguchi, thank you very much.

129

130

Japan-Nordic Symposium

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

Summary and Closing Address
Akihiko Kawaguchi

Vice-President, NIAD-UE

131

Kato: We now move to the last item on the program, a summary of today’s symposiumand closing comments by Vice-President Kawaguchi from NIAD-UE.
Kawaguchi: Thank you for your introduction. Once again I take the floor—please bearwith me just a little longer.
This Japan-Nordic Symposium today was held on the theme “On the Frontier ofUniversity Evaluation—Making the Most of Nordic Successes.” In contrast to the poor
conditions we experienced up until yesterday, the weather has turned out very well, andI am extremely grateful that were able to hold the symposium under such conditions.
I would like to thank you for finding time in your busy schedules to come here today,and for the contributions so many of you made to the long and lively discussions wehave had. In particular, as I mentioned earlier, we were not able to spare enough timefor questions. However at the end we were able to take quite a few questions, and I hope
you feel a little more satisfied now.
I would like to convey our special thanks to Dr. Thune and all other panelists who madetime in their hectic schedules to join us here on stage today. We appreciate yourimmense understanding and cooperation with today’s proceedings, right through fromthe preparatory stage. Thank you very much.
Discussions today have centered on evaluation in Japanese higher education
institutions, issues of reform and improvement through evaluation, and accountability
to wider society. I would be interested to know your thoughts on today’s proceedings. I
hope that you were able to gain some idea of possible directions for university
evaluation here in Japan and how the results of evaluation should be utilized.
I think today’s symposium provided a very valuable opportunity to consider how todevelop a culture of evaluation—an issue that we ourselves are advocating—and to takea leading role in developing systems of quality assurance for higher education
institutions in this country. As I said a moment ago, the Nordic countries have been
engaging these issues for five or ten years longer than we have: that is why weorganized this symposium.
On a personal note, when I was studying at Harvard University about thirty years ago,133

I lived near a family from Sweden who I came to know well. We visited each other’shouses and shared many frank conversations. I still have a clear recollection of what wetalked about. Because we were living in the U.S., we exchanged views on how the U.S.
was perceived in Japan, or how Japan was viewed from a Swedish perspective. These
conversations made me realize that although Japan and Sweden are very far apart both
culturally and geographically, our perceptions of the United States were very similar.
So in that sense, I thought the Nordic countries had many interesting features, and I
also had access to information that suggested they were quite advanced in terms of
university evaluation. So last year we began visiting the five countries of the region,and this year had observer status at the annual meeting of NOQA, which wasmentioned this morning. We found many commonalities with our experiences in Japan.
Earlier there was a question from the floor about the distinctive features of the Nordic
experience: certainly, it is similar in many ways.
As I said earlier, however, there are also points of difference. I feel that Japan has a lot
to learn from the way Nordic countries are utilizing the results of university evaluation.
Although these countries are far from Japan and have different cultures and education
systems from us, there is a high degree of commonality in the area of evaluation. I havemade this point in my closing remarks because I would like you to contemplate it as you
leave the symposium today.
We recognized that Nordic countries’ experiences could provide important hints when
considering future directions for the evaluation services provided by our institution.
That provided the rationale for this symposium. I also believe the symposium is going toprovide a catalyst for further exchange of information and sharing of experiences. I
think this will be crucial for us in the future.
It is about three years now since we began interaction with our Nordic colleagues on theissue of evaluation. We will continue to watch the Nordic countries and other parts ofEurope as they develop their quality assurance initiatives. I think this was a good
opportunity to grasp the importance of quality assurance and to consider how we canrealize it in the Asian context to contribute to an enhancement of our knowledge-basedsociety.
However, this symposium is no more than a starting point. It is important that we work134

together from now on to realize a better society for stakeholders in our different regions,countries, and even across national borders. I am sure that this will lead to an ongoingcooperative relationship between our different regions and countries.
I personally believe that our two different parts of the world share a very similar
mindset, and that it would be very worthwhile for us to join together in developing
partnerships in the higher education field. It would bring unexpected happiness to us asorganizers if today’s symposium helps to promote goodwill and contributes to thedevelopment of higher education in our two regions.
Now, I would like to make use of this opportunity to do some marketing for our
institution. We already have plans in place to hold another symposium in two months’
time, at the end of November, this time with representatives from university evaluation
bodies in China. This is part of a series we have been operating since last year on“university evaluation in Asia,” in which we invite Asian colleagues to discuss issues ofquality assurance in our region. Last year we held a symposium on the topic ofuniversity evaluation in Taiwan. This will be the second in the series, and we lookforward to the opportunity to interact with our counterparts from China.
This next symposium will be on the topic of quality assurance in Chinese higher
education, but in the future we hope that our institution will be able to play a leadingrole in quality assurance not just domestically or in China, but throughout the Asian
region. We look forward to your ongoing support for our activities.
I will conclude my address by saying once again that we are extremely grateful to therepresentatives of the five Nordic countries who joined us here today, as well as to thosefrom Japanese institutions of higher education, and to all others who took the trouble toattend this symposium. Thank you very much.
Kato: Thank you for joining us at this Japan-Nordic Symposium, “On the Frontier ofUniversity Evaluation—Making the Most of Nordic Successes.” This concludes ourprogram for today. Thank you very much.
We ask for your cooperation in filling out your questionnaire sheets before leaving. Your
completed questionnaires will be collected by staff at the exit. Also, please leave yoursimultaneous interpretation receivers at your seats. A reception will be held in the135Reception Hall on the second floor, starting at 5:15. Everyone in the audience is warmly
invited to attend. All those who will not be joining us for the reception are reminded totake all their belongings with them when they leave.
Thank you very much.

136

Japan-Nordic Symposium

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

Distributed Materials (Slides: English)＊ P.139～152 How University Evaluations are being innovated in Europe
Christian Thune Executive Director, EVA, Denmark＊ P.153～156 “Nordic Success”- the case of Finland
Ossi Tuomi Secretary General, FINHEEC, Finland＊ P.157～164 Evaluation of Higher Education in Iceland improvement of teaching and research
Solrun Jensdottir Director, Department of Education, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Iceland＊ P.165～171 Quality Assurance in Higher Education - the Norwegian Way
Tove Blytt Holmen Deputy Director General, NOKUT, Norway＊ P.172～179 Nordic success-the case of Sweden
Staffan Wahlen Senior Advisor, National Agency for Higher Education, Sweden＊ P.180～187 Impact of University Evaluation on Educational and Research Quality
Tisato Kajiyama President, Kyushu University, Vice-President, The Japan Association of National Universities＊ P.188～200 Some remarks on the university evaluation from a viewpoint of private universities
Norikazu Kudo Vice-President, Keio University＊ P.201～211 Application of the Result of Evaluation in College of Technology
Junko Kawamura Executive Director, Institute of National Colleges of Technology＊ P.212～221 Contributions of university evaluation to society: University evaluation in Norway
Roger K. Abrahamsen Professor of UMB, Chair of NOKUT’s Board, Norway

How university evaluations are being innovated in Europe
Christian Thune
Executive Director, EVA, Denmark

How University Evaluations arebeing innovated in Europe
Japan-Nordic Symposium: On the Frontier of University
Evaluation – Making the most of Nordic Successes
United Nations University
Tokyo 28 September 2006

Christian Thune
Executive director of the Danish Evaluation Institute

Structure of presentation•

European cooperation in quality assurance of higher
education (ENQA)•

Cooperation between the Nordic agencies (NOQA)•

Quality assurance of higher education in Denmark(EVA).

