Developing University Social Responsibility: A Business Ethics Approach to Information Disclosure in Japan 9811654883, 9789811654886

Table of contents :
Foreword
Preface
Contents
About the Author
1 Introduction
1.1 Research Background and Proposed Research Questions
1.1.1 Research Background
1.1.2 Proposed Research Questions
1.2 Review of the Literature
1.2.1 Research on the Necessity of University Information Disclosure
1.2.2 Related Theories of University Information Disclosure
1.2.3 Studies on University Information Disclosure Practices
1.3 Shortcomings of Existing Research
1.4 The Present Approach: Strategic Disclosure Reflecting University Social Responsibility
1.5 The Purpose and Significance of This Research
1.5.1 The Purpose of This Research
1.5.2 The Significance of This Research
2 University Social Responsibility: Research Design
2.1 Theoretical Foundations of This Research
2.1.1 Stakeholders Theory
2.1.2 New Institutionalism Theory
2.1.3 Transparency-Restricting Power Theory
2.1.4 Information Sharing Theory
2.2 Definition of Core Concepts
2.2.1 Concept of University Social Responsibility
2.2.2 Boundary of University Social Responsibility
2.3 Research Methods
2.4 Research Routes
3 Japanese University Information Disclosure Practices: A Macroscopic Perspective
3.1 The State of Japanese Universities’ Information Disclosure
3.1.1 The Development of Japanese Universities’ Information Disclosure Policies
3.1.2 Institutional Background: The Amendments of Education Law
3.1.3 Social Background of Japanese University Information Disclosure
3.1.4 The Status Quo of Japanese University Information Disclosure
3.2 Features of Japanese University Information Disclosure
3.2.1 Background of University Information Disclosure in Japan
3.2.2 Good Examples of Universities in Information Disclosure
3.2.3 Motivations for University Information Disclosure in Japan
3.3 The Existing Problems in Japan’s University Information Disclosure
3.3.1 Degree of University Information Disclosure is not Unified
3.3.2 Data Collection of Universities Information Disclosure is not Unified
3.3.3 The Resulting Risks of University Information Disclosure
3.3.4 The Information Disclosure System that Could Improve Education Quality is Incomplete
4 Information Disclosure at National and Private Universities: A Microscopic Perspective
4.1 The Impact of Information Disclosure on Universities
4.1.1 Positive Impact of Information Disclosure on Universities
4.1.2 Negative Impact of Information Disclosure on Universities
4.2 Analysis of Information Disclosure Channels
4.3 Survey of Contents Most Required for Information Disclosure
4.4 Survey and Analysis of Satisfaction with Information Disclosure
4.4.1 Basic Information
4.4.2 Admission and Entrance Examination, Degree and Subject Information
4.4.3 Finance, Assets and Charging Information
4.4.4 Personnel and Teaching Resource Information
4.4.5 Teaching Quality and Management Information
4.4.6 Foreign Exchange and Cooperation Information
4.4.7 Other Information
4.5 Subtracting and System Structuring of Student Satisfaction Indicator for Information Disclosure of National and Private Universities
4.5.1 Subtract of First Class Indicators of Students’ Satisfaction with Information Disclosure at National and Private Universities
4.5.2 Subtract of Second Class Indicators of Students’ Satisfaction with Information Disclosure at Private and National Universities
4.5.3 Simulation and Construction of Information Disclosure Evaluation System for National and Private University Students Based on the Survey Results
4.6 Principal Factor Analysis of Information Disclosure
4.6.1 Principal Factors of Information Disclosure for National Universities
4.6.2 Principal Factors of Information Disclosure for Private Universities
4.7 Investigation on Views About University Information Disclosure Based on Scholar Interviews
4.7.1 Reasons Preventing Information Disclosure
4.7.2 Reasons Promoting Information Disclosure
4.7.3 Discussion About Enhancing the Inspection and Neediness of University Information Disclosure
4.8 Conclusion
4.8.1 Motivation of Information Disclosure for National and Private Universities Are Separately School Reform and Attraction of Students
4.8.2 The Negative Factors for Information Disclosure Are Both Risks
4.8.3 National Universities Need Accountability Mechanisms Most While Private Universities Need to Broaden Their Information Disclosure Channels
4.8.4 Apparent Differences Exist in Student Satisfaction Indicators Between National and Private Universities
4.8.5 National Universities Pay Most Attention to Student-Related Information Disclosure While Private Universities Pay Most Attention to Management Information Disclosure
5 A Study of Japanese University Information Disclosure from a Risk and Opportunity Perspective: Towards a “Visualization” Framework
5.1 Background of Information Disclosure in Japanese Universities
5.2 The Japanese Government’s Promotion of Information Disclosure
5.2.1 Governmental Deliberations Over Information Disclosure
5.2.2 The Discussion of Problems with Educational Information Disclosure
5.2.3 The Basic Idea Behind MEXT’s Initiatives
5.2.4 Amending the School Education Law Implementation Rules
5.3 The Status of Japanese University Information Disclosure
5.3.1 Disclosure of Basic Educational and Financial and Operating Information
5.3.2 Information Disclosure Trends
5.4 University: A Case Study of Information Disclosure
5.4.1 Information Disclosure as an Essential Facet of Educational Reform
5.4.2 Information Transparency as the Responsibility of Every University
5.4.3 Coordinating with Public Relations to Facilitate More Direct Disclosure
5.4.4 An Increasing Focus on Teaching Content and Evaluation
5.5 More Effective Approach to Disclosure
5.5.1 What Are the Risks and Opportunities of Information Disclosure?
5.5.2 Basic Steps to Avoid Risk and Seize Opportunities
5.5.3 Strategic Disclosure Priorities to Secure a Competitive Advantage
5.5.4 Improving the Disclosure Process
5.6 Conclusion: An Existential Crisis as an Incentive for Further Disclosure
6 Designing a University Information Disclosure Framework Based on University Social Responsibility
6.1 The Aim of Information Disclosure: Social Responsibility Towards Stakeholders
6.2 Construction of University Information Disclosure Framework Based on Social Responsibility
6.3 Social Responsibility-Based Management of University Information Disclosure
6.3.1 Promoting Education Reformation Based on the Idea of University Social Responsibility
6.3.2 Content Recognition of Information Disclosure Based on Stakeholder Theory
6.3.3 Emphasis on University Information Disclosure Projects from Various Perspectives
6.3.4 Strategic Points for Realizing Social Responsibility
6.3.5 Major Topics for Information Disclosure
6.3.6 Process of Systematic Information Disclosure
6.3.7 New Trends in Information Disclosure
7 Conclusions and Prospects
7.1 Research Conclusions
7.1.1 Comprehensive Strategic Disclosure
7.1.2 General Conclusions
7.1.3 Conclusions Based on Student Questionnaire
7.2 Major Contributions of This Research
7.2.1 A Systematic Review of Disclosure Information
7.2.2 Micro, Macro and Organizational Structure Analysis
7.2.3 A Framework for Enhanced Disclosure Based on Social Responsibility
7.2.4 Contribution for the COVID-19 Situation on University Social Responsibility
7.3 Directions for Future Research
7.3.1 The Need for Practical Systems of Disclosure
7.3.2 The Need for Institutional Designs Based on Social Responsibility
7.3.3 Building a System of Indicators
7.3.4 Direction for the Post COVID-19 Era Research on University Social Responsibility
7.4 A Vision of Transparency Separate and Apart from Disclosure Regulations
Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure
Appendix B: Interview Outline of the Construction of University Information Disclosure System
References
Index

Citation preview

Keikoh Ryu

Developing University Social Responsibility A Business Ethics Approach to Information Disclosure in Japan

Developing University Social Responsibility

Keikoh Ryu

Developing University Social Responsibility A Business Ethics Approach to Information Disclosure in Japan

123

Keikoh Ryu College of Business Administration Ritsumeikan University Ibaraki, Osaka, Japan

ISBN 978-981-16-5488-6 ISBN 978-981-16-5489-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5489-3

