Transformation of University Governance Through Internationalization
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Transformation of University Governance
Through Internationalization
Challenges for Research Universities and
Government Policies in Japan
Akiyoshi Yonezawa, PhD
yonezawa@gsid.nagoya-u.ac.jp
Graduate School of International Development (GSID)
Nagoya University, Japan
Yukiko Shimmi, PhD
y.shimmi@r.hit-u.ac.jp
Graduate School of Law
Hitotsubashi University, Japan
1This presentation is based on Yonezawa, A., & Shimmi, Y. (2015). Transformation of university governance through internationalization: challenges for top universities and government policies in Japan. Higher Education 70(2).173-186. in a special issue on world class universities in East Asia edited by Gerald Postiliglione and Akira Arimoto
Characteristics of a World-Class University (WCU):
Alignment of Key Factors
②
① ③
4
Source: Created by Jamil SalmiDiversity in the balance of three key factors of WCUs
among East Asian systems/universities:
both in current status and policy agenda
1. Abundant resources:
- Classification (e.g. California Master Plan -> Philippines and Vietnam)
- Dual Systems (e.g. Polytechnics in Singapore)
- Excellence Initiatives
(the selection of competitive research units by performance)
• Korea: BK21, WCU
• China: 211, 985
• Japan: COE21, Global COE, WPI
• Germany: Excellence Initiatives
2. Concentration of talent:
• A domestic screening system of the students to top universities (all East Asia)
• International student & faculty recruitment: Singapore, HK…
• Brain circulation (returns of academics trained overseas): Korea, China
3. Favorable governance: (varies among East Asian systems/universities)
• Supportive regulatory framework: Japan (in tradition), HK
• Autonomy, academic freedom: Japan (in tradition), HK
• Leadership team, Strategic vision: ???.. Japan (after incorporation)??
• Culture of Excellence: top among East Asian universities to some degree
-> Trend to pursue WCU through excellence initiatives stimulated Japan 5Purpose
To examine the challenges of internationalization among
the top universities in Japan, both for the government and
the universities themselves
• Reflect on the historical background of Japanese
higher education that developed as an early front-
runner in Asia, along with the dynamics of national
identity and global trends
• Examine a series of government-funded programs
for research and internationalization by focusing
on functions in governance reform
6• Discuss that the construction of “world class universities” does
not only implies concentrated financial investment, but also a
comprehensive transformation of university governance in a
global context both by university and government.
• Point out the major challenges for top Japanese research
universities, in terms of maintaining and improving their
international presence.
• Clarify the implications both for other East Asian economies
and for mature economies facing demographic challenges.
7Historical background:
Japan’s top universities have achieved a distinguished status in
Asia by 1990s through the strong protection of a national higher
education system based on the national language and culture (not
by “global”, “cosmopolitan”, or “English speaking”..
• by mid 19th Century: Only a selective exposure to foreign intellectual
documents (Netherlands & China).
• in the latter half of 19th Century: Constructed first university
(University of Tokyo) and other HEIs by relying on foreign experts
invited from the West, but were shortly replaced by Japanese
academics trained in the West, and switched the language into the
national language.
• in the mid 20th Century: Though Japanese scholars were given
opportunities to study in the West after the defeat of WWII, the impact
of those scholars was much smaller compared with the impact in other
new industrial countries in East Asian countries.
8However…
the strong national identity of Japanese universities has
turned into a weakness with globalization
• By the beginning of 21st century: Japan was facing a difficulty in
maintaining a competitive place in a rapidly globalized research and HE
community.
• World University Ranking (QS):
– University of Tokyo was ranked 19th in 2008 and 31st in 2014
– Japanese universities in top 200 remain stable (9 to 10)
– Asian universities increased from 29 to 36
• Research & Publication
• Japan’s total amount of publication is shrinking (Thompson Reuters 2010).
• Japan is notably behind in the increase in international co-authorship when
compared with UK, France, Germany (NISTEP, 2013).
• Student Exchange
• China and South Korea and other Asian countries have become competitors
in recruiting international students
• The number of Japanese students studying abroad is decreasing from 82,945
in 2004 to 57,501 in 2011 (MEXT 2014).