2

139

1992 prospects for a European success (1)The positive:•

As a rule government initiated and owned agencies•

Independency of agencies in choice of methods andprocesses•

Four stage model universally applied (independentagency, self-evaluations, site visit by experts, public
report)•Cyclical activities in most national systems•

Very positive attitude towards agency networking•

Strong back up from the EU Commission•

1994-95 The European Pilot Projects.
31992 prospects for a European success (2)The negative:•

Fragmented national approaches (goals and methods)•

Western Europe: improvement oriented
evaluations•

Central/Eastern Europe: accountability oriented
accreditations•

Considerable variance in professional capacity building•

Language and terminology problems•

General scepticism and mistrust from universities.
4140

European quality assurance strategies by
2002
National agency in place in almost every European
country
EVA survey for ENQA identifies five top approaches:•

Accreditation of programmes•

Evaluation of programmes•

Audit of institutions•

Evaluation of institutions•

Accreditation of institutions.
5

The Bologna Proces – challenge andcatalyst
Bologna 1999 – Prague 2001 – Berlin 2003 – Bergen2005 – London 2007•

Important themes: the transparency, compatibility,
comparability and flexibility of European higher
education•

Increasing focus on quality assurance of higher
education•

Key stakeholders: universities, students, teachers,
employers and society.
6

141

ENQA
•

acronym of the European Association for Quality
Assurance in Higher Education•

established in 1999•

today more than 42 member agencies•

first objective: to share and disseminate knowledge
and best practice•

second (and increasingly important) objective: to fulfila political role.
7

ENQA report on European standards“Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in theEuropean Higher Education Area”•

submitted to the European Ministers of Education in
Bergen in May 2005•

fully endorsed by ENQA members and partners•

standards and guidelines adopted by the European
Ministers.

8142Results and recommendations•

Agreed European standards for internal and external
quality assurance and for external QA agencies.

•

The standards will be common reference points for
HEIs and QA agencies.

•

Obligatory cyclical review within five years for
European QA agencies•

A European register of QA agencies will be developed.

9Standards for higher education
Scope: The standards cover internal as well as external
quality assurance of HEIs.
Target group: The standards are applicable to all HEIs in
the Bologna signatory states
Purpose:• to improve the higher education available to students in the
EHEA• to assist HEIs in managing and enhancing their own quality• to form a background for QA agencies in their work.

143

10

Standards for internal quality assurance•

Policy and procedures for quality assurance•

Approval, monitoring and periodic review ofprogrammes and awards•

Assessment of students•

Quality assurance of teaching staff•

Learning resources and student support•

Information systems•

Public information.

11Standards for external quality assurance•

Use of internal quality assurance procedures•

Development of external quality assurance processes•

Criteria for decisions•

Processes fit for purpose•

Reporting•

Follow-up procedures•

Periodic reviews•

System-wide analyses.

12

144

Standards for external QA agencies
Background: The growing numbers of European external
QA agencies and of operators from outside Europe
Target group: External quality assurance agencies
operating in one or more Bologna signatory states.
Purpose: To make the professionalism, credibility andintegrity of the agencies visible, transparent andcomparable

13

Standards for external QA agencies•

Use of external quality assurance procedures forhigher education•

Official status•

Activities•

Resources•

Mission statement•

Independence•

External quality assurance criteria and processes usedby the agencies•

Accountability procedures.

145

14

The European Register of QA agencies•

Bergen mandate•

Purpose

•

Users

•

Scope

•

The European Register Committee•

Time schedule.
15

Main challenges for success•

The willingness of governments, HEIs and the QA
agencies to implement the European standards•

The balance between national subsidiarity as a centralprinciple and overall European constructions•

The different interests and goals between
governments, agencies, HEIs, students and otherstakeholders•

The risk that the register develops into a politicalrather than professional instrument.

146

16

The Nordic Quality Assurance Network in
Higher Education (NOQA)•

Annually meetings since 1992•

Officially established in 2003•

Regional network under ENQA•

Low level of formalisation•

No substantial links to the Nordic political processes.
17

Indications for Nordic networking
Positive:•

All agencies national and government initiated•Shared culture and tradition for Nordic cooperation•

Universities generally positive towards quality assurance•

Shared Scandinavian language•

Combinations of accountability and improvement oriented
approaches•

Shared methods: Evaluation – Audit – Accreditation.

Negative:• Still very individual approaches to agency mandates by the
Nordic governments.
18

147

Nordic agencies’ main methods of quality
assurance
Evaluation• Review of the quality of a programme or institution
with a focus on input, output and processes.
Audit• Review of the quality culture and internal quality
assurance of a university.
Accrediation• Review of the extent to which an institution or aprogramme fulfils predefined standards and resulting
in a formal decision ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on compliance.

19

NOQA activities• Annual conferences• Annual joint projects 2001-06:
o “Quality Assurance in the Nordic Higher Education –
o
o
o
o
o

Accreditation-like practices”“A Method for Mutual Recognition of QA agencies”“Student involvement in Nordic Quality Assessments ofHigher Education”“Systematic Quality Work in Nordic HEIs”“European Standards and Guidelines in a Nordic
Perspective”“Audit as a concept and method”.
20

148

NOQA results•

Staff Exchanges•

Consultation and clearing mechanism for external
experts•

Joint ENQA reports•

Strong element in ENQA developments and policies.

21

Challenges for further NOQA success•

Maintaining a Nordic dimension in the context of theEuropean cooperation.

•

Striking a balance between aims of increased Nordic
cooperation and convergence on the one hand andrecognition of national differences in policies foreducational and quality assurance systems on theother.

22

149

External quality assurance of Danish
higher education
1992-99 The Danish Evaluation Centre: Full cycle ofreviews of programmes/subjects in higher education
1999 The Danish Evaluation Institute•Established by an act of Parliament•

Covers the entire educational system from day careinstitutions to universities•

Is an independent institution under the Ministry of Education•

Has a Board of directors with the right of initiative•

Has a staff of 75.
23

EVA’s aims and tasks•

Develop and improve evaluation methods.

•

Develop and render visible the quality of education andteaching through systematic evaluation.

•

Advice and cooperate with public authorities andeducational establishments.

•

Collect national and international experiences on
educational evaluation as a national knowledge centre.
24150

First phase: 2000-2003•

Selected follow-up on the Evaluation Centre’s
programme reviews of higher education•

Thematic reviews•

Cross-sector reviews•

Cross-national reviews•

International bench markings•

Audits•Accreditations•

Revenue generating activities.

25

Second phase: 2004-2006•

Audits at university level (12 institutions)- from national/Nordic panels to international panels- from open format to European standards.

•

Selective, criteria based reviews of university
programmes•

Accreditation of medium-cycle higher education- programme level (20 programmes at 70 institutions)- institutional level (18).
26151Key challenges for Danish success•

Managing the comprehensive mandate (problem ofcoverage)•

Balance between improvement and accountability•

Balance between institutional and programme level•

Landing safely in the bureaucratic infighting between
Ministry of Education and Ministry of Science•

Increase in profit generating activities•

Setting the information strategy towards respectively
the media, the authorities and the educational
institutions•

Continuing compliance with the European Standards.

27

Links - further reading•www.enqa.net•

www.noqa.net•

www.eva.dk

28

152

Nordic Success - the case of Finland
Ossi Tuomi
Secretary General, FINHEEC, Finland

Japan-Nordic Symposium:
On the Frontier of University Education
Tokyo 28 September 2006
"Nordic Success" - the case of Finland
Ossi Tuomi
Secretary General
FINHEEC
www.kka.fi

Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto — Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna — The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC)FINHEEC's evaluations
 institutional evaluations (quality audits)
 programme evaluations
 education policy and other thematic evaluations
 evaluations focusing on centres of excellence(additional funding from MinEdu for those who
do well) evaluation and accreditation of professionalcourses

Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto — Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna — The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC)

153

2

Enhancement-led evaluation as thepremise for FINHEEC operations (1)









The purpose of the evaluations organised by FINHEEC is tosupport the HEIs in their endeavour to improve the education
they offer (enhancement-led evaluation).
The objective is to produce information which the HEIs canuse in developing their own operations.
Another objective is to exchange and disseminate the goodpractices identified in evaluations among other HEIs.
Not to ascertain minimum standards, no ranking lists.
Public reports provide MinEdu and other stakeholders withinformation on the quality and QA of the HEIs.
Reports include proposals for further development.
HEIs have the ultimate responsibility to utilise and apply theevaluation outcome.

Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto — Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna — The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC)

3

Enhancement-led evaluation as thepremise for FINHEEC operations (2) Based on dialogue with HEIs HEIs have on option to have a say in evaluation policy andevaluation criteria
 To secure the trust of HEIs in evaluation
 Respect for the autonomy of the HEIs Peer reviews (external evaluators from HEIs and workinglife) Student involvement

Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto — Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna — The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC)

154

4

FINHEEC’s audit model The audit model described in the Audit Manual
http://www.kka.fi/pdf/julkaisut/KKA_406.pdf






is compatible with the national HEI tradition
respects the autonomy of HEIs
is compatible with the enhancement-led principle
is valid and credible by international standards
meets the requirements imposed by European development and its
different dimensions

 One central premise is HEIs’ own responsibility for thedevelopment of their QA as well as choice andimplementation of procedures

 However, QA in HEIs must meet certain uniform

requirements defined in the Audit Manual

Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto — Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna — The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC)

5

Effects of the evaluations (1) Follow-up evaluations, questionnaries, follow-up seminars
 Ministry of Education utilises evaluation reports indiscussions with HEIs on targets and results
 Evaluations used in the HEIs' strategy work, personnel

meetings, joint seminars for personnel and students
 Proposals generally found to be useful Difficult to be sure of effectiveness:- other factors and interposing variables- FINHEEC has no decision-making power vis à vis the
structural development of HEIs, the establishment or
discontinuation of faculties, departments or degree
programmes

Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto — Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna — The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC)

155

6

Effects of the evaluations (2)ExamplesCentres of excellence (teaching & learning, regional
impact, adult education)
 improvement of teachers’ pedagogical skills
 systematic training for teachers units for further development of teaching in HEIs
 status
 additional funding
 increased interest in regional development
 attention to lifelong learning quality audits: tool for educational policy &implementation of European standards
 => a positive, rewarding mode of guidance – and it works

Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto — Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna — The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC)

156

7

Evaluation of Higher Education in Iceland improvement of teaching and research
Solrun Jensdottir
Director, Department of Education, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Iceland

Evaluation of Higher Education in Iceland
improvement of education and research
Sólrún Jensdóttir
Director Department of Education
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture

1

Contents:
1. A few facts about Iceland
2.The Higher Education System
3. Development of Quality Assurance
4. The Bologna-process
5. OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education
6. New Law on Higher Education- Accreditation- Qualification Framework- Quality Assurance- Internal and external evaluation

7. The way forward- Conclusions
2

157

A few facts about Iceland• Volcanic island in the North Atlantic• Language Icelandic• 103.000 sq km – 300.000 inhabitants• 2.8 per sq km• Life expectancy 79 men-83 women• GDP per capita seventh highest in the world• 2004 service sector 71.2%, industry
22.4%,agriculture 3.4%, fishing 3%
3

The Higher Education System• First University 1911
• 7 Education Institutions-4 public, 3 private• Student population increase
1996 – 9.564

2004 – 16.068• Legal framework 1997
• Increased autonomy• Secure basis for private institutions

158

4

Development of Quality Assurance
Ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｃｏ-ｏｐｅｒａｔｉｏｎ，ＥＮＱＡ-ＮＯＱＡ
First provision
Supervision by the Ministry
Rules on internal and external evaluation
Objectives:- raise quality of teaching- improve organization- promote responsibility- ensure international comptetivenessInstitutions set up quality assurance systems
Public description of the systems
5

External Quality Assurance• Not a special agency• Peer review groups 3-6 experts• Self evaluation report• Report by peers and response byinstitutions published• External quality assurance can coverdifferent units
6

159

The Bologna-process• Iceland signed Bologna-declaration 1999
• Unproblematic introduction• Emphasis on quality assurance• European Standards and Guidelines• National Qualification Framework

7

OECD Thematic Review• 24 countries• Japan and Iceland in both strands• Visit of team of experts 2005
• Report published 22 August 2006
• Quality assurance discussed• No accreditation mechanism• Lack of quality assurance in research

1608New Law on Higher Education• Into force 1 July 2006
• Strengthen system - improve quality• International competitiveness• Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions

9

Accreditation criteria• Definition of role and policy• Administration and organisation• Organisation of teaching and research• Personnel qualifications requirements• Admission requirements, students rights andduties• Working conditions• Internal quality system• National Qualification Framework-Learning
outcomes• Finances

161

10

Accreditation process• Application to Minister• Accreditation of a field of study (Frascati)
•
•
•
•
•
•

Natural Sciences
Engineering and Technology
Medical Sciences
Agricultural Sciences
Social Sciences
Humanities• Independent expert committee• Accreditation revoked if demands are notmet

11

National Qualification Framework• Has been issued by Minister• Based on the Framework of Qualification
for the European Higher Education Area
• Accepted by Ministers in Bergen 2003
• Systematic descriptions of degrees• Learning outcomes• Issued in Icelandic and English
12162

Quality Assurance of Teaching andResearch• Based on ENQA´s Standards and Guidelines• Special process for research• Objectives:
Ensure that accreditation requirements are met
•
•
•
•
•

The Qualification Framework respected
Enhance quality
Encourage responsibility
Ensure international competetiveness
13

Internal and External Evaluation• Carried out regularly• Responsibility of institutions and Minister• Active participation of staff and students• Three year plan for external evaluation• Administration - the Office of Evaluation andAnalysis• Implemented by an independent agent• Domestic and foreign experts
14

163

The way forward-Conclusions• Accreditation of all institutions in place
mid 2008• Rules for external evaluations underpreparation• Adjustment to rapid changes• Reasonably successful• Increased effort in quality assurance
15

The way forward-Conclusions• Full implementation of the new law will
strengthen the position of Icelandic Higher
Education Institutions and theircompetitiveness both in Europe andglobally16

164Quality Assurance in Higher Education - the Norwegian Way
Tove Blytt Holmen
Deputy Director General, NOKUT, Norway

Quality Assurance in Higher Education- the Norwegian Way
Tove Blytt Holmen

The Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Norway 42 state-owned institutions (6 full-scale universities, 5specialized universities, 25 university colleges, 2
Academies of Fine Art and 4 military colleges). 70% of thestudents attend state-owned universities. No student fees
are allowed.

 20 private colleges with financial support from the state (1specialized university, 1 university college, 18 notaccredited as institutions. 30% of the students attend
private institutions for higher education. Student fee isrequired.

|2

165

The Quality Reform of Higher Education

 Change in governance at the institutional level Increased institutional autonomy
 New funding formula for the institutions
 NOKUT – The Norwegian Agency for Quality
Assurance in Education
 New degree structure New forms of student guidance, evaluation andassessment
 New financial support to students
 Internationalisation|3

Governance at the Institutional Level
 The Board of each state-owned HEI will consist of elevenmembers: four academic representatives, one representativefrom the technical and administrative staff, two student
representatives, four external members appointed by the Ministry Student representatives should have at lest 20% of the seats,
two seats at the minimum, in all executive bodies of theinstitution

 For a private institution the Board shall be composed by at least
five members and have representatives from the students andstaff. If the Board has more than ten members, the groups
representing studients and staff shall have at least two members.

|4

166

Institutional Autonomy
Universities

Specialised
universities

Accredited
university
colleges

Nonaccredited

PhD.
MasterBachelor

Power to establish any study programme (BA, MA, PhD)Power is limited. The institusjonen can not offer study
programmes in the field without accreditation and a final
decision by The Ministry of Education.
|5

NOKUT - Mandate Evaluation of institutional quality assurance systems(institutional audits)
 Initial accreditation of higher education institutions
 Initial accreditation of course provisions (HE) Revisions of accreditations
 Evaluations for enhancement purposes Approval of shorter, vocational education (tertiary, but
not HE) Recognition of foreign education

|6

167

The Norwegian Model of Quality Assurance
Accreditation
Revision ofaccreditation
HEIs
and theirportefolio

QAS
Audit

Revision ofaccreditation|7

Tumble-stones
 Division of labour and responsibility between NOKUT and theMinistry: NOKUT conducts what should be reliable, independent
academic assessments. The Ministry is the owner and politicalinstans.
 The Ministry may not instruct NOKUT in excess of what is
authorized by statute or laid down by the Ministry in
regulations, and may not revise accreditations judgements
by turning them from No to Yes.