(eBook)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Foreword

It is a great honor for me to write a foreword for Prof. Keikoh Ryu’s new book, Developing University Social Responsibility: A Business Ethics Approach to University Information Disclosure in Japan, a high-quality research paper that was presented at the International Conference on Post-Corona Society and Business Ethics: From Egoism to Altruism, which was successfully hosted on September 10, 2020, in Japan. Please allow me to express my sincere appreciation for the book writer, Prof. Ryu. Nowadays, the university is a unique social organization. On the one hand, it generates and spreads knowledge; on the other hand, it cultivates and educates elites and professionals in all walks of life. For this reason, the university shoulders special social responsibilities. It exerts profound influence on the society through its daily operation, behavior and even public image. The university is a competitive nonprofit organization that needs to win public understanding and support. To it, the development of public relations really matters. Therefore, I am glad to see that the International Conference on Post-Corona Society and Business Ethics: From Egoism to Altruism successfully served as a platform for advancing the frontiers of research on university social responsibility, carrying out high-level international exchanges and cooperation, expanding the international perspective of higher education research and providing for the exchange of new achievements in the field of social responsibility research in universities. The conference brought together leading research scholars, educators and practitioners from all over the world to share their experiences and research results. The conference papers embody scholars’ high attention to the relationship between post-corona society and university social responsibility, as well as to the task of incorporating corporate social responsibility into the framework of higher education. In this book, Prof. Ryu sets university information disclosure as his starting point and puts forward his own unique thinking and analysis on university social responsibility. As proposed by Prof. Ryu, the university is not a lonely

v

vi

Foreword

organization; it is situated within a framework of public relations co-constructed together with various other social organizations. Information disclosure has become an important mechanism and process for coordination between universities and other organizations to be transparent, unified, integrated and in good order. It also acts as a link through which, on the one hand, the activities between universities and other social organizations become ordered, and on the other hand, separate entities are merged into a new organization that concentrates the entities’ individual powers into a robust joint force. This is a win-win development that is beneficial to both the university and the social organizations. In the writing of this book, Prof. Ryu has employed organizational theories for higher education and methods for social science analysis. His observation and experience of the university systems in Japan, China and the USA offer a solid basis for conducting this study in a unique comparative perspective. The research data are plentiful and informative, combining cases with system data. In the analysis, he innovatively and prospectively includes and furthers the frontier research results in this field. Now, universities are going global, and Prof. Ryu’s study comes at just the right time; it has practical significance to researchers and managers of higher education. Also, in the writing of this book, Prof. Ryu is more an insightful and rational observer of higher education than a researcher of the information disclosure practices of universities. He tries his best to form his own understandings and judgments. While discussing educational information disclosure in Japan, he is also eyeing such practices in universities in China and the USA and making comparisons as well as doing referential analyses. He strives to articulate the general ideology and value of university information disclosure and governance. In this sense, by researching university information disclosure and governance, Prof. Ryu is basically studying the new and future trends and orientations of higher education and searching for directions for the future of higher education using examples from around the world. Today, the relationship between higher education and the broader society has advanced. It has transformed from “higher education in the society,” in which higher education institutions were relatively independent and did not require much outside support or attention to social needs, to “higher education of the society.” Universities are now blessed with financial support from broader society and tax preferences from the government, and so they should respond to a broader range of social needs. Toward this end, universities must shoulder the social responsibility of providing the public with accurate and valid information about themselves. This is especially true in today’s information age. Finally, it is hoped that Prof. Ryu’s book will help identify further areas of research involving the concepts and principles underlying the incorporation of social responsibility into a framework for higher education. Ideally, this approach will ensure that every stakeholder is provided with meaningful access to socially beneficial programs, and that transparency takes precedence over other

Foreword

vii

considerations when it comes to the improvement of educational oversight and university administration. Thanks again to Prof. Ryu and his achievements in furthering the research of developing university social responsibility! June 2021

Dr. Gary Mukai Director of the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education Stanford University Stanford, USA

Preface

Unlike commercial enterprises or government agencies, universities are not inherently hierarchical, and their teaching, research and administrative functions tend to be interwoven in a complex and close framework. This makes any understanding of their internal workings extremely difficult, even to those who spend their lives working in academia. Hence in the modern information era, which in Japan has been characterized by an aging population as well as a deepening distrust of the traditional university curriculum, increasing attention has been paid to the role of information disclosure. This book analyzes the growing importance of information disclosure in Japanese universities in the context of the country’s changing circumstances from both a macroscopic and microscopic perspective, with a particular focus on the concept of universities as organizations. This macroscopic analysis is based on available data concerning the various information disclosure practices of Japanese universities and includes a discussion of their strengths and weaknesses. As for the microscopic analysis, questionnaires and various other quantitative methods have been used to study overall satisfaction with the level of disclosure among students and teachers in public and private universities. The results of these surveys have been analyzed to identify the main factors informing students’ views on the subject. Finally, additional insights into the practice of information disclosure in Japanese universities have been provided through a series of representative case studies, which should help promote further study concerning the practical applications of such disclosure. Based on the above analysis, this book proposes a social responsibility-based business ethics approach to university information disclosure, which incorporates stakeholder theory-based identification of public information content, an underlying focus on disclosure as a means to realize universities’ social responsibilities, identification of the types of information that universities should seek to disclose, recommendations for developing a framework for the systematic disclosure of such information and recent disclosure trends. As part of this approach, recommendations concerning the arrangement of different sources of information, thoughts on building a publicly accessible platform for sharing university information and key ix

x

Preface

points underlying the systematic disclosure of information within universities are also proposed. In general, all of the evidence suggests that broad and proactive information disclosure will become an essential prerequisite for the survival and sustainability of Japanese universities going forward. However, in order to achieve this, it will be necessary to establish a unified and systematic platform for the distribution of university information as well as overcoming various obstacles currently in place which hinder the search and retrieval of such information. It is hoped that by focusing on the role of information disclosure in the context of social responsibility, Japanese universities will be incentivized to take the necessary measures to ensure their own survival. In addition, this book massively extended one of my previous researches on stakeholder social responsibility on Japanese universities. Although the data structure is similar, this study added a brand new perspective of business ethics on the topic and hopefully will fulfill the gap in between the two research areas. Furthermore, in this research I also focused on the recent COVID-19 and its broad influence on social responsibility field and university education level. During the pandemic and the new trend of online study, the significance of university social responsibility and information disclosure became vital for both the short- and long-term sustainability developments of university education. Finally, this book should be helpful in identifying further areas of research, including but not limited to the ideas and legal principles underlying the construction of a university information disclosure system, the development of information disclosure systems based on social responsibility and the development of various standards for the disclosure of information. The ideal approach would ensure that all stakeholders are provided with meaningful access to relevant information and that transparency takes precedence over any competing considerations as part of an overriding effort to improve university administration and oversight. This book is also a part of the result of Scientific Research (C) of JSPS KAKENHI (Grant No. 20K02953) and was planned to be completed during my yearlong sabbatical research stay at Harvard University, which was postponed by the pandemic of COVID-19. Fortunately, I still managed to accomplish this research during my scholar visit at the University of Tokyo instead. Last but not least, I would like to thank my wife, Yuko. There have been too many days when I have left her and our two young daughters alone in order to work on this book, and I am forever grateful for her love and support. Ibaraki, Japan July 2021

Keikoh Ryu

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Research Background and Proposed Research Questions . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Research Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 Proposed Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Research on the Necessity of University Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Related Theories of University Information Disclosure . . . . 1.2.3 Studies on University Information Disclosure Practices . . . . 1.3 Shortcomings of Existing Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 The Present Approach: Strategic Disclosure Reflecting University Social Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 The Purpose and Significance of This Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.1 The Purpose of This Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.2 The Significance of This Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 University Social Responsibility: Research Design . . . . 2.1 Theoretical Foundations of This Research . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Stakeholders Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 New Institutionalism Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Transparency-Restricting Power Theory . . . . 2.1.4 Information Sharing Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Definition of Core Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Concept of University Social Responsibility . 2.2.2 Boundary of University Social Responsibility 2.3 Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Research Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 1 3 4 4 5 7 10 12 13 13 14 17 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 21 22 24

xi

xii

3 Japanese University Information Disclosure Practices: A Macroscopic Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 The State of Japanese Universities’ Information Disclosure . . . . 3.1.1 The Development of Japanese Universities’ Information Disclosure Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Institutional Background: The Amendments of Education Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 Social Background of Japanese University Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.4 The Status Quo of Japanese University Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Features of Japanese University Information Disclosure . . . . . . 3.2.1 Background of University Information Disclosure in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Good Examples of Universities in Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Motivations for University Information Disclosure in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Existing Problems in Japan’s University Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Degree of University Information Disclosure is not Unified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Data Collection of Universities Information Disclosure is not Unified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 The Resulting Risks of University Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 The Information Disclosure System that Could Improve Education Quality is Incomplete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents

.. ..

27 27

..

27

..

29

..

32

.. ..

33 38

..

38

..

39

..

39

..

40

..

40

..

40

..

41

..

41

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private Universities: A Microscopic Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 The Impact of Information Disclosure on Universities . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Positive Impact of Information Disclosure on Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Negative Impact of Information Disclosure on Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Analysis of Information Disclosure Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Survey of Contents Most Required for Information Disclosure . . . . 4.4 Survey and Analysis of Satisfaction with Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Basic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Admission and Entrance Examination, Degree and Subject Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 Finance, Assets and Charging Information . . . . . . . . . . . .