9Government-funded programs for
research and internationalization
Research funding Internationalization
Excellence Initiatives • Strategic Fund for Establishing
• 21st Century Centers of Excellence International Headquarters in
(21COE) (2002-2009) Universities (SIH)(2005-2009)
• Global Centers of Excellence • Global 30 (Project for establishing
(GCOE) (2007-2014) university network for
• World Premier International internationalization) (2009-2014)
Center Initiatives (WPI) (2007- • Project for Promotion of Global
2012) Human Resource Development
(2012-2016)
Governance improvement • Reinventing Japan Project (2011-)
• Program for Promoting the • Top Global University Project (2014
Enhancement of Research -2023)
Universities (PPERU) (2014-2023)
10Research funding
Context: “Toyama Plan” in 2001 —> the idea of forming 30 WCUs
Stimulated by BK21 in South Korea and Project 211 and 985 in China
Excellence Initiatives (direct funding for research activities)
21COE (21st Century Centers of 2002-2009 271 units 100-500 million JPY/year
Excellence) for 5 years
GCOE (Global Centers of Excellence) 2007-2014 140 units 50-300 million JPY/year
for 5 years
WPI (World Premier International 2007-2022 9 units 700-1400 million JPY/year
Research Center Initiatives) for 10-15 years
Governance Improvement (not directly for research activities)
PPERU (Program for Promoting the 2014-2023 22 400-200 million JPY/year
Enhancement of Research universities for 10 years
Universities)
11Table 1: Universities that received funding projects for world-class research
(five or more units in total) 21COE GCOE WPI
2002-2008 2007-2013 2007-2021
100-500 50-300 700-1400
annual budget (Japanese Yen)
million million million
N N Year
Former Imperial
University of Tokyo 28 18 2007
Kyoto University 23 13 2007
Osaka University 15 12 2007
Tohoku University 13 12 2007
Nagoya University 14 7 2012
Hokkaido University 12 7
Kyushu University 8 5 2010
National
Tokyo Institute of Technology 12 9 2012
Kobe University 7 3
Chiba University 4 2
Hitotsubashi University 4 2
Hiroshima University 5 0
University of Tsukuba 4 1 2012
Kumamoto University 2 3
Private
Keio University 12 7
Waseda University 9 8
12
Ritsumeikan University 4 3Strategic Fund for Establishing International
Headquarters in Universities (SIH) (2005-2009)
• Context: Just after the incorporation of national universities in 2004 &
achievement of 100,000 international student plan in 2003
• 19 universities (15 national including all former imperial, 1 local public & 3
private) & 1 inter-university research institute
• 10-40 million JPY/yr
• Purpose: To improve the strategic approach to internationalization on
the 9 themes (Ota,2014)
– organization and governance for internationalization
– goal setting, action plans, and evaluation systems
– attracting external funds for international education and research
– participating in and utilizing cross-border inter-university partnerships and consortiums
– expansion of international activities based on specific transnational research projects
– training and recruiting administrative personnel for international programs
– improving services and support for international researchers
– expanding overseas study and research opportunities for young Japanese researchers
– establishing and operating overseas bases
• Planning and assessment: Case study approach (qualitative)
13Global 30 (Project for establishing university
network for internationalization) (2009-2014)
• Context: Just after Asia Gateway Initiative (2007) & 300,000 International Student
Plan (2008-2020) --> enhancement of research excellence & networks, accepting
international students and international researchers
• 13 universities (7 national including 6 former imperial & 6 private)
• Purpose: To elevate the international competitiveness of Japanese HE with the focus
on accepting international students and faculty members and developing networks.