 HEIs have been heard when designing models for quality
assurance, standards and criteria

 All evaluations conducted by NOKUT are public and NOKUT
shall make efforts to ensure that they are made known to the
public.

|8168

When quality fails

 If NOKUT finds that an institution no longer fulfils theconditions for accreditation, the institution shall beallowed a limited time implement necessary
measures.
 NOKUTs decision to withdraw accreditation of a study
programme shall be sent to the institution concernedwith a copy to the Ministry. The institution shallwithdraw the study programme immediately.

|9

Appeals NOKUTs decisions - other than the judgements doneby the external panels - can be appealed to an
appeals board appointed by the Ministry.

| 10

169

Programme accreditation; standards and criteria
Universities and university colleges shall promote thepurpose of the Act by providing higher education on thebasis of the foremost within research, academic andartistic development work and empirical knowledge• Curriculum• Staff• Internationalisation• Infrastructure• Quality assurance| 11

Criteria

 Fairly detailed, but gives the experts room for
qualitative judgements All criteria have to be met at a certain minimum level

| 12

170

The Quality Reform
There were two main reasons for the Reform: to achieve improved quality in higher education andresearch
 The Bologna Process and Norway’s obligations in thisrespect
Years of cooperation between the parties:
HEIs, NOKUT and the Ministryshow that we are moving in the right direction

| 13

171

Nordic Success-the case of Sweden
Staffan Wahlen
Senior Advisor, National Agency for Higher Education, Sweden

Nordic success – the case of
SwedenStaffan Wahlén
Swedish National Agency for Higher
Education

Backgroundz 340 000 undergraduate students
z 25 000 postgraduate students
z 14 state universitiesz 3 semi-private institutionsz 22 universities including 7 colleges ofvisual and performing art

Japan - Nordic Symposium

1722Degreesz 3 year Bachelor’s degreez 1 year Master’s degreez 4 year PhD
z Bologna 3-2-3 (3-1-4)

Japan - Nordic Symposium

3

Objectives
z Assurance (control; accreditation)– Growth of higher education; 50 per cent goalz Enhancementz Information – no ranking or league tables

Japan - Nordic Symposium

173

4Ingredientsz Accreditation (1992 - )z Institutional quality audit (1995 – 2002)z Subject and programme review (2001 - )z Thematic evaluations

Japan - Nordic Symposium

5

Accreditationz Accreditation for master’s degrees(including Bologna masters)z Accreditation for professional degrees
z Accreditation for attaining university status

Japan - Nordic Symposium

174

6Institutional quality audit
z Main goal – enhancementz Review of institutional quality workz Self-evaluation – peer review – site visit –public report – follow-up

Japan - Nordic Symposium

7

Quality audit IIz Aspects considered (among others)– Academic leadership– Cooperation with stakeholders– Active participation of staff– Integration of quality work
– Evaluation and follow-up activities– Internationalisation– Gender equality
Japan - Nordic Symposium

175

8Subject and programme
reviewz Evaluation of all subjects and programmes

leading to a degree (1700 reviews)
z Six-year cyclez Peer review with site visit, public report,
feedback and follow-up (900 peers)z Decision by the Agency (“accreditation”)

Japan - Nordic Symposium

9

Subject and programme
review IIz Aspects considered– Prerequisites (resources and teacher

qualifications, library, laboratories etc)
– Objectives and organisation– Teaching and examination methods– Theses– Completion rates
Japan - Nordic Symposium

176

10

Thematic quality audits
How do universities deal withz Internationalisationz Co-operation with societyz Student influencez Gender equality
z Student support?
Japan - Nordic Symposium

11

Specificities
z Student involvement (including PhD

students) as assessorsz A complete national picture of subjects andprogrammesz Sanctionsz The inclusion of PhD programmes
z Systematic follow-up
Japan - Nordic Symposium

177

12

Impact of quality audit
z Improvement of university leadership andstrategies for quality assurancez Improvement of student influencez Improvement of co-operation withstakeholders (industry, employers etc.)
z Difficult to ascertain the impact of quality
work on provision
Japan - Nordic Symposium

13

Impact of programme andsubject review
z About 10 per cent of programmes have beenquestioned, only one has been revokedz Improved teaching staff development andqualificationsz Co-operation, specialisation, concentrationz Teacher education – changes in Higher Education
Ordinance, changes in organisation and teaching
staff, changes in syllabi, course material andexamination.
Japan - Nordic Symposium

178

14

To practise what you teachz Quality assurance of agency activities:- continuous internal monitoring- annual analytical summary- feedback from various actors- external monitoring and review

Japan - Nordic Symposium

15

New modelz HEI internal systems for QA andenhancementz A small number of subject and programmeevaluations based on monitoring dataz Thematic evaluations (study guidance etc)
z Excellence in teaching and learningz Review of the right to award degrees
Japan - Nordic Symposium

179

16

Impact of University Evaluation on Educational and Research Quality
Tisato Kajiyama
President, Kyushu University, Vice-President, The Japan Association of National
Universities

Impact of University Evaluation on
Educational and Research Quality

Tisato Kajiyama, D. Eng., Ph. D.
President of Kyushu University
Vice President for The Japan Association of
National Universities
1

1

Overview
1. Evaluation for national university corporations
2. Experience at Kyushu University
3. Suggestion for university evaluation on
educational and research quality

2

180

2

1. Evaluation for national university
corporations
1) New problems of universities and competitive environment• Knowledge-based society : change in the role ofuniversities and diversification of social needs touniversity• Universal higher education: rising university
advancement ratio• Efficiency of university finance: budget cuts and staff
reduction

33

1. Evaluation for national university
corporations
2) Expected actions for universities• Diversification of university function• Quality assurance of higher education and need toensure the international validity of Japanese
universities• Efficient and stable university management

4

181

4

1. Evaluation for national university
corporations
3) Structural reform of national universities: From national
university to national university corporation• Planning for the midterm and its evaluation• Top management by the president• Enhancement of education and research at university:
21st Century COE Program targeted support for
creating world-level research and education bases

55

1. Evaluation for national university
corporations4) Partial conclusions of Chapter 1

Universities• conduct proper self-evaluation / self-study.
• make the most of evaluation system among ones.
• should enhance own educational and research activities
Accountability and Improvement
6

182

6

2. Experience at Kyushu University

1) Change of attitude• The faculty and staff recognition the importance of oureducation and research objectives by evaluation.
• Kyushu University establishes the self-evaluation system
for the sake of the realization of our objectives and quality
assurance.
77

2. Experience at Kyushu University
2) Engines to reform university and school culture• Education Charter and Research Charter• Midterm strategic plan
• 4+2+4 Kyushu University Action Plans: researchfund assistance for excellent researcher,establishment of COE