43 45 45 48 51 53 56 58 59 61

Contents

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

xiii

4.4.4 Personnel and Teaching Resource Information . . . . . . . . 4.4.5 Teaching Quality and Management Information . . . . . . . 4.4.6 Foreign Exchange and Cooperation Information . . . . . . 4.4.7 Other Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subtracting and System Structuring of Student Satisfaction Indicator for Information Disclosure of National and Private Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Subtract of First Class Indicators of Students’ Satisfaction with Information Disclosure at National and Private Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 Subtract of Second Class Indicators of Students’ Satisfaction with Information Disclosure at Private and National Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.3 Simulation and Construction of Information Disclosure Evaluation System for National and Private University Students Based on the Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Principal Factor Analysis of Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . 4.6.1 Principal Factors of Information Disclosure for National Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.2 Principal Factors of Information Disclosure for Private Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Investigation on Views About University Information Disclosure Based on Scholar Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.1 Reasons Preventing Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.2 Reasons Promoting Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.3 Discussion About Enhancing the Inspection and Neediness of University Information Disclosure . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8.1 Motivation of Information Disclosure for National and Private Universities Are Separately School Reform and Attraction of Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8.2 The Negative Factors for Information Disclosure Are Both Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8.3 National Universities Need Accountability Mechanisms Most While Private Universities Need to Broaden Their Information Disclosure Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8.4 Apparent Differences Exist in Student Satisfaction Indicators Between National and Private Universities . . . 4.8.5 National Universities Pay Most Attention to Student-Related Information Disclosure While Private Universities Pay Most Attention to Management Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

62 63 66 67

..

69

..

69

..

70

.. ..

71 71

..

72

..

79

.. .. ..

84 84 90

.. ..

91 92

..

92

..

93

..

93

..

94

..

95

. . . .

xiv

5 A Study of Japanese University Information Disclosure from a Risk and Opportunity Perspective: Towards a “Visualization” Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Background of Information Disclosure in Japanese Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 The Japanese Government’s Promotion of Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Governmental Deliberations Over Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 The Discussion of Problems with Educational Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 The Basic Idea Behind MEXT’s Initiatives . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 Amending the School Education Law Implementation Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 The Status of Japanese University Information Disclosure . . . . 5.3.1 Disclosure of Basic Educational and Financial and Operating Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Information Disclosure Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 University: A Case Study of Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Information Disclosure as an Essential Facet of Educational Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Information Transparency as the Responsibility of Every University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3 Coordinating with Public Relations to Facilitate More Direct Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.4 An Increasing Focus on Teaching Content and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 More Effective Approach to Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 What Are the Risks and Opportunities of Information Disclosure? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2 Basic Steps to Avoid Risk and Seize Opportunities . . . 5.5.3 Strategic Disclosure Priorities to Secure a Competitive Advantage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.4 Improving the Disclosure Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Conclusion: An Existential Crisis as an Incentive for Further Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents

...

97

...

97

...

98

...

98

. . . 100 . . . 100 . . . 101 . . . 102 . . . 102 . . . 103 . . . 104 . . . 104 . . . 105 . . . 105 . . . 106 . . . 107 . . . 107 . . . 108 . . . 108 . . . 110 . . . 112

6 Designing a University Information Disclosure Framework Based on University Social Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 The Aim of Information Disclosure: Social Responsibility Towards Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Construction of University Information Disclosure Framework Based on Social Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Social Responsibility-Based Management of University Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 113 . . 113 . . 114 . . 115

Contents

xv

6.3.1 Promoting Education Reformation Based on the Idea of University Social Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Content Recognition of Information Disclosure Based on Stakeholder Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 Emphasis on University Information Disclosure Projects from Various Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4 Strategic Points for Realizing Social Responsibility . . . . 6.3.5 Major Topics for Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.6 Process of Systematic Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . 6.3.7 New Trends in Information Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Conclusions and Prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Research Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.1 Comprehensive Strategic Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2 General Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.3 Conclusions Based on Student Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 7.2 Major Contributions of This Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 A Systematic Review of Disclosure Information . . . . . . 7.2.2 Micro, Macro and Organizational Structure Analysis . . . 7.2.3 A Framework for Enhanced Disclosure Based on Social Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.4 Contribution for the COVID-19 Situation on University Social Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Directions for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 The Need for Practical Systems of Disclosure . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 The Need for Institutional Designs Based on Social Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.3 Building a System of Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.4 Direction for the Post COVID-19 Era Research on University Social Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 A Vision of Transparency Separate and Apart from Disclosure Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 116 . . 116 . . . . .

. . . . .

117 121 122 123 125

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

127 127 127 128 129 131 131 131

. . 131 . . 132 . . 132 . . 132 . . 132 . . 133 . . 133 . . 133

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure . . . . . 135 Appendix B: Interview Outline of the Construction of University Information Disclosure System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

About the Author

Keikoh Ryu is Professor of ethical economics and business ethics at Ritsumeikan University’s Graduate School of Business Administration, which is located in Osaka, Japan. He is also Director of the Japan Society for Business Ethics and Advisory Committee Member at the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education, Stanford University. With six academic degrees from the USA, China and Japan, including one bachelor degree, two master degrees and three Ph.D.s, his research involves political economics, sociology and philosophy. Having completed three doctoral degree programs from Peking University’s Graduate School of Education (PhD in education), Tsinghua University’s Graduate School of Philosophy (PhD in philosophy) and Waseda University’s Graduate School of Political Science and Economics (PhD in public management), his research spans the comparative and international areas of ethical economics and public management. Currently, his research primarily deals with cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary research methodology in business ethics and management philosophy. In 2010, Waseda University Press published his book titled “Creating Public Value: The Challenges of Localization for Japanese Corporations in China” (in English), which was also selected as a winner of the 2010 Emerald/EFMD Outstanding Doctoral Research Awards. Oxford University Press published his book titled “Globalization and Economic Nationalism in Asia” (in English, 2012). Most recently, Chikura Shobo in Tokyo published his book titled “Altruism and Responsibility: Research on INAMORI’s Business Ethics” (in Japanese, 2020). His research has also been published in the Journal of International Business, Corporate Communication Studies, and other scholarly academic journals.

xvii

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 1.1.1

Research Background and Proposed Research Questions Research Background

Like many European countries, Japan has a strong central government that is responsible for the administration of its system of public education. Therefore, despite the privatization of most Japanese industries, investment in the country’s system of national public universities has taken priority over private institutions, and the government has taken great pains to maintain academic standards while ensuring organizational consistency. The origins of the current system can be traced back to the early years of the Meiji Empire more than a hundred years ago, and it is modeled largely on European institutions that had been first established over 700 years earlier. Over the ensuing century, Japan has managed to perfect this system, founding several world-class universities and developing its own educational approach based on the fusion of foreign models with domestic priorities. The management of Japanese universities is generally considered an amalgamation of France’s centralized system and America’s more regionalized approach, in which the Ministry of Education retains overall authority to manage all of the country’s public universities, albeit circumscribed by law. The Fundamental Law of Education (kyōiku kihonhō), which serves as the basis for the interpretation and application of various laws and ordinances governing education in Japan, explains educational administration as follows: “Education should be directly responsible to the public, and not subject to improper orders.” At the same time, the philosophy and mechanisms underlying the management of Japanese universities are distinct from other countries, and are focused on maintaining the quality of university teaching, scientific research and social service. On the most basic level, Japan’s educational system is comprised of institutions of higher education, higher special schools, special schools and colleges and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 K. Ryu, Developing University Social Responsibility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5489-3_1

1

2

1

Introduction

universities, which are themselves comprised of national universities, public universities and private universities. In terms of administration, the system can be divided into a legal system, entrance examination system, academic management system, financial system and teaching system, all of which are constantly being improved and perfected. In addition to the Fundamental Law of Education, Japan’s educational system is also founded on Standards for the Establishment of Universities as well as the Private Education Law and the Private Education Promotion Law, both of which are designed to guide the management of private universities. As for the examination system, Japanese students are admitted to university based on their scores on entrance exams administered by the National Test Center for University Admissions as well as exams held by individual universities, which are designed to comprehensively test students’ knowledge, abilities and adaptability. Japan’s entrance exams consist of multiple individual tests and are characterized by a diverse selection method and evaluation scale. The management of Japanese academia is a distinctive system designed to further strengthen the basis of the country’s academic power, while the financial system remains key to setting the direction of educational development. Finally, with its emphasis on quality, Japan’s teaching system is tenure-based and focused on maintaining the quality of its professors and instructors. Besides the background of the general situation of Japanese universities, this study also included contents about the COVID-19 which affected the whole world in 2020. Without doubt the COVID-19 massively changed the campus culture and settings, where became a new challenging topic for the study of university social responsibility. How should the universities keep the education system running online is another problematic theme we would like to discuss. In this section, the background of COVID-19 and how it affected Japanese universities will be depicted. Corona Virus Disease 2019, referred to as “COVID-19”, named by the World Health Organization as “Coronavirus Disease 2019”, refers to the pneumonia caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus infection. Since December 2019, hospitals in Wuhan City, Hubei Province have successively discovered multiple cases of unexplained pneumonia with a history of exposure to the South China Seafood Market, which have now been confirmed as acute respiratory infectious diseases caused by the 2019 new coronavirus infection. As for the situation in Japan, the number of people infected with the new coronavirus infection in Japan was 85,339, and the number of deaths was 1597 (updated by Oct. 4, 2020). In addition, 5411 people required inpatient treatment, and 78,315 people recovered. By the requirement of the government, all Japanese universities needed to announce their regulations to prevent the expanding of the virus. As for one of the largest university with the most number of foreign students, Waseda University also prepared a list of regulations: the spring semester starting dated was postponed to April 20th and all of the classes were held online; Campus and building were closed for access of students without emergency, while student activities and clubs were cancelled or becoming online events. Although most of the protection were proved

1.1 Research Background and Proposed Research Questions

3

effective, until October 1st, 2020, 27 students, 3 professors and 1 researcher were found positive in COVID-19 test and 3 students were still under treatment. As for the fall semester, most of the classes were still held online and students and professors were still working remotely.

