NISTEP REPORT No. 194

Analytical Report of Comprehensive Survey on theState of Science and Technology in Japan(NISTEP TEITEN Survey 2021)

February 2023
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
Center for S&T Foresight and Indicators

This document is the English version of the “Analytical Report of Comprehensive Survey on the Stateof Science and Technology in Japan (NISTEP TEITEN Survey 2021)” by tentative translation. NISTEP
published the original Japanese version in August 2022. The English version is edited by YAMASHITA
Izumi.

Contributors
YAMASHITA Izumi
NISHIKAWA Kai
IGAMI Masatsura

Senior Research Fellow, Center for S&T Foresight and Indicators, National
Institute of Science and Technology Policy, MEXT
Research Fellow, Center for S&T Foresight and Indicators, National
Institute of Science and Technology Policy, MEXT
Director, Center for S&T Foresight and Indicators, National Institute of
Science and Technology Policy, MEXTTSUCHIYA Takahiro

Professor, Association of International Arts and Science, Yokohama City
University / Affiliated Fellow, Center for S&T Foresight and Indicators,
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, MEXT

Please specify reference as the following example when citing this NISTEP REPORT.

"Analytical Report of Comprehensive Survey on the State of Science and Technology in Japan(NISTEP TEITEN Survey 2021)," NISTEP REPORT, No. 194, National Institute of Science andTechnology Policy, Tokyo.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15108/nr194

Executive Summary
The Comprehensive Survey on the State of Science and Technology (NISTEP TEITEN Survey)
is a continuous opinion survey which aims at comprehensively understanding the state of science,technology and innovation creation in Japan, including aspects that are difficult to grasp by quantitative
indicators. It is unique in that the same respondents are continuously surveyed each year by a fixedquestionnaire to enable measuring trends.
The respondents consist of active researchers and experts (non-researchers). The composition isbased on the premise that by asking the same questions of the same content to those in different positions,the perceptions of each group can be grasped in a relative manner. The former is asked questions from theperspective of those engaged in R&D and other activities, while the latter is asked questions primarily fromthe perspective of managing such activities or observing them from the outside.
The survey questionnaire is developed from the perspective of (1) matters of universal
importance in science, technology and innovation creation, and (2) matters that are given particularemphasis in the Science, Technology, and Innovation Basic Plan. The questionnaire consists of thefollowing six parts: "1. Research personnel," "2. Research environment," "3. Research activities andsupport," "4. Industry-academia-government collaboration and the local community," "5.University
functional expansion and strategic management," and "6. Science, technology, innovation, and society.
Current series of surveys (the fourth phase) has been/will be conducted over the five-year period
from FY2021 to FY2025 during the Sixth Basic Plan. And the NISTEP TEITEN Survey 2021 as a part ofthe series was conducted as an online survey from November 29, 2021 to February 28, 2022. Responses
were received from 2,128 respondents to the overall survey total of 2,262. The overall response rate is
94.1%. This report is a tentative translation of the NISTEP TEITEN Survey 2021 report in Japanese.
The findings from NISTEP TEITEN Survey 2021 include: (1) Issues in academic research andbasic research and in securing research time are continuously recognized; (2) Lack of young researchers andstudents to enter a doctoral program are recognized; (3) Regional revitalization efforts are highly evaluatedby researchers at universities mainly outside of metropolitan areas, while not by some groups of experts; and
4) Researchers in the social sciences and humanities tend to be positive in "securing competitive funding"and "introducing multi-faceted assessment of researchers," while negative in "transferring academic
knowledge to ventures" and "diversifying career paths for PhD holders."(This page intentionally left blank)

Table of Contents
PART 1: ABOUT THE NISTEPTEITEN SURVEY
1 PURPOSE OF THE NISTEP TEITEN SURVEY ................................................................................... 1
2 OVERVIEW OF THE NISTEP TEITEN SURVEY ................................................................................. 1
2-1 Selection of respondents .......................................................................................................... 1
2-2 Questionnaire Structure .......................................................................................................... 4
2-3 Analytical Perspectives and Methods of Tabulating Survey Results in the NISTEPTEITEN Survey .............................................................................................................................. 7
2-4 Display of results by index and interpretation of the index .................................................. 8
2-5 About Free Descriptions from open-ended questions............................................................. 9PART 2: DETAILS OF SURVEY RESULTS
1 RESEARCH PERSONNEL ....................................................................................................................11
1-1 Young researchers ...................................................................................................................11
1-2 Young students aspiring to become researchers .................................................................. 15
1-3 Female researchers ................................................................................................................ 18
1-4 Foreign researchers .................................................................................................................. 21
1-5 Evaluation of researchers .......................................................................................................... 22
2 RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................................. 24
2-1 Research resources ................................................................................................................... 24
2-2 Research facilities and equipment ............................................................................................. 27
2-3 Transformation of research activities ........................................................................................ 31
3 RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AND RESEARCH SUPPORT ........................................................................... 35
3-1 Academic research and basic research ....................................................................................... 35
3-2 Government research funding management .............................................................................. 39
4 INDUSTRY-ACADEMIA-GOVERNMENT COLLABORATION AND THE LOCAL COMMUNITY...................... 42
4-1 Knowledge-based value creation ............................................................................................... 42
4-2 Intellectual property management ............................................................................................ 46
4-3 Regional revitalization .............................................................................................................. 48
4-4 Innovation talent development .................................................................................................. 51
5 UNIVERSITY FUNCTIONAL EXPANSION AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT ........................................... 53
5-1 University management ............................................................................................................ 53
5-2 University functional expansion ................................................................................................ 57
6 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION AND SOCIETY....................................................................... 59
6-1 Relationship with society .......................................................................................................... 59
6-2 Utilization of "comprehensive knowledge" ................................................................................ 62

6-3 Building an innovation system................................................................................................... 64
6-4 Promoting open innovation ....................................................................................................... 66
6-5 International collaboration ....................................................................................................... 68
6-6 Research integrity ..................................................................................................................... 70
7 REPORT SUMMARY
7-1 Ongoing awareness of issues regarding academic research and basic research andresearch time, etc. ........................................................................................................................ 72
7-2 New trends in R&D activities, such as the transformation of research activities and theuse of "comprehensive knowledge" .............................................................................................. 73
7-3 Young researchers, young students aspiring to become researchers, and issues regarding
the evaluation of researchers' performance ................................................................................ 74
7-4 Issues in interaction, such as regional revitalization, building innovation systems, andinternational collaboration .......................................................................................................... 75
7-5 Characteristic trends in responses by SSH researchers...................................................... 76
7-6 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 77
NISTEP TEITEN SURVEY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ........... エラー! ブックマークが定義されていません。
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 79

Part 1: About the NISTEPTEITEN Survey

(This page intentionally left blank)

1 Purpose of the NISTEP TEITEN Survey
The Comprehensive Survey on the State of Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as "NISTEPTEITEN Survey") is a continuous opinion survey on the state of science and technology and innovation creationin Japan for active researchers and experts (non-researchers) in academia, industry and government.
Through a questionnaire developed based on the Science, Technology and Innovation Basic Plan (hereinafterreferred to as "Basic Plan"), this survey will provide a comprehensive understanding of the status of science,technology and innovation creation and its changes, including aspects that are difficult to grasp using
quantitative indicators. The survey is unique in that it is conducted on an annual basis with the same
respondents. This series of surveys, the fourth phase, will be conducted over the five-year period from FY2021
to FY2025 during the 6th Basic Plan.
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and the Council for Science,
Technology and Innovation (CSTI) have recognized that the results of the NISTEP TEITEN Surveys conductedduring the 3rd through 5th Basic Plan periods provide valuable and unique data for a comprehensive andqualitative understanding of changes in the state of science, technology and innovation creation in Japan. The
results of the NISTEP TEITEN Survey will play an even more important role in understanding the progress of
the Basic Plan and in the formulation of the next Basic Plan, since they indicate changes in the real research
activities that are difficult to grasp using quantitative data alone.
This report is a tentative translation of the NISTEP TEITEN Survey 2021 report, a report for the first surveyof the fourth TEITEN Survey period and the reference point for future TEITEN Surveys. Since the survey
respondents and questions have been updated with the commencement of the 4th TEITEN Survey, the resultsof the survey cannot be simply compared with those of the previous NISTEP TEITEN Surveys. NISTEP workedon the design, implementation, and compilation of the results of the survey, and was advised in the process by
the “NISTEP TEITEN Survey Committee,” which consists of related experts.

2 Overview of the NISTEP TEITEN Survey
The NISTEP TEITEN Survey 2021 was conducted as an online survey from November 29, 2021 to February
28, 2022. Responses were received from 2,128 respondents to the overall survey total of 2,262. The overall
response rate is 94.1%.
In this section, the selection of respondents and the composition of the questionnaire is discussed. And themethods in tabulation of the survey results and how the results are presented.

2-1 Selection of respondents
For understanding the status of science and technology and innovation creation, taking into account the
Basic Plan, it is necessary to grasp the status of universities and national research institutes that are engaged
in R&D and innovation creation. It is also important to focus on the collaboration between universities, national
research institutes, etc. and companies, especially in terms of innovation creation. Furthermore, by including
respondents who have a bird's-eye view of the above activities in the survey, it would be possible to ascertain

1

opinions that go beyond the individual activities of the organizations to which the respondents themselves
belong.
Based on the above, the respondents first are the active researchers who are actually engaged in R&D andinnovation creation at universities and national research institutes. Since the activities of the researchers aresupported by the organizations to which they belong, the university and national institute management level(people who take organizational managerial roles) also are the respondents of the survey. For conducting asurvey that also focuses on the collaboration between universities, national research institutes, etc. andcompanies, it is necessary to include companies engaged in R&D and innovation creation as the respondents.
High level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, such as members of government councils, should also be
respondents to reflect their bird’s-eye perspectives.
Based on the nature of their activities, the respondents selected for the survey are organized into twogroups: a group of active researchers and a group of experts (non-researchers). The former group consists ofresearchers in the field of natural science at universities (hereinafter referred to as "natural science
researchers"), researchers in the field of natural science at national research and development agencies orinter-university research institutes (hereinafter referred to as "natural science researchers at national
institutes"), priority programs researchers selected separately from the former two groups, and social sciences
and humanities researchers at universities, inter-university research institute corporation, etc. (hereinafterreferred to as "SSH researchers"). Government priority programs refer to the Strategic Innovation Promotion
Program Phase 2 (SIP2), Moonshot Research and Development Program, COI Fund for Young Researchers,
and Fusion Oriented Research for Disruptive Science and Technology, all of which are mentioned in the Basic
Plan. The reason why researchers in the natural sciences and government priority programs researchers are
selected separately is that the situation of researchers supported by government priority programs can differ
from that of other researchers. The group of active researchers comprises approximately 1,500 respondents intotal. The group of experts (non-researchers) consists of approximately 800 people, including university andnational institute management level, company representatives and R&D managers, and members of government
councils. For the representatives and R&D managers of companies, subgroups were set up for large companies
and SMEs and university ventures, taking into account the possibility that their perceptions may differ
depending on the size of the company. Details of the actual selection procedure and other details of theselection of respondents are described in the Part 3 of the Japanese version.
Unlike the 3rd NISTEP TEITEN Survey (FY 2016-20), SSH researchers were added to the respondents in
the 4th TEITEN Survey. This is due to the revision of the Basic Act on Science, Technology and Innovation
to include the social sciences and humanities in the scope of science and technology. The Sixth Basic Plan, on
which the 4th TEITEN Survey is based, also reflects this revision. The overall picture of the survey subjects
is as follows.

2Figure 1-. 1 Overall picture of respondents

University natural science researchers
Natural science researchers at national institutes
Priority program researchers*1
SSH researchers*2
University management level
National institute management level
Companies (large companies; SMEs and university ventures)High level experts with advisory roles to STI policies

Active researchers(about 1,500
people)Experts (nonresearchers)(about 800 people)
Note 1:Government priority program researchers are researchers in the natural science field who have been selected as principal investigators for theStrategic Innovation Promotion Program Phase 2 (SIP2), Moonshot Research and Development Program, COI Young Researchers Collaborative
Research Fund, and Fusion Oriented Research for Disruptive Science and Technology, as mentioned in the Basic Plan. They are selected separatelyfrom natural science researchers at universities and natural science researchers at national research institutes.
Note 2.

The social sciences and humanities were added to the scope of this survey as part of the Sixth Basic Plan.

Regarding university natural science researchers, the respondents were selected so that the data could betabulated by university group based on the share of papers and by university department field. Previous surveys
have shown that response trends differ by those attributes. University groups are categorized using the shareof papers (natural sciences, fractional count) among Japanese universities in 2015-19 (Figure 1-2). Universities
with a share of 4% and more of the total number of papers are classified as Group 1, those with a share of 1%
and more to less than 4% as Group 2, those with a share of 0.5% and more to less than 1% as Group 3, andthose with a share of 0.05% and more to less than 0.5% as Group 4. As for inter-university research institutecorporation, 19 research institutes/facilities as divisions of the 4 corporations were selected. For national
research and development agencies, 24 institutions were selected, excluding the 3 institutions that mostly
distribute R&D funding. The universities and national research institutes that were surveyed are described inPart 3 of the Japanese version.

Figure 1-2. University classification based on paper share in Japan and department extraction policies

University
group

Share of papers (among Japanese
universities)

Number ofuniversities

4th NISTEP TEITEN Survey

12
3

Top 4 universities out of 1% and more
1% or more (excluding top 4 universities)
0.5 and more to less than 1%

4(4, 0, 0)14(11, 0, 3)
26(16, 4, 6)

Extract all
Extract all
Extract about 2/3

40.05 and more to less than 0.5%

137(37, 18, 82)

About 1/2 for science, engineeringand for agriculture
About 1/3 for health

Whole

-

181(68, 22, 91)

181*1Compiled by the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy based on Clarivate's Web of Science XML (SCIE, version at theend of 2020).
2 Figures in parentheses are the number of applicable national universities, public universities, and private universities.

3

2-2 Questionnaire Structure
Based on the Sixth Basic Plan, and with the objective of understanding the status of science, technology andinnovation creation in Japan, a questionnaire was developed from the perspective of (1) matters of universal
importance in science, technology and innovation creation, and (2) matters of particular emphasis in the Basic
Plan. The questionnaire consists of the following six parts: "1. research personnel," "2. research environment,""3. research activities and support," "4. industry-academia-government collaboration and the local
community," "5. university functional expansion and strategic management," and "6. science, technology,
innovation and society."
The research personnel part consists of sub-categories of "young researchers," "young students aspiring tobecome researchers," "female researchers," "foreign researchers," and "evaluation of researchers'
performance." The Basic Plan describes efforts to promote the activities of young researchers and female
researchers and to promote brain circulation to rebuild an environment that generates diverse and outstanding
research. The objective of the part is to understand the environment in which researchers with the above
attributes are placed. In addition, the evaluation of researchers' performance is generally asked, not limited to
specific attributes.
The research environment part consists of sub-categories of "research resources," "research facilities andequipment," and "transformation of research activities." The Basic Plan seeks to promote efforts to secure
research time and improve research facilities and equipment to rebuild an environment that generates diverse
and outstanding research. In addition, for the establishment of a new research system (promotion of open
science and data-driven research, etc.), the plan describes efforts to develop infrastructure and build anenvironment that will support the transformation of research activities in line with the development of newtechnologies such as AI and virtual technologies. In the part, the status of the research environment in which
researchers at universities, national research institutes, etc. are placed is grasped from the aspects that are
universally important for conducting research, such as status of information infrastructure for research,
research funds, research time, and research facilities and equipment, as well as from the aspect of thetransformation of research activities that is currently progressing rapidly.
The part on research activities and research support consists of sub-categories of "academic research andbasic research" and "government research funding management." The Basic Plan describes efforts to promoteacademic research and basic research to rebuild an environment that generates diverse and outstanding
research. The purpose of the part is to grasp the status of the promotion of academic research and basic
research, as well as the status of the government's efforts to allocate funds to support such research. Regarding
the latter, the section focuses mainly on the support provided through funding agencies, since a question on
support by recurrent or block grant funding is asked in the sub-category of "research resources" in the research
environment part.
The industry-academia-government collaboration and the local community part consists of the subcategories of "knowledge-based value creation," "intellectual property management," "regional revitalization,"and "innovation talent development." The Basic Plan describes the promotion of new value co-creation throughindustry-academia-government collaboration in the context of the formation of an innovation ecosystem. The

4

objective of the part is to grasp the status of efforts to utilize the outputs of R&D while applying them toindustry and society. The status of human resource development for such activities is also within the scope of
the part.
The part of "university functional expansion and strategic management" consists of the sub-categories of"university management" and "university functional expansion." In the Basic Plan, there are specific initiatives
including the transformation of national university corporations into true management entities, deregulation to
support strategic management, and the creation of a 10 trillion-yen university fund for promotion of university
reform and university functional expansion for strategic management. Based on that, the part asks questions
mainly on the status of activities of universities for self-reform and securing various financial resources in the
sub-category of "university management" and on the status of universities from the perspective of society andderegulation to support university management in the sub-category of "university functional expansion".
The part of “science, technology, innovation and society” consists of sub-categories of "status of relations
with society," "utilization of 'comprehensive knowledge'," "building an innovation system," "promotion of open
innovation," "international collaboration" and "research integrity." The Basic Plan states that to realizetransformation into a sustainable and resilient society that ensures the safety and security of its citizens, it isnecessary to (1) promote R&D and social implementation and utilize "comprehensive knowledge" to solve
various social issues, and (2) form an innovation ecosystem that will serve as a foundation for creating new
industries based on value co-creation. Among the sub-categories that make up the part, "status of relations
with society" and "utilization of 'comprehensive knowledge'" are questions related to (1), and are intended toqualitatively understand the progress of the "comprehensive knowledge" presented in the Basic Plan. In
addition, the questions on "building an innovation system" and "promotion of open innovation" are related to(2), and will focus on innovation policies such as the introduction or relaxation of regulations, establishment ofvenues for demonstration experiments, financial and fiscal support, and a system that would promote
standardization. In addition, questions on the status of "international collaboration" and "research integrity"
also are asked in the same part, since internationalization is an important perspective in conducting research
activities and concerns about outflow of scientific and technological information, etc. have been increasing inrecent years.

5The structure of the questionnaire explained above is shown in Figure 1-3.
Figure 1-3. Questionnaire structurePart

Sub-category
Young researchers
Young students aspiring to become researchers

Research personnel

Female researchers
Foreign researchers
Evaluation of researchers
Research resources

Research environment

Research facilities and equipment
Transformation of research activities

Research activities and support

Academic research and basic research
Government research funding management
Knowledge-based value creation

Industry-academia-government
collaboration and the local
community

Intellectual property management
Regional revitalization
Innovation talent development

University functional expansion
and strategic management

University management
University functional expansion
Status of relations with society
Utilization of "comprehensive knowledge"

Science, technology andinnovation and society

Building an innovation system
Promotion of open innovation
International collaboration
Research integrity
Total number of questions

6

Num. of questions

4
3
3
1
2
5
3
5
4
5
4
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
4
2
2
2
65

The method of answering the questions is to select the most appropriate answer from six levels (Insufficient←→ Sufficient) (6-point scale questions). Some questions are common to the past TEITEN Surveys, which
are items considered important for observing the status of science and technology and innovation creation.
The scope of the questions is specified as either the "department" or "organization" to which the respondents
belong, the "organization" to which the respondents are related, the "field" to which the respondents belong,or "Japan as a whole". The concrete questions and their correspondence to the respondent groups arepresented in Part 3 of the Japanese version. In many questions, active researchers were asked about thesituation of the organization or department to which the respondent belongs, experts (university managementlevel and national institute management level) were asked about the situation of the organization to which the
respondent belongs, companies were asked about the situation of the organization with which the respondentis associated or Japan as a whole, and the high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies were asked
about the situation of Japan as a whole.

