Japan Institution for Higher Education Evaluation

Membership Type: Full
Email: hyoukakikou@jihee.or.jp
Year in which Organisation/Agency commenced operations: 2004

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Title: Dr.
First Name: Noriaki
Surname: Sagara
Job Title: President
Phone: 81-3-5211-5131
Email Id: hyoukakikou@jihee.or.jp

Nominated Contact Person (if different from CEO)

First Name: Toshihiro
Surname: Ito
Job Title: Secretary General
Email Id: hyoukakikou@jihee.or.jp

Organisation Details

Japan Institution for Higher Education Evaluation
Address: 4-2-11 Kudan-kita, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
Japan
Website: http://www.jihee.or.jp/en/

Additional Contacts

Criteria Requirements for Full Member

1 Criterion: Nature of the operations of the agency:
Measure: The agency is responsible for reviews at institutional or programme level of post-secondary
education institutions or post-secondary quality assurance agencies
Description: http://www.jihee.or.jp/download/ninsyousyo.pdf

JIHEE was certified by the Minister of MEXT as an institution to evaluate universities (2005)


http://www.jihee.or.jp/download/tanki_ninsyosyo.pdf

JIHEE was certified by the Minister of MEXT as an institution to evaluate junior colleges (2009)
2 Criterion: Mission statement and objectives:
Measure: The agency has formulated a mission statement and objectives which are consistent with the nature of the agency
Description: http://www.jihee.or.jp/en/evaluation/univ_guidelines.html#sec02

Object of Evaluation
Fully accredited universities and other institutions.
3 Criterion: Agency staff, Numbers, Profile, Roles:
Measure: The profile of the staff is consistent with the Mission Statement
Description: http://www.jihee.or.jp/en/about/staff.html


Executive Staff
President Noriaki Sagara

Executive Director Masahiko ISHII
Director
Division of University Evaluation
Division of Research and Development Toshihiro ITO

We have 16 staff.


http://www.jihee.or.jp/en/evaluation/univ_guidelines.html#sec01

Evaluation Objectives
The evaluations conducted by JIHEE at the behest of the institutions of higher education are implemented in accordance with the following objectives for the purpose of contributing to the further development of the universities of Japan.

(1) To evaluate the overall situation of institutions of higher education, including educational and research activities, on the basis of the Evaluation Standards developed by JIHEE taking into consideration the analysis of results of self-study/evaluation, to verify the self-study/evaluation and to support the institutions? efforts to strengthen quality assurance on their own initiative.

(2) To provide support that enables institutions of higher education to attain the backing of the general public through appropriate disclosure of their educational and research activities.

(3) To assist and promote the autonomous development of educational and research activities on the strength of each institution?s unique character and distinctive quality through evaluation that considers the institution?s individuality and different features.
4 Criterion: Profile of reviewers:
Measure: The profile of the reviewers is consistent with the Mission Statement
Description: http://www.jihee.or.jp/en/evaluation/univ_guidelines.html#sec01

(1) System of Implementation of Evaluation

Evaluation teams formed by the University and College Evaluation Board (herein referred to as the ?Evaluation Board?), and consisting of evaluators gathered from among affiliates of national, public and private universities and individuals knowledgeable in various fields, such as sociology, economics, and culture, are established to conduct actual evaluations. Evaluators are selected from among registered affiliates of a wide range of universities and colleges. The constituents of each evaluation team are determined taking into consideration the diversity of the educational and research fields and localities of the institution undergoing evaluation. In addition, although teams generally consist of 5 members, the size of the team can vary depending on the scale and departmental structure of an institution.

The Evaluation Board consists of approximately 15 members who are selected by the Board of Trustees of the JIHEE on the basis of recommendations solicited from national, municipal and private institutions of higher education, academic societies and economic organizations. 10 members are selected from candidates from national, municipal and private institutions of higher education and 5 from academic societies and economic organizations. However, evaluators who are directly affiliated with the following national, municipal and private institutions of higher education are not permitted to participate in the evaluations of these institutions.

