Faculty perceptions of university governance in Japan and the United States

Comparative Education Review

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 61-71

  Ehara, Takekazu ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042859937     PISSN: 00104086     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/447479     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. H. R. Bowen and J. H. Schuster, American Professors: A National Resource Imperiled (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 21. For more on the characteristics of the American model of universities, refer to T. Ehara, Daigaku no Amerika moderu: Amerika no keiken to Nihon (The American model of universities: The American experience and Japan) (Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press, 1994).
2. H. R. Bowen and J. H. Schuster, American Professors: A National Resource Imperiled (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 21. For more on the characteristics of the American model of universities, refer to T. Ehara, Daigaku no Amerika moderu: Amerika no keiken to Nihon (The American model of universities: The American experience and Japan) (Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press, 1994).
3. See, e.g., The Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture, Government of Japan, ed., Wagakuni no bunkyo seisaku (Education policies in Japan), 1995 ed. (Tokyo: Printing Bureau, Ministry of Finance, 1996), pp. 110-30; K. Kitamura, Daigaku hyoka lo wa nanika? Akurediteshon no riron to jissai (What is academic evaluation? Theories and practices of accreditation) (Tokyo: Toshindo, 1993), pp. 28-33; S. Aoki, ed., Daigaku kaikaku to daigaku hyoka (University reform and academic evaluation) (Tokyo: Daigaku Kijun Kyokai, 1995), pp. 223-39; and D. L. Stufflebeam, "Institutional Self-Evaluation," in The International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies, ed. T. Husén and T. N. Postlethwaite, 10 vols. (Oxford: Pergamon, 1985), 5:2534-38.
4. See, e.g., The Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture, Government of Japan, ed., Wagakuni no bunkyo seisaku (Education policies in Japan), 1995 ed. (Tokyo: Printing Bureau, Ministry of Finance, 1996), pp. 110-30; K. Kitamura, Daigaku hyoka lo wa nanika? Akurediteshon no riron to jissai (What is academic evaluation? Theories and practices of accreditation) (Tokyo: Toshindo, 1993), pp. 28-33; S. Aoki, ed., Daigaku kaikaku to daigaku hyoka (University reform and academic evaluation) (Tokyo: Daigaku Kijun Kyokai, 1995), pp. 223-39; and D. L. Stufflebeam, "Institutional Self-Evaluation," in The International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies, ed. T. Husén and T. N. Postlethwaite, 10 vols. (Oxford: Pergamon, 1985), 5:2534-38.
5. See, e.g., The Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture, Government of Japan, ed., Wagakuni no bunkyo seisaku (Education policies in Japan), 1995 ed. (Tokyo: Printing Bureau, Ministry of Finance, 1996), pp. 110-30; K. Kitamura, Daigaku hyoka lo wa nanika? Akurediteshon no riron to jissai (What is academic evaluation? Theories and practices of accreditation) (Tokyo: Toshindo, 1993), pp. 28-33; S. Aoki, ed., Daigaku kaikaku to daigaku hyoka (University reform and academic evaluation) (Tokyo: Daigaku Kijun Kyokai, 1995), pp. 223-39; and D. L. Stufflebeam, "Institutional Self-Evaluation," in The International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies, ed. T. Husén and T. N. Postlethwaite, 10 vols. (Oxford: Pergamon, 1985), 5:2534-38.
6. See, e.g., The Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture, Government of Japan, ed., Wagakuni no bunkyo seisaku (Education policies in Japan), 1995 ed. (Tokyo: Printing Bureau, Ministry of Finance, 1996), pp. 110-30; K. Kitamura, Daigaku hyoka lo wa nanika? Akurediteshon no riron to jissai (What is academic evaluation? Theories and practices of accreditation) (Tokyo: Toshindo, 1993), pp. 28-33; S. Aoki, ed., Daigaku kaikaku to daigaku hyoka (University reform and academic evaluation) (Tokyo: Daigaku Kijun Kyokai, 1995), pp. 223-39; and D. L. Stufflebeam, "Institutional Self-Evaluation," in The International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies, ed. T. Husén and T. N. Postlethwaite, 10 vols. (Oxford: Pergamon, 1985), 5:2534-38.