1.1.2

Proposed Research Questions

Unlike commercial enterprises or government agencies, universities are not inherently hierarchical or set up in an organized and clearly defined manner. For obvious reasons, this can make it difficult for prospective students and parents to gain an understanding of their internal workings and can even pose difficulties for those who spend their entire lives in academia. In the eyes of many Japanese, including college graduates themselves, universities remain ivory towers far removed from daily life. At the same time, many such institutions have been slow to realize the importance of marketing and publicity, while failing to make information concerning its many functions and activities available to the public.1 The growing importance of information disclosure in Japanese universities is reflected in the following trends: 1. Universities face enormous challenges in maintaining and increasing enrollment as the population of young people in Japan continues to fall. Moreover, the impact of this population decrease has been exacerbated by an increase in the number of voices questioning the quality of university teaching. Expanding the scope of university information disclosure has therefore become an effective way for universities to maintain their competitiveness by attracting more students; 2. Though the ability of the population to adapt is improving, Japan’s long-term economic recession has strengthened interest in information concerning how universities are operated; 3. Enterprises are growing increasingly discouraged by the lack of practical and social skills exhibited by recent graduates, which has served to erode public trust in the quality of university education; and 4. As the world grows smaller, there is a greater need among foreign students interested in going to school in Japan to learn more about Japanese university education. 5. During the COVID-19 period, information disclosure became an effective tool to prevent expanding of the virus. The information of the infection and situation will be highly valued by the students and their parents, including the university employees. 1

Many of the views discussed in this book have been gleaned from the official website of Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, available at http://www.mext.go. jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo4/index.htm.

4

1

Introduction

In light of these trends, this research explores the current status of information disclosure in Japanese universities, while emphasizing the need to incorporate valuable lessons and practices from developed countries around the world. The primary questions covered include: (1) What are universities’ social responsibilities? (2) What are the theoretical foundations for information disclosure as a means of realizing these social responsibilities? (3) What is the current focus of research into university information disclosure? (4) From a macroscopic perspective, what is the status of university information disclosure in Japan? (5) Microscopically, how is university information disclosed in Japan? (6) What are the features of university information disclosure in Japan? (7) How is such disclosure handled in developed countries? (8) How should state-owned and private universities develop a framework for information disclosure based on the realization of social responsibilities? (9) How should state-owned and private universities deal with the COVID-19 situation to secure the students safe while maintain the quality of education? (10) What role does the university information disclosure in Japan played in COVID-19 period and how could the strategy help to alleviate the situation?

1.2 1.2.1

Review of the Literature Research on the Necessity of University Information Disclosure

Access to information is a right that has been protected by law throughout history. The earliest recognition of this right can be traced back to ancient Rome, and it is currently guaranteed under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948, which codifies the right to freedom of expression and to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” The South African scholar A. Arko-Cobbah attaches great importance to the right of access to information in his paper, “Civil Society and Good Governance: Challenges for Public Libraries in South Africa,” describing it as “the very pillar of South African democracy” (2008). Other scholars refer to it broadly as “the right to know,” and focus on its role as a prerequisite for the participation of citizens in government administration and social affairs, acknowledging the enormous impact public institutions can have on personal interest (Zhou 2003). Izak et al. (2017) holds the view that laws governing access to information guarantee “a system of social regulations and relations, which is engendered in the environment where information is produced, transformed and

1.2 Review of the Literature

5

consumed and…protected by the national power.” According to Izak et al., the primary target of these laws is “to regulate the relations of information, namely, the relations engendered in the process of information producing, collecting, accumulating, storing, retrieving, transferring, spreading and consuming.” According to U.S. Supreme Court precedent, while the independence of universities and colleges can foster greater academic freedom and prevent interference in academic research, the need to ensure transparency should necessarily take precedence. Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967). Finally, Zhang (2012) asserts that students are entitled to access the information they need in order to make informed decisions about the quality of teaching in various schools and ensure their right to receive an education. If nothing else, all of these positions suggest that university information should be viewed as the property of the public subject to unfettered disclosure. Yet this fundamental “right to know” necessarily begs the question: exactly which types of university information should be disclosed and which not? According to McLendon et al. (2003), disclosure should be based on the need to balance three competing interests: public accountability based on citizens’ right to know; university autonomy geared toward the protection of academic freedom and administrative efficiency; and the privacy of university faculty and staff.

1.2.2

Related Theories of University Information Disclosure

1. Theories on university information disclosure systems Early research on university information disclosure systems focused on developing theoretical approaches to come up with practical tools for designing effective information disclosure systems. One of the earliest of such studies is by Myerson (1979), whose research on incentive compatibility equilibrium points has proven to be highly influential. In a subsequent paper on auction mechanisms, Myerson (1981) also used mathematical modeling to define a “direct revelation mechanism” based on incentive compatibility theory. Many other scholars have made further contributions to the study of information collection and disclosure based on Myerson’s approach, and their work has also served as theoretical foundations for the design of information di Unlike corporations and government agencies, which tend to be organized from the top down, the organization of educational, research and other departments within the university system remains complex and varied. Its closure mechanisms. These theoretical tools include but are not limited to the notion of empirical conspiracy (Laffont and Martimort 2000), the prevention of fraudulent appraisal (Bergemann and Välimäki 2002), the minimization of complications for efficient communication (Van Zandt 2007), and the identification of public preferences (Maskin 2008). These studies by Western scholars have established a strong theoretical foundation for the systematic development of effective information disclosure practices in Chinese and Japanese universities.

6

1

Introduction

2. Studies on information sharing University libraries represent an important educational resource, and the extent to which they can be fully utilized directly impacts the ability of universities to fulfill their responsibility to provide quality education and social services. This is why a good amount of research has focused on information sharing in universities, and library information sharing in particular, with exciting progress made on the theory of information sharing spaces. According to Donald Beagle, the director of library information sharing at the University of North Carolina in Charlotte and one of the earliest and most influential proponents of this theory, there are two types of information sharing spaces: special online environments and specially designed physical spaces (REF). More recently, Wu (2009) has posited that the successful realization of library information sharing spaces requires the development of a standardized database to strengthen information sharing between home and abroad. Still others, including Chen (2007) and Wu (2007), have focused their attention on the notion of information integration, which has become a key component of university information sharing. Most of this research is concerned with the ways in which information and technology are integrated, as well as the coherence and adaptability of such integration. Specifically, Chen (2007) studied the need for the consistent integration of various information sources within universities, in light of the fact that different departments tend to generate different sources of information over which they exercise absolute control. As each of these departments maintains its own management systems and databases, there is no way to access all of the information in one place. This has created the need for an interdisciplinary navigation system and a unified method of retrieval to facilitate the seamless integration of the various information sources. According to Wu (2009), the key to such integration is the creation of a unified retrieval platform, universally agreed-upon protocol standards, and the application of different methods and channels of integration in order to meet the needs of different users. All of these studies provide strong theoretical support for the development of effective information sharing tools. 3. Research on the stakeholder theory of information disclosure As graduates have begun to leave the “ivory tower” in increasing numbers to make their mark in society and the role of university education continues to evolve, there is an ongoing debate concerning the necessity and scope of information disclosure within universities. As Bok (2001) has pointed out, “there is a giant and complex relationship web that connects universities with the other major institutions of society.” As part of this debate, scholars have been in search of a new theoretical framework to make sense of this situation, with the use of information disclosure for the fulfillment of social responsibilities receiving the most attention. Among the researchers focused on this issue is Yin (2008), whose use of stakeholder theory to analyze the social responsibilities of universities has been widely accepted. At the same time, Zhang (2004) also holds a similar opinion, “as a non-profit organization,

1.2 Review of the Literature

7

the university is a typical stakeholder organization in which everyone has some responsibilities, but no one is fully responsible for their behavior. University stakeholders include professors, chancellors and deans as well as administrative staff, students and alumni, and of course, our society itself (the taxpayers).” In his book, The University: An Owner’s Manual, Henry Rosovsky, President of Harvard University (1992), divides these various interest groups into four categories according to their importance to the university, and makes use of the analytical framework of stakeholder theory to analyze them. In a similar vein, Article 17 of the World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-first Century: Vision and Action2 declares that “partnership and alliances amongst stakeholders—national and institutional policy-makers, teaching and related staff, researchers and students, and administrative and technical personnel in institutions of higher education, the world of work, community groups—is a powerful force in managing change,” and that “partnership, based on common interest, mutual respect and credibility, should be a prime matrix for renewal in higher education.”