【The scope of institutional affiliation of Evaluators and Evaluation Board members】
Graduates of the institution to be evaluated
Evaluators currently (or planning to be) employed full-time or concurrently by, or who were formerly employed within the past 5 years by the institution to be evaluated
Evaluators currently (or planning to be) executives, or who were within the past 5 years formerly executives of the institution to be evaluated
Evaluators currently (or planning to be) affiliated, or who were within the past 5 years formerly affiliated with an organization examining important matters related to the education, research activities or management of the institution to be evaluated
Affiliates of local or neighboring competitor institutions
Any other individual deemed inappropriate by the JIHEE
(2) Evaluator Training

To ensure that the evaluations conducted by the JIHEE are as effective as possible, it is necessary to implement highly reliable evaluations based on objective perspectives and professional judgments. To this end, the JIHEE provides sufficient training regarding the objectives, content and methods of evaluation to ensure that evaluators all operate from a common base of understanding and that the evaluation process is fair, appropriate and efficient.

【Methods of Evaluator Training】
At the outset of evaluator training, JIHEE explains its evaluation system, including the purpose of third-party evaluation, implementation guidelines, Institutional Evaluation Standards, document screening, on-site visits, important points regarding how to write inspection reports, etc. This is followed by presentations from those who have experienced the process of evaluation and a question & answer session. Evaluators are divided into groups for implementation of workshops on document inspection, on-site visits, and writing inspection reports intended to make the evaluator pool homogeneous. Training is concluded with a comprehensive Q & A session and exchange of opinions.
5 Criterion: Independence:
Measure: The judgements and recommendations of the agency’s reports cannot be changed by third parties
Description: http://www.jihee.or.jp/en/evaluation/univ_guidelines.html#sec01

Implementation Methods, etc., of Evaluation
(1) Details of Evaluation Standards

1. The Evaluation Standards consist of 4 ?standards? designed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the educational activities of institutions of higher education. The details of these Evaluation Standards include a minimum of basic and common categories with the focus on education, providing regulations for each ?standard? that must be met by each institution.

2. Each ?standard? is established with ?perspectives of evaluation? that take into account the state of observance of the School Education Law and the University Establishment Standards.

3. In addition to these 4 standards, each institution is required to establish its own unique ?standard,? ?standards? and ?perspectives of evaluation? with regard to the areas on which importance is placed as representing the institution?s mission and goals as well as its individuality and distinctive quality.

(2) The Evaluation Process

The evaluation process can be generally described as follows.

1. Holding of explanatory meetings for describing the process of self-study and evaluation to institutions undergoing evaluation

JIHEE hosts explanatory meetings for the personnel in charge of self-evaluation for each of the institutions that apply for JIHEE evaluation, in order to explain the evaluation system, the method of evaluation and how to create the Self-Study Reports.

2. Institutional self-study and evaluations when undergoing certified evaluation and accreditation

Institutions intending to undergo evaluation will implement self-evaluation and prepare the Self-Study Reports based on the ?Handbook for Universities and Colleges? provided separately by JIHEE.
When preparing the Self-Study Reports, the institution will analyze the educational activities of departments and graduate school research divisions as necessary in line with the ?perspectives of evaluation? for each of the ?standards? based on the School Education Law and the University Establishment Standards and judge for itself whether or not the standards are ?satisfied? or ?unsatisfied? based on the evaluation results. With regard to this ?self-judgment,? it is necessary to briefly describe the ?reasons for self-judgment? (explanation of facts and self-evaluation) along with the relevant evidence. In addition to the ?perspectives of evaluation? set up by JIHEE, the institution may establish its own perspectives of evaluation for each of the ?standards? and include their description when applicable to the situation and objectives. Next, the institution is required to briefly describe the ?self-evaluation? for each ?standard? taking into account the results of overall judgment of the ?standards.? However, ?self-judgment? for each ?standard? is not required.

The ?Self-Study Reports? must be prepared in accordance with the ?Handbook for Universities and Colleges?

3. JIHEE Evaluations

(i) In accordance with the judgment standards set forth separately, JIHEE makes the following evaluations and judgments, based on the Self-Study Reports submitted by the evaluated institutions.

・ Evaluation is made from the viewpoint of whether the standards are ?satisfied? or ?unsatisfied? for each perspective for evaluation based on the ?perspectives of evaluation?.

・ Evaluation is made from the viewpoint of whether the standards are ?satisfied?, ?almost satisfied? or ?unsatisfied? for each standard based on the evaluations of the ?perspectives of evaluation?.

・ Evaluation is made from the comprehensive viewpoint of whether the ?evaluation standards? are satisfied or not and the institution is judged as ?suitable for accreditation,? ?deferral? or ?not suitable for accreditation.?
If the institution satisfies all of the four ?standards?, it is judged to be ?suitable for accreditation.?
If there is more than one unsatisfied ?standard? out of the four ?standards,? the institution in question is judged as ?not suitable for accreditation? or ?deferral? in accordance with the judgment standards set forth separately.