7. The countries surveyed were the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Russia, Israel, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Australia, Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was responsible for publishing a version of the questionnaire in each country and for making sure the organization responsible for implementing the survey in each country mailed their own language version of the questionnaire to faculty members. In Japan, this was the Research Institute for Higher Education at Hiroshima University, and the research representative was Professor Akira Arimoto from Hiroshima University. Of the questionaires mailed, 19,486 were returned (40.6 response rate): 3,529 from the United States (46.5 response rate) and 1,889 from Japan (47.2 response rate). For an outline of this international survey, refer to Ernest Boyer, Philip Altbach, and Mary Jean Whitelaw, The Academic Profession: An International Perspective (Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1994); U. Teichler, "Comparative Higher Education: Potentials and Limits," Higher Education 32, no. 4 (December 1996): 431-65, esp. 458-59; and A. Arimoto and T. Ehara, eds., Daigaku kyoju no kokusai hikaku (International comparison of the academic profession) (Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press, 1996), pp. 28-38. I reanalyzed the original data from the Carnegie Foundation's International Survey of the Academic Profession. The calculations for the reanalysis were all done at the Kyoto University Data Processing Center. Data reanalyzed consist of 4-year higher educational institutions. Data from the United States were weighted in order to avoid response bias. Cross tabulations will be used to illustrate the analysis, and, unless otherwise noted, tables are significant at the 1 percent level.
8. The countries surveyed were the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Russia, Israel, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Australia, Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was responsible for publishing a version of the questionnaire in each country and for making sure the organization responsible for implementing the survey in each country mailed their own language version of the questionnaire to faculty members. In Japan, this was the Research Institute for Higher Education at Hiroshima University, and the research representative was Professor Akira Arimoto from Hiroshima University. Of the questionaires mailed, 19,486 were returned (40.6 response rate): 3,529 from the United States (46.5 response rate) and 1,889 from Japan (47.2 response rate). For an outline of this international survey, refer to Ernest Boyer, Philip Altbach, and Mary Jean Whitelaw, The Academic Profession: An International Perspective (Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1994); U. Teichler, "Comparative Higher Education: Potentials and Limits," Higher Education 32, no. 4 (December 1996): 431-65, esp. 458-59; and A. Arimoto and T. Ehara, eds., Daigaku kyoju no kokusai hikaku (International comparison of the academic profession) (Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press, 1996), pp. 28-38. I reanalyzed the original data from the Carnegie Foundation's International Survey of the Academic Profession. The calculations for the reanalysis were all done at the Kyoto University Data Processing Center. Data reanalyzed consist of 4-year higher educational institutions. Data from the United States were weighted in order to avoid response bias. Cross tabulations will be used to illustrate the analysis, and, unless otherwise noted, tables are significant at the 1 percent level.
9. The countries surveyed were the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Russia, Israel, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Australia, Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was responsible for publishing a version of the questionnaire in each country and for making sure the organization responsible for implementing the survey in each country mailed their own language version of the questionnaire to faculty members. In Japan, this was the Research Institute for Higher Education at Hiroshima University, and the research representative was Professor Akira Arimoto from Hiroshima University. Of the questionaires mailed, 19,486 were returned (40.6 response rate): 3,529 from the United States (46.5 response rate) and 1,889 from Japan (47.2 response rate). For an outline of this international survey, refer to Ernest Boyer, Philip Altbach, and Mary Jean Whitelaw, The Academic Profession: An International Perspective (Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1994); U. Teichler, "Comparative Higher Education: Potentials and Limits," Higher Education 32, no. 4 (December 1996): 431-65, esp. 458-59; and A. Arimoto and T. Ehara, eds., Daigaku kyoju no kokusai hikaku (International comparison of the academic profession) (Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press, 1996), pp. 28-38. I reanalyzed the original data from the Carnegie Foundation's International Survey of the Academic Profession. The calculations for the reanalysis were all done at the Kyoto University Data Processing Center. Data reanalyzed consist of 4-year higher educational institutions. Data from the United States were weighted in order to avoid response bias. Cross tabulations will be used to illustrate the analysis, and, unless otherwise noted, tables are significant at the 1 percent level.
10. Rover et al., pp. 21-22. However, as Clark argues, such a dichotomy as bureaucratic/collegial does not necessarily serve well, since there is much else to highlight if analysis is to stay reasonably close to reality. B. R. Clark, The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983), p. 108.
11. The governance in Japanese private universities is relatively similar to that in both public and private American universities, as far as the data reanalyzed here clarify, although Clark describes the private sector in Japan as bearing similarities to the American private sector: e.g., trustees, relatively strong campus administrators, etc. (see Clark, p. 131). To be precise, Japanese public universities are very different from the other three types.
12. However, it must be noted that the low percentage of female faculty and junior faculty in Japan, as shown in table 2, is not wholly representative. The Carnegic study undertaken in Japan sampled the more senior ranks where neither female nor junior faculty are prominent.
13. J. M. Gappa, Part-Time Faculty: Higher Education at a Crossroads. Association for the Study of Higher Education-Educational Resources Information Center (ASHE-ERIC) Higher Education Research Report no. 3 (Washington, D.C.: ASHE, 1984), pp. 15-21.