8

183

8

2. Experience at Kyushu University
3) Scheme of 4+2+4 Kyushu University Action Plans
FieldsFuture Conception◯Education◯Developing new◯Research◯Social Contribution◯International

Cooperation

４

Supporting by Evaluation“creative”sciences◯Enhancing relations
with Asia◯Supporting humanresources◯Servicing facilities◯Supporting budget◯Expanding time foreducation and research

＋

２

＋

４

Kyushu University Action Plans
Reforming organization for education and research
Developing and expanding our social contribution
and international cooperation
99

2. Experience at Kyushu University
4) New centers: Realization of 4+2+4 Kyushu University
Action Plans
Developing new “creative” sciences / Enhancing
relations with Asia
• Kyushu University Asia Center• System LSI Research Center• Center for Future Chemistry• Bio-Architecture Center• Digital Medicine Initiative
10

184

10

2. Experience at Kyushu University5) Super-star program
Realization of 4+2+4 Kyusyu University Action Plans
to individual researchers
Category• 21st COE• Senior• Junior• women faculty
11

11

2. Experience at Kyushu University6) The 21st Century Program
What is the 21st Program?
⇒Fostering “highly qualified generalists with well-educated specific skills”

Kyushu’s Original Selective
Examination⇒Original selection without taking the examinationby the National Center for University Entrance Examination
First Exam.：Listening to three lectures and writing reports
Secondary Exam：Debate ⇒ Short thesis ⇒ Interview
Kyushu’s Original Education Program⇒ not belonging to any faculty but deciding their majors throughactivities
Intensive General Education and Language Training
12
Visiting
lecturers in various fields
Tutorial System

185

12

2. Experience at Kyushu University
7) Some cases to reform university and school culture• Every five years evaluation and every ten years
reorganization• Vision for departments and leadership of dean
• Institute of higher education• Faculty and staff evaluation• Data collecting and analysis of university activities:
Institutional Research

1313

3. Suggestion for university evaluation on
educational and research quality: Aims
• Turn a result of evaluation into a genuine improvement• Acquire the university-wide perspective and execute a plan
• Ensure better accountability and greater transparency

14

186

14

Appendix
Public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP
2003

1995
All levels of education
combined

Tertiary education

All levels of education
combined

Denmark

2.5

8.3

Iceland

1.4

7.8

7.7
m

Norway

2.3

7.6

7.4

Sweden

2.2

7.5

7.2

Finland

2.1

6.5

6.8

France

1.2

5.9

m

United States

1.5

5.7

m

United Kingdom

1.1

5.4

5.2

Australia

1.1

4.8

5.0

Germany

1.2

4.7

4.6

Korea

0.6

4.6

m

Japan

0.6

3.7

3.6

OECD average

1.3

5.5

5.3

Source: OECD, “Education at a Glance 2006”
Web 15<http://www.oecd.org/>
15

187

Some remarks on the university evaluation from a viewpoint of private universities
Norikazu Kudo
Vice-President, Keio University

Some remarks on
the university evaluationfrom a viewpoint of private
universities
Norikazu Kudo
Keio University
At Japan-Nordic
Symposium
28/9/06

A flood of evaluations?
Getting tired of evaluation?
Internal inspection and evaluation (1991-)
 External evaluation
 Evaluation by certified organisations (2004-)
 Funding or subsidising by evaluation (over
20% of governmental spending for higher
education)
Venture to make brief comments on thiskind of situation as a member of private
universities.
This does not represent opinions of private
universities as a whole.

188

2About private universities (1)Tradition of thinking somewhat peculiar to
Japan: Distinguishing (not classifying)universities and colleges by their funding
systems.
Governmental (State)
Municipal governmental
Private

3

About private universities (2)㪥㫌㫄㪹㪼㫉㩷㫆㪽㩷㫀㫅㫊㫋㫀㫋㫌㫋㫀㫆㫅㫊㪥㫌㫄㪹㪼㫉㩷㫆㪽㩷㫊㫋㫌㪻㪼㫅㫋㫊
㪉㪉㩼

㪈㪉㩼
㪈㪉㩼

㪎㪋㩼

㪎㪍㩼

㪪㫋㪸㫋㪼

㪋㩼

㪤㫌㫅㫀㪺㫀㫇㪸㫃㪧㫉㫀㫍㪸㫋㪼

㪪㫋㪸㫋㪼㪤㫌㫅㫀㪺㫀㫇㪸㫃㪧㫉㫀㫍㪸㫋㪼

Excluding junior colleges
As of 1 May 2006
4189

About private universities (3)Contributing to the society and the publicwelfare through their education andresearch activities.
Educated people’s contribution to thesociety.

Private activities in the public sphere.
5

About private universities (4)Mainly financed by private sectors: tuition,
donations, revenue from the fund, andbusiness activities.
Subsidies from the government: c. 10%

The only way to continue their service tothe society is to be supported by the public.
How to persuade the people is the crucial
matter.
6

190

About Keio University (1)Founded in 1858 by intellectual leader
and visionary Yukichi Fukuzawa
 One of the oldest private universities in
Japan
The 150th anniversary in 2008
 Comprehensive educational system(primary through graduate level)Media Centres on all campuses house
more than 3.7 million books andpublications
7

About Keio University (2)

7 campuses• Japan: Mita, Hiyoshi, Yagami, Shinanomachi, Shonan-Fujisawa(SFC)• Abroad: Keio Academy of New York (USA)

9 undergraduate faculties; 11 graduate schools• Keio Business School (KBS) ranked number one in the country䇭䇭䇭• 2005: Establishment of Graduate School of Health Management• 2004: Establishment of professional Law School

8 affiliated primary, junior and senior highschools 3 overseas offices (USA, UK, Korea)


8

191

About Keio University (3)Faculty & Students(May 2005)


3,600 Faculty andStaff Members

32,000 StudentsProfessors

718

Undergraduate

Associate Professors

342

Graduate (Masters)

Assistant Professors

270

Professional (Law School)

Instructors

479

Administrators

1,798

Total

3,607

27,971
䇭
2,712
507

PhD

1,093

Total

32,2839About Keio University (4)Enrollment & Degrees Conferred

New Enrollments(2005)*
Undergraduate* Correspondence
school students notincluded** 71% of Keio
affiliated high school
graduates are
accepted into Keio
undergraduate
programs

** 97% of students
who complete
undergraduate
degrees at Keio areaccepted into one of
the graduate schools

Graduate

from
1,424
within Keiosystem**

1,220

from
outsideKeiosystem

5,054

502

Total

6,478

1,702

Degreesconferred(2004)

Undergraduate (Bachelor)

6,747

Graduate (Masters)

1,087

Graduate (PhD)



226

192

10

About Keio University (5)FinanceFY2004 Cash flow statement• 169,014,940,000 yen (approximately$1.5 billion USD)

Credit Rating• Standards and Poors (USA): AA , stable
outlook• Rating and Investment Information(Japan): AA+
11

About Keio University (6)Finance: Revenue & Expenditures
Tuition Fees
43,156,119 (37%)(FY2004)
Income from
Medical Activities
40,245,063 (34%)

Personnel
60,619,249 (52%)

REVENUE

Education and Research
29,360,707 (25%)

EXPENDITURES

117,013,454,000 yen(approx. $1.03 billion USD)

116,241,005,000 yen(approx. $1.02 billion USD)

Other
9,066,862(8%)
Donations
4,191,527(4%)

Income from
Business Activities
7,082,375 (6%)

Other
1,790,311
General(2%)
Administration
2,661,811 (2%)

Subsidies
13,271,509(11%)

Hospital Operation
21,808,927 (19%)

12

193

A basic understanding of the current
environment for the higher education (1)Fierce competition in the international market for thehigher education.






Saturated market in OECD countries.
Penetration of transnational institutions into the rapidly
growing market in Asia.
Technological advance: e-Learning. OCW etc.
Strength of English as an international language.