・ If it is determined by the Evaluation Board that an institution has intentionally acted in violation of social norms and ethics by making false reports or covering up the facts when preparing the ?Self-Study Reports? or undergoing the process of on-site on-site visits and JIHEE evaluation, it will be judged as ?not suitable for accreditation.?

(ii) If an institution judged ?deferral? is determined to have satisfied the ?standards? as a result of re-evaluation set forth separately, it will be judged as ?suitable for accreditation.? If it has not applied for re-evaluation within the deferral period specified by the Evaluation Board, it will be treated as ?not suitable for accreditation?


(iii) JIHEE also conducts an overall evaluation of the institution from the viewpoint of the obligation of accountability to society.

(iv) In addition, JIHEE provides comments on the contents of the institution?s own unique ?standards? as set forth in ?5-(1)-(3)? above.

(3) Evaluation Method

Evaluations are conducted through a process of document screening and on-site visits. Document screening includes an analysis of the Self-Study Reports (including the documentation and data submitted in support of the Self-Study Report) created and submitted by evaluated institutions in accordance with the ?Handbook for Universities and Colleges? provided separately. On-site visits are conducted on the basis of the separately provided ?Handbook for Evaluators? mainly to verify the Self-Study Reports and confirm compliance with the School Education Law and the University Establishment Standards, as well as to conduct investigations focusing on the problems and superior features pointed out in the process of document screening.

(4) Presenting Opinions

While evaluation results are expected to be used for the future improvement of the educational activities of evaluated institutions, they are also widely publicized to society at large, making it necessary to assure transparency of process, as well as accuracy of the results of evaluation.

Furthermore, since great importance is placed on communication with the institutions undergoing evaluation, JIHEE provides the institutions with 2 opportunities to present their opinions regarding the evaluation. The first opportunity gives the institution the chance to respond to the draft of the inspection report submitted by the evaluation team. The second opportunity is provided prior to the finalization of evaluation results, when a second draft of the evaluation results of the evaluation team is provided to the institution. A review is conducted of all opinions submitted.

However, in the case of the submission of opinions regarding drafts of evaluation reports recommending ?deferral? or ?unsuitable for accreditation,? in order to provide even greater objectivity to the process of consideration of the opinions submitted, the Evaluation Board shall establish an Opinion Review Subcommittee (provisional name) to examine the opinions prior to the finalization of findings of the Evaluation Board.
6 Criterion: Resources:
Measure: The agency has sufficient resources to run its operations in accordance with its mission statement and objectives
Description: http://www.jihee.or.jp/en/list/index.html

JIHEE has evaluated for 298 universities from 2004 to 2012
7 Criterion: External quality assurance criteria and processes:
Measure: The description of the processes and criteria applied should be transparent and publicly available and normally include:
self evaluation, site visit, public report and follow-up measure
Description: http://www.jihee.or.jp/en/evaluation/univ_guidelines.html#sec05

Implementation Methods, etc., of Evaluation
(1) Details of Evaluation Standards

1. The Evaluation Standards consist of 4 ?standards? designed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the educational activities of institutions of higher education. The details of these Evaluation Standards include a minimum of basic and common categories with the focus on education, providing regulations for each ?standard? that must be met by each institution.

2. Each ?standard? is established with ?perspectives of evaluation? that take into account the state of observance of the School Education Law and the University Establishment Standards.

3. In addition to these 4 standards, each institution is required to establish its own unique ?standard,? ?standards? and ?perspectives of evaluation? with regard to the areas on which importance is placed as representing the institution?s mission and goals as well as its individuality and distinctive quality.

(2) The Evaluation Process

The evaluation process can be generally described as follows.

1. Holding of explanatory meetings for describing the process of self-study and evaluation to institutions undergoing evaluation

JIHEE hosts explanatory meetings for the personnel in charge of self-evaluation for each of the institutions that apply for JIHEE evaluation, in order to explain the evaluation system, the method of evaluation and how to create the Self-Study Reports.