14. National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 1995 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1995), p. 230; and A. Ooc, "Hizyokin kyoin to daigaku keiei" (Part-time faculty and university management), IDE: Gendai no koto kyoiku (IDE: Contemporary higher education), no. 381 (October/November 1996): 14-23.
15. National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 1995 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1995), p. 230; and A. Ooc, "Hizyokin kyoin to daigaku keiei" (Part-time faculty and university management), IDE: Gendai no koto kyoiku (IDE: Contemporary higher education), no. 381 (October/November 1996): 14-23.
16. M. C. Mix, Tenure and Termination in Financial Exigency, Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)-ERIC Higher Education Research Report no. 3 (Washington, D.C.: ASHE, 1978), pp. 3-4; H. Rosovsky, The University: An Owner's Manual (New York: Norton, 1990), chap. 10; and M. L. Whicker, J. J. Kronenfeld, and R. A. Strickland, Getting Tenure (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1993), pp. 8-18.
17. M. C. Mix, Tenure and Termination in Financial Exigency, Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)-ERIC Higher Education Research Report no. 3 (Washington, D.C.: ASHE, 1978), pp. 3-4; H. Rosovsky, The University: An Owner's Manual (New York: Norton, 1990), chap. 10; and M. L. Whicker, J. J. Kronenfeld, and R. A. Strickland, Getting Tenure (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1993), pp. 8-18.
18. M. C. Mix, Tenure and Termination in Financial Exigency, Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)-ERIC Higher Education Research Report no. 3 (Washington, D.C.: ASHE, 1978), pp. 3-4; H. Rosovsky, The University: An Owner's Manual (New York: Norton, 1990), chap. 10; and M. L. Whicker, J. J. Kronenfeld, and R. A. Strickland, Getting Tenure (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1993), pp. 8-18.
19. M. J. Amey, "Faculty Recruitment, Promotion, and Tenure," in The Encyclopedia of Higher Education, ed. B. R. Clark and G. R. Neave, 4 vols. (Oxford: Pergamon, 1992), 3:1623-34; and K. Takagi, Amerika no daigaku to Pasonzu ( American universities and T. Parsons) (Tokyo: Nihon Hyoronsha, 1989), pp. 133-35, 140-41.
20. M. J. Amey, "Faculty Recruitment, Promotion, and Tenure," in The Encyclopedia of Higher Education, ed. B. R. Clark and G. R. Neave, 4 vols. (Oxford: Pergamon, 1992), 3:1623-34; and K. Takagi, Amerika no daigaku to Pasonzu ( American universities and T. Parsons) (Tokyo: Nihon Hyoronsha, 1989), pp. 133-35, 140-41.
21. Robert Birnbaum accounts for the emphasis Japanese faculty give research by saying that universities in Japan after World War II modeled themselves on the prestigious prewar universities that emphasized research over teaching unlike the prewar nonuniversity teaching institutions of less repute. To this day, in Japan, research legitimates the faculty role. R. Birnbaum, "Professor and Sensei: The Construction of Faculty Roles in the United States and Japan" (paper presented at the international conference and twenty-first annual meeting of the ASHE, Memphis, Tenn., October 31, 1996), p. 5.
22. J. H. Schuster, D. G. Smith, K. A. Corak, and M. M. Yamada, Strategic Governance: How to Make Big Decisions Better (Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx, 1994), pp. 7-8.
23. For example, only 25.2 percent of faculty in Japanese private universities believe that they are kept informed about what is going on at their institution, while 34.8 percent, which is 10 percent lower than the average, of faculty in Japanese public universities believe that communication between the faculty and the administration is poor.
24. C. E. Floyd, Faculty Participation in Decision Making: Necessity or Luxury? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report no. 8 (Washington, D.C.: ASHE, 1985), pp. 6-7; P. Williams, W. Gore, C. Broches, and C. Lostoski, "One Faculty's Perceptions of Its Governance Role," Journal of Higher Education 58, no. 6 (November/December 1987): 629-57, esp. 633; and T. Ehara, Gendai Amerika no daigaku: Posuto taishuka o mezashite (American higher education in the era of postmassification) (Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press, 1994), pp. 196-97.
25. C. E. Floyd, Faculty Participation in Decision Making: Necessity or Luxury? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report no. 8 (Washington, D.C.: ASHE, 1985), pp. 6-7; P. Williams, W. Gore, C. Broches, and C. Lostoski, "One Faculty's Perceptions of Its Governance Role," Journal of Higher Education 58, no. 6 (November/December 1987): 629-57, esp. 633; and T. Ehara, Gendai Amerika no daigaku: Posuto taishuka o mezashite (American higher education in the era of postmassification) (Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press, 1994), pp. 196-97.