How to add an intellectual value to the educational power.

13

A basic understanding of the current
environment for the higher education (2)Competition in the domestic market.








Demographic change: Decrease in the 18-year-old population
Diversification of demands for the higher education: multiages and multi social backgrounds
Proliferation of ‘University’ since the 1990s along with therelaxation of the regulations.
Independent operation of state universities.
Non-price competition – competition in the quality ofeducation.

How to build up own strength.
How to find its own market.
14

194

Reform to survive and grow in thecompetitive environment.
Excellent
Research

More Research
Fund

Able Students
Good
Education
More Research
Fund

Good
Education

Excellent
Research

Able Students

15

To participate in the competition
Quality assurance: variety with a comparable
standard though variety is the vital part ofprivate universities.
Bologna Process in Europe
UNESCO/OECD Guideline
Evaluation by certified organisations
 Transparency: To overcome unsymmetrical
distribution of information, including financial
information of the institutionEssential factors to be a player in the market.

16

195

Two aspects of evaluation
1.

2.

Valuable opportunity to demonstrate thestrength of the institution esp., forprivate universities.
Strength in education: e.g.. Liberal arts
education or Professional education?
Strength in research: e.g.. Science or
Literature?
Evaluation as a starting point of reform.
Continuous effort to reform theeducation and research system is themost essential factor to remain in themarket.
17

Evaluation as a starting point of reform
Four stages of evaluation
1.

2.

3.

4.

Internal inspection and evaluation ofachievements: Common knowledge
about the current situation for all
members.
External evaluation by external advisors:
Objectify the internal evaluation.
Evaluation by the certified organisation:
Commitment to the reform in public.
Actions for the reform.
18

196

A Case of Keio University (1)No unified organisation for internal
inspection and evaluation before 2003
though continuous inspection andevaluation had been made by various
committees, departments and faculties.
e.g.,
Business School’s external evaluation body.
SFC faculties as a forerunner in this field.
Keio Yearbook with a viewpoint of internal
inspection.
Individual faculty reports and external
advisors.
19

A Case of Keio University (2)2003 All Keio Internal Inspection and Evaluation
Committee was formed.
Discussion about the format and procedures.
2004 Inspection and evaluation work.
A Provisional Report was published.
External evaluation committee.
2005 Application for the certified evaluation to Japan
University Accreditation Association with the final
version of the Report of Internal Evaluation.
2006 Evaluation report by JUAA
Obtained the certified evaluation.
Feedback to individual faculties and to University
education committee for the improvement ofeducation.

20

197

A Case of Keio University (3)JUAA’s Evaluation Report for Keio University
98 merits such as vigorous initiative forinternationalisation, positive actions forthe promotion of research and so on.
 34 demerits such as a lack of unified
system for the evaluation of lectures by
students and little effort for the faculty
development and so on.
 No deficit indicated.


21

A Case of Keio University (4)Feedback for improvement
 Efforts by each faculty – fundamental
device.
 Efforts to establish a unified system oflecture evaluation by students and FD
system by the University Education
Committee: 9 of 34 demerits wereconcerning these matters. Learning from
SFC’s experience (a pioneer and the mostadvanced in this field in Japan).
 The 150th anniversary projects:
A structural reform programme forcoming 10 years.
22

198

A Case of Keio University (5)Several weak points detected during theprocess.
 Multi-versity syndrome䋿: Conflicts
between the traditional autonomy ofindividual faculties and unified efforts as auniversity.
 Strength and weakness of Keio’s
fundamental idea: A spirit of‘Independence and Self-Respect’ vs.
tendency toward licence.
 A ‘brand’ university’s fate? : A lack of ‘asense of crisis’ in the rapidly changing
environment.
23

A Case of Keio University (6)Necessity to overcome these problems
through the persistent negotiations
between faculties and the university
headquarters for survival and growth in
the highly competitive environment.
 Evaluation as a basic material for policy
making: How to overcome the ‘demerits’,and How to develop ‘the merits’ further.
 Determined to become ‘an advanced
model of the university in the 21st
century’.


24

199

For the future of private universities
University Evaluation
Quality assurance and transparency to bea player in the market.
 Valuable opportunity for demonstrating
their strength and persuading the society
for their ‘reason for being’ to remain in themarket.
 A starting point of reform to become astrong player in the market


25

200

Application of the Result of Evaluation in College of Technology
Junko Kawamura
Executive Director, Institute of National College of Technology

Application of the Result of Evaluation in
College of Technology

September 2006
Junko Kawamura
Institute of National Colleges of Technology, Japan1

㸇䇭Features of colleges of technology as
higher education institutions
㸈䇭Evaluation in national colleges oftechnology and the application of theresult2

201

Establishment of Colleges of Technology¾

Established in 1960’s by strong request from the industrial sector
to foster engineers who develop Japanese high economic growth(economic growth rate of Japan in 1960 was 12%).

¾

Designed as practical 5-year consistent higher education
institutions which start educating from just the graduation of juniorhigh school.

¾

Number of colleges: 55 National, 6 Municipal, 3 Private
In 2004, national colleges reformed as one national corporation;
the Institute of National Colleges of Technology has establishedto manage the reformed national college.

¾

Approximately 300 thousands have graduated so far; graduates
contribute mainly in the industrial sector, as engineers,
researchers, managers, etc.
3

5RGEKCNK\GF
6TCKPKPI%QNNGIG&QEVQTCN&QEVQTCN)TCFWCVG
5EJQQN/CUVGT,WPKQT%QNNGIG/CUVGT#FXCPEGF%QWTUGU7PFGT
ITCFWCVG

7PFGT
ITCFWCVG%QNNGIGQH
6GEJPQNQI[*KIJ
5EJQQN/KUEGNNCPGQWU
5EJQQN

7PKXGTUKV[QH
6GEJPQNQI[,WPKQT*KIJ5EJQQN

10 thousand

1.2 million

School System

4202

Ratio of graduates from colleges of technology among newengineers graduate from schools of engineering in 2005
(estimated)
Entered University (undergraduate or graduate)
after graduation from colleges of technology

㪎㪇㪇

㪉㪉㪇㪇㪇

㪋㪇㪇㪇㪇

㪋㪏㪇㪇
䋳㪃䋰䋰䋰

㪊㪇㪇

㪎㪇㪇

㪞㫉㪸㪻㫌㪸㫋㪼㩷㫆㪽㩷㪺㫆㫃㫃㪼㪾㪼㫊㩷㫆㪽㩷㫋㪼㪺㪿㫅㫆㫃㫆㪾㫐㩿㪈㪉㩼㩷㪸㫄㫆㫅㪾㩷㪸㫃㫃㪀㪇㩼Junior College

㪈㪇㩼

㪉㪇㩼

㪊㪇㩼

College of Technology(Asso. Bachelor)

㪋㪇㩼

㪌㪇㩼

㪚㫆㫃㫃㪼㪾㪼㩷㫆㪽㩷㪫㪼㪺㪿㫅㫆㫃㫆㪾㫐㩿㪘㪻㫍㪸㫅㪺㪼㪻㩷㪚㫆㫌㫉㫊㪼㪀㪍㪇㩼㪬㫅㪻㪼㫉㪾㫉㪸㪻㫌㪸㫋㪼

㪎㪇㩼

㪏㪇㩼

Master Course

㪐㪇㩼

㪈㪇㪇㩼

㪛㫆㪺㫋㫆㫉㪸㫃㩷㪚㫆㫌㫉㫊㪼㪙㫐㩷㪪㫋㪸㫋㫀㫊㫋㫀㪺㫊㩷㫆㪽㩷㪪㪺㪿㫆㫆㫃㩷㪜㪻㫌㪺㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㩿㪉㪇㪇㪌㪃㩷㪤㪜㪯㪫㪀㩷㪒㩷㪞㫉㪸㪻㫌㪸㫋㪼㫊㩷㫆㪽㩷㪘㪻㫍㪸㫅㪺㪼㪻㩷㪚㫆㫌㫉㫊㪼㪃㩷㪚㫆㫃㫃㪼㪾㪼㩷㫆㪽㩷㪫㪼㪺㪿㫅㫆㫃㫆㪾㫐㩷㫎㪸㫊㩷㪺㫆㫌㫅㫋㪼㪻㩷㪹㫐㩷㫋㪿㪼㩷㪠㫅㫊㫋㫀㫋㫌㫋㪼㩷㫆㪽㩷㪥㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㪸㫃㩷㪚㫆㫃㫃㪼㪾㪼㫊㫆㪽㩷㪫㪼㪺㪿㫅㫆㫃㫆㪾㫐