2. Institutional self-study and evaluations when undergoing certified evaluation and accreditation

Institutions intending to undergo evaluation will implement self-evaluation and prepare the Self-Study Reports based on the ?Handbook for Universities and Colleges? provided separately by JIHEE.
When preparing the Self-Study Reports, the institution will analyze the educational activities of departments and graduate school research divisions as necessary in line with the ?perspectives of evaluation? for each of the ?standards? based on the School Education Law and the University Establishment Standards and judge for itself whether or not the standards are ?satisfied? or ?unsatisfied? based on the evaluation results. With regard to this ?self-judgment,? it is necessary to briefly describe the ?reasons for self-judgment? (explanation of facts and self-evaluation) along with the relevant evidence. In addition to the ?perspectives of evaluation? set up by JIHEE, the institution may establish its own perspectives of evaluation for each of the ?standards? and include their description when applicable to the situation and objectives. Next, the institution is required to briefly describe the ?self-evaluation? for each ?standard? taking into account the results of overall judgment of the ?standards.? However, ?self-judgment? for each ?standard? is not required.

The ?Self-Study Reports? must be prepared in accordance with the ?Handbook for Universities and Colleges?

3. JIHEE Evaluations

(i) In accordance with the judgment standards set forth separately, JIHEE makes the following evaluations and judgments, based on the Self-Study Reports submitted by the evaluated institutions.

・ Evaluation is made from the viewpoint of whether the standards are ?satisfied? or ?unsatisfied? for each perspective for evaluation based on the ?perspectives of evaluation?.

・ Evaluation is made from the viewpoint of whether the standards are ?satisfied?, ?almost satisfied? or ?unsatisfied? for each standard based on the evaluations of the ?perspectives of evaluation?.

・ Evaluation is made from the comprehensive viewpoint of whether the ?evaluation standards? are satisfied or not and the institution is judged as ?suitable for accreditation,? ?deferral? or ?not suitable for accreditation.?
If the institution satisfies all of the four ?standards?, it is judged to be ?suitable for accreditation.?
If there is more than one unsatisfied ?standard? out of the four ?standards,? the institution in question is judged as ?not suitable for accreditation? or ?deferral? in accordance with the judgment standards set forth separately.

・ If it is determined by the Evaluation Board that an institution has intentionally acted in violation of social norms and ethics by making false reports or covering up the facts when preparing the ?Self-Study Reports? or undergoing the process of on-site on-site visits and JIHEE evaluation, it will be judged as ?not suitable for accreditation.?

(ii) If an institution judged ?deferral? is determined to have satisfied the ?standards? as a result of re-evaluation set forth separately, it will be judged as ?suitable for accreditation.? If it has not applied for re-evaluation within the deferral period specified by the Evaluation Board, it will be treated as ?not suitable for accreditation?


(iii) JIHEE also conducts an overall evaluation of the institution from the viewpoint of the obligation of accountability to society.

(iv) In addition, JIHEE provides comments on the contents of the institution?s own unique ?standards? as set forth in ?5-(1)-(3)? above.

(3) Evaluation Method

Evaluations are conducted through a process of document screening and on-site visits. Document screening includes an analysis of the Self-Study Reports (including the documentation and data submitted in support of the Self-Study Report) created and submitted by evaluated institutions in accordance with the ?Handbook for Universities and Colleges? provided separately. On-site visits are conducted on the basis of the separately provided ?Handbook for Evaluators? mainly to verify the Self-Study Reports and confirm compliance with the School Education Law and the University Establishment Standards, as well as to conduct investigations focusing on the problems and superior features pointed out in the process of document screening.

(4) Presenting Opinions

While evaluation results are expected to be used for the future improvement of the educational activities of evaluated institutions, they are also widely publicized to society at large, making it necessary to assure transparency of process, as well as accuracy of the results of evaluation.

Furthermore, since great importance is placed on communication with the institutions undergoing evaluation, JIHEE provides the institutions with 2 opportunities to present their opinions regarding the evaluation. The first opportunity gives the institution the chance to respond to the draft of the inspection report submitted by the evaluation team. The second opportunity is provided prior to the finalization of evaluation results, when a second draft of the evaluation results of the evaluation team is provided to the institution. A review is conducted of all opinions submitted.

However, in the case of the submission of opinions regarding drafts of evaluation reports recommending ?deferral? or ?unsuitable for accreditation,? in order to provide even greater objectivity to the process of consideration of the opinions submitted, the Evaluation Board shall establish an Opinion Review Subcommittee (provisional name) to examine the opinions prior to the finalization of findings of the Evaluation Board.

(5) Procedures for Amending Evaluation Standards, etc.

JIHEE endeavors to build a system of evaluation that most appropriately assesses the diverse activities of universities by making improvements as necessary to the Evaluation Standards, etc., giving due consideration to the opinions of institutions that have undergone evaluation, the evaluators that have been involved in the evaluation process, and other related parties as well as the results of institutional evaluation-related surveys and research conducted by JIHEE itself.

