Table of Contents

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION

NUMBER 40, SUMMER 2005

The Reintroduction of Accreditation in Japan: A Government Initiative

Akiyoshi Yonezawa
Akiyoshi Yonezawa is associate professor at the National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE), Japan. Address: NIAD-UE, 1-29-1 Gakuen-Nishi, Kodaira, Tokyo 187-8587, Japan. E-mail: yonezawa@niad.ac.jp. URL: http://svrrd2.niad.ac.jp/faculty/yonezawa.

Accreditation is a hot topic all over the world, with the development of the international student market stimulating government intervention on accreditation issues. No exception to this intensifying trend, Japan is now taking measures to strengthen its accreditation system through strong initiatives on the part of the national government to promote quality assurance in higher education. As of 2004, legislation requires all public and private universities, junior colleges, and colleges of technology to be accredited by an evaluation organization authorized by the national government. In the Japanese case, it appears that the main driving forces for developing an accreditation system have always originated outside the universities.

Post¡©-World War II: The Introduction of Accreditation
Accreditation in Japanese higher education has a long history as a nongovernment endeavor. Under the U.S. occupation (1945¡©-1950), the Japan University Accreditation Association (JUAA) was established in 1947 to provide nongovernment institutional accreditation. After the recovery of national independence, however, the Ministry of Education established governmental "Standards for University Establishment." As a result, nongovernment accreditation through the JUAA lost substantial influence, having become a "voluntary" process without any sanctions.

Until quite recently, neither the government nor higher education institutions made use of the JUAA accreditation system, while a majority of universities supported the JUAA as a symbol of university ownership in quality matters. In the 1990s, debate over university evaluation focused mainly on the assessment of university performance rather than on accreditation or quality assurance. Universities and junior colleges initiated self-evaluation at the strong urging of the ministry. In 2000, the National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE), an organization established by the government, launched a national pilot project concerning higher education evaluation. The project, modeled after British quality assessment in education and research, was not yet an accreditation initiative at this point.

A New Governmental Accreditation Initiative
At the turn of the 21st century, the Japanese government began to focus on the need for a renewed accreditation system. This trend was clearly influenced by discussions at the World Trade Organization and the European accreditation movement concerning education services. The first official argument for promoting quality assurance was presented in a University Council report, "Higher Education in Global Age." The need for quality assurance and accreditation was discussed in the context of cross-border and professional education, both of which require international recognition of their qualifications. In 2002, the Central Council for Education in the Ministry of Education issued a report, "Construction of New Quality Assurance System for Universities." The report referred to trends in European countries regarding accreditation and explained the need for quality assurance in the context of international competition and cross-border provision of education, rather than in terms of domestic requirements for quality improvement.

Japan's School Education Act was amended in 2002, with the new accreditation scheme starting in 2004. Through these developments, the government authorized several accreditation organizations, and all public and private universities, junior colleges, and colleges of technology were required to undergo the accreditation process every seven years.

As pointed out by Rie Mori of NIAD-UE, the critical difference between the American and new Japanese system of accreditation is found in their respective approaches to voluntarism. While government guidelines for authorizing accreditation organizations were based on the American federal government guidelines for scholarship, the Japanese approach differs notably from the U.S. system because it is based on governmental accreditation organizations. As a governmental organization, NIAD-UE was therefore allowed to serve alongside nongovernmental organizations, such as the JUAA. On the other hand, the U.S. Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) acknowledges that most countries involve national bodies in accreditation; in this sense, Japan followed the prevailing global trend.

Accreditation or Market Pressure
The recent reintroduction of accreditation in terms of quality assurance is an integral part of the Ministry of Education's strategy. First, the Japanese government is now urging the international community to establish a list of nationally authorized institutions (or other governmental control mechanisms) to protect quality in the world trade of education services. Second, the Ministry of Education is taking steps to conduct regularly scheduled quality assurance to compensate for the deregulation of government authorization for the establishment of higher education institutions.

The strong insistence by the government on its ownership of accreditation in Japan has inarguably contributed to confusion regarding the concept. Currently, the only reliable model of accreditation for Japan is the American, nongovernmental one, while the Japanese approach itself corresponds somewhat to newly developing European (and some other Asian) initiatives. A sense of ownership of the accreditation system is hardly shared by the Japanese universities. The universities, especially private ones, argue that the legal requirement of accreditation as it applies to private higher education institutions is a governmental trial to intervene in the autonomy of private universities. On the other hand, Japanese higher education institutions have never consolidated to protect their ownership of accreditation after being introduced by the American forces in the mid-20th century.

The new accreditation system of April 2004 has only just begun being implemented; it will take more than six years until all institutions will be included in the present accreditation process. Nevertheless, this new initiative represents a truly critical change in quality assurance policy in Japanese higher education, as until 2004 Japan lacked any national tool to effectively demonstrate the quality of its higher education.

No accreditation system can be expected to adequately address quality assurance in university education without a strong commitment on the part of institutions based on a sense of ownership. As mentioned earlier, Japanese institutions do not yet perceive ownership of accreditation processes, resulting in their lingering reluctance to be monitored or evaluated. If existing conditions in Japan continue, growing international and local market pressures are likely to have a far greater influence than the accreditation system itself for assuring and improving the higher education standards.

[Online] Available: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number40/p20_Yonezawa.htm