1.2.3

Studies on University Information Disclosure Practices

1. Studies on the information disclosure practices of U.S. universities U.S. courts have established a broad network of laws and regulations requiring that state-owned universities and other public institutions publicize certain types of information, which scholars like Woodbury and Broudy (1994) believe should also be extended to private universities in receipt of financial support through public channels. Since universities typically accept financial support from both the government and corporations, Woodbury proposes that the public should have a right to access information concerning these arrangements while ensuring that universities can still maintain some degree of privacy and protect their intellectual property. According to McLendon et al. (2003), who conducted an extensive study of the information disclosure practices of U.S. universities, state-owned universities are required by law to actively disclose information to the public like any other government organization, with the scope of such disclosure to include a broad array of information, including regulations, processes, budgets, expenses and salaries of university staff, investigations involving academic misconduct, the academic calendar, university administration, donation records, potential donors (except those subject to others laws), and real estate transaction records. According to Woodbury and Broudy (1994), while these laws do not currently apply to private universities, the basis for this exemption is no longer valid as private universities increasingly 2

World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century: Vision and Action World Conference on Higher Education (1998).

8

1

Introduction

rely on federal aid. In effect, since students at private universities are being funded by the federal government, these universities should also have an obligation to publicize information in accordance with federal law. As for the scope of disclosure, Levinson-Waldman (2011) points out that certain information is necessarily excluded under various statutory exceptions, including but not necessarily limited to information concerning particular donations, information protected under federal student privacy laws, certain information involving class, and academic research data. According to the Higher Education Act (HEA), passed by Lyndon Johnson in 1965, the types of university information subject to mandatory disclosure to the U.S. Department of Education include the following: 1. Enrollment information3 (1) Lifespan of the institution’s mission; (2) Number of applicants and enrolled students; (3) Standardized test scores (SAT or ACT) and number of students whose scores in reading, writing and mathematics are in the top 50%; (4) Number of enrolled undergraduates and post-graduates, including full and part-time; (5) Number of undergraduates who have transferred from other universities; (6) Gender ratio of undergraduates; (7) Percentage of local students, students from other counties and foreign students; (8) Percentage of disabled students and students of difference races. 2. Graduation information4 (1) Percentage of students who have graduated on time, and who have delayed graduation by 150 and 200%; (2) Number of students who have earned a second degree (i.e. bachelor’s, master’s, doctorate or professional degree); (3) Most popular undergraduate majors; (4) Vocation and employment services provided to graduates. 3. Sources of financial aid5 (1) Costs to the university for full-time and part-time students; (2) Average annual appropriation awarded to full-time and part-time undergraduates; (3) Amount of student loans offered by university; (4) Amount of financial aid given to students by the government; (5) Proportion of federal government and organization appropriation, student loans and other financial aid. See Higher Education Act (HEA) § 132(i), codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §1015a(i)(1)(A)-(I). Id. at 20 U.S.C. § 1015a(i)(1)(J)-(L), (V). 5 Id. at 20 U.S.C. § 1015a(i)(1)(N)-(S). 3 4

1.2 Review of the Literature

9

4. Other information6 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Student–teacher ratio; Ratio of full-time and part-time teachers; Student activities organized by university; Services provided for disabled students; Security information; Credit related policies concerning transfers from other institutions.

2. Studies on the information disclosure practices of British universities In the United Kingdom, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) was founded in 1993 to collect information from individual students and teachers and to make such information available to the public through the use of so-called “Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education” (DLHE) surveys and other methods. Since 2005, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has also conducted National Student Surveys (NSS) and published the results on the “Unistats” website to provide an online frame of reference for comparing the information disclosure practices of various universities. In 2012, the Key Information Sets (KIS) was then established by HEFCE, which paved the way for the reorganization of the Unistats website and helped establish a formal system for the collection and disclosure of university information. According to a 2014 study by Yang Ruiling on the information disclosure practices of British universities, information disclosure regulations were initially formulated in 2000 with the passage of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), with specific provisions for higher education coming into force in 2005 and the Higher Education White Paper and Instructions on Information Disclosure for Higher Learning issued in 2011. Drafted by the Information Committee Office, the relevant provisions of the FOIA specifically stipulate the type of information which must be disclosed to prospective students, which generally includes basic information about universities, financial assistance, information regarding decision-making processes, policy-making procedures, registration forms, a list of services, and financial information such as revenue and expenditures, procurement, contracts and financial audits. The Higher Education White Paper in turn stipulates 24 key information sets divided into four categories, including but not limited to employment rates, accommodation charges, teaching schedules and graduate starting salaries. As for the Unistats website, studies have found that its failure to take into account the different backgrounds of students, and doubts concerning the comparability of some of the data, has led to some misunderstandings (Surridge 2006). At the same time, other studies have shown that information concerning university selection received from families, friends, peers, school activities and student departments tends to be more useful than the raw data available on Unistats (Slack et al. 2012). 6

Id. at 20 U.S.C. 1015a(i)1(M), (U), (V).

10

1

Introduction

In any event, since the 2012–2013 school year, financial aid in the United Kingdom has been provided primarily in the form of private student loans, while the cost of tuition continues to rise. Given these trends, and with the role of the government clearly shifting from “purchaser of education” to “provider of information” (Davies 2012), it has become increasingly important to broaden the scope of information disclosure to prospective students so that they can make an informed decision.

1.3

Shortcomings of Existing Research

Most, if not all, of the existing research on university information disclosure is focused on the theoretical foundation of such disclosure, including its underlying legal basis, values and principles, as well the respective decision-making authority of universities and the government. However, what these studies have largely ignored are issues concerning the design of an effective system of disclosure as well as the implementation and operation of such a system by universities. Some of the shortcomings of existing research are discussed below. 1. A failure to draw lessons from interdisciplinary research Studies on the decision-making authority of universities for the disclosure of information should ideally be interdisciplinary. For example, to the extent that it involves questions of citizens’ rights and government policy, research into such decision-making authority should necessarily be drawn from the study of law. Yet most of the studies conducted to date have been limited to the area of information resource management and exclude other perspectives that could prove useful whilst also failing to reference prior research. It is therefore important that any studies going forward incorporate insights from the study of law, which could, among other things, help clear away some of the obstacles to Chinese citizens’ rights to apply for the disclosure of information. The U.S. government, for example, has adopted a “reasonably foreseeable” standard in determining whether a given piece of information should be disclosed through the Freedom of Information Act, which essentially provides that information should be withheld only when it is “reasonably foreseeable that disclosure would be harmful to an interest protected by the law” (Reno 1993). If applied to the disclosure of university information in Japan, this would force universities to shoulder the burden of proving that the disclosure of the requested information would be harmful to its interests. It would also help expand the scope of information disclosure, while strengthening the protection of citizens’ basic right to know, clearly demonstrating why incorporating legal principles such as the shifting of burden of proof into research on university information disclosure is so important.

1.3 Shortcomings of Existing Research

11

2. A lack of systematic research A review of the literature further reveals that most research on the decision-making authority is focused on one particular entity, or various departments of a single entity, as opposed to a systematic study of the respective interests of all stakeholders. Other research has focused on information disclosure legislation, and the need to improve the existing protection of individuals’ right to access information, yet only Yaping (2011) has attempted to approach the topic of university decision-making authority in the context of academic freedom. Generally speaking, studies on the situation in Japan should take greater advantage of the considerable research which has already been conducted in other countries, including on the shifting of the burden of proof to show entitlement to disclosure and/or the “reasonably foreseeable” standard adopted by the U.S. government, so that these theoretical shortcomings can be addressed. 3. A lack of research on legal principles Many of the difficulties encountered in the implementation of university information disclosure policies in Japan can be attributed to the vagueness and ambiguity of the underlying principles, as well as conflicts with other laws and the broad discretion of universities to rely on exceptions or loopholes to mandatory disclosure requirements. This is why additional research into the legal principles applicable to the interpretation of the various laws and regulations is vitally important, particularly when it comes to addressing situations not currently subject to any corresponding regulations. Unfortunately, most scholars have so far ignored this topic, focusing instead on specific provisions of the Measures for the Information Disclosure of Institutions of Higher Learning7 and other applicable laws. This needs to change. 4. A lack of research on social responsibility as an incentive for information disclosure Decisions concerning the content of university information to be disclosed should be geared toward the goal of fulfilling universities’ social responsibilities. In order to protect and promote students’ fundamental right to education, such content should generally include information on educational resources and the educational process. More specifically, ongoing scientific research and other academic information should be disclosed in an effort to realize universities’ academic responsibilities, while the disclosure of information affecting the interests of stakeholders, such as executive decisions and the allocation of funding, is necessary to better serve society and prevent universities from abusing their autonomy. Accordingly, given the vagueness of existing regulations, decisions concerning the types of information to be disclosed should be made with the goal of realizing universities’ social responsibilities, under which disclosure is the norm and non-disclosure is the 7

Measures for the Information Disclosure of Institutions of Higher Learning, Order No. 29 of the Ministry of Education, Instrumentalities of the State Council, Ministry of Education.