26. C. E. Floyd, Faculty Participation in Decision Making: Necessity or Luxury? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report no. 8 (Washington, D.C.: ASHE, 1985), pp. 6-7; P. Williams, W. Gore, C. Broches, and C. Lostoski, "One Faculty's Perceptions of Its Governance Role," Journal of Higher Education 58, no. 6 (November/December 1987): 629-57, esp. 633; and T. Ehara, Gendai Amerika no daigaku: Posuto taishuka o mezashite (American higher education in the era of postmassification) (Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press, 1994), pp. 196-97.
27. See, e.g., Ernest Boyer, College: The Undergraduate Experience in America (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), p. 246.
28. Sheila Slaughter, "Political Action, Faculty Authority, and Retrenchment: A Decade of Academic Freedom, 1970-1980," in Higher Education in American Society, ed. P. G. Altbach and R. O. Berdahl (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1981), pp. 73-100; P. G. Altbach, "The Academic Profession," in International Higher Education: An Enyclopedia, ed. P. G. Altbach, 2 vols. (New York: Garland, 1991), 1:32: and S. Kurokawa, Akagari jidai no Beikoku daigaku (American universities in the era of red purge) (Tokyo: Tyuo Koronsha, 1994), p. 111.
29. Sheila Slaughter, "Political Action, Faculty Authority, and Retrenchment: A Decade of Academic Freedom, 1970-1980," in Higher Education in American Society, ed. P. G. Altbach and R. O. Berdahl (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1981), pp. 73-100; P. G. Altbach, "The Academic Profession," in International Higher Education: An Enyclopedia, ed. P. G. Altbach, 2 vols. (New York: Garland, 1991), 1:32: and S. Kurokawa, Akagari jidai no Beikoku daigaku (American universities in the era of red purge) (Tokyo: Tyuo Koronsha, 1994), p. 111.
30. Sheila Slaughter, "Political Action, Faculty Authority, and Retrenchment: A Decade of Academic Freedom, 1970-1980," in Higher Education in American Society, ed. P. G. Altbach and R. O. Berdahl (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1981), pp. 73-100; P. G. Altbach, "The Academic Profession," in International Higher Education: An Enyclopedia, ed. P. G. Altbach, 2 vols. (New York: Garland, 1991), 1:32: and S. Kurokawa, Akagari jidai no Beikoku daigaku (American universities in the era of red purge) (Tokyo: Tyuo Koronsha, 1994), p. 111.
31. G. Rhoades, "Higher Education," in Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. M. C. Alkin, 6th ed., 4 vols. (NewYork: Macmillan, 1992), 2:583-92; Clark, chap. 8, esp. p. 264 (n. 4 above); and R. O. Berdahl and J. D. Millett, "Autonomy and Accountability in U.S. Higher Education," in Prometheus Bound: The Changing Relationship between Government and Higher Education Europe, ed. G. R. Neave and F. A. van Vught (Oxford: Pergamon, 1991), pp. 215-38.
32. G. Rhoades, "Higher Education," in Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. M. C. Alkin, 6th ed., 4 vols. (NewYork: Macmillan, 1992), 2:583-92; Clark, chap. 8, esp. p. 264 (n. 4 above); and R. O. Berdahl and J. D. Millett, "Autonomy and Accountability in U.S. Higher Education," in Prometheus Bound: The Changing Relationship between Government and Higher Education Europe, ed. G. R. Neave and F. A. van Vught (Oxford: Pergamon, 1991), pp. 215-38.
33. G. Rhoades, "Higher Education," in Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. M. C. Alkin, 6th ed., 4 vols. (NewYork: Macmillan, 1992), 2:583-92; Clark, chap. 8, esp. p. 264 (n. 4 above); and R. O. Berdahl and J. D. Millett, "Autonomy and Accountability in U.S. Higher Education," in Prometheus Bound: The Changing Relationship between Government and Higher Education Europe, ed. G. R. Neave and F. A. van Vught (Oxford: Pergamon, 1991), pp. 215-38.
34. P. G. Altbach and V. Selvaratnam, eds., From Dependence to Autonomy; The Development of Asian Universities (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989), chap. 3; and P. G. Altbach, "Patterns in Higher Education Development: Towards the Year 2000," Prospects 21, no. 2 (1991): 189-203.
35. P. G. Altbach and V. Selvaratnam, eds., From Dependence to Autonomy; The Development of Asian Universities (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989), chap. 3; and P. G. Altbach, "Patterns in Higher Education Development: Towards the Year 2000," Prospects 21, no. 2 (1991): 189-203.