2-3 Analytical Perspectives and Methods of Tabulating Survey Results in the NISTEP TEITEN Survey
In analyzing the results of the survey based on the previously mentioned questions, emphasis will be placedon what trends exist in the responses according to the attributes of the respondents. This is because it would
provide important clues for understanding the state of science and technology and innovation creation in Japan,such as differences in opinions between researchers and the university management level, and among university
groups. The purpose of the NISTEP TEITEN Survey is to obtain a bird's-eye view of the status of researchand development and innovation creation in Japan, not to evaluate individual universities or national research
institutes.
In tabulating the results of the survey, focus will be placed on the characteristics of the overall trend of
responses for each of the respondent groups that were set up when the survey was conducted. For example,
the results for university natural science researchers will be tabulated by total, university group, university
department field, gender, and so on. In order to compare the results with those of university natural science
researchers, the responses of government priority programs researchers and experts (non-researchers) will
also be tabulated.
Population estimates were made for the respondent groups of natural science researchers at universities,
natural science researchers at national research institutes, and SSH researchers. The relationship between thenumber of responses for each stratum and the size of the population is shown in Figure 1-4 Note that the
proportion of female respondents to the size of the population is much higher than that of male respondents
regarding university natural science researchers. It reflects the oversampling to fully capture the opinions offemale respondents, given the low percentage of female researchers in Japan as a whole. Details of the
population and population estimates are presented in Part 3 of the Japanese version.
The natural science researchers at universities are divided into subgroups by university group, by university
departmental field, and by gender to make comparisons among those strata. Since previous NISTEP analyses
have shown that the situation and response trends differ by university group and departmental field,

7

comparisons will be made among them. In addition, since it is assumed that there may be differences in
responses by gender for some question items, comparisons will also be made by gender. Here, university groupis an attribute in which NISTEP categorizes each university into four groups based on the share of the numberof papers (the number of papers in the natural science field in a certain university / the number of papers in
the natural science field of all Japanese universities) as previously mentioned. In addition, university department
field is a field category set in the Survey of Research and Development by the Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications1 . The details of the university groups are described in Part 3 of the Japanese version.
Figure 1-4. Number of responses and population size by strata

Stratum
Num. responses
Whole
865
Group 1
196
Univ.
Group 2
232
University
groupGroup 3237
naturalGroup 4200
science
Science161
Scientificresearchers
Engineering/Agriculture
418
field
Health
286
Male
485
Sex
Female380
Natural science researchers at national
149
Government priority program researchers279
SSH researchers
93
University management level
247
National institute management level
64
Whole
271
Large companies
156
Companies Company
SMEs and university
type
115

Population size*
33,085
6,276
9,403
8,318
9,089
4,858
14,67013,55827,871
5,214
6,781
800
2,145
267
67
4,098
831

160

934

ventures
High level experts with advisory roles to STI policies

NOTE :

3,267

The population size for university natural science researchers, natural science researchers at national research institutes, and SSH researchers isthe sum of the weights assigned to each respondent for population estimation. The population size for government priority programs researchers,companies, and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies represents the size of the list used in conducting the random sampling. For theuniversity management level and national institute management level, the number of respondents to whom questionnaires were sent is used as the sizeof the population, since it is nearly an all-inclusive survey for them.

2-4 Display of results by index and interpretation of the index
In the report, the results of the 6-point scale questions will be discussed using an index based on conversionof the results into values ranging from 0 to 10 points. Specifically, the 6-point scale is converted from "1" to0 points, "2" to 2 points, "3" to 4 points, "4" to 6 points, "5" to 8 points, and "6" to 10 points, and theaverage values are tabulated by attribute (e.g., by university group and by university department field). Notethat population estimates were used in the calculation of the index. The interpretation of the index is shown in
the Figure 1-5. And the approach used in interpreting the index is presented in Section 3 of the Japaneseversion.

1

Although engineering and agriculture are classified separately in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications survey, engineering and agriculture
are combined in the survey to secure enough samples for those strata.

8

Figure 1-5. Indices and their interpretation in the report

perceived as sufficient (5.5 and more）

largely perceived as sufficient(4.5 andmore to less than 5.5
perceived as not sufficient (3.5 andmore to less than 4.5）
perceived as strongly insufficient (2.5
and more to less than 3.5）

perceived as significantly insufficient(less than 2.5）

2-5 About Free Descriptions from open-ended questions
The NISTEP TEITEN Survey 2021 also includes open-ended questions at the end of each question part. The
results are presented in the text as a summary of the points of multiple statements, which may have been
influenced by the subjectivity of the authors of this report.

9

(This page intentionally left blank)

10Part 2: Details of Survey Results(This page intentionally left blank)

1 Research personnel
The research personnel part consists of sub-categories of "young researchers," "young students aspiring tobecome researchers," "female researchers," "foreign researchers," and "evaluation of researchers' performance.
The Basic Plan describes efforts aimed at promoting the activities of young researchers and female researchersand promoting brain circulation to rebuild an environment that generates diverse and outstanding research.
The purpose of this part is to understand the environment in which researchers with the above attributes areplaced. In addition, the sub-category of evaluation of researchers' performance is not limited to specificattributes.

1-1 Young researchers
In the sub-category of young researchers, the following four questions were asked to active researchers andto a part of experts (non-researchers): university management level and national institute management level.
In addition, two questions, Q101 and Q104, were asked to "high level experts with advisory roles to STI
policies" among experts (non-researchers). Note that "young researchers" in the survey is defined as"postdoctoral fellows, researchers, assistant professors, associate professors, etc., up to about 39 years of age,
excluding doctoral students”.
○

Q101: Do you think young researchers (excluding doctoral students) have sufficient opportunities tobe independent and active?

○

Q102: Do you think the number of young researchers independently conducting R&D is sufficient?

○

Q103: Do you think the organizational efforts are sufficient for expanding the number of tenured
positions for promising young researchers?

○

Q104: Do you think young researchers is sufficiently supported for pursuing their studies abroad(e.g., securing opportunities, financial support, evaluation of their pursuit, and so on)?

In all questions, active researchers were asked about the status of their departments, university managementlevel and national institute management level were asked about the status of their organizations, and high level
experts with advisory roles to STI policies were asked about the overall status of Japanese universities andnational institutes.

11

Figure 2-1. List of questions and indices about young researchers
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Q101: Establishing anenvironment for young
researchers to be
independent and active
Q102: Number of young
researchers
independently
conducting R&D
Q103: Expanding
tenured employment foryoung researchers withproven track records
Q104: Establishment ofan environment foryoung researchers to
pursue their studies
abroadExperts (nonresearchers)

Q101: Establishing anenvironment for young
researchers to be
independent and active
Q102: Number of young
researchers
independently
conducting R&D
Q103: Expanding
tenured employment foryoung researchers withproven track records
Q104: Establishment ofan environment foryoung researchers to
pursue their studies
abroad

Univ.
whole

By univ. group
Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

4.9

5.5

5.2

4.6

4.6

5.4

3.8

4.6

4.0

3.3

3.5

3.9

3.2

4.1

3.8

3.8

4.7

4.1

3.3

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

GovernmBy scientific field
Science Eng/AgriBy sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalprogramssciences

SSH

HealthMale

Female

5.4

4.3

5.0

4.8

6.0

4.6

5.3

4.1

4.1

3.4

3.8

3.8

3.9

3.3

4.4

4.1

3.3

4.7

3.2

3.9

3.7

4.0

3.0

4.1

3.3

4.5

4.0

3.4

3.8

3.7

5.3

3.6

4.5

*1

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

5.4

6.3

-

-

-

3.0

3.9

4.3

-

-

-

-

4.4

5.5

-

-

-

-

4.7

5.3

-

-

-

2.9

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q101: Establishing an environment for young researchers to be independent and active," the overall
index for university natural science researchers (a part of active researcher) is 4.9 (largely perceived as
sufficient). By university group, Group 1 (5.5) and Group 3 and Group 4 (4.6) have a difference of 0.9 in theindex. By university department field, there is a difference of 1.1 in the index between science (5.4) andengineering/agriculture (5.4) and health (4.3). The index for natural science researchers at national research
institutes is 6.0 (perceived as sufficient), 4.6 for government priority programs researchers (largely perceived
as sufficient), and 5.3 for SSH researchers (largely perceived as sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers),
the indices for university management level and national institute management level are 5.4 (largely perceived
as sufficient) and 6.3 (perceived as sufficient), respectively. High level experts with advisory roles to STI
policies has an index of 3.0 (perceived as strongly insufficient). Note that the index of 4.9 for all university
natural science researchers is 1.9 higher than the index of 3.0 for high level experts with advisory roles to STI
policies.

12

In "Q102: Number of young researchers independently conducting R&D," the overall index for university
natural science researchers (a part of active researchers) is 3.8 (perceived as not sufficient). By university
group, there is a 1.3 difference in the index between Group 1 (4.6) and Group 3 (3.3). The index for naturalscience researchers at national institutes is 3.9 (perceived as not sufficient), 3.3 for government priority
programs researchers (perceived as strongly insufficient), and 4.4 for SSH researchers (perceived as not
sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national institutemanagement level are 3.9 (perceived as not sufficient) and 4.3 (perceived as not sufficient), respectively.
In "Q103: Expanding tenured employment for young researchers with proven track records," among active
researchers, the overall index for university natural science researchers is 3.9 (perceived as not sufficient). By
university group, there is a difference of 0.9 in the index between Group 2 and Group 4 (4.1) and Group 1 (3.2).
By university department field, there is a difference of 1.4 and 1.5 in the indices for engineering and agriculturalscience (4.7) and science (3.3) and health (3.2), respectively. The index for natural science researchers atnational institutes is 4.0 (perceived as not sufficient), 3.0 for government priority programs researchers(perceived as strongly insufficient), and 4.1 for SSH researchers (perceived as not sufficient). Among experts(non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national institute management level are 4.4(perceived as not sufficient) and 5.5 (perceived as sufficient), respectively. The index is 4.0 for natural science
researchers at national institutes, a difference of 1.5 points compared to 5.5 for management level at national
institute management level.
In "Q104: Establishment of an environment for young researchers to pursue their studies abroad," the overall
index for university natural science researchers (a part of active researchers) is 3.8 (perceived as not sufficient).
By university group, there is a difference of 1.4 in the index between Group 1 (4.7) and Group 3 and Group 4(3.3). By university department field, there is a 1.1 difference in the index between science (4.5) and health(3.4). The index for natural science researchers at national research institutes is 5.3 (largely perceived as
sufficient), 3.6 for government priority programs researchers (perceived as not sufficient), and 4.5 for SSH
researchers (largely perceived as sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university
management level and national institute management level were 4.7 (largely perceived as sufficient) and 5.3(perceived as sufficient), respectively. Note that the index of 3.8 for university natural science researchers asa whole is 0.9 higher than the index of 2.9 for high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies. The index
of 4.7 for the university management level differs by 0.9 from the index of 3.8 for all university natural science
researchers.
Based on the above, while "Establishing an environment for young researchers to be independent and active(Q101)" is largely perceived as sufficient for many attributes, there is a tendency for "Number of young
researchers independently conducting R&D (Q102)" to be perceived as not sufficient. In both questions, there
are differences among university groups, with Group 1, the university with the largest share of papers, having
a relatively high index. Comparing the perceptions of "Number of young researchers independently conducting
R&D (Q102)" and "Expanding tenured employment for young researchers with proven track records (Q103),"the latter index is lower than the former for Group 1. It suggests that although there are a certain number ofyoung researchers who conduct R&D independently, they are not sufficiently offered tenured employment.
There are many comments from open-ended questions related to the point that "there are not enough non-13

tenured positions for young researchers due to capacity reduction," as well as "Although the hard environment
for conducting research is good, there is a problem in that young researchers are forced to move from one
non-tenured position to another. We cannot pay for our own personnel expenses from the project researchfunds, so we would like to see the expansion of tenure positions." Furthermore, "Establishing an environment
for young researchers to be independent and active" (Q101) and "Establishing an environment of anenvironment for young researchers to pursue their studies abroad" (Q104) tended to be rated lower by highlevel experts with advisory roles to STI policies than by researchers and management level of university andnational institute management level.
Other issues raised in the open-ended answers regarding the sub-category include: "In order to increase
the number of young researchers, the treatment of mid-career researchers, who are the future of young
researchers, should be improved," "Since it is difficult for young researchers to become independent given theamount of funding in Japan, it would be better if young researchers could freely conduct research whileremaining under the supervision of a professor," "Since the employment funds for non-tenured researchers
have a time limit, it is difficult for them to take a long leave of absence in response to their life events," and"There are problems such as the lack of clear conditions for promotion, and the lack of promotion prospects
after moving to a tenured post."

141-2 Young students aspiring to become researchers
In the sub-category of young students aspiring to become researchers, the following three questions wereasked to active researchers except for researchers in national institutes and university management level amongexperts (non-researchers). In addition, two questions, Q106 and Q107, were asked to high level experts withadvisory roles to STI policies among experts (non-researchers). The term "young students aspiring to become
researchers" in the survey is defined as those who are going to be enrolled / are enrolled in a doctoral program.
○

Q105: Do you think the number of students with desirable abilities who are pursuing doctoral studies
is sufficient?

○

Q106: Do you think the students with desirable abilities are sufficiently supported and motivated toenter the doctoral program?

○

Q107: Do you think there are sufficient efforts to create an environment in which PhD holders canchoose a variety of career paths, including paths outside of academia?

In all questions, active researchers were asked about the status of their departments, university managementlevel was asked about the status of their organizations, and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies
were asked about the general status of Japanese universities.
Figure 2-2. List of questions and indices about young students aspiring to become researchers
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Univ.
whole

By univ. group

GovernmBy scientific field

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

2.4

3.3

2.4

2.1

2.1

2.7

4.2

4.9

4.6

3.8

3.8

3.8

4.3

4.5

3.4

2.9

Science Eng/AgriBy sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalprogramssciences

SSH

HealthMale

Female

2.0

2.8

2.4

2.6

-

2.1

2.5

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.2

4.4

-

4.3

3.5

4.2

4.0

3.4

3.8

3.4

-

3.8

2.8

*1

Q105: Number ofdoctoral students withdesirable competencies
Q106: Environmental
arrangements forstudents to enter the
doctoral program
Q107: Diversifying
career paths for PhD
holders

Experts (nonresearchers)

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

Q105: Number ofdoctoral students withdesirable competencies
Q106: Environmental
arrangements forstudents to enter the
doctoral program

3.2

-

-

-

-

-

4.5

-

-

-

-

2.5

4.2

-

-

-

-

2.5

Q107: Diversifying
career paths for PhD
holders

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

15

In "Q105: Number of doctoral students with desirable competencies," the overall index for university naturalscience researchers among active researchers is 2.4 (perceived as significantly insufficient). By university group,Group 1 (3.3) and Group 3 and Group 4 (2.1) have a difference of 1.2 in the index. The index is 2.1 (perceived
as significantly insufficient) for government priority programs researchers and 2.5 (perceived as strongly
insufficient) for SSH researchers. Among experts (non-researchers), the index is 3.2 (perceived as strongly
insufficient), which is 0.8 higher than the overall index of 2.4 for all university natural science researchers.
In "Q106: Environmental arrangements for students to enter the doctoral program," the overall index foruniversity natural science researchers among active researchers is 4.2 (perceived as not sufficient). By
university group, Group 1 (4.9) and Group 2 (4.6) and Group 3 and Group 4 (3.8) have differences of 1.1 and
0.8 in the index, respectively. The index is 4.3 (perceived as not sufficient) for government priority programs
researchers and 3.5 (perceived as not sufficient) for SSH researchers. Among experts (non-researchers), theindex is 4.5 (largely perceived as sufficient) for the university management level. High level experts withadvisory roles to STI policies has an index of 2.5 (perceived as strongly insufficient). The index of 4.2 for all
university natural science researchers is 1.7 higher than the index of 2.5 for high level experts with advisory
roles to STI policies.
In "Q107: Diversifying career paths for PhD holders," the overall index for university natural science
researchers among active researchers is 3.8 (perceived as not sufficient). By university group, Group 2 (4.5),
Group 1 (4.3) and Group 4 (2.9) have differences of 1.6 and 1.4 in the index, respectively. By university
department field, there is a 0.8 difference in the index between science (4.2) and health (3.4). The index is 3.8(perceived as not sufficient) for government priority programs researchers and 2.8 (perceived as strongly
insufficient) for SSH researchers. Among experts (non-researchers), the index is 4.2 (perceived as not
sufficient) for the university management level. High level experts with advisory roles to STI policies has anindex of 2.5 (perceived as strongly insufficient). Note that the index of 3.8 for all university natural science
researchers is 1.3 higher than the index of 2.5 for high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies.
Based on the above, in the sub-category of young students aspiring to become researchers, the indices for"Environmental arrangements for students to enter the doctoral program (Q106)" and "Environmental
arrangements for diversifying career paths for PhD holders (Q107)" are relatively high, however, many of the
respondents group perceive as significantly insufficient for "the number of doctoral students with desirable
abilities (Q105). The relatively high indices for Q106 and Q107 are also not at a sufficient level and are rated
low by high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies. Furthermore, by university group, the index tends
to be relatively high for universities with a large share of the number of papers (Group 1 and Group 2) and low
for universities with the lower share of the number of papers (Group 3 and Group 4). The results suggest that
there are differences in the situation among universities. The following comments are made on the open-ended
questions concerning the sub-category: "There are few opportunities to obtain tenured positions after obtaininga PhD, so even if there are excellent students, we cannot encourage them to enter a doctoral program" and"Regarding career paths for young researchers, it would be desirable if career paths were not only in academia
but also in other industries," suggesting that the environment for career paths for young researchers is

16

important. Another commented that "In order to increase the number of young researchers, the treatment of
mid-career researchers, who are the future of young researchers, should be improved." In addition, regarding
support for doctoral students, which has been increasing in recent years, some respondents stated that
"support is insufficient," while others stated that "support has been increased or will be increased by theuniversity to which the researcher belongs in recent years." Some respondents also commented that" a largescale support framework has been launched, but the multiple systems are in disarray, making it difficult for
students to understand."
Other issues raised in the open-ended comments regarding the sub-category are summarized as follows: "Inorder to increase the number of doctoral students, not only tuition waiver but also salary and scholarship areneeded. It is desirable to be able to use the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research as a source of the funds,"
and "It is desirable to provide support for recurrent students regardless of their age in order to enhance thenumber of doctoral students."

17

1-3 Female researchers
In the sub-category of female researchers, the following three questions were asked to the active researchers
and to the university management level and national institute management level among the experts (nonresearchers). In addition, high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies among experts (non-researchers)
were asked one question in Q109.
○

Q108: Do you think the number of female researchers is sufficient from the perspective of ensuring
diversity among researchers?

○

Q109: Do you think there is sufficient support according to life stage so that more female researchers
can play an active role?

○

Q110: Do you think there is sufficient devise of a human resources system for recruitment andpromotion so that more female researchers can play an active role?

In all questions, active researchers were asked about the status of their departments, "university
management level" and "national institute management level" were asked about the status of their organizations,and "high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies" were asked about the overall status of Japanese
universities and national institutes.
Figure 2-3. List of questions and indices about female researchers
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Q108: Number of female
researchers (from theperspective of securing
diversity of
researchers)

Univ.
whole

By univ. group

GovernmBy scientific field

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

3.4

3.3

3.5

3.6

3.3

2.6

4.2

3.8

4.3

4.1

4.5

4.8

4.8

4.4

4.9

5.1

Science Eng/AgriBy sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalprogramssciences

SSH

HealthMale

Female

2.9

4.3

3.4

3.5

3.9

3.1

4.4

3.6

4.4

4.3

4.2

4.0

4.8

3.9

4.7

4.4

5.0

4.7

5.0

4.1

5.1

4.4

5.4

*1

Q109: Support for
female researchers toplay an active role
Q110: Developing ahuman resources
system to enablefemale researchers toplay an active role

Experts (nonresearchers)

Q108: Number of female
researchers (from theperspective of securing
diversity of
researchers)

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

3.1

3.3

-

-

-

-

4.8

5.1

-

-

-

2.6

4.8

5.2

-

-

-

-

Q109: Support for
female researchers toplay an active role
Q110: Developing ahuman resources
system to enablefemale researchers toplay an active role

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

18

In "Q108: Number of female researchers (from the perspective of securing diversity of researchers)," theindex for all natural science researchers at the university among active researchers is 3.4 (perceived as strongly
insufficient). By university department field, the indices for health (4.3), science (2.6), andengineering/agriculture (2.9) differ by 1.7 and 1.4, respectively. The index for natural science researchers atnational institutes is 3.9 (perceived as not sufficient), 3.1 for government priority programs researchers(perceived as strongly insufficient), and 4.4 for SSH researchers (perceived as not sufficient). Among experts(non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national institute management level are 3.1(perceived as strongly insufficient) and 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient), respectively.
In "Q109: Support for female researchers to play an active role," the index for all natural science researchersat universities among active researchers is 4.2 (perceived as not sufficient). The index for natural science
researchers at national research institutes is 4.8 (largely perceived as sufficient), 3.9 for government priority
programs researchers (perceived as not sufficient), and 4.7 for SSH researchers (largely perceived as sufficient).
Among experts (non-researchers), the indices are 4.8 (largely perceived as sufficient) and 5.1 (perceived as
sufficient) for university management level and national institute management level. High level experts withadvisory roles to STI policies has an index of 2.6 (perceived as strongly insufficient). The index of 4.2 for all
university natural science researchers is 1.6 higher than the index of 2.6 for high level experts with advisory
roles to STI policies.
In "Q110: Enabling a human resources system to female researchers to play an active role," the index for
all natural science researchers at universities is 4.8 (largely perceived as sufficient). The index for naturalscience researchers at national research institutes is 5.1 (largely perceived as sufficient), 4.4 for government
priority programs researchers (perceived as not sufficient), and 5.4 for SSH researchers (largely perceived as
sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices are 4.8 (largely perceived as sufficient) and 5.2(perceived as sufficient) for university management level and national institute management level. For thequestion, the index for female is 4.1 and male 5.0, a difference of 0.9 between them.
Based on the above, in the sub-category of female researchers, there is a relatively low evaluation of thenumber of female researchers, while a relatively high evaluation of the environmental improvement aspects,
such as support for female researchers and developing a human resources system to enable female researchers
to play an active role. In addition, while the overall difference between male and female researchers tended tobe small, the "Developing a human resources system to enable female researchers to play an active role (Q110)"is rated low by female respondents. Although the small sample size does not allow for simple comparisons withother groups, SSH researchers tended to give higher ratings overall.
The following is a summary of the points of open-ended answers regarding the sub-category: "Instead offorcibly increasing the number of female researchers, we should increase the number of excellent female
researchers. In doing so, attention should be paid to the differences in the population of each field," "Rather
than trying to increase the number of female researchers employed, it may be more effective to encourage
female students to enter graduate school," and "Especially under fixed-term employment, it is difficult to utilize
support according to life events." Some of the opinions of female respondents included: "The system needs to19

be improved, and education of upper-level workers is necessary to ensure that their awareness has not changed
since they were young," and "Support for life events should cover not only female researchers but also theirmale partners and male researchers who are raising children on their own”. In addition, there are comments
such as, "For example, it is essential to expand systems such as those in other countries that allow employees
to leave their posts for three years to take care of children or nursing care, and to create an atmosphere in
the workplace that facilitates the use of such systems," and "It is important to realize that the life stages ofwomen mentioned here also apply to men (not only women should be responsible for these stages)."20

1-4 Foreign researchers
In the sub-category of foreign researchers, the following one question was asked to active researchers anduniversity management level and national institute management level among experts (non-researchers).
○

Q111: Do you think that efforts to attract and retain outstanding foreign researchers are sufficient?