12

1

Introduction

exception. A review of the literature suggests that this approach has been sorely lacking in much of the research conducted to date. 5. A lack of research on social responsibility as a framework for information disclosure systems While there are many reasons for universities to disclose information, the primary justification should be to make it possible for them to exist in society, and to continue to serve the needs of society going forward. The disclosure depends on universities’ abilities to realize their social responsibilities through, among other things. Developing a system of university information disclosure geared toward the realization of these social responsibilities is not simply a logical starting point—it can also provide a framework for promoting greater and more effective disclosure going forward. This framework is currently lacking in existing research and should be explored further. 6. A lack of research on information disclosure system design There is also very little in-depth research being done on the notion of information disclosure system design. Yet such an approach is not only useful for gaining a better understanding of how best to design various systems of disclosure, but also for understanding the best ways to optimize effectiveness while minimizing costs. Studies show that the development of systems for the disclosure of university information remains largely hypothetical and idealistic, with little focus on enforcement. However, in practice, a perfect yet unenforceable system is necessarily inferior to an imperfect but enforceable one. The ideas and theories behind system design should prove useful for inventing systems of disclosure which are both highly effective and consistently enforceable, yet they have been largely neglected by scholars.

1.4

The Present Approach: Strategic Disclosure Reflecting University Social Responsibility

With the development of university education and the expansion of university curricula, the diversification of university administration and operations has become inevitable. In order to ensure that universities live up to their social responsibilities, the government has demanded that certain academic and administrative information be disclosed. At the same time, society itself has also begun to demand greater disclosure concerning teaching quality, academic research, and various other items required by students in order to make an informed decision about which university to attend. This has in turn forced universities to actively improve and expand the scope of existing disclosure measures geared toward students, while at the same time fostering greater dialogue with parents, enterprises and the government as part

1.4 The Present Approach: Strategic Disclosure …

13

Fig. 1.1 Strategic information disclosure reflecting social responsibility to stakeholders

of a larger effort to satisfy the needs of stakeholders and lay a solid foundation for more effective administration (Fig. 1.1). Information disclosure does not simply represent an effective means of attracting prospective students but is also becoming increasingly necessary to ensure the continued existence of universities in an ultra-competitive and globalized world. Moreover, the establishment of an effective system of disclosure requires both a logical starting point and a standardized framework. Yet the systems of disclosure adopted by most Japanese universities tend to lack such a framework, with the types of information disclosed often based on some arbitrary combination of vague regulatory requirements and students’ perceived need for such information. The approach to university information disclosure presented here, namely as a means to fulfill the social responsibilities of various stakeholders, is intended to correct this deficiency by providing a standardized framework, as outlined in more detail below.

1.5 1.5.1

The Purpose and Significance of This Research The Purpose of This Research

Through questionnaires, interviews and case studies, the purpose of the research is to identify and analyze the information disclosure practices of Japanese universities, with a particular emphasis on the similarities and differences between public and private universities. Based on the data collected, and taking into account various weighted factors, an assessment of student satisfaction with such practices will be

14

1

Introduction

conducted and a standard framework for disclosure derived from the fulfillment of universities’ social responsibilities will be proposed. This framework will include a discussion of the concept of information disclosure in the context of social responsibilities, the identification of the types of information to be disclosed based on the needs of various stakeholders, the key points of such disclosure, the scope of active disclosure, the design and construction of a new type of information disclosure system, and recent trends in university information disclosure. Also discussed as part of this research are effective methods for researching and organizing information resources as well as the development of an information sharing platform.

1.5.2

The Significance of This Research

As a general matter, the type of disclosure proposed by this research involves whatever information would be best able to fulfill the social responsibility of universities and guarantee students’ fundamental right to information. Specifically, this information includes but is not necessarily limited to educational resources, the educational process, scientific and other academic research, information concerning important decision-making, as well as funding allocation and other financial information, etc. In China especially, where regulations remain vague and subject to individual discretion, the development of a theoretical framework to help identify the most effective approach to disclosure would be invaluable, yet few studies have attempted to adopt such a methodology. Secondly, while university information disclosure tends to serve several purposes, its underlying goal is to ensure that they are in a better position to maintain their competitive advantage, thereby also helps universities fulfill their social responsibilities. The development of an information disclosure system geared toward the fulfillment of social responsibilities not only offers a logical starting point for further research, but also provides a theoretical framework for more effective disclosure. This approach also draws heavily from stakeholder theory based on the understanding that the disclosure of such information is primarily intended to serve the interests of various stakeholders, including students, parents and teachers as well as social organizations, enterprises and the government itself. As a practical matter, an added benefit of this overriding focus on social responsibility is to promote greater transparency and democracy in the administration of universities, which will consequently help deter corruption and ensure that the considerable autonomy granted to universities will be kept in check. In effect, broader disclosure can enhance the impact of existing regulations by subjecting the decision-making authority of universities to supervision by the masses, though any such disclosure must necessarily be both strategic and transparent. This book is an effort to make up for some of the above-referenced theoretical and practical shortcomings, as well as the vagueness of existing legislation, by approaching the topic of university information disclosure in the broader context of

1.5 The Purpose and Significance of This Research

15

social responsibility; building on existing research on the decision-making authority of various entities; focusing on effective policies to ensure greater disclosure; and identifying various channels and systems to ensure that the disclosure of university information reaches the greatest number of people. Moreover, in order to realize universities’ social responsibilities while protecting students’ right to an education, the scope of information disclosure must be expanded to cover educational resources and procedures, academic information such as scientific research, as well as information affecting the interests of stakeholders so as to prevent the abuse of university autonomy. Disclosure must become the norm as opposed to the exception, and the passive approach based on adherence to existing laws and regulations, which most research has promoted, must be replaced by the active and strategic development of a system of disclosure designed to meet the needs of society.

Chapter 2

University Social Responsibility: Research Design

This part aims to give a comprehensive outline of the design of this research. First, the major theoretical foundations will be laid out and some important interrelated concepts defined. The methodologies which have been chosen to address specific research problems will be outlined. Finally, a roadmap of the research structure will be presented.

2.1 2.1.1

Theoretical Foundations of This Research Stakeholders Theory

In 1984, the concept of a stakeholder was defined by Freeman as a person or group that can “influence the realization of organizational target or whose realization of his goals can be influenced by an organization.”1 According to this definition, stakeholders are not only the individuals or groups affected by the enterprises’ targets but also the individuals or groups that are impacted by the realization of the enterprises’ goals. A university is a typical stakeholder organization; therefore, the restriction and supervision of its power also need various stakeholders to play their parts. The present research focuses on information disclosure for different stakeholders.

1

Freeman (Freeman, R.Edward): Strategic Management: Analysis of Stakeholder Management, Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 1984. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 K. Ryu, Developing University Social Responsibility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5489-3_2

17

18

2.1.2

2 University Social Responsibility: Research Design

New Institutionalism Theory

As Coase (1960) observes, institutions are bound by certain types of regulations that define and restrict the strategies employed by political subjects when they are maximizing their interests.2 Strategies can be designed, the results of which mainly depend on the encouragement and restriction within the realm of system-designing. In universities, the exercise and operation of power need to be under institutional restrictions. Departments in authority and all the staff should abide by the regulations and rules of the university in order to restrain and supervise power so that the abuse and corruption of power can be avoided. In the meanwhile, the enactment of information disclosure regulations is also in need of the support of new institutionalism theory, which focuses on how to construct information disclosure regulations.

2.1.3

Transparency-Restricting Power Theory

According to the theory proposed by Arendt (Canovan 1985), publicity is the essential feature of politics.3 Power must be exercised with transparency. To set up an information-disclosure system is to build a democratic supervision system based on the power of the public. The principal decisions made in a university represent significant events whose transparency must be ensured. Today we also emphasize that power should be operated “in public,” so information disclosure is one of the key steps for guaranteeing the transparency of power.