• Indicators for selection —> Related to world university rankings —> large
universities
– Granting of 340 or more post-graduate degrees (master or doctor) annually in the last three
years
– Acquisition of 130 or more Grants in Aid from JSPS annually in the last three years
– Acceptance of 300 or more international students from more than four countries in 2008
– Sending of 50 or more students abroad in 2008 under official student exchange agreements
– Employment of more than 45 international faculty members
– Participation in international university consortiums
– Having plans to establish at least one undergraduate and one post-graduate degree program in
English, in addition to the existing programs
– Establishment of offices abroad for recruiting students, and willingness to allow their usage by
other Japanese universities;
– Having plans to realize a share of international students of 20% (and at least 10%), and a total
number of international students more than 2,599 by 2020;
– Plan to make the share of international faculty into 10% (at least 5%) by 2020. 14
• Planning and assessment: including key performance indicators (quantitative)Top Global University Program
(2014-2023)
• Context: The national plan for making 10 Japanese
universities ranked in top 100 in the world
• Purposes:
• Type A: to aim at the top 100 in world rankings
• 13 universities (11 national including all former imperial & 2
private)
• Type B: to lead Japanese society in globalization
• 24 universities (10 national, 2 local public & 12 private)
• Planning, selection, and assessment:
• Based on key performance indicators that were provided by the
government. (details follow)
• The indicators were not only directly related to
internationalization but to university reform in general (e.g.
governance, management, structure, curriculum, and admission).
(mainly quantitative) 15Key performance indicators used for
“Top Global University Project”
(1) Internationalization
1. Diversity
1. International faculty members and faculty members with foreign degrees
2. International non-academic staff and staff with foreign degrees
3. Female staff
4. International students
2. Student mobility
1. Japanese students with study abroad experiences
2. Student exchange based on university partnership agreements
3. Support for student exchange
1. Support system for Japanese students to study abroad
2. Support system for hosting international students
4. Language
1. Classes in foreign language
2. Degree programs in foreign language
3. Japanese language education
4. Assessment, monitoring & improvement of foreign language ability of the
students
16Key performance indicators(Cont.)
(1) Internationalization
5. Curriculum management
1. Numbering of subjects
2. Introduction of GPA
3. Syllabus in English
4. Quality assurance and International recognition of the educational programs
6. International openness
1. Flexible settings of academic calendar
2. Usage of International Baccalaureate in entrance examination
3. Entrance examination and screening before coming to Japan
4. Notice of scholarship/loan opportunities before coming to Japan
5. International dormitories
6. International branches
7. Active usage of international alumni network
8. Information provision in foreign language
17Key performance indicators(Cont.)
(2) Governance & University Reform
1.Personnel system
1.Introduction of annual based contract salary
2.Introduction of tenure track system
3.Introduction of internationally adaptable personnel system
4.Development of internationally adaptable recruitment and
human resource development
2.Governance
1.Development of non-academic staff
2.Setting a concrete vision and a mid-term plan
3.Enable speedy decision-making
4.Participation of non Japanese in decision-making bodies
5.Strengthen and improve the functions of institutional research
18Key performance indicators (Cont.)
(3) Educational Reform
1. Qualitative transformation of education & active learning
1. Securing the substantial learning hours of students
2. Promoting students’ active participation in university governance
3. Utilizing Teaching Assistants in education practices
2. Reform of entrance examination
1. Using TOEFL and other external testing services in undergraduate admission
2. Reforming entrance examination to evaluate various aspects
3. Flexible and various academic path
1. Development of flexible transferring system & late specialization, etc.
2. Early enrollment and graduation, five year bachelor + master's program
(4) Others
1. Information disclosure
(5) An organizational structure to implement the above reforms
(6) Type A requested to provide data on
1. Strong academic fields in terms of international reputation
2. Research performance (citation, international co-authorship,
international joint research projects, consignment study)
19Examples of the plans of the selected universities
Nagoya University: “Asian university-hub for developing
sustainable world in the 21st century,” and launched satellite
campuses in several Asian countries for offering doctoral programs
to the future national leaders.
Waseda University: “Waseda Ocean Initiative - developing
educational networks with international openness, diversity,
and mobility,” to improve the international openness of the
university to promote academic mobility and to enhance the quality
of education and research.