In the question, active researchers were asked about the status of their departments, and university
management level and national institute management level were asked about the status of their organizations.
Figure 2-4. List of questions and indices about foreign researchers
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Q111: Efforts to
attract and retain
outstanding foreign
researchers

Experts (nonresearchers)

Q111: Efforts to
attract and retain
outstanding foreign
researchers

Univ.
whole

3.4

By univ. group
Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

4.2

3.9

3.2

2.4

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

3.4

4.3

GovernmBy scientific field
Science Eng/Agri

3.8

3.6

By sexHealthMale

Female

3.1

3.4

3.3

Researchent
institutes/
priority
naturalsciences programs

SSH

*1

3.9

3.5

4.3

Companies
By company type
Whole

-

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures--

Highlevel
experts-

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q111: Efforts to attract and retain outstanding foreign researchers," the index for university naturalscience researchers as a whole is 3.4 (perceived as strongly insufficient). By university group, Group 1 (4.2),
Group 2 (3.9), and Group 4 (2.4) have a difference of 1.8 and 1.5 in the index, respectively. The index fornatural science researchers at national institutes is 3.9 (perceived as not sufficient), 3.5 for government priority
programs researchers (perceived as not sufficient), and 4.3 for SSH researchers (perceived as not sufficient).
Among experts (non-researchers), the indices are 3.4 (perceived as strongly insufficient) and 4.3 (perceived as
not sufficient) for university management level and national institute management level, respectively.
Based on the above, in the sub-category of foreign researchers, universities with a large share of the numberof papers receive a relatively high evaluation of the status of efforts to attract and retain outstanding foreign
researchers, while the evaluation tends to drop significantly for the universities with a smaller share. Although
there is no difference of 0.8, which is the standard value used in this report to discuss difference, the relatively
high evaluation in science and the relatively low evaluation in health suggest that there are differences amongscientific fields. In addition, although the small sample size precludes a simple comparison with other groups,
SSH researchers has relatively high ratings.
The following are some of the points raised in the open-ended answers regarding the sub-category:"Administrative procedures, etc., must be conducted in Japanese and the English proficiency of administrative

21

staff is limited, which increase the burden on faculty members," "It is difficult to hire outstanding foreign
researchers when participation in work in Japanese is a prerequisite," and "It is important to incorporate not
only foreign researchers but also Japanese researchers who are active in foreign countries."

1-5 Evaluation of researchers
In the sub-category of evaluation of researchers' performance, the following two questions were asked toactive researchers and university management level and national institute management level among experts(non-researchers).
○

Q112:

In

the

evaluationofresearchers'

performance,

do

you

think

that

achievements/accomplishments other than papers (publication of books, education, social
contribution, and so on) are also sufficiently evaluated?
○

Q113: Do you think that the results of evaluation of researchers are sufficiently reflected to thetreatment of researchers (reflected in their salaries, positions and job titles, improvement of theresearch environment, granting of sabbaticals, etc.)?

In both questions, active researchers were asked about the status of their departments, and university
management level and national institute management level were asked about the status of their organizations.
Figure 2-5. List of questions and indices for evaluation of researchers
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Q112: Introducing
multi-faceted
evaluation ofresearchers

Univ.
whole

By univ. group

GovernmBy scientific field

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

5.1

5.0

5.0

4.9

5.3

5.3

3.7

3.5

3.9

3.2

3.9

3.7

Science Eng/AgriBy sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalsciences programs

SSH

HealthMale

Female

5.5

4.6

5.2

4.6

5.8

4.9

6.0

4.1

3.1

3.7

3.3

4.1

3.3

4.0

*1

Q113: Treatment ofresearchers based on
their evaluation

Experts (nonresearchers)

Q112: Introducing
multi-faceted
evaluation ofresearchers

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

5.9

6.2

-

-

-

-

4.6

5.4

-

-

-

-

Q113: Treatment ofresearchers based on
their evaluation

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q112: Introducing multi-faceted evaluation of researchers," the index for university natural science
researchers as a whole is 5.1 (largely perceived as sufficient). The index for natural science researchers at

22

national research institutes is 5.8 (perceived as sufficient), that for government priority programs researchers
is 4.9 (largely perceived as sufficient), and that for SSH researchers is 6.0 (perceived as sufficient). Amongexperts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national institute management levelare 5.9 (perceived as sufficient) and 6.2 (perceived as sufficient), respectively. The index for the university
management level is 0.8 higher than that for all natural science researchers at universities.
In "Q113: Treatment of researchers based on their evaluation," the index for all university natural science
researchers is 3.7 (perceived as not sufficient) among active researchers on their evaluation of researchers. By
university department field, there is a 1.0 difference in the index between engineering and agriculture (4.1) andhealth (3.1). The index is 4.1 (perceived as insufficient) for natural science researchers at national institutes,
3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient) for government priority programs researchers, and 4.0 (perceived as not
sufficient) for SSH researchers. Among experts (non-researchers), the indices are 4.6 (largely perceived as
sufficient) and 5.4 (perceived as sufficient) for university management level and national institute managementlevel. Compared to natural science researchers at national institutes, the index for the university managementlevel is 0.9 higher, and that for the national institute management level is 1.3 higher than that for naturalscience researchers at national institutes.
Based on the above, in the sub-category of evaluation of researchers' performance, there is a difference inperception between the entire natural science researchers of universities and the university management levelin both questions of "Introducing multi-faceted evaluation of researchers (Q112)" and "Treatment ofresearchers based on their evaluation (Q113)," and the latter is higher than the former. In particular, for"Treatment of researchers based on their evaluation (Q113)," the index for university natural science
researchers as a whole is lower than that of the university management level, indicating a difference between
the two groups' perceptions. The reasons for this difference in perception may be that the efforts of theuniversity management level are not satisfactory for researchers, and that researchers do not see how theresults of evaluation of researchers conducted by the university management level are used. The following are
a summary of the issues raised in the open-ended comments regarding the sub-category: "Appropriate methods
are not being used to evaluate research performance, such as using only the number of papers as an indicator,""Diversification of evaluation targets is needed, such as evaluating education and social contributions based on
the original nature of universities as educational institutions," and "How evaluation is conducted in universities
and departments is not clear to researchers in the field." Comparing the indices for "Introducing multi-faceted
evaluation of researchers (Q112)" and "Treatment of researchers based on their evaluation (Q113)" by attribute,the index for the latter is lower overall. This suggests that, compared to "Introducing multi-faceted evaluationof researchers" (Q112), the problem is perceived to be in the stage of utilizing the results of evaluation ofresearchers.
Other issues raised in the open-ended answers regarding the classification include: "Even if a researcher
achieves results in terms of publishing papers or obtaining research funds, these are not reflected in thetreatment," "The fairness of evaluation is hindered by the evaluator's personal policy, the evaluator's tenure,and other conditions," and "The seemingly fair evaluation based on the same criteria hinders fairness among
the fields.”

23

2 Research Environment
The research environment part consists of sub-categories of "research resources," "research facilities andequipment," and "transformation of research activities." The Basic Plan seeks to promote efforts to secure
research time and improve research facilities and equipment in order to "rebuild an environment that generates
diverse and outstanding research." In addition, for the "establishment of a new research system (promotion ofopen science and data-driven research, etc.)," it describes efforts to develop infrastructure and build anenvironment that will support the transformation of research activities associated with the development of newtechnologies such as AI and virtual technologies. In this part, we will grasp the status of the research
environment in which researchers at universities, national research institutes, etc. are placed from the aspectof general importance, such as status of information infrastructure for research, research funds, time forresearch, and research facilities and equipment, as well as from the aspect of the transformation of research
activities that is currently underway at a rapid pace.

2-1 Research resources
In the sub-category of research resources, the following five questions were asked to active researchers andto university management level, national institute management level, and companies among the experts (nonresearchers). Q202 and Q203 were asked to also high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies.
○

Q201: Do you think the status of information infrastructure for research* is sufficient?
*Information infrastructure for research: university libraries, access to research information such as
papers, data platforms, research information networks○

Q202: Do you think the current recurrent or block grant funding (internal research funds of theinstitution, etc.) is sufficiently secured to carry out the basic activities regarding R&D?

○

Q203: Do you think competitive and other public funding are sufficiently available for researchers fortheir research activities?

○

Q204: Do you think efforts to secure research time for researchers are sufficient (e.g., devisingorganizational management, securing research supporting staff, using digital tools, and so on)?

○

Q205: Do you think that developing or securing specialists in research management (e.g., researchadministrators) is sufficient for the smooth management of research activities?

Active researchers were asked about the overall situation in Japan in their field of research in Q201, andabout the situation in their departments in the other questions. University management level and national
institute management level were asked about the situation in Japan as a whole in Q201, and about their affiliatedorganization in the other questions. Companies were asked about the situation in Japan as a whole in Q201,
and about the situation of their related Japanese universities and national research institutes in the otherquestions. High level experts with advisory roles to STI policies were asked about the general situation ofJapanese universities and national research institutes in all questions.

24

Figure 2-6. List of questions and indices about research resources
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Q201: Status of
information
infrastructure forresearch

Univ.
whole

By univ. group

GovernmBy scientific field

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Science Eng/Agri

5.0

5.4

5.3

4.9

4.5

5.1

3.6

3.8

3.2

3.3

4.1

4.8

5.1

5.2

4.6

2.8

3.2

2.8

2.7

3.0

3.0

By sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalprogramssciences

SSH

HealthMale

Female

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

4.9

4.6

5.0

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.5

4.1

4.4

3.2

4.4

4.4

4.7

4.8

4.8

4.8

4.8

5.2

5.4

6.0

2.5

2.6

2.9

2.7

2.8

2.7

2.8

3.2

3.1

3.3

2.6

2.2

2.7

2.8

2.6

2.7

2.4

2.7

2.9

2.6

*1

Q202: Securing
recurrent or block
grant funding

Q203: Securing
competitive funding

Q204: Efforts tosecure research time
Q205: Developing or
securing specialists
in research
management

Experts (nonresearchers)

Q201: Status of
information
infrastructure forresearch

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

3.5

3.7

3.4

3.7

3.3

-

3.7

3.5

2.2

2.7

2.1

2.2

4.1

4.8

2.6

2.9

2.5

3.9

3.4

4.3

2.2

3.2

2.0

-

3.3

3.4

2.3

2.7

2.2

-

Q202: Securing
recurrent or block
grant funding

Q203: Securing
competitive funding

Q204: Efforts tosecure research time
Q205: Developing or
securing specialists
in research
management

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.
Note 3: For all of the questions, respondents from companies were asked about the status of universities, national research institutes, etc. known to them.
For example, "Securing recurrent or block grant funding (Q202)" is a question about the recurrent or block grant funding of universities and national
research institutes, not about the recurrent funding of companies.

In "Q201: Status of information infrastructure for research," the index for all university natural science
researchers is 5.0 (largely perceived as sufficient) among active researchers. By university group, Group 1(5.4), Group 2 (5.3), and Group 4 (4.5) have a difference of 0.9 and 0.8 in the index, respectively. The index
for natural science researchers at national institutes is 4.9 (largely perceived as sufficient), for government
priority programs researchers is 4.6 (largely perceived as sufficient), and for SSH researchers is 5.0 (largely
perceived as sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and25

national institute management level are 3.5 (perceived as not sufficient) and 3.7 (perceived as not sufficient).
The index for all companies is 3.4 (perceived as strongly insufficient), for large companies 3.7 (perceived as not
sufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient). There is a 1.5
difference between the index of 5.0 for all university natural science researchers and 3.5 for the university
management level. There is a 1.2 difference in the index between natural science researchers at national
institutes and management level.
In "Q202: Securing recurrent or block grant funding," the overall index for university natural science
researchers among active researchers is 3.6 (perceived as not sufficient). By university group, Group 4 (4.1)
and Group 2 (3.2) and Group 3 (3.3) have differences of 0.9 and 0.8 in the index, respectively. The index fornatural science researchers at national institutes is 4.4 (perceived as not sufficient), 3.2 for government priority
programs researchers (perceived as strongly insufficient), and 4.4 for SSH researchers (perceived as not
sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national institutemanagement level are 3.7 (perceived as not sufficient) and 3.5 (perceived as not sufficient), respectively. The
index for all companies is 2.2 (perceived as significantly insufficient), for large companies 2.7 (perceived asstrongly insufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures 2.1 (perceived as significantly insufficient). For
high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the index is 2.2 (perceived as significantly insufficient).
Note that the index of 3.6 for university natural science researchers as a whole is 1.4 higher than the index of
2.2 for the firms as a whole and for high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies.
In "Q203: Securing competitive funding, etc.," the index for all university natural science researchers is 4.8(largely perceived as sufficient) among active researchers. The index is 5.2 (largely perceived as sufficient) for
national institutes of natural sciences, and 5.4 (largely perceived as sufficient) for government priority program
researchers. The index for natural science researchers at national research institutes is 5.2 (perceived as
sufficient), 5.4 for government priority programs researchers (perceived as largely sufficient), and 6.0 for SSH
researchers (perceived as sufficient). University management level and national institute management level
among experts (non-researchers), the indices are 4.1 (perceived as not sufficient) and 4.8 (largely perceived
as sufficient). The index for companies as a whole is 2.6 (perceived as strongly insufficient), for large companies
2.9 (perceived as strongly insufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures 2.5 (perceived as strongly
insufficient). For high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the index is 3.9 (perceived as not
sufficient). Note that the index of 4.8 for all university natural science researchers is 2.2 and 0.9 higher than
the index of 2.6 for all firms and 3.9 for high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, respectively.
In "Q204: Efforts to secure research time," the index for all university natural science researchers is 2.8(perceived as strongly insufficient) among active researchers. The index for natural science researchers atnational research institutes is 3.2 (perceived as strongly insufficient), 3.1 for government priority programs
researchers (perceived as strongly insufficient), and 3.3 for SSH researchers (perceived as strongly insufficient).
Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national institutemanagement level are 3.4 (perceived as strongly insufficient) and 4.3 (perceived as sufficient), respectively.
There is a 1.1 difference in the index between the national institute management level and natural science
researchers at national institutes. The index for all companies is 2.2 (perceived as significantly insufficient), forlarge companies 3.2 (perceived as strongly insufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures 2.0 (perceived26

as significantly insufficient). There is a 1.0 difference between the index of 3.2 for natural science researchersat national institutes and 2.2 for all companies.
In "Q205: Developing or securing specialists in research management," the index for all university naturalscience researchers is 2.7 (perceived as strongly insufficient) among active researchers. By university Group 1
and Group 2 (both 3.0) and Group 4 (2.2), there is a 0.8 difference in the index. The index for natural science
researchers at national institutes is 2.7 (perceived as strongly insufficient), 2.9 for government priority
programs researchers (perceived as strongly insufficient), and 2.6 for SSH researchers (perceived as strongly
insufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national
institute management level are 3.3 (strongly perceived as insufficient) and 3.4 (strongly perceived as
insufficient), respectively. The index for all companies is 2.3 (perceived as significantly insufficient), for large
companies 2.7 (strongly perceived as insufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures 2.2 (perceived as
significantly insufficient).
Based on the above, in the sub-category of research resources, the respondents perceived "Status of
information infrastructure for research (Q201)" and "Securing or block grant funding (Q203)" as largely
sufficient, but the index for "Securing recurrent or block grant funding (Q202)" is relatively low, and the index
for "Efforts to secure research time (Q204)" and "Securing management professionals (Q205)" are strongly
perceived as insufficient. In the comparison of Q202 by university group, Group 2 and Group 3, which are
positioned in the middle in terms of the share of the number of papers, show low indices. In the case of"Developing or securing specialists in research management (Q205)," Group 4 has a low index. In addition to
the low scores of active researchers and university management level and national institute management level,
the indices of companies and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies tended to be even lower inthe questions with low indices. The following are a summary of the issues raised in the open-ended answers
regarding the same classification: "Due to the shortage of technical and administrative staff, the scope of
researchers' duties has expanded, leading to a decrease in research time," "The more competitive funds are
obtained, the more time is spent on documents for obtaining funds, management of obtained funds, and reportwriting, etc., leading to a decrease in research time," and "Financial constraints make it difficult to hireadministrative assistants in the laboratories." Although the small sample size precluded simple comparison withother groups, SSH researchers tended to have relatively high indices for "Securing recurrent or block grantfunding (Q202)" and "Securing competitive funding (Q203).
Other issues in the open-ended answers regarding the same sub-category are summarized as follows: "Thereis a disparity in access to articles among universities," and "Organizational support should be provided for
publication fees, which are becoming increasingly expensive with the shift to open access.

2-2 Research facilities and equipment
In the sub-category of research facilities and equipment, the following three questions were asked to active
researchers and university management level and national institute management level among experts (nonresearchers). In addition, two questions, Q206 and Q208, were asked of "companies" among the experts (nonresearchers).

27

○

Q206: Do you think the level of research facilities and equipment is sufficient to conduct creative
and advanced R&D and develop outstanding human resources?

○

Q207: Do you think there are sufficient sharing systems of research facilities, equipment, andinstruments within the organization?

○

Q208: Do you think the level of accessibility (procedures, support system, fees, etc.) of sharedresearch facilities and equipment owned by universities and public research institutes is sufficient?

In Q206 and Q207, active researchers were asked about the status of their departments, and university
management level and national institute management level were asked about the status of their organizations.
In Q208, active researchers were asked about general situation of Japan in their research field and university
management level and national institute management level were asked about the general situation in Japan. For
companies, Q206 asked about the situation of Japanese universities and national research institutes that theyknow, and Q208 asked about the general situation in Japan.