2.1.4

Information Sharing Theory

According to the theory of information resources mutual sharing, information disclosure will not only be of democratic value but can also offer economic value through lowering the cost to obtain information, so that the guarantee of information sharing will be provided. Information disclosure is the basis of information sharing, and information sharing is the consequence and purpose of information disclosure. Effective university information disclosure is to share information as widely as possible. The task of information disclosure involves many university departments, which is beneficial to breaking the information monopoly among different departments. Its practice needs coordination in order to be achieved. Under traditional patterns, Kos: “Property rights and institutional change,” Shanghai Sanlian bookstore, Shanghai people's Publishing House in 1994 version of the 377–378 page. 3 Zeng Shuiying. Understanding Political Power: Central Compilation and Translation Press, 2013. 2

2.1 Theoretical Foundations of This Research

19

information monopolies are a common phenomenon. Because information represents rights, interests, performance and achievements, departments often try to protect their own rights of monopoly and do not like to share information. However, in the era of information today, information sharing is the key for information to be well utilized and could produce more value for the society. The utilization of information obeys the rules of interest increasing return, which means that the more fully the information is used, the more interest it will produce.

2.2 2.2.1

Definition of Core Concepts Concept of University Social Responsibility

We will discuss common theories on university social responsibility, and why they may not in fact be ideal models for understanding university social responsibility. In this book, I propose stakeholder theory as a better lens through which to understand university social responsibility. 1. University Ontology Theory Many scholars believe that the social responsibilities universities are supposed to shoulder should be defined on the basis of universities’ mission statements. Zhao (2002) believes that the social responsibilities of universities are to internalize their education tasks to their own behaviors, and that the utilization of universities’ functions means that universities must fulfill and shoulder corresponding social responsibilities. From ancient times until now, the key reason for universities’ existence in the long history of human civilization is the promotion and development of academic concepts. Thus, in the studies of present universities’ social responsibilities, scholars are more likely to focus on universities’ academic responsibilities, but pay less attention to other matters (Wang 2005). Besides, some scholars classified value criticism and value guiding into the range of social responsibilities under the guidance of university ontology, because they believe social responsibilities are independent from big social environments like politics and economy (Wang 2003). There are scholars who have studied and categorized the countries that have practiced university ontology. Among them, Kang (2012a, b) mainly studied universities in eight countries including China, Japan, Germany, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and South Africa. She picked two first-class universities and two second-class universities from each country according to the 2010 Academic Ranking of World Universities. She finds that UK universities’ social responsibilities emphasize the theoretical practice like “guaranteeing the quality of reaching and researching,” while universities in America emphasize responsibilities of exploring knowledge and using them in society.

20

2 University Social Responsibility: Research Design

2. Society-Centered Theory Universities can keep existing throughout history not only because they have fulfilled their own responsibilities and functions (e.g., educational responsibilities, academic freedom and value criticism emphasized by university ontology), but because these responsibilities and functions can address broader social problems. As Guo (2003) argues, “there are two directions and degrees to universities’ social responsibilities: one is the external direction and degree that is presented by the university’s functions; the other is internal which exists in the value of university itself and affects society invisibly as the internal direction and degree.” In other words, the social responsibilities of universities are not merely the contents emphasized by university ontology, but also include joining society—for example, by letting university-educated people enter and serve society and letting university-produced research results be widely utilized. In On the Philosophy of Higher Education, Brubaker (2001) states that “universities now are not merely the center of education in the United States, they are also the center of life. They have become the main service providers’ and social reform advocators’ main tool, next to only the government.” Professor Pan (2001, p 224) also believes that at present, the key of university social responsibility is to join society. He presents his argument using evocative comparisons between university education within different social contexts: university education in an agricultural society is an “academic palace” or “ivory tower” that is completely cut off from society; in an industrial society, university education is aimed at serving industry and taking part in industrial activities, but it is only at the edge of society; however, in the age of knowledge, university education has become the center of society. As Kerr (1993) has said, the university has not only interfered with social life, but also has reached its limits to the extent that it can embrace the whole society. According to the research of Kang (2012a, b), China insists principally on “society-centered theory,” because Chinese universities emphasize the responsibilities of “serving society” most; the majority of Chinese universities that were researched have proposed missions of contributing to the construction and development of the nation and to the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. 3. The definition of university social responsibility proposed by this research It is not sufficient to understand university social responsibility from a purely ontological perspective, because academic freedom and educational obligations cannot fully describe the reasons why universities came into being and persistently exist in our society despite long-term challenges. Above all, universities should comply with the human process of making advancements to meet society’s needs and solve its problems, which means that universities’ academic responsibilities are only one part of their social responsibilities. However, there exist huge flaws in this “society-centered” theory. To treat universities solely as the service stations of society will, to some degree, lead to utilitarianism and the waning of universities’ ontological functions. Therefore, eclecticism between “university ontology” and “society-centered” theory is the right path to take, in the same way that some scholars proposed the relationship between society and university should be one

2.2 Definition of Core Concepts

21

that “is neither too close nor too far” (Gong 2008). This kind of relationship can not only preserve rationality and critical thinking but also effectively combine the academic sphere and the real world.

2.2.2

Boundary of University Social Responsibility

1. Boundary of university social responsibility Both the “university ontology” and the “society-centered” theories shed light on the fact that a university’s responsibility is essentially to exchange resources with its environment. Therefore, before making clear the boundary of university social responsibility, the line between universities and their environment must be drawn, because the purpose of studying university social responsibility is to distinguish what obligations should be undertaken by universities and what should not be (Wang 2005). According to the categorization of universities’ social responsibilities, there are three main types as follows: educational responsibilities, academic responsibilities and responsibilities to serve the society (Wang 2003). Especially in the field of providing social services, many scholars lay their emphasis on universities’ responsibilities of offering social critiques and academic critiques (Li 2007; Song 2006). In addition, there are also studies that define universities’ social responsibilities from the external standard to the internal standard. Externally speaking, universities’ social responsibilities not only involve educational responsibilities, academic responsibilities and responsibilities in providing social services but also include the responsibilities to enlighten mankind and provide rational critiques (Guo 2003). There are also many scholars who broaden the scope of universities’ social responsibilities to international responsibilities (Wang 2003; Liu 2008), which stress international education, academic exchanges and cooperation. There are other scholars who define social responsibilities in terms of working duties. Liu Ge (2008) argues that universities’ social responsibilities involve political responsibilities, moral responsibilities, legal responsibilities and quality responsibilities. Defining universities’ responsibilities from the perspective of social responsibilities is a mainstream position in academic circles. According to recent studies on university social responsibility, the primary social responsibility of universities is to educate and produce talent for society. The secondary social responsibility is academic responsibility which related to the validity and reliability of the researches, followed by the responsibility to provide services to society. At present, it is widely acknowledged that university social responsibility should include all three of these aspects. However, it is under debate whether the responsibility to give critiques and/or certain international responsibilities can be generally considered as a fourth responsibility.4 4

Wang Shoujun: A Preliminary Study on the Structural Analysis of the Social Responsibility of University, Tsinghua University, 2005 (11): 1–8.

22

2 University Social Responsibility: Research Design

2. Definition of university social responsibility in this research There are different understandings of the concept of university social responsibility. In some specific aspects, these social responsibilities may have certain meaning in under different historical backgrounds. There are big differences between the social responsibilities that universities shoulder. However, these responsibilities can also be considered objectively self-evident; any university, as an organization, must have the internal function of serving the society if it wants to exist and develop. To some extent, the concept of social responsibilities of universities cannot be accurately defined, which means there is not a clear boundary between university and the environment. As such, this research tends to apply the model of the four social responsibilities.

2.3

Research Methods

1. Literature research method Through electronic databases like www.CNKI.net, Web of Science, Springer and EBSCO, school libraries, periodical theses, dissertations, books and online literature concerning university information disclosure have been systematically searched, sorted, identified, categorized and analyzed. This collection of data includes materials produced in Chinese, English and Japanese. 2. Case study method To study Japanese universities’ information disclosure methods, the main method employed was searching university websites to find the content and degree of publicity of their information disclosure and analyzing the drawbacks and advantages thereof. Ritsumeikan University and Doshisha University have been used as case studies. In the case of Ritsumeikan University, the following topics are discussed: the definition of information disclosure, collection of scattered information on the information disclosure page and the disclosed AP, CP and DP information with a purpose of raising teaching quality. In the case of Doshisha University, the matters mainly discussed include Doshisha University making information disclosure a part of education reform, the inevitable responsibility of disclosing education content, exploring easy ways to disclose information, and teachers’ degree of concerns about teaching content. In addition, the status quo of Japanese university information disclosure, research on the Japanese government’s discussion and promotion of university information disclosure, the basic opinions of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and modifications of the Law of Education Implementing Rules based on the case study of the modification of the Education Law are discussed.