When amending Evaluation Standards and methods, the opinions of member institutions and comments from the public are presented
8 Criterion: Quality assurance:
Measure: The description of the processes and criteria applied should be transparent and publicly available and normally include:
self evaluation, site visit, public report and follow-up measure
Description: http://www.jihee.or.jp/en/evaluation/univ_guidelines.html#sec05

Publication of Evaluation Results and Information Disclosure
(1) An Evaluation Report describing the content of ?5-(2)-(3)? above is prepared and published.

(2) The Evaluation Report is submitted to the evaluated institution and the Minister of MEXT. In addition, the contents of evaluation are made available for public viewing through publications and on the JIHEE homepage. JIHEE will request that institutions undergoing evaluation post their Self-Study Reports on the institution?s official homepage. By creating links between the evaluated institution and JIHEE websites, it will be possible to view the Self-Study Reports of each university.

(3) As an organization responsible to the public, JIHEE places great importance on the transparency and objectivity of its organizational structure, and in addition to providing public disclosure of the items regulated by Article 169-1 of the School Education Law Execution Regulations, JIHEE strives to provide any information in its possession regarding evaluation, to the best of its ability and in the most appropriate manner.

(4) Any requests submitted for disclosure of documents under the (sole) ownership of JIHEE shall be processed in accordance with JIHEE regulations. As a general rule, however, documents provided by institutions of higher education that are in the possession of JIHEE shall not be disclosed.

10. Timing of Evaluation
(1) Evaluations are conducted once each year.

(2) Institutions seeking JIHEE evaluation shall submit application by the application deadline in accordance with the format provided for separately. Furthermore, when requests are received from an institution, JIHEE shall implement evaluation of the institution without delay, unless justifiable grounds for delay apply.

(3) JIHEE shall conduct evaluations of institutions undergoing evaluation every 7 years.

11. Publication and Submission of the Improvement Report, etc.
An institution that has been judged as ?not suitable for accreditation? and that has received recommendations for improvement is required to prepare an ?Improvement Report? to be made available to the general public.

Moreover, the institution should post the ?Improvement Report? on its homepage within the period specified by JIHEE as well as submit the report to JIHEE.

Proof of the organisation’s good standing with the local QA agency
http://www.jihee.or.jp/en/index.html

Criteria Requirements for Institutional Member

Institutional Member Criteria:
Measure: Institutional Members are institutions of higher education in the region that are in good standing with the relevant quality assurance agency if one exists.
Proof of recognition as a Higher Education Institution: Applicable Only For Institutional Members
Proof of the organisation’s good standing with the local QA agency: Applicable Only For Institutional Members

Criteria Requirements for Associate Member

Associate Member Criteria:
Measure:Associate Members are organisations with a major interest and active involvement in evaluation, accreditation and quality assurance in higher education, but without the responsibility for assuring the quality of institutions, education programs, or external quality assurance agencies
Applicable Only For Associate Members

Criteria Requirements for Intermediate Member

1 Criterion: Nature of the operations of the agency:
Measure: The agency is responsible for reviews at institutional or programme level of post-secondary education institutions or post-secondary quality assurance agencies
Description: Applicable Only For Intermediate Members
2 Criterion: Mission statement and objectives:
Measure: The agency has formulated a mission statement and objectives which are consistent with the nature of the agency
Applicable Only For Intermediate Members
3 Criterion: :
Proof of the organisation’s good standing with the local QA agency
Applicable Only For Intermediate Members

Criteria Requirements for Observer

Criterion For Observers:
Measure: APQN accepts as Observers organisations outside the Asia-Pacific region, including: external quality assurance agencies; institutions with a major interest in evaluation, accreditation and quality assurance in higher education; other regional networks that have major interests in and strong links with the region
Criteria Requirements for Observer: Applicable Only For Observers

Documentation and Fees

Additional Information: No additional information is required for my application
Upon approval of my application I agree to pay:
  • $500 (Initial Joining Fee: Full Member, Intermediate Member, Associate Member)
I will be applying for support for: None

Documents Submitted
















Located in: APQN Members

Contact Us

APQN Administrator
No. 202, South ShaanXi Road,
Shanghai, 200031, P.R. CHINA
Tel: +86 21 5403 1620
Fax: +86 21 5467 0198
Email: apqnsecretariat@163.com 

Our Location

Our Visitors

3108682
TodayToday262
This_WeekThis_Week2209
This_MonthThis_Month3900
All_DaysAll_Days3108682