Figure 2-7. List of questions and indices about research facilities and equipment
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Univ.
whole

By univ. group

GovernmBy scientific field

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

4.6

5.6

4.9

4.1

4.1

4.9

5.3

5.9

5.7

5.1

4.6

4.7

5.4

4.8

4.7

4.0

Science Eng/AgriBy sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalsciences programs

SSH

HealthMale

Female

4.7

4.4

4.6

4.6

5.5

4.9

4.3

5.8

5.2

5.3

5.3

5.2

5.7

5.3

4.5

5.1

4.6

4.5

4.6

4.7

5.3

4.7

4.7

*1

Q206: Level of researchfacilities and equipment
Q207: Sharing systemof research facilities,
equipment, andinstruments within theorganization
Q208: Accessibility ofshared researchfacilities and equipment
outside the organization

Experts (nonresearchers)

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

Q206: Level of researchfacilities and equipment
Q207: Sharing systemof research facilities,
equipment, andinstruments within theorganization
Q208: Accessibility ofshared researchfacilities and equipment
outside the organization

4.6

5.3

3.3

3.8

3.2

-

5.2

6.5

-

-

-

-

3.9

5.2

3.2

3.9

3.1

-

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q206: Level of research facilities and equipment," the index for all university natural science researchers
is 4.6 (largely perceived as sufficient) among active researchers. By university group, there is a 1.5 difference28

in the index between Group 1 (5.6) and Group 3 and Group 4 (both 4.1), and a 0.8 difference between Group
2 (4.9) and Group 3 and Group 4. The index is 5.5 (perceived as sufficient) for natural science researchers atnational research institutes, 4.9 (largely perceived as sufficient) for government priority programs researchers,
and 4.3 (perceived as insufficient) for SSH researchers. Among experts (non-researchers), the indices foruniversity management level and national institute management level are 4.6 (largely perceived as sufficient)and 5.3 (largely perceived as sufficient), respectively. The index for all companies is 3.3 (perceived as strongly
insufficient). By type of company, the index is 3.8 (perceived as not sufficient) for large companies and 3.2(perceived as strongly insufficient) for SMEs and university ventures. Note that the index for university naturalscience researchers as a whole is 0.9 lower than that for natural science researchers at national institutes. The
indices for university natural science researchers as a whole and natural science researchers at national
institutes are 1.3 and 2.2 higher for the former and the latter, respectively, than those for all firms.
In "Q207: Sharing system of research facilities, equipment, and instruments within the organization," theindex for all university natural science researchers is 5.3 (largely perceived as sufficient) among active
researchers in research facilities, equipment, and instruments within the organization. By university group,
there is a difference of 0.8 and 1.3 in the indices for Group 3 (5.1) and Group 4 (4.6) compared to Group 1(5.9), respectively. There is also a difference of 1.1 in the index between Group 2 (5.7) and Group 4. The index
is 5.7 (perceived as sufficient) for natural science researchers at national institutes, 5.3 (largely perceived as
sufficient) for government priority programs researchers, and 4.5 (largely perceived as sufficient) for SSH
researchers. Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national
institute management level are 5.2 (largely perceived as sufficient) and 6.5 (perceived as sufficient), with theformer being 1.3 lower than the latter. While there is no difference in the perception of natural science
researchers at universities and university management level, the index for the natural science researchers atnational institutes is 0.8 lower than that of their management level.
In "Q208: Level of accessibility of shared research facilities and equipment outside the organization," theindex for all university natural science researchers is 4.7 (largely perceived as sufficient) among active
researchers. By university group, Group 1 (5.4) and Group 4 (4.0) have a difference of 1.4 in the index. The
index for natural science researchers at national institutes is 5.3 (largely perceived as sufficient), that forgovernment priority programs researchers is 4.7 (largely perceived as sufficient), and that for SSH researchers
is 4.7 (largely perceived as sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices are 3.9 (perceived as not
sufficient) and 5.2 (largely perceived as sufficient) for the university management level and national institutemanagement level, with the former having a lower index of 1.3 than the latter. The index for all companies is
3.2 (perceived as strongly insufficient), for large companies 3.9 (perceived as not sufficient), and for SMEs anduniversity ventures 3.1 (perceived as strongly insufficient). Note that the overall index for university naturalscience researchers is 1.5 higher than the index for companies as a whole.
Based on the above, in the sub-category of research facilities and equipment, differences in perception wereobserved by university group in all questions of "Level of research facilities and equipment (Q206)," "Sharing
system of research facilities, equipment, and equipment within the organization (Q207)," and "Accessibility ofshared research facilities and equipment outside the organization (Q208)." In particular, Group 4 tends to havea lower index than Group 1 and Group 2. This suggests that the condition of research facilities and equipment29

is relatively poor for universities with a small share of the total number of papers (Group 4G). Regarding "Levelof research facilities and equipment (Q206)" and "Accessibility of shared research facilities and equipment
outside the organization (Q208)," the active researchers and those in the university management level andnational institute management level, both of which are inside the research organization, generally perceive thefacilities and equipment to be sufficient. While those from the outside, such as companies, perceive it asstrongly insufficient as a whole. In particular, SMEs and university ventures perceive as strongly insufficient.
This suggests that the level of research facilities and equipment at Japanese universities and national research
institutes is not high enough for SMEs and university ventures, and that it is difficult for them to use them.
The issues raised in the open-ended answers regarding the sub-category are as follows: "It is difficult to use
shared research facilities and equipment outside the organization due to lack of support, funds, and manpower,""It takes time to submit many forms when using shared facilities," and " Even if there are shared facilities, theycannot be fully utilized due to the lack of dedicated laboratory assistants and personnel for maintenance andmanagement.”30

2-3 Transformation of research activities
In the sub-category of the transformation of research activities, the following five questions were asked toactive researchers. Among experts (non-researchers), university management level, national institutemanagement level, and companies were asked four questions from Q209 to Q212. Two questions (Q211 andQ212) were asked to high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies.
○

Q209: Do you think that the transformation of research methods based on ICT technology(automation, use of AI, use of virtual space, data-driven research, and so on) is sufficiently advanced?

○

Q210: Do you think the activities in research exchange, education, and so on are sufficiently goingremote?

○Q211: Do you think efforts to open and share research data and publications based on public researchfunding* are sufficient?
Developing data policies, building and using data repositories, supporting for opening data andpublications, and so on.

○

Q212: Do you think the utilization of open / shared research data and publications is sufficient?

○

Q213: Do you think that there is sufficient progress in diversifying methods of publishing research
outputs (e.g., opening data, using preprints, and so on)?

In Q209 and Q210, active researchers were asked about the status of their departments, university
management level and national institute management level were asked about the status of their organizations,and companies were asked about the status of their related Japanese universities and national research
institutes. In Q211 and Q212, active researchers were asked about the general situation in Japan in their own
research field, and university management level, national institute management level, company, and high level
experts with advisory roles to STI policies were asked about the general situation in Japan. In Q213, active
researchers were asked about the general situation in Japan in their field of research.
Figure 2-8. List of questions and Indices on transformation of research activities
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Q209: Progress intransforming researchmethodologies based on
ICT technologies

Univ.
whole

By univ. group

GovernmBy scientific field

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Science Eng/Agri

3.3

3.9

3.5

2.9

3.0

3.5

6.3

6.3

6.9

5.9

6.0

5.3

5.5

5.5

4.9

4.7

5.1

4.8

4.9

5.2

5.0

By sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalprogramssciences

SSH

HealthMale

Female

3.7

2.7

3.3

3.0

4.5

3.2

3.0

6.6

6.6

5.8

6.4

5.8

6.7

6.1

6.7

5.3

5.5

5.4

5.0

5.3

5.3

5.5

4.8

5.3

4.4

4.5

4.9

4.8

4.5

4.7

4.6

5.0

4.4

4.6

4.8

4.7

5.5

5.0

4.6

4.9

4.8

5.0

4.6

4.5

*1

Q210: Going remote inresearch exchange,
education, etc.

Q211: Efforts to open
research data andpublications

Q212: Using open
research data andpublications

Q213: Diversification of
methods for publishingresearch outputs

31

Experts (nonresearchers)

Q209: Progress intransforming researchmethodologies based on
ICT technologies

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

3.2

4.1

2.7

3.2

2.6

-

5.6

6.0

4.5

5.6

4.2

-

3.9

5.1

3.8

4.3

3.7

3.7

3.5

4.0

2.8

3.3

2.7

2.9

-

-

-

-

-

-

Q210: Going remote inresearch exchange,
education, etc.

Q211: Efforts to open
research data andpublications

Q212: Using open
research data andpublications

Q213: Diversification of
methods for publishingresearch outputs

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q209: Progress in transforming research methodologies based on ICT technology," the index for naturalscience researchers at universities among active researchers is 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient). By
university group, the difference in indices for Group 1 (3.9) and Group 3 (2.9) and Group 4 (3.0) are 1.0 for
and 0.9, respectively. By scientific field, the indices for science (3.5) and engineering/agriculture (3.7)
compared to health (2.7) differed by 0.8 for the former and 1.0 for the latter. The index for natural science
researchers at national institutes is 4.5 (largely perceived as sufficient), while the index for government priority
programs researchers is 3.2 (perceived as strongly insufficient) and 3.0 (perceived as not sufficient) for SSH
researchers. Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national
institute management level are 3.2 (perceived as strongly insufficient) and 4.1 (perceived as not sufficient),
respectively. The index for all companies is 2.7 (perceived as strongly insufficient), for large companies 3.2(perceived as strongly insufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures 2.6 (perceived as strongly insufficient).
The index for natural science researchers at national institutes is 1.2 higher than that for university naturalscience researchers as a whole, and the index for national institute management level is 0.9 higher than thatfor university management level. The index for natural science researchers at national institutes is 1.8 higher
than that for companies as a whole.
In "Q210: Going remote in research exchange, education, etc.," among active researchers, the overall index
for university natural science researchers is 6.3 (perceived as sufficient). By university group, Group 2 (6.9),
Group 3 (5.9), and Group 4 (6.0), the indices differed by 1.0 and 0.9, respectively. By university department
field, there is a difference of 0.8 in the index between science (6.6), engineering/agriculture (6.6) and health(5.8). The index for natural science researchers at national research institutes is 6.7 (perceived as sufficient),
6.1 (perceived as sufficient) for government priority programs researchers, and 6.7 (perceived as sufficient) for
SSH researchers. Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national

32

institute management level are 5.6 (perceived as sufficient) and 6.0 (perceived as sufficient), respectively. The
index for all companies is 4.5 (largely perceived as sufficient), for large companies (5.6) (perceived as sufficient),
and for SMEs and university ventures (4.2) (perceived as not sufficient). Compared to companies as a whole,
the indices for university natural science researchers and natural science researchers at national institutes are
1.8 and 2.2 higher for the former and latter, respectively.
In "Q211: Efforts to open research data and publications," the index for all university natural science
researchers among active researchers is 5.3 (largely perceived as sufficient). The index for natural science
researchers at national research institutes is 5.5 (perceived as sufficient), that for government priority programs
researchers is 4.8 (largely perceived as sufficient), and that for SSH researchers is 5.3 (largely perceived as
sufficient). Among experts, university management level and national institute management level have theindices of 3.9 (perceived as not sufficient) and 5.1 (largely perceived as sufficient), respectively. The index forcompanies as a whole is 3.8 (perceived as not sufficient), for large companies 4.3 (perceived as not sufficient),
and for SMEs and university ventures 3.7 (perceived as not sufficient). For high level experts with advisory
roles to STI policies, the index is 3.7 (perceived as not sufficient). Compared to high level experts with advisory
roles to STI policies, the index for natural science researchers at universities and those at national institutes
are higher for 1.6 and for 1.8, respectively. Compared to the university management level, the index for thenational institute management level is 1.2 higher.
In “Q212: Using open research data and publications,” the index for all university natural science researchersamong active researchers is 4.7 (largely perceived as sufficient). The index for natural science researchers atnational research institutes is 5.0 (largely perceived as sufficient), that for government priority programs
researchers is 4.4 (perceived as not sufficient), and that for SSH researchers is 4.6 (largely perceived as
sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national institutemanagement level are 3.5 (perceived as not sufficient) and 4.0 (perceived as not sufficient), respectively. The
index for all companies is 2.8 (perceived as strongly insufficient), for large companies 3.3 (perceived as strongly
insufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures 2.7 (perceived as strongly insufficient). For high level
experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the index is 2.9 (perceived as strongly insufficient). Compared tonatural science researchers at universities as a whole, the index for the university management level is 1.2
lower, and compared to natural science researchers at national institutes, the index for the national institutemanagement level is 1.0 lower. Compared to the entire company, the indices for university natural science
researchers as a whole and natural science researchers at national institutes are 1.9 and 2.2 higher, respectively.
Compared to high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the indices for natural science researchersat universities and those at national institutes are 1.8 and 2.1 higher, respectively.
In "Q213: Diversification of methods for publishing research outputs," the index for all university naturalscience researchers among active researchers is 4.9 (largely perceived as sufficient). By university department
field, the difference between the indices for science (5.5) and health (4.6) is 0.9. The index for natural science
researchers at national institutes is 5.0 (largely perceived as sufficient), that for government priority programs
researchers is 4.6 (largely perceived as sufficient), and that for SSH researchers is 4.5 (largely perceived as
sufficient).

33

Based on the above, in the sub-category of transforming research activities, university natural science
researchers have a low index only for "Progress in transforming research methodologies based on ICT
technology (Q209)" when compared to the other questions. Furthermore, the indices for Group 3 and Group
4 are lower than those for Group 1. While the index for "Progress in transforming research methodologies
based on ICT technology (Q209)" is relatively high for natural science researchers at national research
institutes. This indicates that the reform of research methods based on ICT technology is relatively lagging
behind especially among universities with a small share of the total number of papers, while it is relatively
advanced among national research institutes. Regarding "Going remote in research exchange, education, etc.
(Q210)", all university groups have high indices. Many respondents stated that "the spread of the COVID-19
infection triggered the shift to remote research," and that "the importance of creating a system that allows
researchers to work flexibly increases, due to the time difference and other issues involved in conducting joint
research with researchers from all over the world remotely."
In both "Efforts to open research data and publications (Q211)" and "Using open research data andpublications (Q212)," in which respondents with high level experts to advisory roles to STI policies are included,
university natural science researchers as a whole and natural science researchers at national research institutes
have higher indices than those high level experts. The reason for the difference in perception is that, forexample, while researchers answered the question within the scope related to their research activities, thosehigh-level experts answered that research data is not being disclosed and shared in terms of availability insectors other than research institutions, such as industry and government.
Other issues raised in the open-ended answers in the sub-category include: "When introducing ICT
technology, there are issues such as the fact that everyone cannot learn to use it without organizational support
and that the organizational environment is not compatible with the new technology," "There are issues suchas the need for continuous funding for the development of data publication/sharing infrastructure," and "Withregard to data publication and sharing, there are concerns about the low quality of data that have not been
peer-reviewed and the increased workload of researchers, which puts pressure on their research time."

34

3 Research Activities and Research Support
The part on research activities and support consists of sub-categories of "academic research and basic
research" and "government research fund management. The Basic Plan describes efforts to promote academic
research and basic research in order to "rebuild an environment that generates diverse and outstanding
research." The purpose of this part is to grasp the status of the promotion of academic research and basic
research, as well as the status of the government's efforts to allocate funds to support such research. In relation
to the latter, since the support by recurrent or block grant funding is asked in the sub-category of "researchresources" in the part on research environment, this section focuses mainly on the support through funding
agencies.

3-1 Academic research and basic research
In the academic research and basic research sub-category, all respondents in the group of active researchersand experts (non-researchers) were asked the following four questions.
○

Q301: Do you think that the researchers in Japan sufficiently have the opportunities for exploring
new themes and conducting challenging research based on intrinsic motivation*?
*Support through Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research and other financial resources, a climate thatencourages exploratory and challenging research, and so on.

○

Q302: Do you think that the diversity in basic research in Japan is sufficiently ensured?

○

Q303: Do you think that internationally outstanding results in basic research are sufficiently
produced?

○

Q304: Do you think the results of R&D in Japan are sufficiently led to innovation?

In either questions, active researchers were asked about the general situation in Japan in their own research
field, and experts (non-researchers) were asked about the general situation in Japan.

35

Figure 2-9. List of questions and indices for academic research and basic research
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Q301: Environment for
exploring new themes
and conducting
challenging research

Univ.
whole

By univ. group

GovernmBy scientific field

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.3

3.6

3.6

3.3

3.1

3.3

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.3

3.4

3.2

3.3

Science Eng/AgriBy sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalprogramssciences

SSH

HealthMale

Female

3.6

3.5

3.5

4.0

3.9

3.6

4.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.3

3.5

2.9

3.2

3.3

3.3

3.9

3.3

3.1

3.3

3.3

3.4

3.3

2.5

3.4

3.6

3.3

3.2

3.3

3.5

3.6

3.1

3.0

*1

Q302: Diversity in basic
research

Q303: Internationally
outstandingachievements in basic
research

Q304: Connecting R&D
results to innovation

Experts (nonresearchers)

Q301: Environment for
exploring new themes
and conducting
challenging researchresearch
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

3.8

4.2

2.6

3.2

2.4

3.4

3.0

3.3

2.8

3.4

2.7

3.3

3.1

3.4

2.5

3.2

2.3

3.0

3.2

3.2

2.5

3.2

2.3

2.9

Q302: Diversity in basic
research

Q303: Internationally
outstandingachievements in basic
research

Q304: Connecting R&D
results to innovation

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q301: Environment for exploring new themes and conducting challenging research," the index for all
university natural science researchers among active researchers is 3.5 (perceived as not sufficient). The index
for natural science researchers at national research institutes is 3.9 (perceived as not sufficient), 3.6 forgovernment priority programs researchers (perceived as insufficient), and 4.1 for SSH researchers (perceived
as not sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national
institute management level are 3.8 (perceived as not sufficient) and 4.2 (perceived as not sufficient),
respectively. The index for all companies is 2.6 (perceived as strongly insufficient), 3.2 (perceived as strongly
insufficient) for large companies, and 2.4 (perceived as significantly insufficient) for SMEs and university
ventures. For high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the index is 3.4 (perceived as strongly
insufficient). Compared to the index of 3.5 for all university natural science researchers, the index of 2.6 forall firms is 0.9 lower.
In "Q302: Diversity in basic research," among active researchers, the index for all natural science36

researchers at universities is 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient). The index for natural science researchersat national research institutes is 2.9 (perceived as strongly insufficient), 3.2 for government priority programs
researchers (perceived as strongly insufficient), and 3.3 for SSH researchers (perceived strongly as insufficient).
Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national institutemanagement level are 3.0 (perceived as strongly insufficient) and 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient),
respectively. The index for all companies is 2.8 (perceived as strongly insufficient), for large companies 3.4(perceived as strongly insufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures 2.7 (perceived as strongly insufficient).
For high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the index is 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient).
Overall, there are no significant differences in the index among the respondent groups for the question item.
In "Q303: Internationally outstanding achievements in basic research," the overall index for university
natural science researchers among active researchers is 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient). By university
department field, there is a 0.8 difference in the index between science (3.9) and health (3.1). The index fornatural science researchers at national institutes is 3.4 (perceived as strongly insufficient), 3.3 for government
priority programs researchers (strongly perceived as insufficient), and 2.5 for SSH researchers (perceived asstrongly insufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level andnational institute management level are 3.1 (strongly perceived as insufficient) and 3.4 (perceived as strongly
insufficient), respectively. The index for all companies is 2.5 (perceived as strongly insufficient), 3.2 (perceived
as strongly insufficient) for large companies, and 2.3 (perceived as significantly insufficient) for SMEs anduniversity ventures. For high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the index is 3.0 (perceived asstrongly insufficient).
In "Q304: Connecting R&D results to innovation," the index for all university natural science researchersamong active researchers is 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient). The index for natural science researchersat national institutes is 3.6 (perceived as insufficient), 3.1 for government priority programs researchers(strongly perceived as insufficient), and 3.0 for SSH researchers (strongly perceived as insufficient). Amongexperts (non-researchers), the index is 3.2 (perceived as strongly insufficient) for both university managementlevel and national institute management level. The index for all companies is 2.5 (perceived as strongly
insufficient), for large companies 3.2 (perceived as strongly insufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures
2.3 (perceived as significantly insufficient). For high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the index
is 2.9 (perceived as strongly insufficient).
Based on the above, in the sub-category of academic research and basic research, for all the questions on"Environment for exploring new themes and conducting challenging research (Q301)," "Diversity in basic
research (Q302)," "Internationally outstanding achievements in basic research (Q303)," and "Connecting R&D
results to innovation (Q304)", the index tended to be low overall. Almost all questions were characterized by
uniformly low indices, with no significant differences in indices among university groups or university
departmental areas. In addition, the indices for all attributes in all questions are less than 4.5, which is a subcategory with particularly strong perceptions as strongly insufficient. However, in "Internationally outstandingachievements in basic research (Q303)," the respondents in science field has a relatively high index, suggesting37

that this may reflect the characteristics of the field 1 , which has many research themes originally requireinternational collaboration. In summarizing the issues raised in the free comments related to the sub-category,several respondents stated that "Through the selection and concentration of research funds, funds areconcentrated on short-term or promising research, resulting in a loss of diversity in research," and "In orderto enable exploratory research based on free ideas, it is necessary to expand basic research funds such as thesubsidy for operating expenses, etc."
Other opinions include: "The size of the research fund is not appropriate from the perspective of effectively
conducting the research (too large or too small), " "Without increasing the rate of Grants-in-Aid for Scientific
Research adoption and coverage, it will not be possible to conduct the planned research," "The usability of
research funds is being reduced due to restrictions on the use of funds and the fiscal year in which they areused," "The unstable research environment limits the range of research theme choices for researchers," and"While research programs to support young researchers have been enhanced, support for mid-career
researchers has become less generous."

1

This may be reflected in the high index of science in "International collaboration in science and technology (see Q612).

38

3-2 Government research funding management
In the sub-category of government research fund management, the following five questions were asked toactive researchers and university management level and national institute management level among experts(non-researchers). In addition, two questions, Q305 and Q309, were asked to high level experts with advisory
roles to STI policies.
○

Q305: Do you think that the funding agencies (JSPS, JST, AMED, NEDO, and so on) are sufficiently
fulfilling the functions according to their roles, such as supporting challenging research andstrategically allocating funds?

○

Q306: Do you think that sufficient efforts are being made for securing research funding for competent
mid-level and above researchers in a stable and sufficient manner?

○

Q307: Do you think the usability of government public research funding is sufficient (e.g., appropriate
amount, flexible use, secured time frame, etc.)?

○

Q308: Do you think the method and frequency of interim- and post-evaluations of government publicresearch funding are sufficiently appropriate?

○Q309: Do you think that the diversification of perspectives for research project evaluation* has madesufficient progress?
Challenging initiatives, unanticipated results, economic and social effects, and so on.