Concerns: the use of these indicators for the planning,
selection, and evaluation process…
• A potential risk of micromanagement by the government
through these multiple key performance indicators
• Might result in isomorphic standardization in the approach
of internationalization among universities
20Table 2: Universities that received funding projects for internationalization to be
world-class
SIH Global 30 Top Global University
2005-2009 2009-2014 2014-2023
annual budget (Japanese Yen) 10-40 million 200-400 million 500 million (TYPE A)
Former Imperial
Hokkaido University x x
Tohoku University x x x
University of Tokyo x x x
Nagoya University x x x
Kyoto University x x x
Osaka University x x x
Kyushu University x x x
National
University of Tsukuba x x
Hiroshima University x x
Tokyo Institute of Technology x x
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies x
Tokyo Medical and Dental University x
Hitotsubashi University x
Niigata University x
Kobe University x Overlap and consistency
Tottori University x
Nagasaki University x
among the selected list of
Local Public universities
Aizu University x
Private
Keio University x x x
Waseda University x x x
Meiji University x
Sophia University x
Doshisha University x
Ritsumeikan University x
21
Tokai University xCharacteristics of a World-Class University (WCU):
Alignment of Key Factors
②
① ③
22
Source: Created by Jamil Salmi– Abundant resources:
• Japan: started as “Excellence Initiatives” (e.g. 21COE, Global COE, and WPI);
however …the shift of focus from funding research activities directly to the
governance reform in research and Internationalization —> The purpose to
accumulate resources for research excellence has become unclear.
– Concentration of talent:
• A domestic screening system of students to top universities have continued to
function; however, facing a gap between existing national curriculum and
competences that are required in the globalized labor market even among
Japanese top universities.
• International student & faculty recruitment: Numerical targets were set based on
the request from the government; not necessarily based on internal needs of
universities for a better education and research, but for meeting the criteria of
world university rankings.
• Brain circulation (returns of academics trained overseas): Included as a part of the
performance assessment, but lacking a clear institutional strategy.
– Favorable governance:
• Potential risk of micromanagement by the government through the funding
projects
• Supportive regulatory framework: Japan (traditionally) —> is being lost!
• Autonomy, academic freedom: Japan (traditionally) —> became weak!
• Leadership team, Strategic vision: ??? —> has become more visible and
systematized by the projects and assessment by the government —> not
necessarily driven by the universities!
• Culture of Excellence: top among East Asian universities to some degree —> is 23
being lost!Conclusion
• The construction of “world class universities” does not only
implies concentrated financial investment, but also a
comprehensive transformation of university governance in a
global context. (Though the context was not defined by autonomous
decisions of the universities by government policy forces in Japan.)
• Considerable overlap exists between the lists of universities
selected for the various funding projects.
—> The gap may have widened between these top
universities and universities with defined international
profiles and other colleges and universities.
• Japan’s top universities—represented by the former
imperial universities and the long-established prestigious
private universities—tend to strengthen their capacity by
successfully participating in funded projects.
• Other colleges and universities in the middle and lower
ranges cater more to the domestic student and labor
market and have insufficient funding for
internationalization.
24What comes next?
“Categorization” of performance funding schemes among 86 national universities based on self choice: (2016-2021): 1. 55 universities serving for local communities with globally and nationally competitive education and research in specific fields 2. 15 universities conducting globally and nationally competitive education and research in specific fields 3. 16 universities conducting globally distinguished education, research and social contribution in all the fields, and compete with globally competitive overseas universities
Restructuring the national Idea of financial reforms of
universities: reconsider the national universities by the
school and program Ministry of Finance
provision, especially in
• 1% reduction every year
• A general study program
not linked to teacher’s in allocation for
license at teachers’ operational budget to
training schools national universities
• Reconsideration of • National universities are
humanities and social expected to increase the
science programs to fit to self generated income
the contemporary social such as tuition and fees,
demand income from industries…Challenges for Japanese Research
Universities
• The effect of the government-led transformation of university
governance through the process of internationalization is still unclear.
• Challenges
1. Japanese universities’ weak exposure to market mechanisms, which
are incentives to participate in the competition for international
academic resources, may set limits on these institutions’ further
improvement in international competitiveness.
2. The tension between the desire for a global or cosmopolitan profile
and the preservation of national identity—as well as between the
drive in state policy towards efficiency and the decentralized nature
of academic autonomy—are becoming more apparent.
• The internationalization of a wider range of education and research
institutions must be pursued, as a nation, to stimulate domestic
competition in the internationalization of the education system and
Japan’s society as a whole.
28非常感謝！
29You can also read