5

Engineers fostered in colleges of technology
䇭䇭Practical Engineer with high capacity who play a role in
the industrial workplace consisted of interdisciplinary
technological fields and develop the technology byoriginality and ingenuity
Each college has further concrete goals. For example:•••

Engineers who follow the proper standard for engineers (such as
independent acting), and have cooperativeness and leadership for group
Engineers who have the capacity for cross-cultural understanding andcommunication
Engineers who have distinguished basic achievement and special
achievement (idea for production, skill for analogy, skill for structuring),
and have the capacity for sustainable self-enrichment

6203

NIAD-UE

Educational Organization
Apply for Bachelor Degree(Example)

Qualification by
JABEE

Entrance exam
for Advanced
CourseEngineering forEngineering for
Production System Environment
Protection System

䊶Department System
䊶Grade System

Engineering
InformationofEngineering
Electrics andElectronics

General Introduction
Education(Inter-department)(General,School recommendation)

Undergraduate(Transfer)

Employment

5th Year
MechanicalEngineering

Entrance exam

Graduate School

Engineeringof
Urban
Environment

Material
Engineering

40 students
perDepartment,Year䊶Basic Education
䋨Human Sciences, English,
Math, Physics, Chemistry䋩䊶Basic Engineering for Production䇭䊶Information Literacy

1st Year

7

Feature of education in colleges of technology
9 Engineer education of 5-year consistent from 15-year old- Curriculum carefully organized by grade, education for
creativity based on the basic math, physics, etc andrespected environments and exercises
9 Internship by active cooperation with local industrial
sector
9 Living in a group in a dormitory
9 Inter-college competition such as robot contest
9 Ratio of job offer: 16 times of the total of graduates䇭(40% of graduates enter upper school (in 2006)
8

204

Basic Engineering for Production(Department of Mechanical Engineering)(Tokyo National College of Engineering)
9

Machine Practice Workshop
10205

Basic Engineering for Production(Department of Electrical Engineering)
11(Tokyo National College of Technology)

Basic Engineering for Production(Department of Chemical Scienceand Engineering)(Tokyo National College of Technology) 12

206

Robot Contest ofColleges ofTechnology
13

Dormitory(Tokyo National College of Technology)
14207

Evaluation of colleges of technology
and application of result
䇼Institutional evaluation for colleges of technology䇽•Evaluation by NIAD-UE•

Program evaluation by JABEE (Japan Accreditation
Board for Engineering Education)•

Part of the evaluation which evaluate the Institute of
National Colleges of Technology

15

Evaluation by NIAD-UE
䇼Viewpoint䇽䇭䇭To evaluate the whole activities of the college mainly focused on
the educational activities for regular students
䇭䋪e.g.: admission“An admission policy in which required student qualifications and the basic policy
of applicant selection are clearly provided according to the purpose of education ismade public and disseminated.”䇼Application of result䇽 䇭Through analyzing and reviewing the activities of the college, they canevaluate the adequacy of their current system and activities for achieving
the goal in the viewpoint of legal standard, purpose of establishment of thecollege, etc.
 Through external evaluation, they know their strong points and weak
points objectively, then they can make an improve plan and make more
proper budget request to the government.
 All of national colleges of technology will have the evaluation in the first 3
years from the start of the new evaluation system. Through contributing
the new system positively, the colleges of technology can show theirattitude toward the accountability to the public.

16

208

Program evaluation by JABEE㽲Advanced course

2nd year
Advanced course

1st year

5th year
4th year
3rd year
2nd year
1st yearAccreditation Institution䋺䌊䌁䌂䌅䌅䋨Japan Accreditation Board forEngineering䇭Education).
Since last year, JABEE is a member of Washington
Accord, under which the substantial equality of
programs are recognized internationally (It isorganized by members from 10 countries orregions).
Objective of the Accord: Engineering program ofundergraduate level. In colleges of technologies inJapan, the program from the 4th or 3rd year of Asso.
Bachelor degree course to the 2nd year of Advanced
course.
17

Program evaluation by JABEE㽳䇼Viewpoint䇽䇭䇭To foster independent engineers ,and to assure the quality ofeducation by considering the field graduates will belong to anddemands from students and the public (demands from employers,
global recognition)
䋪e.g. of standards: Recognition of effects of technology to the public and the nature ,and
responsibility engineers have to the public (Ethics for engineers)

䇼Application of the result䇽 Graduates who completed the accredited program are qualified toexemption of the 1st phase of the test for professional engineering by
the notice by Ministry of MEXT (Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology); it gives the graduates motivation and proud asprospective engineers.
 Incentive for practical foreign language education and introductive
education of ethics for engineers.
 Public recognition as education institution for engineers by evaluatedby the same standards as other higher education institutions areevaluated.
18

209Evaluation as a part of evaluation to the Institute of
National Colleges of Technology
䇼Viewpoint䇽䇭䇭䇭Evaluation of mid-term plan to the Institute as an independentadministrative institution
䇭䇭䇭Achievement through 2004-2008 will be evaluated.
䇭䇭䇭䇭䇭䋪examples of annual evaluation䋺
maintaining the efficiency of entrance number- improvement of entrance examination, advertisement toprospective students

䇼Application of result䇽 Through collecting and publication of the examples of practice by theInstitute, each colleges know good practices of other colleges.
 The Institute and colleges share the roles and cooperate with eachother for improvement.
 Appeal the strong points of colleges to the public by getting a goodresults of evaluation.
19

Intention of evaluations䇭䇭䇭䇭䇭䇭䇭䇭
䂾Evaluation by NIAD-UE
䇭䇭㹢Assurance and improvement of proper educational organizationand quality of education

䂾Program evaluation by JABEE䇭䇭㹢Assurance and improvement of engineer education as education
for special field䂾Evaluation to the Institute of National Colleges ofTechnology
䇭䇭㹢Utilize the strong point that 55 colleges are managed by one
institute
20

210

Challenges
9

Preparation the database and making it common todeal with the tasks for evaluation by shorter time9

Assurance of communication and mutual recognition
for keeping reliable relationship between evaluator andinstitution evaluated9

Active application of the result of evaluation andfostering evaluators
21

211

Contributions of university evaluation to society: University evaluation in Norway
Roger K. Abrahamsen
Professor of UMB, Chair of NOKUT s Board, Norway

Contributions of university evaluation tosociety:
University evaluation in Norway

By
Professor Roger K. Abrahamsen
Norwegian University of Life Sciences
Chairman of the Board of NOKUT

My introduction

 “Contributions of university evaluation to society”
 Questions asked by the organisers: “Goal of university evaluation in the Nordic
 How should the government, universities and quality

assurance agency satisfy with the accountability ofuniversity evaluation
 How should universities utilize the result of theevaluation for improvement”

|2

212

Types of evaluations/assessments carried out by
NOKUT Quality audit (evaluation of institutional quality
assurance systems)
 Initial accreditations: Institutional accreditation
 Programme/course accreditation