In either question, active researchers were asked about the general situation in Japan in their own research
field, and experts (non-researchers) were asked about the general situation in Japan.
Figure 2-10. List of questions and indices on government research funding management
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Univ.
whole

By univ. group

GovernmBy scientific field

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

4.3

4.3

3.9

4.3

4.6

4.2

3.3

3.4

3.1

3.2

3.6

3.7

3.2

3.4

3.9

5.1

5.0

5.0

3.9

3.9

4.0

Science Eng/AgriBy sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalsciences programs

SSH

HealthMale

Female

4.3

4.3

4.3

4.4

4.3

4.7

4.4

3.4

3.7

2.9

3.3

3.6

3.4

3.5

4.1

4.1

3.6

3.8

3.6

3.7

3.7

3.2

3.2

3.7

4.8

5.5

5.4

5.3

4.8

5.1

5.2

5.0

5.0

5.2

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

3.9

4.5

*1

Q305: Functions
according to the role ofthe funding organization
Q306: Securing
research funding forcompetent mid-level
and above researchers
Q307: Accessibility of
government publicresearch funding
Q308: Content andfrequency of interimand post-evaluations ofgovernment publicresearch funding
Q309: Diversification ofperspectives forresearch project
evaluation

39

Experts (nonresearchers)

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

Q305: Functions
according to the role ofthe funding organization
Q306: Securing
research funding forcompetent mid-level
and above researchers

4.6

5.1

-

-

-

4.3

3.6

3.9

-

-

-

-

3.5

3.8

-

-

-

-

4.4

4.3

-

-

-

-

3.8

3.8

-

-

-

3.3

Q307: Accessibility of
government publicresearch funding
Q308: Content andfrequency of interimand post-evaluations ofgovernment publicresearch funding
Q309: Diversification ofperspectives forresearch project
evaluation

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q305: Functions according to the role of the funding organization," the index for all university naturalscience researchers among active researchers is 4.3 (perceived as not sufficient). The index for natural science
researchers at national research institutes is 4.3 (perceived as not sufficient), 4.7 for government priority
program researchers (perceived as largely sufficient), and 4.4 for SSH researchers (perceived as not sufficient).
Among experts (non-researchers), the indices are 4.6 (perceived as largely sufficient) and 5.1 (perceived as
sufficient) for university management level and national institute management level, respectively. High level
experts with advisory roles to STI policies has an index of 4.3 (perceived as not sufficient).
In "Q306: Securing research funding for competent mid-level and above researchers," the index for all
university natural science researchers among active researchers is 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient). The
index for natural science researchers at national research institutes is 3.4 (perceived as strongly insufficient),
3.5 for government priority programs researchers (perceived as insufficient), and 4.1 for SSH researchers(perceived as insufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level andnational institute management level are 3.6 (perceived as not sufficient) and 3.9 (perceived as not sufficient),
respectively.
In "Q307: Accessibility of government public research funding," the index for all university natural science
researchers is 3.7 (perceived as not sufficient) among active researchers in the front line. The index for naturalscience researchers at national institutes is 3.2 (perceived as strongly insufficient), 3.2 for government priority
programs researchers (perceived as strongly insufficient), and 3.7 for SSH researchers (perceived as insufficient).
Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national institutemanagement level are 3.5 (perceived as insufficient) and 3.8 (perceived as insufficient), respectively.
In "Q308: Content and frequency of interim- and post-evaluations of government public research funding,"
among active researchers, the index for all natural science researchers at universities is 5.1 (largely perceived40

as sufficient). The index for natural science researchers at national research institutes is 5.0 (perceived as
sufficient), 5.0 (perceived as sufficient) for government priority programs researchers, and 5.2 (perceived as
sufficient) for SSH researchers. Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management leveland national institute management level are 4.4 (perception as not sufficient) and 4.3 (perception as sufficient),
respectively.
In "Q309: Diversification of perspectives for research project evaluation," the index for all university naturalscience researchers among active researchers is 3.9 (perceived as not sufficient). The index for natural science
researchers at national research institutes is 4.1 (perceived as not sufficient), 3.9 for government priority
program researchers (perceived as not sufficient), and 4.5 for SSH researchers (largely perceived as sufficient).
Among experts (non-researchers), the index is 3.8 for both university management level and national institutemanagement level (perceived as insufficient). High level experts with advisory roles to STI policies has an index
of 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient).
Based on the above, in the sub-category of research activities and research support, the respondents tend
to give relatively high scores to "Content and frequency of interim- and post-evaluations of interim- and postevaluations of government research funding (Q308)," "Diversification of perspectives for research project
evaluation (Q309)," and "Functions according to the role of the funding organization (Q305)," and relatively
low scores to "Securing research funding for capable mid-level and above researchers (Q306)" and"Accessibility of government public research funding (Q307). The "availability of research funding for midcareer researchers (Q306)" and "accessibility of government public research funding (Q307)" tended to receive
relatively low scores. Overall, there are no significant differences among the attributes in any of the questions.
Although the small sample size does not allow for simple comparisons with other groups, SSH researchers has
relatively high ratings for all questions.
The following are a summary of the issues raised in the open-ended answers in the sub-category: "Large
budgets are concentrated on certain researchers, causing a bias in the distribution of research funds,""Research funds tend to be allocated to research that is currently popular, so I think the development ofresearch that is already on track will be well supported, but support for completely new research will not be
successful," "The burden of interim and post-project evaluations is too heavy. The interim evaluation shouldbe abolished after a thorough planning at the time of project launch, and the next grant should be allocatedaccording to the contents of the post-evaluation report."

41

4 Industry-academia-government collaboration and the local community
The industry-academia-government collaboration and the local community part consists of the subcategories of "knowledge-based value creation," "intellectual property management," "regional revitalization,"and "innovation talent development." Here, "innovation talent development" means "human resource
development that contributes to the creation of innovation." The Basic Plan describes "promotion of new value
co-creation through industry-academia-government collaboration" in the context of the formation of an
innovation ecosystem. The purpose of this part is to grasp the status of efforts to apply the results of researchand development to industry and society. The status of human resource development for such activities is also
within the scope of this part.

4-1 Knowledge-based value creation
In the sub-category of knowledge-based value creation, the following four questions were asked to active
researchers and university management level, national institute management level, and companies amongexperts (non-researchers). In addition, three questions (Q401, Q402, and Q404) were asked to high level
experts with advisory roles to STI policies.
○

Q401: Do you think there are sufficient initiatives for organizational collaboration with the private
sector?

○Q402: Do you think that the researchers are sufficiently reflecting ideas gained through collaborationand cooperation with the private sector into their own R&D?

○

Q403: Do you think there is sufficient knowledge transfer and new value creation through theestablishment and development of venture companies?

○

Q404: Do you think that human resource mobility and exchange with the private sector is sufficient(researchers moving in and out, cross-appointments, and so on)?

In either question, active researchers were asked about the status of their departments, university
management level and national institute management level were asked about the status of their organizations,and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies were asked about the general situation of Japanese
universities and national research institutes.

42

Figure 2-11. List of questions and indices on knowledge-based value creation
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Q401: Initiatives fororganizational
collaboration with theprivate sector
Q402: Reflecting ideas
into R&D throughcollaboration with theprivate sector

Univ.
whole

By univ. group

GovernmBy scientific field

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

4.8

5.3

5.3

4.8

4.2

4.7

4.6

5.1

4.8

4.4

4.1

3.4

4.1

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.9

3.5

3.1

Science Eng/AgriBy sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalprogramssciences

SSH

HealthMale

Female

5.5

4.2

4.9

4.3

5.7

5.2

3.8

4.6

5.2

3.8

4.7

4.0

5.1

4.8

3.8

2.8

3.6

3.7

3.0

3.4

3.1

3.4

3.9

2.2

2.6

3.4

3.5

2.8

3.3

3.0

3.5

3.1

2.9

*1

Q403: Transferring
academic knowledge toventures

Q404: Human resource
mobility and exchangewith the private sector

Experts (nonresearchers)

Q401: Initiatives fororganizational
collaboration with theprivate sector
Q402: Reflecting ideas
into R&D throughcollaboration with theprivate sector

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

5.2

5.0

4.0

5.0

3.7

3.9

4.9

4.6

3.7

4.8

3.4

-

3.4

2.7

3.1

3.8

3.0

3.2

3.0

3.3

2.6

3.1

2.5

2.5

Q403: Transferring
academic knowledge toventures

Q404: Human resource
mobility and exchangewith the private sector

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q401: Initiatives for organizational collaboration with the private sector," the overall index for university
natural science researchers among active researchers is 4.8 (largely perceived as sufficient). By university
group, there is a difference of 1.1 in the index between Group 1 and Group 2 (5.3) and Group 4 (4.2). By
university department field, there is a 1.3 difference in the index between engineering/agriculture (5.5) and
Health (4.2). The index for natural science researchers at national research institutes is 5.7 (perceived as
sufficient), 5.2 for government priority programs researchers (largely perceived as sufficient), and 3.8 for SSH
researchers (perceived as insufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university
management level and national institute management level are 5.2 (largely perceived as sufficient) and 5.0(largely perceived as sufficient), respectively. The index for companies as a whole is 4.0 (perceived as not
sufficient), for large companies (5.0) (largely perceived as sufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures(3.7) (perceived as not sufficient). High level experts with advisory roles to STI policies has an index of 3.9(perceived as not sufficient). The index of 5.7 for natural science researchers at national institutes is 0.9 higher

43

than the overall index of 4.8 for university natural science researchers, and 1.7 and 1.8 higher than the overall
index of 4.0 for all companies and 3.9 for high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, respectively.
In "Q402: Reflecting ideas into R&D through collaboration with the private sector," among active researchers,
the overall index for university natural science researchers is 4.6 (largely perceived as sufficient). By university
group, there is a 1.0 difference in the index between Group 1 (5.1) and Group 4 (4.1). By university department
field, there is a 1.4 difference in the index between engineering/agriculture (5.2) and health sciences (3.8). The
index for natural science researchers at national research institutes is 5.1 (largely perceived as sufficient),
4.8 for government priority programs researchers (largely perceived as sufficient), and 3.8 for SSH researchers(perceived as not sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management leveland national institute management level are 4.9 (largely perceived as sufficient) and 4.6 (largely perceived as
sufficient), respectively. The index for all companies is 3.7 (perceived as not sufficient), for large companies
4.8 (largely perceived as sufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures 3.4 (perceived as strongly
insufficient). The index of 5.1 for natural science researchers at national institutes is 1.4 higher than the 3.7
for all companies.
In "Q403: Transferring academic knowledge to ventures and creating new value," the overall index foruniversity natural science researchers is 3.4 (perceived as strongly insufficient) among active researchers. By
university group, there is a 1.3 difference in the index between Group 1 (4.1) and Group 4 (2.8). The index fornatural science researchers at national institutes is 3.4 (perceived as strongly insufficient), 3.9 for government
priority programs researchers (perceived as not sufficient), and 2.2 for SSH researchers (perceived as
significantly insufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level andnational institute management level are 3.4 (perceived as strongly insufficient) and 2.7 (perceived as strongly
insufficient), respectively. The index for companies as a whole is 3.1 (strongly perceived as insufficient), 3.8
for large companies (strongly perceived as insufficient), and 3.0 for SMEs and university ventures (perceived
as strongly insufficient). For high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the index is 3.2 (perceived
as strongly insufficient).
In "Q404: Human resource mobility and exchange with the private sector," the overall index for university
natural science researchers among active researchers is 3.2 (perceived as strongly insufficient). By university
group, there is a difference of 1.3 and 0.9 in the index between Group 1 (3.9), Group 2 (3.5), and Group 4(2.6), respectively, and a difference of 0.8 between Group 1 (3.9) and Group 3 (3.1). The index for naturalscience researchers at national institutes is 3.5 (perceived as not sufficient), 3.1 for government priority
programs researchers (perceived as strongly insufficient), and 2.9 for SSH researchers (perceived as insufficient).
Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national institutemanagement level are 3.0 (perceived as strongly insufficient) and 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient),
respectively. The index for all companies is 2.6 (perceived as strongly insufficient), 3.1 (perceived as strongly
insufficient) for large companies, and 2.5 (perceived as strongly insufficient) for SMEs and university ventures.
The index is 2.5 (perceived as strongly insufficient) for high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies.
The index of 3.5 for natural science researchers at national institutes is 0.9 and 1.0 higher than the overall
index of 2.6 and 2.5 for high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies.

44Based on the above, in the sub-category of knowledge-based value creation, the indices for "Initiatives fororganizational collaboration with the private sector (Q401)" and "Reflecting ideas into R&D throughcollaboration with the private sector (Q402)" are relatively high, while those for "Transferring academic
knowledge to ventures and creating new value through the private sector (Q403)" and "Human resource flow
and exchange with the private sector (Q404)" are relatively low. It is suggested that challenges are recognizedin activities that involve the movement and transfer of resources and human resources between organizations.
In all questions, the indices tend to be relatively high for universities with a large share of the number of papers,
as well as for engineering and agriculture. In addition, the indices for SMEs and university ventures tended to
be lower than those for large firms. This situation may reflect the fact that the relationship with universities
and national research institutes differs depending on the size of the company. The open-ended answers on theclassification include: "In order to promote knowledge-based value creation, it is important that it berecognized," and "Institutional restrictions on the establishment of venture companies and dual employment
are hindering their creation." Although the small sample size does not allow for simple comparisons with othergroups, SSH researchers had a relatively low index for all questions.
Other issues raised in the open-ended answers regarding the same sub-category are as follows: "In order topromote collaboration between universities and national research institutes and companies, it is necessary tobridge the gap between their respective perceptions," "Systematic support efforts are needed to promotecollaboration between researchers and private companies," "Systematic restrictions on the establishment ofventure companies and dual employment hinder such collaboration," "Although the cost of patent applications
can be covered by external funds, the cost of maintenance must be covered by the inadequate subsidy for
operating expenses, and as a result, the maintenance of patents must be given up." The opinions are mainly
from within universities, national research institutes (the first point was also raised by respondents fromcompanies). In addition, there are answers such as "My department actively collaborates with several privatecompanies, and through these collaborations, consideration is given so that researchers can reflect the resultsin their own research and development," "I am involved in entrepreneurship education classes, and the numberof teachers who understand such efforts is increasing year by year," and "We support the establishment ofstart-ups through cooperation with banks, etc."454-2 Intellectual property management
In the sub-category of intellectual property management, the following two questions were asked to active
researchers (excluding SSH researchers) and university management level, national institute management level,
and companies among experts (non-researchers).
○

Q405: Do you think that the management of intellectual property resulting from R&D (decisions on
acquisition of intellectual property rights, licensing management after acquisition of rights, and soon) is sufficiently functioning?

○

Q406: Do you think that funds are sufficiently secured to fill in the gap in utilizing the seeds generated
by public R&D in the private sector (e.g., for prototype development, business plan formulation, andso on)?

In either question, active researchers were asked about the status of their departments, university
management level and national institute management level were asked about the status of their organizations,and companies were asked about the status of their related Japanese universities and national research
institutes.
Figure 2-12. List of questions and indices on IP management
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Univ.
whole

By univ. group

GovernmBy scientific field

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

4.5

4.9

4.9

4.1

4.1

4.1

2.9

3.6

3.2

2.6

2.5

2.9

Science Eng/AgriBy sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalsciences programs

SSH

HealthMale

Female

4.8

4.2

4.5

4.5

5.3

4.4

-

3.0

2.8

2.9

2.8

2.9

3.0

-

*1

Q405: Management ofintellectual property
resulting from R&D

Q406: Securing funds toutilize the seeds
generated by R&D

Experts (nonresearchers)

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

Q405: Management ofintellectual property
resulting from R&D

4.9

4.7

3.1

3.9

2.9

-

2.8

2.1

2.1

2.6

2.0

-

Q406: Securing funds toutilize the seeds
generated by R&D

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In " Q405: Management of intellectual property resulting from R&D," the overall index for university naturalscience researchers among active researchers in R&D is 4.5 (largely perceived as sufficient). By university
group, there is a difference of 0.8 in the index between Group 1 and Group 2 (4.9) and Group 3 and Group 4(4.1). The index for natural science researchers at national research institutes is 5.3 (largely perceived as46

sufficient), while that for government priority programs researchers is 4.4 (perceived as not sufficient). Amongexperts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national institute management levelare 4.9 (largely perceived as sufficient) and 4.7 (largely perceived as sufficient), respectively. The index for allcompanies is 3.1 (perceived as strongly insufficient), for large companies 3.9 (perceived as not sufficient), andfor SMEs and university ventures 2.9 (perceived as strongly insufficient). The index of 5.3 for natural science
researchers at national institutes and 4.5 for university natural science researchers as a whole are 2.2 and 1.4
higher, respectively, than the index of 3.1 for all companies.
In "Q406: Securing funds to utilize the seeds generated by R&D," among active researchers, the overall
index for university natural science researchers is 2.9 (perceived as strongly insufficient). By university group,Group 1 (3.6) and Group 3 (2.6) and Group 4 (2.5), the indices differ by 1.0 and 1.1, respectively. The index
for natural science researchers at national institutes is 2.9 (perceived as strongly insufficient), while that forgovernment priority programs researchers is 3.0 (perceived as strongly insufficient). Among experts (nonresearchers), the indices for university management level and national institute management level are 2.8(perceived as strongly insufficient) and 2.1 (perceived as significantly insufficient), respectively. The index for
all companies is 2.1 (perceived as significantly insufficient), 2.6 (perceived as strongly insufficient) for large
companies, and 2.0 (perceived as significantly insufficient) for SMEs and university ventures. There is a 0.8
difference between the index of 2.9 for natural science researchers at national research institutes and 2.1 fornational institute management level. There is also a difference of 0.8 between the index of 2.9 for all naturalscience researchers at universities and natural science researchers at national institutes and 2.1 for allcompanies.
Based on the above, in the sub-category of intellectual property management, "Management of intellectual
property resulting from R&D (Q405)" tends to be relatively highly rated, while "Securing funds to utilize theseeds generated by R&D (Q406)" is relatively poorly rated. In addition, for all of the questions, the evaluationby companies tends to be lower than that by active researchers.
The following are some of the points raised in the open-ended answers in the sub-category: "Althoughprogress is being made in IPR of research results, the costs of application and maintenance of rights are notsufficient," and "Although university IP departments are enthusiastic about protecting IP rights, they are notnecessarily enthusiastic about collaboration with companies that utilize IP." Both opinions on these issues arefound in both the respondents from universities and national research institutes and those from companies.

47

4-3 Regional revitalization
In the regional revitalization sub-category, all respondents in the group of active researchers and experts(non-researchers) were asked the following two questions.
○

Q407: Do you think there are sufficient efforts for development of human resources that contributeto regional revitalization?

○

Q408: Do you think there are enough efforts for research and innovation that contributes to regional
revitalization?

In either question, active researchers were asked about the status of their departments, university
management level and national institute management level were asked about the status of their organizations,and companies were asked about the status of their related Japanese universities and national research
institutes.
Figure 2-13. List of questions and indices on regional revitalization
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Q407: Development of
human resources that
contribute to regional
revitalization
Q408: Research andinnovation that
contributes to regional
revitalization

Experts (nonresearchers)

Q407: Development of
human resources that
contribute to regional
revitalization
Q408: Research andinnovation that
contributes to regional
revitalization

Univ.
whole

By univ. group
Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

4.7

4.0

4.8

5.0

4.8

4.6

4.7

4.1

4.9

4.9

4.6

4.5

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

GovernmBy scientific field
Science Eng/AgriBy sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalsciences programs

SSH

HealthMale

Female

5.3

4.1

4.8

4.5

3.5

4.5

5.4

5.3

4.0

4.7

4.4

4.1

4.3

5.2

*1

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

5.6

4.4

3.6

4.1

3.5

3.2

5.7

4.9

3.7

4.1

3.6

3.4

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q407: Development of human resources that contribute to regional revitalization," the overall index foruniversity natural science researchers among active researchers is 4.7 (largely perceived as sufficient). By
university group, Group 2 (4.8), Group 3 (5.0), and Group 4 (4.8) and Group 1 (4.0), there is a difference ofabout 1 point in the index. By university department field, there is a difference of 1.2 in the index between
engineering and agriculture (5.3) and health (4.1). The index for natural science researchers at national research
institutes is 3.5 (perceived as not sufficient), 4.5 for government priority programs researchers (largely
perceived as sufficient), and 5.4 for SSH researchers (largely perceived as sufficient). Among experts (non-48researchers), the indices for university management level and national institute management level are 5.6(perceived as sufficient) and 4.4 (perceived as not sufficient), respectively. The index for companies as a wholeis 3.6 (perceived as not sufficient), for large companies 4.1 (perceived as not sufficient), and for SMEs anduniversity ventures 3.5 (perceived as not sufficient). For high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies,
the index is 3.2 (perceived as strongly insufficient). There is a difference of 0.9 between the index of 5.6 foruniversity management level and 4.7 for all natural science researchers at national institutes management level,
and a difference of 0.9 between the index of 4.4 for national institute management level and 3.5 for naturalscience researchers at national institutes. There is a difference of 1.1 and 1.5 in the index between 4.7 for all
natural science researchers at universities and 3.6 for all firms and 3.2 for high level experts with advisory roles
to STI policies, respectively.
In "Q408: Research and innovation that contributes to regional revitalization," the overall index foruniversity natural science researchers among active researchers is 4.7 (largely perceived as sufficient). By
university group, there is a difference of 0.8 in the index between Group 2 (4.9) and Group 3 (4.9) and Group
1 (4.1). By university department field, there is a difference of 1.3 in the index between engineering/agriculture(5.3) and health (4.0). The index for natural science researchers at national research institutes is 4.1 (perceived
as not sufficient), 4.3 for government priority program researchers (perceived as not sufficient), and 5.2 for
SSH researchers (largely perceived as sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university
management level and national institute management level are 5.7 (perceived as sufficient) and 4.9 (largely
perceived as sufficient). The index for companies as a whole is 3.7 (perceived as not sufficient), 4.1 (perceived
as not sufficient) for large companies, and 3.6 (perceived as not sufficient) for SMEs and university ventures.
For high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the index is 3.4 (perceived as strongly insufficient).
There is a difference of 1.0 between the index of 4.7 for all natural science researchers at universities and 5.7
for the university management level, and a difference of 0.8 between the index of 4.1 for natural science
researchers at national institutes and 4.9 for the national institute management level, with the managementlevel having a higher rating in both cases. While the index is 3.4 for high level experts with advisory roles to
STI policies compared to 4.7 for university natural science researchers as a whole, a difference of 1.3.
Based on the above, in the sub-category of regional revitalization, for all questions, the indices tend to behigher in Group 2 to Group 4, which include many universities outside of metropolitan areas. In addition, theindices tend to be higher for engineering and agriculture, indicating the characteristics of each field. In addition,
the index tends to be higher for management than for researchers in the field. While the indices for companies
and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies tended to be low. This suggests that, although
universities and national research institutes are recognized to be making systematic efforts, they are notrecognized as such by those outside the organizations. The following are a summary of the issues raised in the
open-ended answers regarding the sub-category: "The situation should be corrected where researchers andorganizations working on regional revitalization are not evaluated," "Regional revitalization requires a longterm perspective, but there is no mechanism to evaluate it from that perspective," and "For universities inTokyo, support related to regional revitalization is often remote. However, if a university can contribute toregional revitalization even if its base of operations is not located in the region, it should be eligible for support."
The first two issues are related to both internal and external opinions of the universities and national research49

institutes, while the last issue is related to the internal opinions of the respondents. The index by SSH
researchers also tend to be high, although it cannot be simply compared with other groups due to the small
sample size. The open-ended answers by SSH researchers include "We are contributing to the community andgovernment through educational activities, compilation of municipal histories, etc."
Other points of discussion in the open-ended answers regarding the same sub-category includes thefollowing: "It is necessary to systematically secure resources to engage in regional revitalization." In addition,
there are some good examples, such as "The University provides living expense subsidies to students in orderto develop human resources that contribute to regional revitalization," and "Our university has as one of its
missions the promotion of social contribution and industry-university collaboration in response to regional
issues, and has generated a lot of intellectual property through collaboration with regional organizations andprivate companies."50

4-4 Innovation talent development
In the innovation talent development sub-category, all respondents in the group of active researchers andexperts (non-researchers) were asked the following two questions.
○

Q409: Do you think there are sufficient efforts for fostering R&D personnel (researchers andengineers) in response to changes in society and industry?

○

Q410: Do you think there are sufficient efforts to develop human resources with an entrepreneurship?

In either question, active researchers were asked about the status of their departments, university
management level and national institute management level were asked about the status of their organizations,and companies were asked about the status of their related Japanese universities and national research
institutes.
Figure 2-14. List of questions and indices on innovation talent development
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Q409: Fostering R&D
personnel in responseto changes in society
and industry

Univ.
whole

By univ. group

GovernmBy scientific field

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

4.5

5.4

5.0

4.3

3.8

5.2

3.6

4.3

3.9

3.4

3.0

3.9

Science Eng/AgriBy sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalprogramssciences

SSH

HealthMale

Female

5.3

3.5

4.6

4.0

4.4

4.3

4.8

4.0

3.0

3.7

3.0

3.7

3.6

4.1

*1

Q410: Develop humanresources with anentrepreneurial spirit

Experts (nonresearchers)

Q409: Fostering R&D
personnel in responseto changes in society
and industry

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

5.2

5.3

3.3

4.2

3.1

3.3

4.4

3.8

2.8

3.3

2.6

2.7

Q410: Develop humanresources with anentrepreneurial spirit

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q409: Fostering R&D personnel in response to changes in society and industry," among active
researchers, the overall index for natural science researchers at universities is 4.5 (largely perceived as
sufficient). By university group, Group 1 (5.4) and Group 3 (4.3) and Group 4 (3.8), the indices differed by 1.1
and 1.6, respectively. By university department field, there is a difference of 1.8 and 1.7 in the index between
engineering/agriculture (5.3), science (5.2) and health (3.5), respectively. The index for natural science
researchers at national research institutes is 4.4 (perceived as not sufficient), 4.3 for government priority
program researchers (perceived as not sufficient), and 4.8 for SSH researchers (largely perceived as sufficient).
Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national institute51management level are 5.2 (largely perceived as sufficient) and 5.3 (perceived as sufficient), respectively. The
index for companies as a whole is 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient), for large companies 4.2 (perceived as
not sufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures 3.1 (perceived as strongly insufficient). For high level
experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the index is 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient). There is adifference of 0.9 between the index of 4.4 for natural science researchers at national research institutes and
5.3 for national institute management level. There is also a difference of 1.2 between the index of 4.5 foruniversity natural science researchers as a whole and 3.3 for all the companies and high level experts withadvisory roles to STI policies.
In "Q410: Develop human resources with an entrepreneurial spirit, etc.," the overall index for university
natural science researchers among active researchers is 3.6 (perceived as not sufficient). By university group,Group 1 (4.3), Group 2 (3.9), and Group 4 (3.0), the indices differ by 1.3 and 0.9, respectively. By university
department field, there is a difference of 1.0 and 0.9 in the index between engineering/agriculture (4.0), science(3.9) and health (3.0), respectively. The index for natural science researchers at national institutes is 3.7(perceived as not sufficient), 3.6 for government priority programs researchers (perceived as not sufficient),
and 4.1 for SSH researchers (perceived as not sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices foruniversity management level and national institute management level are 4.4 (perceived as not sufficient) and3.8 (perceived as not sufficient), respectively. The index for all companies is 2.8 (perceived as strongly
insufficient), for large companies 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures
2.6 (perceived as strongly insufficient). For high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the index is
2.7 (perceived as strongly insufficient). The index for the university management level is 4.4, compared to 3.6
for all university natural science researchers, a difference of 0.8. There is a difference of 0.8 and 0.9 between
the index of 3.6 for university natural science researchers as a whole and 2.8 for companies as a whole and 2.7
for high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, respectively.
Based on the above, in the sub-category of innovation talent development, the indices for "Fostering R&D
personnel in response to changes in society and industry (Q409)" tend to be lower than that for "Developing
human resources with an entrepreneurial spirit (Q410)," indicating an awareness of the issues in the latter
category. By university group, the indices for universities with a large share of papers tend to be higher thanthat for universities with a small share of papers. By field, the indices in science and engineering/agriculture
tended to be higher than that in health. In addition, the indices tend to be higher for management than forresearchers in the field. However, the indices for companies and high level experts with advisory roles to STI
policies, who are in a position to look at universities, national research institutes, etc. from the outside, tend
to be lower.
The following are some of the points raised in the open-ended answers regarding the classification: "I feelthat university education focuses on career building and is far from a system to educate personnel who canbuild new industries through innovation," and "There are many people around me who are forced to engage inshort-sighted research due to the need for short-term results and do not think about fostering innovative
research personnel."52

5 University functional expansion and strategic management
The part of "University functional expansion and strategic management" consists of the sub-categories of"University functional expansion and strategic management" and "University functional expansion." In the
Basic Plan, as "promotion of university reform and functional expansion for strategic management," specificinitiatives include the transformation of national university corporations into true management entities,
deregulation to support strategic management, and the creation of a 10 trillion-yen university fund. In light of
this, this part asks questions regarding the status of "university management" and "university functional
expansion." In the former, questions were asked mainly about the status of university activities aimed at selfreform and securing diverse financial resources, while in the latter, questions were asked about universities
from the perspective of society and deregulation to support university management.

5-1 University management
In the sub-category of university management, the following three questions were asked to active researchers(excluding those affiliated with national institutes) and university management level among experts (nonresearchers). In addition, two questions, Q502 and Q503, were asked to companies and high level experts withadvisory roles to STI policies.
○

Q501: Do you think the institution has sufficient ability to collect and analyze information on its
education / research and management?

○

Q502: Do you think that efforts to promote self-improvement by making the most of theorganization's individuality and characteristics (review of internal organization, appropriate allocationof research funds, branding of the university, and so on) are sufficiently implemented?

○

Q503: Do you think that efforts to secure various financial resources (e.g., joint research funds fromcompanies, endowments, ESG investments/impact investments, and so on) are sufficiently
implemented?

In all questions, active researchers (excluding those affiliated with national research institutes) and university
management level among experts (non-researchers) were asked about the status of their organizations, while
companies were asked about the status of their related Japanese universities, and high level experts withadvisory roles were asked about the general status of Japanese universities.

53

Figure 2-15. List of questions and indices on university management
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Univ.
whole

Q501: Ability to collectand analyze info. on theorg.'seducation/research andmanagement
Q502: Efforts for selfimprovement, making
the most of the org.'s
individuality andcharacteristics

By univ. group

GovernmBy scientific field

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

5.4

6.9

5.6

4.9

4.7

6.1

5.5

6.2

5.9

5.1

5.1

5.0

6.4

5.3

4.7

4.0

Science Eng/AgriBy sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalprogramssciences

SSH

HealthMale

Female

5.4

5.2

5.4

5.4

-

5.2

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.4

5.6

5.2

-

5.3

5.9

5.3

5.1

4.8

5.0

5.1

-

5.1

5.6

*1

Q503: Efforts to secure
various financial
resources

Experts (nonresearchers)

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Q501: Ability to collectand analyze info. on theorg.'seducation/research andmanagement
Q502: Efforts for selfimprovement, making
the most of the org.'s
individuality andcharacteristics

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

5.4

-

-

-

-

-

5.5

-

3.7

4.4

3.5

3.9

4.8

-

3.6

4.1

3.4

3.5

Q503: Efforts to secure
various financial
resources

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q501: Ability to collect and analyze information on the organization's education/research andmanagement," among active researchers, the overall index for natural science researchers at universities is 5.4(largely perceived as sufficient). By university group, Group 1 have the highest index at 6.9, followed by Group
2 at 5.6. There is a difference of about 2 points in the index between Group 1, Group 3 (4.9), and Group 4(4.7). The index for government priority programs researchers is 5.2 (largely perceived as sufficient), and for
SSH researchers, 5.8 (perceived as sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the index for university
management level is 5.4 (largely perceived as sufficient). The index for both university natural science
researchers as a whole and the university management level is 5.4, showing no difference in perception between
the two groups.
In "Q502: Efforts to promote self-improvement by making the most of the organization's individuality andcharacteristics," the overall index for university natural science researchers among active researchers is 5.5(perceived as sufficient). By university group, Group 1 (6.2) and Group 2 (5.9), and Group 3 (5.1) and Group
4 (5.1), there are differences of about 1 point in the indices. The index for government priority programs
researchers is 5.3 (largely perceived as sufficient), and for SSH researchers, 5.9 (perceived as sufficient). Amongexperts (non-researchers), the index for university management level is 5.5 (perceived as sufficient). The index
for companies as a whole is 3.7 (perceived as not sufficient), for large companies 4.4 (perceived as not sufficient),54

and for SMEs and university ventures 3.5 (perceived as not sufficient). High level experts with advisory roles
to STI policies have an index of 3.9 (perceived as not sufficient). The indices for university natural science
researchers as a whole and university management level are both 5.5, and there is no difference in perception
between them. Compared to the university management level, the index for the entire enterprise and high level
experts with advisory roles to STI policies is 1.8 for the former and 1.6 lower for the latter.
In "Q503: Efforts to secure various financial resources," among active researchers, the index for university
natural science researchers as a whole is 5.0 (largely perceived as sufficient). By university group, Group 1 has
the highest index at 6.4, followed by Group 2 at 5.3. There is a difference of about 2 points in the index between
Group 1, Group 3 (4.7), and Group 4 (4.0). The index for government priority programs researchers is 5.1(largely perceived as sufficient), while that for SSH researchers is 5.6 (perceived as sufficient). Among experts(non-researchers), the index for university management level is 4.8 (largely perceived as sufficient). The index
for companies as a whole is 3.6 (perceived as insufficient), for large companies 4.1 (perceived as not sufficient),
and for SMEs and university ventures 3.4 (perceived as strongly insufficient). For high level experts withadvisory roles to STI policies, the index is 3.5 (perceived as not sufficient). The indices for university naturalscience researchers overall and university management level are 5.0 and 4.8, respectively, with no differencein perception between the two groups. Compared to the university management level, the indices for the entire
enterprise and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies are 1.2 and 1.3 lower for the former andlatter, respectively.
Based on the above, the sub-category of university management show marked differences in recognition by
university group in each of the following areas: "Ability to collect and analyze information on the organization's
education/research and management (Q501)," "Efforts to promote self-improvement by making the most of
the organization's individuality and characteristics (Q502)," and "Efforts to secure various financial resources(Q503). In particular, Group 1 generally shows the perceptions as sufficient, which can be considered a resultof the different degree of progress in various efforts related to university management depending on theuniversity group. In summarizing the issues raised in the open-ended answers in the sub-category, there are
opinions that "Smaller universities that are struggling to secure financial and human resources should be
strengthened and the diversity of universities should be ensured," and that "Part of the executive board ofuniversity management should be composed of specialists in various fields, including people invited from outside
the university." In addition, it becomes clear that there is a large difference in perception between university
management level and companies or high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies in "Efforts to promote
self-improvement by making the most of the organization's individuality and characteristics (Q502)" and"Efforts to secure various financial resources (Q503)". Compared to the university management level,companies and the high level experts tend to show perceptions of strongly insufficient. This may be because
various efforts to improve university management are not clearly visible from outside the university, or that
there is more room for improvement in various efforts related to university management than in the managementof companies and other organizations.
Other points in the open-ended answers regarding the sub-category include: "There are significant
constraints from the single-year budget system and the systems such as investment and university bonds under
the Public University Corporation Law," "It is difficult to see what is being achieved through reform from the55

perspective of researchers in the field," and "As a result of strategic management and reform becoming selfobjectives, the burden on researchers is increasing as they have to spend more time wasteful work, resulting
in reduction of time for research." In addition, there are comments from inside the university such as, "Taking
advantage of being a university with broad range of faculties, we have a good research support system toconduct cross-faculty joint research," "We are making efforts to secure financial resources by conducting joint
research with local companies," "Recently, we have actively recruited female PIs and foreign PIs, strengthened
financial support for graduate students, improved the environment for shared-use equipment, and reformed theorganization."56

5-2 University functional expansion
In the sub-category of university functional expansion, the following two questions were asked to university
management level and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies among experts (non-researchers).
In addition, companies were asked in Q504.
○

Q504: Do you think universities are sufficiently engaged in initiatives aimed at driving new socialchange through dialogue and co-creation with diverse stakeholders?

○

Q505: Do you think systems for flexible university management* is sufficiently implemented?
Changes in student admission capacity at national universities, more flexible tuition setting, simplified
procedures for organizational restructuring, and so on.

In either question, the university management level was asked about the general situation in Japan, companies
were asked about the situation of Japanese universities related to their own, and the high level experts withadvisory roles to STI policies were asked about the general situation in Japan.
Figure 2-16. List of questions and indices for university functional expansion

Experts (nonresearchers)

Q504: Initiatives forsocial change throughco-creation withdiverse parties

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

4.4

-

3.3

4.0

3.1

3.5

3.3

-

-

-

-

2.4

Q505: Improving
systems for flexible
university management

Note: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from the individual
responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q504: Initiatives for social change through co-creation with diverse parties," among experts (nonresearchers), the index is 4.4 (perceived as not sufficient) for the university management level. The index forcompanies as a whole is 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient), for large companies 4.0 (perceived as not
sufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures 3.1 (perceived as strongly insufficient). High level experts
with advisory roles to STI policies had an index of 3.5 (perceived as not sufficient). Compared to the university
management level, the indices for the company as a whole and high level experts with advisory roles to STI
policies are about 1 point lower.
In "Q505: Improving systems for flexible university management," among experts (non-researchers), theindex is 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient) for the university management level. High level experts withadvisory roles to STI policies has an index of 2.4 (perceived as significantly insufficient). Compared to theuniversity management level, the index for high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies is 0.9 lower.
Based on the above, the sub-categories of university functional expansion revealed that there is a differencein perception between university management level and companies and high level experts with advisory roles
to STI policies regarding "Initiatives for social change through co-creation with diverse parties (Q504)" and57

"Improving systems for flexible university management (Q505)". Companies and high level experts with advisory
roles to STI policies recognize the need for universities to make further initiatives for social change throughco-creation with diverse parties. In summarizing the issues raised in the open-ended answers by companies
and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, there is an opinion such as "In order for universities
to become a driving force for new social changes, a system to evaluate and promote faculty members who are
involved in social implementation based on values other than academic papers is necessary." In addition to
university management level, high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies also perceive as strongly
insufficient in terms of improving systems for flexible university management. The open-ended answers
regarding the same sub-category contain opinions that "University functional expansion requires giving
universities more freedom in management."58

6 Science, Technology, Innovation and Society
The science, technology, innovation and society part consists of sub-categories of "Relationship withSociety," "Utilization of 'Comprehensive Knowledge'," "Construction of Innovation System," "Promotion ofOpen Innovation," "International Collaboration" and "Research Integrity." The Basic Plan states the need topromote R&D and social implementation to solve various social issues, to utilize comprehensive knowledge,
and to form an innovation ecosystem that will serve as a foundation for creating new value-creating industries,
in order to realize "transformation into a sustainable and resilient society that ensures the safety and securityof its citizens".
Of the sub-categories in the part, "Relationship with Society" and "Utilization of 'Comprehensive
Knowledge'" are questions related to the former, and are intended to qualitatively understand the progress ofthe "comprehensive knowledge" presented in the Basic Plan. The questions on "Establishment of an innovation
system" and "Promotion of open innovation" are related to the latter, and focus on innovation policies such as
introduction or relaxation of regulations, establishment of venues for demonstration experiments, financial andfiscal support, and systems such as those promoting standardization. In addition, since internationalization is
an important perspective in conducting research activities and concerns about outflow of scientific andtechnological information, etc. have been increasing in recent years, questions on the status of "international
collaboration" and "research integrity" are also asked in this part.

6-1 Relationship with society
In the sub-category of relationship with society, all respondents in the group of active researchers andexperts (non-researchers) were asked the following three questions.
○

Q601: Do you think the research community (e.g., academic societies) is sufficiently engaged in
activities to promote public understanding of science, technology and innovation?

○

Q602: Do you think the research community (e.g., academic societies) is sufficiently engaged in cocreating research activities with diverse entities such as local governments, NPO/NGOs, andcitizens?

○

Q603: Do you think researchers engage in research while sufficiently considering the relationshipbetween their research and social issues (declining birthrate, aging population, climate change,
infectious diseases, etc.) and the social significance/value of their research?

In either questions, active researchers were asked about the general situation in Japan in their own research
field, and experts (non-researchers) were asked about the general situation in Japan.