 Revisions of accreditations
 Evaluations of significance to assessment of thequality of higher education|3

Evaluations and assessment carried out by NOKUT All evaluations and assessment are carried out by external
committees or expert panels established by NOKUT. Only thesecretary of the committee is a NOKUT officer.
 All reports from the committees and expert panels are public The reports are comprehensive and present basic information
about the institution, a thorough evaluation spelled out inrecommendations as well as more formal conclusions
 The reports are very important tools for the institutions

further work with quality aspects
 The institutions normally express great satisfaction withthe reports and often underline their practicalusefulness
 We have the understanding that the institutions pay
considerable attention to the recommendations|4

213

Quality audit

 Institutions are required by law to have satisfactoryinternal quality systems
 The system will be assessed by NOKUT in periods ofmaximum six years
 Institutional quality audits represent the systematic,

comprehensive mechanism for external scrutiny of thequality of higher education

 The institutions themselves carry the responsibility forthe quality of their own educational provision
 To carry out robust internal quality assurance is in theirown interest
 The institutions have a good possibility to develop an

institutional quality culture|5

Quality audit

 The institutions have the freedom to design their own
quality assurance system within a given frame ofreference External quality assessment: Should assess whether the internal quality assurance

works effectively and convincingly
 Should not give detailed instruction as to how theinternal quality assurance should be done The concept of freedom for the institution to design
their own quality assurance system is supposed tofoster a sense of ownership and broad
participation among the institution’s staff andstudents|6214

Quality audits The purpose of the evaluation of the quality
assurance system is to audit the quality assessmentsthat the institution itself makes of its educational
provision Quality audits cannot directly themselves lead to theloss of accreditation.
 But could reveal indications of poor quality
 NOKUT may follow up these indications by carry out

revision of accreditations
 The link between institutional quality audits andrevisions of accreditations can be considered as acentral pillar in the Norwegian system|7

Quality audits The quality assurance system should be used as antool for the institution to pay continues attention to theimprovement of their educational provisions
 The feedback to the students about actions for
improvements is crucial.
 Improve the confidence between the institution and thestudents
 The students may pay an even more important role indeveloping the quality of the education when they see
improvements

 The fact that the institutions have established, and areable to operate, a reliable quality system may be
crucial for the trust and reliability expressed from thesociety to the Norwegian institutions for higher
education|8215

Initial accreditations: Institutional accreditation
 Accreditation of institutions is an instrument which make itpossible to change institutional category

 NOKUT carry out institutional accreditation based on
applications to change category
 The aim is to achieve academic expansion
 Through a process from being e.g. a university college with theambition to getting the status of a university, there is need toincrease the institution’s competence and quality
 This may:

• Create a political will to allocate additional resources at the
governmental level• Mobilize particular support from the regional or local politicians,
society and industry• Increase the regional competence platform• Create regional innovation and new professional activities in theregion|9

Initial accreditations: Programme/course
accreditation
 Accreditation of programmes of study is an instrument tosecure the standard of new programmes Accreditations are carried out by NOKUT when an
institution applies for the accreditation of a new course orprogramme that the institution’s status doesn’t allow it toprovide automatically Unaccredited institutions must undergo accreditation
procedures for all new provision at all levels
 University colleges must do it for all new provision beyond
the bachelor level Universities and special field universities (e.g. a school ofveterinary science) possess full rights to award degrees at
all levels without specific programme accreditation
| 10

216

Institutional Autonomy
Universities

Specialised
universities

Accredited
university
colleges

Nonaccredited

PhD.
MasterBachelor

Power to establish any study programme (BA, MA, PhD)Power is limited. The institusjonen can not offer study
programmes in the field without accreditation and a final
decision by The Ministry of Education.
| 11

Initial accreditations: Programme/course
accreditation
 In order to achieve governmental supported students
loan, a study programme has to be accredited
 Accreditation of new programmes are an important
prerequisite in the Bologna-process signed by the
Norwegian government Accreditation may be considered as an important tool toachieve the national political and institutional goal tosecure that the quality of higher Norwegian education is
at a high international level It is considered important for the students to know that
their study programme has been accredited
 Accreditation of new programmes establish an increased
confidence to the institutions from the society
| 12

217

Revisions of accreditations

 Revision of accreditation of programmes of study
 Revision of accreditation of institutions
 Based on different indications, NOKUT may conduct
an evaluation of an institution or a programme of
study with a view to do revision of a previously
granted accreditation. Such revision may result inwithdrawal of the accreditation. The Ministry shallthen withdraw the rights entailed by accreditation.
 Revision may be triggered by indications from theinstitutional audit of the quality assurance system orby other indications of inferior quality.
 Revisions may be carried out as random tests| 13

Revisions of accreditations

 Accreditation is not a monitoring instrument only The reports from the expert panels contains
recommendations on how the institutions could
develop the quality beyond the minimum level The experience shows that the institutions follow up
the expert’s recommendations
 Accreditation is a strong instrument for obtaining thegoal of continuous improvement of higher education
 The decision to revoke the accreditation of aprogramme or institution will obviously create aconsiderable set of activities in order to retain thequality necessary for accreditation
| 14

218

Evaluations of significance to assessment of thequality of higher education

 NOKUT may decide to conduct other types of

evaluations that are considered useful from theperspective of increasing knowledge about quality in
Norwegian higher education.
 Also the Ministry may instruct NOKUT to carry out
such evaluations
 In these evaluations NOKUT will no longer havequality control as an objective. The relation to theevaluated institutions changes correspondingly.
 When the object is exclusively “to lean more”,
participating institutions become NOKUTs project
partners| 15

Evaluations of significance to assessment of thequality of higher education

 Important source of information for the Ministry andfor the institutions in their decision making andallocation of recourses for improvement of higher
education.
 May indicate to NOKUT if a revision of accreditationof a program or institution is necessary or relevant.

| 16

219

Challenges and further development of the systemof quality assurance in higher education

 Based on the information given concerning the links
between the various elements in the Norwegiansystem for quality assurance of higher education it
can be concluded that it is an integrated system
 One of the strengths of the Norwegian system for
quality assurance in higher education is the balance
between internal and external quality assurance withfocus on the institutions’ responsibility for the quality
on their provisions.
 This balance, combined with confidence in theinstitutions, also make the system resource effective| 17

Challenges and further development of the systemof quality assurance in higher education

 Besides getting more out of the existing system by improving
processes and procedures and following up otherchallenging issues, the following steps could be taken:
 Systematize the accreditation instruments more; criteria andprocedures Reserve evaluations of significance for assessment of quality ofhigher education, primary to thematic evaluations, covering
specific aspects across the institutional spectrum
 Give higher priority to work with the examination of the effectsof the different instruments on the aims an objectives
 Achieve more knowledge on the effectiveness of the different
methods used and how to reduce the cost in quality workwithout reducing the quality
| 18

220

Some general conclusions
 The various types of evaluations of the quality assurance system
in higher education creates an increased focus on quality
development in higher education
 Important for the country as such Important for the students
 Important for the institutions

 A comprehensive quality assurance system and the evaluation
tools used creates: Increased confidence between the society and the institutions
 Better contact between the society and the institutions
 Better contact between the industry and the institutions
 A better platform for decision making for allocation of recourses bothat the institutional and governmental level A better platform for other political decisions
 An increased possibility for internationalisation within higher

education The lack of an appropriate national quality assurance system inhigher education will result in a loss of confidence in the modern
society, among students and among politicians
| 19

221

National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE)

Japan-Nordic Symposium
On the Frontier of University Evaluation- Making the Most of Nordic Successes August 2007
Editing, Publishing
National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE)
1-29-1, Gakuen-Nishimachi, Kodaira, Tokyo 187-8587, Japan
TEL: +81-42-353-1500