59

Figure 2-17. List of questions and indices on social relations
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Q601: Activities topromote public
understanding forscience, technology,
and innovation

Univ.
whole

By univ. group

GovernmBy scientific field

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Science Eng/Agri

5.9

6.0

5.8

6.0

5.7

5.8

4.9

4.7

4.8

5.0

5.1

5.9

5.6

5.7

6.0

6.0

By sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalprogramssciences

SSH

HealthMale

Female

5.9

5.8

5.9

5.7

5.6

5.5

5.0

4.7

4.9

5.0

4.9

5.0

4.6

4.5

4.8

5.3

6.0

5.9

5.8

6.3

6.2

5.4

5.8

*1

Q602: Research
activities co-createdwith diverse entities
Q603: Research
activities that take into
account social
significance and value

Experts (nonresearchers)

Q601: Activities topromote public
understanding forscience, technology,
and innovation

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

4.4

4.4

3.3

3.8

3.2

4.1

4.0

4.0

3.3

3.8

3.2

3.1

5.0

4.9

4.2

4.9

4.0

4.4

Q602: Research
activities co-createdwith diverse entities
Q603: Research
activities that take into
account social
significance and value

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q601: Activities to promote public understanding for science, technology, and innovation by the researchcommunity (academic societies, etc.)," the overall index for university natural science researchers among active
researchers is 5.9 (perceived as sufficient). The index for natural science researchers at national research
institutes is 5.6 (perceived as sufficient), that for government priority programs researchers is 5.5 (perceived
as sufficient), and that for SSH researchers is 5.0 (largely perceived as sufficient). Among experts (nonresearchers), the index for both university management level and national institute management level is 4.4(perceived as not sufficient). The index for all companies is 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient), for large
companies 3.8 (perceived as insufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures 3.2 (strongly perceived as
insufficient). For high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the index is 4.1 (perceived as not
sufficient). Compared to natural science researchers at universities, the indices for university managementlevel, national institute management level, companies as a whole, and high level experts with advisory roles to
STI policies are about 2 to 3 points lower.
In "Q602: Research activities co-created with diverse entities by research communities (academic societies,etc.)," the index for university natural science researchers among active researchers is 4.9 (largely perceived
as sufficient). The index for natural science researchers at national research institutes is 4.6 (perceived as
sufficient), that for government priority programs researchers is 4.5 (largely perceived as sufficient), and that60

for SSH researchers is 4.8 (largely perceived as sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices forboth university management level and national institute management level are 4.0 (perceived as not sufficient).
The index for all companies is 3.3 (strongly perceived as insufficient), for large companies 3.8 (perceived as not
sufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures 3.2 (perceived as strongly insufficient). For high level experts
with advisory roles to STI policies, the index is 3.1 (perceived as strongly insufficient). Compared to naturalscience researchers at universities, the indices for university management level, national institute managementlevel, companies as a whole, and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies are about 1 to 2 points
lower.
In "Q603: Research activities that take into account social significance and value", the overall index foruniversity natural science researchers among active researchers is 5.9 (perceived as sufficient). The index fornatural science researchers at national research institutes is 6.2 (perceived as sufficient), that for government
priority programs researchers is 5.4 (largely perceived as sufficient), and that for SSH researchers is 5.8(perceived as sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level andnational institute management level are 5.0 (largely perceived as sufficient) and 4.9 (largely perceived as
sufficient), respectively. The index for companies as a whole is 4.2 (perceived as not sufficient), for large
companies (4.9) (largely perceived as sufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures (4.0) (perceived as not
sufficient). High level experts with advisory roles to STI policies had an index of 4.4 (perceived as not sufficient).
Compared to university natural science researchers as a whole, the indices for university management level,
the company as a whole, and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies are about 1 to 2 points lower.
Based on the above, it becomes clear that there is a gap in perception between researchers and others inthe sub-category of relationship with society. Specifically, "Activities to promote public understanding forscience, technology, and innovation by the research community (academic societies, etc.)" (Q601), "Research
activities co-created with diverse entities by the research community (academic societies, etc.)" (Q602), and"Research activities that take into account social significance and value by researchers" (Q603). In either case,active researchers perceive as sufficient or largely sufficient, while management level at universities, national
institute management level, companies as a whole, and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies
perceive as largely insufficient. Comparing Q601 and Q602 for researchers, the former tends to have higher
indices than the latter, indicating that compared to activities to promote public understanding for science,technology, and innovation, research activities co-created with diverse entities are perceived to have muchroom for improvement as a research community (academic societies, etc.).
The open-ended answers in the same sub-category include: "Contribution to society and outreach activities
must be undertaken on a voluntary basis and with limited budgets, and are not always appreciated," and"Community and international activities are most adversely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic."

61

6-2 Utilization of "comprehensive knowledge"
In the sub-category of the use of "comprehensive knowledge" 1, the following two questions were asked to
all respondents in the group of active researchers and experts (non-researchers).
○

Q604: Do you think that efforts are sufficiently made for collaboration among different fields (including
collaboration between the social sciences and humanities and natural sciences) in setting researchquestions based on social issues?

○

Q605: Do you think that efforts are sufficiently made for collaboration among different fields (including
collaboration between the social sciences and humanities and natural sciences) in conducting R&D
aimed at solving social issues?

In both questions, active researchers were asked about the general situation in Japan in their own research
field, and experts (non-researchers) were asked about the general situation in Japan.
Figure 2-18. List of questions and indices on the ulitilization of "comprehensive knowledge"
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Q604: Collaboration
among different
disciplines on setting up
research projects basedon social issues
Q605: Collaboration
among different
disciplines on
conducting R&D basedon social issues

Experts (nonresearchers)

Q604: Collaboration
among different
disciplines on setting up
research projects basedon social issues
Q605: Collaboration
among different
disciplines on
conducting R&D basedon social issues

Univ.
whole

By univ. group
Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

4.4

4.6

4.6

4.1

4.4

4.7

4.3

4.5

4.1

4.1

4.4

4.3

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

GovernmBy scientific field
Science Eng/AgriBy sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalsciences programs

SSH

HealthMale

Female

4.8

3.9

4.4

4.5

4.9

4.5

5.2

4.5

3.9

4.2

4.4

4.7

4.4

4.8

*1

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

3.5

3.8

2.8

3.3

2.6

3.1

3.4

3.7

2.9

3.4

2.7

2.9

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q604: Collaboration among different disciplines (when setting up research projects based on social
issues)," the index for all university natural science researchers among active researchers is 4.4 (perceived as
not sufficient). By university department field, there is a difference of 0.9 and 0.8 in the index between
engineering and agriculture (4.8), science (4.7) and health (3.9), respectively. The index for natural science
researchers at national institutes is 4.9 (largely perceived as sufficient), that for government priority programs

1Here, we ask about the use of "integrated knowledge" from the aspect of collaboration among different disciplines.

62researchers is 4.5 (largely perceived as sufficient), and that for SSH researchers is 5.2 (largely perceived as
sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national institutemanagement level are 3.5 (perceived as not sufficient) and 3.8 (perceived as not sufficient). The index for allcompanies is 2.8 (perceived as strongly insufficient), for large companies 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient),
and for SMEs and university ventures 2.6 (perceived as strongly insufficient). For high level experts withadvisory roles to STI policies, the index is 3.1 (perceived as strongly insufficient). Compared to natural science
researchers at universities and at national institutes, the indices for university and national institutemanagement level, companies as a whole, and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies are about
1 to 2 points lower.
In "Q605: Collaboration among different disciplines (when conducting R&D based on social issues)," among
active researchers, the index for all natural science researchers at universities is 4.3 (perceived as not
sufficient). The index for natural science researchers at national research institutes is 4.7 (largely perceived as
sufficient), that for government priority programs researchers is 4.4 (perceived as not sufficient), and that for
SSH researchers is 4.8 (largely perceived as sufficient). Among experts (non-researchers), the indices foruniversity management level and national institute management level are 3.4 (perceived as strongly insufficient)and 3.7 (perceived as insufficient), respectively. The index for all companies is 2.9 (perceived as strongly
insufficient), 3.4 (perceived as strongly insufficient) for large companies, and 2.7 (perceived as strongly
insufficient) for SMEs and university ventures. For high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, theindex is 2.9 (perceived as strongly insufficient). Compared to natural science researchers at universities and at
national institutes to STI policies, the indices for university and national institute management level, companies
as a whole, and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies are about 1 to 2 points lower.
Based on the above, in the sub-category of "utilization of comprehensive knowledge," a gap is found between
active researchers and others in terms of recognition in both "collaboration among different fields (when setting
a research agenda based on social issues) (Q604)" and "collaboration among different fields (when implementing
a research agenda based on social issues) (Q605)" questions. In addition, it becomes clear that there aredifferences in the perception in the former question depending on the field of the university department.
Specifically, compared to researchers, management level at universities and national research institutes,
companies as a whole, and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies perceive as insufficient relatively
morestrongly.

Regardinguniversity

departmental

fields,differences

are

also

found

betweenengineering/agriculture and health. Summarizing the open-ended answers regarding the sub-category,"Japanese tradition of separating social sciences and humanities and natural sciences needs to be abolished inorder to promote collaboration among different fields," "In order to encourage the use of "integrated
knowledge," it is necessary to evaluate it." There are also answers on that portfolios should be considered,such as "Not all themes and people are suited for the promotion of "comprehensive knowledge", and "Oneresearcher cannot conduct all basic research, "comprehensive knowledge," and open innovation." Other
opinions include: "Further interaction among researchers is necessary to promote "comprehensive
knowledge"," and "We should not neglect the knowledge that forms the basis of "comprehensive knowledge"
by only emphasizing its social significance."63

6-3 Building an innovation system
In the sub-category of building an innovation system, the following four questions were asked to companies
and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies among experts (non-researchers). In addition, twoquestions, Q607 and Q608, were asked to university management level and national institute management level.
○

Q606: Do you think that enhancement of systems to promote innovation (including introduction orrelaxation of regulations) is sufficiently implemented?

○

Q607: Do you think that support for the establishment and management of science and technologybased ventures is sufficient (e.g., securing risk money, creating an environment that allows forchallenge and failure, providing information and know-how, and so on)?

○

Q608: Do you think that the number of sites where cutting-edge technologies can be demonstrated(e.g., super cities, smart cities, and so on) are sufficiently expanded?

○

Q609: Do you think the government sufficiently promotes R&D investment by companies throughfinancial and fiscal support (government procurement, subsidies, tax incentives, and so on)?

Either question asked about the general situation in Japan.
Figure 2-19. List of questions and indices on building an innovation system

Experts (nonresearchers)

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

Q606: Enhancement ofsystems to promote
innovation
Q607: Support for theestablishment andmanagement of science/ technology based
ventures
Q608: Expanding thenumber of sites wherecutting-edge
technologies can bedemonstrated
Q609: Promote
corporate R&D
investment throughfinancial and fiscal
support

-

-

2.8

3.2

2.7

2.9

2.8

2.4

1.9

2.6

1.8

2.5

2.6

2.3

2.3

2.8

2.2

2.7

-

-

2.3

2.8

2.2

2.5

Note: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from the individual
responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q606: Enhancement of systems to promote innovation," the index for all companies is 2.8 (perceived asstrongly insufficient), for large companies it is 3.2 (perceived as strongly insufficient), and for SMEs anduniversity ventures it is 2.7 (perceived as strongly insufficient). For high level experts with advisory roles to
STI policies, the index is 2.9 (perceived as strongly insufficient).
In "Q607: Support for the establishment and management of science and technology-based ventures," theindices are 2.8 (perceived as strongly insufficient) and 2.4 (perceived as significantly insufficient) for theuniversity management level and national institute management level. The index for all companies is 1.9(perceived as significantly insufficient), 2.6 (perceived as strongly insufficient) for large companies, and 1.8

64(perceived as significantly insufficient) for SMEs and university ventures. Compared to large companies, theindex for SMEs and university ventures is 0.8 lower. High level experts with advisory roles to STI policies has
an index of 2.5 (perceived as strongly insufficient).
For "Q608: Expanding the sites where cutting-edge technologies can be demonstrated," the index is 2.6(perceived as strongly insufficient) and 2.3 (perceived as significantly insufficient) for university managementlevel and national institute management level, respectively. The index for all companies is 2.3 (perceived as
significantly insufficient), for large companies 2.8 (perceived as strongly insufficient), and for SMEs anduniversity ventures 2.2 (perceived as significantly insufficient). For high level experts with advisory roles to
STI policies, the index is 2.7 (perceived as strongly insufficient).
In "Q609: Promote corporate R&D investment through financial and fiscal support," the index is 2.3(perceived as significantly insufficient) for all companies, 2.8 (perceived as strongly insufficient) for large
companies, and 2.2 (perceived as significantly insufficient) for SMEs and university ventures. For high level
experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the index is 2.5 (perceived as strongly insufficient).
Based on the above, the sub-categories of "Enhancement of systems to promote innovation (Q606),""Support for the establishment and management of science and technology-based ventures (Q607),""Expanding the number of sites where cutting-edge technologies can be demonstrated (Q608)," and "Financial
and fiscal support for venture start-ups and management (Q607)," "expansion of opportunities to conduct
demonstration tests of cutting-edge technologies (Q608)," and "promotion of corporate R&D investment
through financial and fiscal support (Q609)" are all perceived as strongly insufficient or perceived as significantly
insufficient. Generally, insufficiency is more strongly perceived among SMEs and university ventures compared
to large companies, although the difference in indices exceeds 0.8 for only one question, which is set as theguideline for discussing the index difference in the report. In light of these results, it is considered necessary
to establish an innovation system that is accessible not only to large companies, but also to SMEs and university
ventures. The following are some of the points raised in the open-ended answers in the sub-category: "Theregulatory barriers to launching new products in Japan are higher than in other countries," "In supporting
ventures, it is important to consider the inflow of appropriate human resources and the utilization oftechnologies and business ideas from local universities," and "Measures such as deregulation tend to be
introduced in a way that favors large companies."65

6-4 Promoting open innovation
In the sub-category of promoting open innovation, the following two questions were asked to university
management level, national institute management level, companies, and high level experts with advisory roles
to STI policies among experts (non-researchers).
○

Q610: Are industry-academia-government efforts to develop open innovation hubs sufficiently
implemented?

○

Q611: Do you think there are sufficient efforts to develop system to promote industry-academiagovernment collaboration on standardization based on the results of R&D (forum standards, de facto
standards, de jure standards, and so on)?

Both questions asked about the general situation in Japan.
Figure 2-20. List of questions and indices on promoting open innovation

Experts (nonresearchers)

Q610: Industryacademia-government
efforts to develop open
innovation sites
Q611: Establishment ofa standardization
promotion systemthrough industryacademia-government
collaboration

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

3.4

3.5

3.2

3.8

3.1

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.8

3.2

2.7

2.5

Note: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from the individual
responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q610: Industry-academia-government efforts to develop open innovation sites," among experts (nonresearchers), the index is 3.4 (perceived as strongly insufficient) and 3.5 (perceived as not sufficient) for theuniversity management level and the national institute management level. The index for all companies is 3.2(perceived as strongly insufficient), 3.8 for large companies (perceived as strongly insufficient), and 3.1 for
SMEs and university ventures (perceived as strongly insufficient). For high level experts with advisory roles to
STI policies, the index is 3.2 (perceived as strongly insufficient).
In "Q611: Establishment of a standardization promotion system through industry-academia-government
collaboration," the index is 3.0 (perceived as strongly insufficient) and 2.8 (perceived as strongly insufficient)for university management level and national institute management level, respectively. The index for allcompanies is 2.8 (perceived as strongly insufficient), 3.2 (perceived as strongly insufficient) for large companies,
and 2.7 (perceived as strongly insufficient) for SMEs and university ventures. For high level experts withadvisory roles to STI policies, the index is 2.5 (perceived as strongly insufficient).
Based on the above, in the sub-category of promoting open innovation, both "Industry-academiagovernment efforts to develop open innovation sites (Q610)" and "Establishment of a standardization promotion
system through industry-academia-government collaboration (Q611)" are often perceived as strongly
insufficient. Although differences in the indices in any questions do not exceed 0.8, which is used as a guideline

66

for the index difference, when comparing large companies with SMEs and university ventures, the index is low
for SMEs and university ventures, as is the case in the sub-category of building innovation systems.
The following is a summary of the issues raised in the open-ended answers regarding the sub-category:"Efforts regarding open innovation are progressing, but are still insufficient" and "It is important to familiarize
the public with open innovation and closed innovation and with the best mix of them."676-5 International collaboration
In the sub-category of international collaboration, all respondents in the group of active researchers andexperts (non-researchers) were asked the following two questions.
○

Q612: Do you think that international collaboration in science and technology (e.g., international
human networking, international joint research, and so on) is sufficiently implemented?

○

Q613: In promoting international joint research, do you think that the Japanese institution (rules foruse of research funds, rules for handling intellectual property rights, and so on) is sufficiently
appropriate in light of international practices?

In both questions, active researchers were asked about the general situation in Japan in their own research
field, and experts (non-researchers) were asked about the general situation in Japan.
Figure 2-21. List of questions and indices on international collaboration
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Univ.
whole

By univ. group

GovernmBy scientific field

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

5.2

5.6

5.2

5.2

5.0

6.4

4.4

4.3

4.5

4.3

4.5

4.5

Science Eng/AgriBy sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalprogramssciences

SSH

HealthMale

Female

5.4

4.6

5.3

5.1

5.6

4.9

5.0

4.6

4.2

4.5

4.2

4.5

3.5

4.2

*1

Q612: International
collaboration in scienceand technology
Q613: Adequacy of theJapanese system forinternational joint
research

Experts (nonresearchers)

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

Q612: International
collaboration in scienceand technology
Q613: Adequacy of theJapanese system forinternational joint
research

3.4

4.6

3.0

3.5

2.9

3.6

3.3

3.5

2.9

3.6

2.7

3.3

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q612: International collaboration in science and technology," among active researchers, the index foruniversity natural science researchers is 5.2 (largely perceived as sufficient). By university department field,
there is a difference of 1.8 and 0.8 in the index between science (6.4), engineering/agriculture (5.4) and health(4.6), respectively. The index for natural science researchers at national institutes is 5.6 (perceived as
sufficient), that for government priority programs researchers is 4.9 (largely perceived as sufficient), and thatfor SSH researchers is 5.0 (largely perceived as sufficient). University management level and national institutemanagement level among experts (non-researchers), the indices are 3.4 (perceived as strongly insufficient) and4.6 (largely perceived as sufficient), showing a difference of 1.2 between the two groups. The index for all68

companies is 3.0 (perceived as strongly insufficient), for large companies 3.5 (perceived as not sufficient), andfor SMEs and university ventures 2.9 (perceived as strongly insufficient). For high level experts with advisory
roles to STI policies, the index is 3.6 (perceived as not sufficient). Compared to natural science researchers atuniversities and at national institutes, the indices for university management level, companies as a whole, andhigh level experts with advisory roles to STI policies are about 2 to 3 points lower.
In "Q613: Adequacy of the Japanese system for international joint research," among active researchers, theindex for natural science researchers at universities is 4.4 (perceived as not sufficient). The index for naturalscience researchers at national research institutes is 4.5 (largely perceived as sufficient), 3.5 (perceived as not
sufficient) for government priority program researchers, and 4.2 (perceived as not sufficient) for SSH
researchers. Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university management level and national
institute management level are 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient) and 3.5 (perceived as insufficient),
respectively. The index for all companies is 2.9 (perceived as strongly insufficient), 3.6 for large companies(perceived as strongly insufficient), and 2.7 for SMEs and university ventures (perceived as strongly insufficient).
For high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the index is 3.3 (perceived as strongly insufficient).
Comparing all university natural science researchers and government priority programs researchers, the index
for the latter is 0.9 points lower than that for the former. Compared to natural science researchers atuniversities and at national institutes, the indices for university and national institute management level,companies as a whole, and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies are about 1 to 2 points lower.
Based on the above, the sub-category of international collaboration shows a gap in perception between
active researchers and others in "International collaboration in science and technology (Q612)" and "Adequacyof the Japanese system for international joint research (Q613)." The reason for the gap may be because therespondents from universities and national research institutes assume international collaboration in science,
while the respondents from companies mainly assume international collaboration in technological development.
Looking at the differences by attribute in detail, Q612 reveals differences in the situation by university
department field and differences in perception between the university management level and the national
institute management level. The index for Q613 is low in government priority programs researchers comparedto natural science researchers at universities, indicating that international collaboration is a key issue for theformer. Open-ended answers for the question include: "The rules regarding the ownership of intellectual
property rights obtained from international joint research discourage international joint research," and"Restrictions on single-year budgets and research fund expenditure targets are hindering international
collaboration."
Other issues raised in the open-ended comments regarding the sub-category include: "The administrative
department lacks support for international collaboration, and researchers are forced to shoulder the burden,""International collaboration cannot be freely conducted due to concerns about technology leakage," "Export
control regulations have been tightened, increasing the procedural burden," and "Rules on the use of Japanese
research funds, such as the inability to deal with cases where cash settlement is required overseas, are impeding
international collaboration."69

6-6 Research integrity
In the sub-category of research integrity, all respondents in the group of active researchers and experts(non-researchers) were asked the following two questions.
○

Q614: Do you think that researchers are sufficiently aware of the risk factors* of conflicts ofinterest/conflicts of responsibility that arise with the internationalization of research activities?
Risk factors for conflict of interest: acceptance of research funds, facilities, equipment, and so on
from foreign countries.
Risk factors for conflicts of responsibility: holding status in a foreign institution, and so on.

○

Q615: Do you think that organizational efforts* are sufficiently implemented to address the risks ofconflicts of interest/conflicts of responsibility arising from the internationalization of research
activities?
Establishment and dissemination of a system for reporting and consultation by researchers atuniversities, research institutes, and so on.

In either question, active researchers and university and public research institute management level amongexperts (non-researchers) were asked about the status of their organizations, while companies were asked
about the status of their related Japanese universities, and high level experts with advisory roles were asked
about the general status of Japanese universities.
Figure 2-22. List of questions and indices on research integrity
University/natural sciences
Active researchers

Q614: Researchers'
awareness of risk
factors associated toresearch activities'
internationalization
Q615: Organizational
efforts to address risk
factors associated toresearch activities'
internationalization

Experts (nonresearchers)

Q614: Researchers'
awareness of risk
factors associated toresearch activities'
internationalization
Q615: Organizational
efforts to address risk
factors associated toresearch activities'
internationalization

Univ.
whole

By univ. group
Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

5.6

5.8

5.6

5.3

5.6

6.2

5.6

6.0

5.9

5.2

5.4

6.2

research
Univ.
institute
managemmanagement level
ent level

GovernmBy scientific field
Science Eng/AgriBy sexResearchent
institutes/
priority
naturalsciences programs

SSH

HealthMale

Female

5.6

5.3

5.6

5.4

5.8

5.0

5.7

5.7

5.3

5.6

5.5

5.9

5.0

5.5

*1

Companies
By company type
Whole

Large
SMEs/Univ.
companies
ventures

Highlevel
experts

4.5

4.9

3.3

4.0

3.1

3.3

4.9

5.1

3.4

3.8

3.3

3.3

Note 1: Government priority program researchers are researchers in natural sciences. They are separately selected from natural science researchers atuniversities and those at national research institutes.
Note 2: The numbers in the cells represent the index for each tabulation unit (column name). The index is the average of the values converted from theindividual responses on a 6-point scale from 0 to 10 points.

In "Q614: Researchers' awareness of risk factors associated with the internationalization of research

70activities," among active researchers, the index for natural science researchers at the university is 5.6(perceived as sufficient). By university department field, there is a difference of 0.9 in the index between science(6.2) and health (5.3). The index for natural science researchers at national institutes is 5.8 (perceived as
sufficient), 5.0 (largely perceived as sufficient) for SSH researchers, and 5.7 (perceived as sufficient) for
government priority programs researchers. Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university
management level and national institute management level are 4.5 (largely perceived as sufficient) and 4.9(largely perceived as sufficient), respectively. The index for companies as a whole is 3.3 (perceived as strongly
insufficient), for large companies 4.0 (perceived as not sufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures 3.1(perceived as strongly insufficient). For high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the index is 3.3(perceived as strongly insufficient). Compared to natural science researchers at universities and at national
institutes, the indices for university and national institute management level, companies as a whole, and highlevel experts with advisory roles to STI policies are about 1 to 3 points lower.
In "Q615: Organizational efforts to address risk factors associated with the internationalization of research
activities," the overall index for university natural science researchers among active researchers is 5.6(perceived as sufficient). By university group, there is a 0.8-point difference in the index between Group 1(6.0) and Group 3 (5.2). By university department field, there is a 0.9-point difference in the index between
science (6.2) and health (5.3). The index is 5.9 (perceived as sufficient) for natural science researchers atnational institutes, 5.0 (largely perceived as sufficient) for government priority programs researchers, and 5.5(perceived as sufficient) for SSH researchers. Among experts (non-researchers), the indices for university
management level and national institute management level are 4.9 (largely perceived as sufficient) and 5.1(largely perceived as sufficient), respectively. The index for companies as a whole is 3.4 (perceived as strongly
insufficient), for large companies 3.8 (perceived as insufficient), and for SMEs and university ventures 3.3(perceived as strongly insufficient). For high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, the index is 3.3(perceived as strongly insufficient). Compared to natural science researchers at universities and at national
research institutes, the indices for the companies as a whole and for high level experts with advisory roles to
STI policies are about 2 to 3 points lower.
Based on the above, the sub-categories of research integrity, "Researchers' awareness of risk factors
associated with the internationalization of research activities (Q614)" and "Organizational efforts to address
risk factors associated with the internationalization of research activities (Q615)," revealed a gap in perception
between active researchers and university and national institute management level, and experts (nonresearchers). The cause of the gap may be that researchers at universities and national research institutes
assume the risk of conflict of interest/conflict of responsibility arising from internationalization in science, while
respondents from companies assume the risk of conflict of interest/conflict of responsibility in technology.

The open-ended answers regarding the sub-category include: "Understanding of research integrity is
not well developed, and policies need to be developed to support it" and "My organization isemphasizing research integrity associated with international joint research, and is making efforts for thispurpose."71

7 Report Summary
The NISTEP TEITEN Survey is a continuous opinion survey of active researchers and experts (nonresearchers) in academia, government and industry to grasp changes in the state of science and technology
and innovation creation in Japan. In Part 2 of this volume, the results of the NISTEP TEITEN Survey 2021,
which is the initial survey and the reference point of the 4th NISTEP TEITEN Survey1 to be conducted during
the Sixth Basic Plan period (FY2021-25) have been presented.
In the NISTEP TEITEN Survey 2021, the perceptions of respondents regarding various aspects of science,technology, and innovation, were analyzed focusing on differences in their attributes. As a result, gaps inperceptions depending on the attributes of the respondents were observed in many questions. Possible causesof the gaps include (1) differences in the positions within organization to which the respondent belong, (2)degree of penetration of initiatives (it takes time for implemented initiatives to penetrate), (3) localization(implemented initiatives are limited), and (4) visibility (implemented initiatives are difficult to see from theoutside).2 For example, if the perception gap is due to the degree of penetration of initiatives, it is expectedthat the gap among attributes will decrease over time. However, if the perception gap is due to localization orvisibility, changes in the gap between attributes will be limited to a few attributes. Taking into account thesecharacteristics of the index, we will track time-series changes in the index and the underlying environmental
changes in the next fiscal year and beyond.
Since the NISTEP TEITEN Survey 2021 is the first-year survey, it is not possible to discuss changes in thestate of science, technology, and innovation creation during the 4th TEITEN Survey period. Here, five points
are summarized based on importance for close monitoring to understand the situation during the Sixth Basic
Plan period. The first four points are based on the survey results of respondents other than SSH researchers,
and fifth point is about the characteristics of the responses by SSH researchers, who are newly added to thesurvey respondents in the 4th TEITEN Survey.

7-1 Ongoing awareness of issues regarding academic research and basic research and research time,etc.
The series of past NISPTEP TEITEN Survey has indicated continuous awareness of the issues on academic
research and basic research, which are essentially important as researchers' activities, and on the researchtime that is indispensable for conducting research. As mentioned at the beginning of this report, it is notpossible to simply compare the results of past surveys with those of the current survey, but the NISTEPTEITEN Survey 2021, with its newly selected respondents, continued to show a similar awareness of the issues.
Specifically, the indices for the part on academic research and basic research are low overall, indicating thatchallenges are recognized in terms of the environment for exploring new themes and for conducting challenging
1

The NISTEP TEITEN Survey has been conducted for a total of 15 years: the 1st NISTEP TEITEN Survey (FY2006-2010) corresponding to the 3rd Basic
Plan, the 2nd NISTEP TEITEN Survey (FY2011-2015) corresponding to the 4th Basic Plan, and the 3rd NISTEP TEITEN Survey (FY2016-2020)
corresponding to the 5th Basic Plan.
2

In addition to this, it is possible that there are cases in which respondents perceive the term differently depending on their attributes. For example, withregard to the term innovation, respondents from companies may place more emphasis on economic value, while those from universities and national research
institutes may place more emphasis on scientific value.

72research based on intrinsic motivation, and in terms of diversity in basic research and of international excellence.
At the same time, it is perceived as insufficient in terms of securing recurrent or block grant funding andresearch time and of developing or securing specialists in research management.
The results of the survey and related surveys in the past suggest a structural problem that challenges in
research environment hinder promotion of academic research and basic research. The research environment
issues identified were those related to recurrent or block grant funding and those related to research time.
Regarding the former it was pointed out, for example, that applications for competitive funding on completely
new research themes are likely not to be selected, and that recurrent or block grant funding is important when
exploring them.1 On a related note, there are also opinions pointing out the concentration of large researchfunds on certain researchers in open-ended answers to the survey. Regarding the latter, securing researchtime as a prerequisite for conducting research activities is no longer viable. There are two points suggested
from the open-ended answers as the background. Firstly, "Due to the lack of technical and administrative staff,
the scope of researchers' duties has expanded, leading to a decrease in research time," as found in thoseanswers, although securing specialized research management personnel such as URAs and administrative
assistants is highly important for securing research time for researchers. It is suggested that the current divisionof labor is not functioning adequately, which is hindering the securing of research time. Secondly, as found in
the open-ended answers, "Excessive time is lost in applying for public research funding and for preparing
reports for them, such as having to prepare multiple academic achievement lists in different formats," suggeststhat excessive administrative work is also burdening researchers.
In general, it can be said that respondents perceive as the current state of support of academic research andbasic research in Japan is not sufficient.

7-2 New trends in R&D activities, such as the transformation of research activities and the use of"comprehensive knowledge"
The Sixth Basic Plan outlines a policy to promote the transformation of research activities through the useof ICT technology, which has been rapidly advancing in recent years and the utilization of "comprehensive
knowledge".
Regarding the transformation of research activities, the survey results show that progress varied by university
group based on the share of the number of papers. Specifically, the results suggest that universities with small
shares do not have sufficient capacity to promote the digitalization of research activities; as the transformationof research activities using ICT technology is an important factor in considering future competitiveness inresearch, support according to organizational conditions is desirable. In addition, the high evaluation byresearchers at national research institutes suggests that the digitalization of research is relatively advanced atnational research institutes. Sharing with universities the know-how and facilities that support such
digitalization is also considered important for promoting the transformation of research activities in Japan as awhole. Going remote in research exchange, education, etc. is generally highly evaluated. This suggests that all1

In the NISTEP TEITEN Survey 2020, a question regarding financial resources for exploratory research was asked in the in-depth survey conducted in asingle year. In the open-ended questions to the same question, several responses were received to the same effect.

73

organizations had no choice but to engage in remote activities due to the outbreak of the COVID-19, and thatsuch a sudden change in circumstances has the power to change the way organizations are organized.
In summarizing the responses to the open-ended questions regarding the negative impact of the COVID-19
infection, the following comments were found: "Regional collaboration, industry-academia-government
collaboration, and international collaboration have been greatly reduced," "Face-to-face interaction has
decreased, which is problematic in terms of human relations and management," "I feel that regional universities
have become more isolated because there are few opportunities for researchers from all over Japan to meet
together," and " In experimental research, remote instruction and guidance has limitations from the standpointof safety management. " The survey will pay attention to whether these negative effects will continue in thenext and subsequent years.
Regarding the utilization of "comprehensive knowledge" from the aspect of collaboration among different
fields, the evaluation by researchers is high both at the stage of setting research themes and at the stage ofpromoting research, indicating that the researchers themselves recognize that they are engaged in crossdisciplinary collaboration based on their own research themes. While, the management level at universities andnational research institutes, companies, and high level experts with advisory roles to STI policies, who observe
the researchers' activities from the outside, have relatively low evaluations. In particular, the situation in which
the researchers and the management group have very different perceptions suggests that the range of"comprehensive knowledge" may differ, as the researchers answered based on their own research field, whereas
the management group answered based on organizational activities.

7-3 Young researchers, young students aspiring to become researchers, and issues regarding theevaluation of researchers' performance
As for the status of young researchers, while the majority perceived as largely sufficient the establishmentof an environment for young researchers to be independent and active, the majority perceived as not sufficientthe number of young researchers independently conducting R&D, except for Group 1 universities, which havea large share of the number of papers. In particular, the results suggest that, although an environment foryoung researchers to be independent and active is being established at Group 2 to Group 4 universities, it has
not led to an increase in the number of young researchers independently conducting R&D. In addition, thesituation is relatively low in terms of the evaluation of the enhancement of tenured employment for young
researchers with proven achievements, suggesting the possibility that the lack of tenured employment for young
researchers is hindering independent research and development by young researchers. For example, if thefinancial source of fixed-term employment is derived from a research project, research is usually required tofollow the project's policy, making it difficult to conduct R&D independently. While, in Group 1 universities,
which are universities with a large share of papers, it is suggested that although there are a certain number ofyoung researchers who are engaged in independent research, they are not provided with commensurate tenured
employment, which may be due to constraints in the university administration. 1

1

In this regard, the TEITEN Survey Committee pointed out that "it is difficult to provide tenured employment based on external funds" and "it is difficult74Regarding the situation of young research personnel aspiring to become researchers, it is perceived as
significantly insufficient in terms of the number of young students aspiring to become researchers, although theenvironment is becoming more conducive to doctoral studies. As a background to this, it was pointed out that
there are few opportunities to obtain non-tenured positions after obtaining a PhD degree, suggesting theexistence of a common problem with the insufficient number of young researchers independently conducting
R&D. Regarding efforts to support doctoral students, which have been expanded in recent years, there are
opinions from multiple perspectives, such as "support is not sufficient," "support is being provided," and "thesupport framework is disorganized and difficult to understand. " Since it will take time for the efforts to support
doctoral students to progress and spread, the survey will continue to focus on the status of young students
aspiring to become researchers in the next and subsequent years.
In all questions regarding the evaluation of researchers' performance, the evaluations by university
management level are higher than that of the university natural science researchers. This seems to be a naturaltendency, considering the relationship in which university natural science researchers are evaluated by theuniversity management level. However, the fact that several of the respondents in the position of associate
professor and below stated that "transparency of the evaluation of researchers' performance is insufficient" intheir open-ended responses suggests that the efforts of the university management level are not satisfactoryfor researchers and that the use of the results of evaluation of researchers conducted by the university
management level may not be visible to the researchers. The survey results also suggest that there are issues
at the stage of utilizing the results of performance evaluations. Since there is limited information on the status
of utilization of evaluations, it is important to grasp the specific situation for the first step.

7-4 Issues in interaction, such as regional revitalization, building innovation systems, and international
collaboration
Regional revitalization is rated higher in Group 2 through Group 4 universities, which include many
universities outside of metropolitan areas, and tended to be rated higher by engineering and agriculture. This
trend is thought to reflect the positioning of the universities and fields of study. However, it should be notedthat there are several open-ended responses indicating issues such as "The situation in which researchers andorganizations engaged in regional revitalization are not evaluated should be corrected," indicating that there
are issues to be addressed at the same time. As shown in the results of the sub-category of university
management, universities in Group 3 and Group 4 tend to give relatively low ratings to "Efforts to promote
self-improvement by making the most of the organization's individuality and characteristics" and to "Efforts tosecure various financial resources. It is important to note that even universities that are currently recognized
as being in a relatively good position in terms of promoting initiatives for regional revitalization still facechallenges in making the most of their own characteristics and diversifying financial resources.
As for organizational industry-academia collaboration, while the framework for collaboration on the part ofuniversities and national research institutes and feedback from industry-academia collaboration to research are

to provide tenured employment based on external funds if we discuss the retirement system based on the assumption of a post of succession (taken overfrom before incorporation), but the university could use its own funds while utilizing university bonds and funding." While it is institutionally possible toprovide tenured employment based on external funding, there are circumstances in which it is difficult to do so depending on the management environment.

75

relatively highly rated, the evaluation of activities such as venture creation and exchange of research personnel
is relatively low. In the future, it will be necessary to closely monitor whether the relatively advanced framework
creation results will translate into more active actual collaborations. In the analysis by university group, Group
3 and Group 4, which are lower in the share of number of papers compared with Group 1 and Group 2, show
lower evaluations overall. It is also important to provide support to these universities according to the issues
they are facing, as indicated by the open-ended answer, "Good technologies and business ideas can begenerated even at regional universities, but there is a large disparity among universities in the environment formaking use of these ideas."
Overall, the survey respondents gave low marks to the establishment of an innovation system, reflecting theperception that regulations in Japan are too strict. Although the survey does not provide information on specificcases, there is a need for more opportunities to conduct demonstration tests of cutting-edge technologies andfor less restrictive regulations when launching new products. The indices tend to be lower for SMEs anduniversity ventures than for large companies, reflecting the perception that many of the support frameworks
and deregulations tend to be implemented in a manner favorable to large companies.
Regarding international collaboration, active researchers tend to rate higher, while experts (non-researchers)
lower. This may be because the researchers from universities and national research institutes may haveexpected international collaboration in science, while the respondents of from companies may have expectedinternational collaboration in technological development. Regarding the "Adequacy of the Japanese system forinternational joint research," the index for government priority programs researchers, who are considered tobe more active in international collaboration, is lower than that for university natural science researchers as awhole, suggesting that government priority programs researchers recognize the need to adapt the rules forusing Japanese research funds to international collaboration. While taking into consideration the risks
associated with the internationalization of research activities, the rules for the use of Japanese research funds,
etc., should not become a disincentive to international collaboration.

7-5 Characteristic trends in responses by SSH researchers
With the expansion of the scope of the Sixth Basic Plan, SSH researchers were added to the respondents of
the 4th TEITEN Survey. This section summarizes the characteristics of the responses from SSH researchers.
Perceptions by SSH researchers are similar to those of university researchers in the natural sciences in manyof the question items. However, the following questions show differences in perceptions from those of university
researchers in the natural science fields. Although the small sample size precludes a simple comparison of theresults of the responses by SSH researchers with those of other groups, this section will touch on items inwhich particularly large differences were observed.
Firstly, "Introducing multi-faceted evaluation of researchers" has received a relatively high evaluation by
SSH researchers. This may reflect the situation in the social sciences and humanities, where the methods ofpublishing research results are more diverse than in the natural sciences. Secondly, regarding "Securing
recurrent or block grant funding," which has long been recognized as an issue by natural science researchers,

76has received a relatively high evaluation. This may reflect the fact that a higher percentage of research can be
conducted with relatively small funds compared to the natural science fields. While SSH researchers tend to
give low ratings to the status of academic research and basic research, which is continuously recognized as an
issue by researchers in the natural science fields. And finally, in the utilization of "comprehensive knowledge,"collaboration among different fields when setting research themes based on social issues is rated higher thanby university natural science researchers. However, the difference is smaller for cross-disciplinary collaborationin the implementation phase of research and development.
While "Initiatives for organizational collaboration with the private sector" and "Creation of venturecompanies" tended to be rated lower by SSH researchers than those of university natural science researchers.
This may because many respondents in the social sciences and humanities are in fields that are not familiar
with the industrial use of their findings. Note that about 20-30% of the respondents answered "don't know" forthese questions. Diversifying career paths for PhD holders are also rated lower than those of university naturalscience researchers.

7-6 Summary
The 3rd NISTEP TEITEN Survey conducted from FY 2016-20 showed an increasing sense of urgency
regarding the infrastructure of research activities at universities and national research institutes. This trend
has continued in the current NISTEP TEITEN Survey 2021, in which the survey items and respondents havebeen revised in line with the Sixth Basic Plan.
While there are positive changes including that going remote in research exchange and education has been
penetrated overall, although it has strongly been influenced by external factors such as the response to the
COVID-19 infection. In addition, the evaluation by researchers regarding the publication and utilization ofresearch data is relatively high, and as this activity progresses, it is likely that the evaluation by external
parties to universities and national research institutes may also increase in the future. Furthermore, efforts byuniversities to make the most of their own individuality and characteristics are relatively highly evaluated,
although the evaluation is somewhat low by the universities in Group 3 and 4 and by outside the universities.
During the period of the Sixth Basic Plan, there is a possibility that significant changes in the status ofscience, technology and innovation creation will happen, including the above-mentioned points. The survey isgoing to provide information that contributes to science, technology and innovation policy in the following fiscal
years and beyond by timely grasp of changes in the situation through the attitudes of the respondents to thesurvey.

77

NISTEP TEITEN Survey Committee Members
The following experts (alphabetical order) made significant contributions to the design and report reviewof the NISTEP TEITEN Survey as members of the TEITEN Survey Committee.

Dr. FUKUYAMA Mayumi

General Manager and CIO, Technology Management Center,
Technology Strategy Office, Research & Development Group,
Hitachi, Ltd.

Prof. HAYASHI Takayuki

Professor, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies

Dr. IBA Hideki

CPE (Chief Professional Engineer), Advanced R&D andEngineering Company, Toyota Motor Corporation.

Prof. KAWABATA Kazushige

Executive Vice President, Niigata University.

Prof. KAWAI Maki

President, National Institutes of Natural Sciences.

Prof. KITAMOTO Asanobu

Director, ROIS-DS Center for Open Data in the Humanities
Professor, National Institute of Informatics.

Mr. MIYATA Mitsuru

President, Miyata Institute of Technologies

Mr. SEKIYAMA Kazuhide

Director and Representative Executive Officer, Spiber Inc.

Prof. SUGIYAMA Masashi

Director, RIKEN Center for Advanced Intelligence Project
Professor, Department of Complexity Science and Engineering,
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo.

Dr. TAKAHASHI Shuichiro

Representative Director COO, Leave a Nest Co., Ltd.

Prof. TAMAKI Emi

Professor, Faculty of Engineering, University of the Ryukyus

Prof. TOYODA Nagayasu*

President, Suzuka University of Medical Science

Prof. YANAGISAWA Masashi

Director and Professor, International Institute for Integrative
Sleep Medicine, University of Tsukuba(The asterisk (*) represents the president of the committee. The information above is as of Feb. 2023.)

78

Acknowledgements
We would like to express our deepest gratitude to all the researchers and experts (non-researchers) who
devoted their valuable time to answer the NISTEP TEITEN Survey.
We would also like to thank Ms. NAKAJIMA Aya and Mr. MURAKAMI Akiyoshi at the Center for S&T
Foresight and Indicators, NISTEP, who supported in proofreading the original report (Ms. NAKAJIMA) and
who reviewed the English translation (Mr. MURAKAMI).

79

NISTEP REPORT No. 194
Analytical Report of Comprehensive Survey on the State of Science and Technology in Japan(NISTEP TEITEN Survey 2021)
February 2023 (August 2022 for original Japanese version)
Center for S&T Foresight and Indicators
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP)
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
https://doi.org/10.15108/nr194

https://www.nistep.go.jp