2.3 Research Methods

23

3. Investigation method Research on the present status of Japanese university information disclosure has been conducted using the investigation method. To study the specific differences in information disclosure between state-owned universities and private universities in Japan, the questionnaire method has been used, and universities surveyed include Ritsumeikan University, Doshisha University, Tokyo University and Kyoto University. The design of the questionnaire used in this investigation is based on the Measures for the Information Disclosure of Institutions of Higher Learning, which was put into use by the Ministry of Education of China on September 1, 2010, and the Basic Requirements on the Contents of University Information Disclosure, which was announced by the Ministry of Education of Japan on July 29, 2014. The questions relate to the status quo of university information disclosure, different subjects’ needs for information disclosure. During the process of investigation, research was also carried out using interviews, text analysis and observation. In all cases, the aim was to discover the actual state and major problems of university information disclosure. The interview method: This type of research contains mainly formal interviews, and the interviewees include the main persons responsible for government administrative departments of education, university officials (chairman and deputy chairman, president and vice president), college-level officials (chancellor and deputy chancellor, chairman and deputy chairman), persons responsible for the main departments, members of university-college academic committees, professors, teachers and students. Text analysis method: In this type of research, relevant state laws, texts of internal laws and university regulations, texts of conference records of university as well as texts of investigations and treatments of university information disclosure by the state are analysed. Observation method: In this type of research, the main processes concerned with university information disclosure are the objects of observation and recording. 4. Comparative study method This research applies two types of comparative studies: synchronic and diachronic. Synchronic comparative study involves the systematic comparison of the success of Japanese university information disclosure in state-owned universities and private universities in Japan, in the hope of providing valuable insights into strengthening university information disclosure nationally. Diachronic comparative study analyzes historical changes in university information disclosure and documents the objective history of university information disclosure from DATE until the present time. Using this method, comparison, analysis, deduction and induction are combined to accurately study Japanese information disclosure from different angles. To fulfill the final purpose of this research, this method can be applied in conjunction with the case study method, investigation method and text analysis method to comprehensively and accurately reflect the research themes and ultimately draw conclusions.

24

2 University Social Responsibility: Research Design

5. Positive analysis method of econometrics The positive analysis method of econometrics has been used for data processing and validation, structural analysis, policy evaluation and theory testing. Specifically, after investigating the stakeholders of Japanese universities, descriptive statistics is used to study the present situation and degree of satisfaction on the dimension of information disclosure in Japan. Thus, through principal factor analysis, the differences in information disclosure and emphasis of information disclosure in Japan are revealed, and the basis for building university information disclosure frameworks based on social responsibilities is provided.

2.4

Research Routes

In order to study universities’ information disclosure from a comprehensive perspective, this issue is analyzed using both theoretical and empirical elements.

Fig. 2.1 Research roadmap

2.4 Research Routes

25

The empirical element is primarily focused on studying Japan’s related policies and practices in terms of information disclosure, and case studies are analysed as part of this. Information disclosure in Japanese and Chinese universities will be studied from three perspectives: macroscopic, organizational and individual. For each of these three perspectives, the general situation of university information disclosure, the typical cases of university information disclosure and individuals’ satisfaction with information disclosure will be investigated. The conclusion presents the findings from conducting research on university information disclosure in Japan and some other countries, and the conclusion reached from the comparison in terms of information disclosure among different universities is revealed. On this basis, some important implications and suggested paths for constructing university information disclosure systems based on social responsibilities will be proffered. The specific research routes to be followed are detailed in Fig. 2.1.

Chapter 3

Japanese University Information Disclosure Practices: A Macroscopic Perspective

3.1 3.1.1

The State of Japanese Universities’ Information Disclosure The Development of Japanese Universities’ Information Disclosure Policies

In Japan, a systematic framework for universities’ information disclosure is gradually being established after gaining approval from the University Council and the Central Council for Education. According to a report of the University Council published in 1998, with the popularization of higher education, the relationship between universities and society has become increasingly close. As public institutions, universities are responsibility-bound to provide necessary and straightforward information and data for students and the general public. After this report, in 1999, Japan revised its University Establishment Standard, stipulating that information related to universities’ teaching and research should be provided. According to this standard, primary schools, middle schools and high schools should also actively provide the required information. For primary schools this regulation came into effect in 2002; for high schools, in 2004. Considering the fact that the law requiring public institutions to disclose information was enacted in 1999 and came into effect in 2001, universities’ information disclosure has developed rapidly to the enthusiasm of its stakeholders. Since then, after the Central Council for Education published two reports in 2005 and another report in 2008, the necessity for universities to disclose information has been repeatedly emphasized, and issues like the purpose of educational research and the standard for performance evaluations have also been clarified. In

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 K. Ryu, Developing University Social Responsibility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5489-3_3

27

28

3 Japanese University Information Disclosure …

2007, the Law of Education1 was amended, clarifying the necessity of disclosing universities’ education and research information from a legal perspective. In the Measures on Promoting the Disclosure of Education Information published on April 26, 2010, the basis, methods and expected contents of disclosed information were specified. According to this document, the implementing regulations of the Law of Education were amended, and the disclosure of educational information began to be stipulated as an obligation. In addition, the information required to be disclosed was clarified, and the following guiding principles of information disclosure were approved by the Central Council for Education: To guarantee that students and parents can have access to necessary information and to undertake the accountability as public institutions for society; To publicize briefly the knowledge and abilities students can attain and the arrangement of curriculum to improve the effect of education; To actively exchange information on education and research with overseas institutions, to accelerate cooperation with foreign universities and to enhance the international competitiveness of university education. In a report published by MEXT in 2009 concerning reforms to university teaching content, measures to actively provide information in universities and attempts to make university information disclosure obligatory were highlighted. As a result of this, in 2009, almost all universities disclosed basic information related to organizing and equipment, and more than 80 percent of the main educational information was disclosed through universities’ website homepages. Through measures like legal personalization and business-disclosure, public universities were asked to elucidate their structure and administration, an example of the active implementation of policy on university information disclosure. The report “The Strengthening of Public Universities’ Functions: A Deal Made with the Public,” published by the Public University Association of Japan2 in April 2011, emphasized the perspective of strict self-evaluation, active information disclosure and the responsibility to inform stakeholders. The following contents were mentioned: first, the rectification of university information disclosure systems both at home and abroad; second, the frameworks of information disclosure systems in many foreign universities; third, the goal of strengthening the function of information disclosure in universities according to the preferences of stakeholders. The report strongly expressed an attitude of information disclosure. This policy can be complementary to that which made educational information disclosure a responsibility, exemplifying the progress that has been made by public universities’ information disclosure.

1

The Law of Education contains the provisions of the basic school education system. It was officially announced and implemented in 1947. Its latest revision was made June 3, 2011. 2 The Public University Association of Japan is an association composed of 83 public universities. Its main purpose is to investigate and study the higher education provided by national universities. Its headquarters is in Tokyo.

3.1 The State of Japanese Universities’ Information Disclosure

29

These discussions, in conjunction with legal and regulatory amendments by the Central Council for Education, help clarify the exact needs for information disclosure. In the future, not only the re-organization will be conducted but also the visible and analytic arguments will be gradually revealed.

3.1.2

Institutional Background: The Amendments of Education Law

1. Discussion and promotion of information disclosure by the Japanese government (a) The Japanese government’s discussion and promotion of information disclosure The Central Council for Education3 has conducted discussions and analysis regarding Japan universities’ information disclosure with the following goals: to organize the basic arguments in favor of educational information disclosure, to clarify the subjects and items that need to be disclosed and to identify problems in the process of information disclosure. The findings of the council indicate that within the institutional framework, many universities disclose the necessary information in an active and substantial manner, especially in terms of positive information related to universities’ strengths and uniqueness. However, some universities have not done enough to improve their disclosure of educational information. Furthermore, measures regarding authentication and evaluation of teaching are still under preparation. The final outcome of these discussions is that, as public educational institutions, universities should disclose the needed information to students, their guardians and the society. The specific content and items which the Central Council of Education concluded should be disclosed by universities are detailed in Table 3.1. In addition to the basic items listed in Table 3.1, the Central Council for Education stipulated which information should be disclosed from the perspective of improving the quality of education (including obligatory items previously listed under the Standard for the Establishment of Universities4). These include items like the purpose for establishing certain programs or courses in graduate schools and other departments, the knowledge and abilities that can be gained from attending courses, the evaluation system for students’ academic performance, the assessment criteria for student graduation, etc. 3

The Central Council for Education of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) is the most important department, responsible for educational, academic and cultural policies and regulations. The council has fewer than twenty members, who are appointed by the Education Minister. 4 The Standard for the Establishment of Universities. According to Education Law 3, 8, 63, 88, it is issued by the Ministry of culture, education and science.

30

3 Japanese University Information Disclosure …

Table 3.1 Information required to be disclosed by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Items

Contents

Basic organizing information

Names of all schools, departments and courses; total university enrollment Information related to the faculty Number of teachers; ratio of teachers to students; quality of teachers; achievements made in teaching Information about the curriculum Names, methods, contents and schedule of courses Information about graduation School system, credit system and all degrees the university is authorized to confer; names of majors Information about students Basic policies for recruiting students; number of new enrollments; total number of students; number of graduates; number of students who seek further studies; number of students who are employed after graduation; graduation destination of the graduates Information on charging fees Types and amount of expenses the students are charged; fee schedule; whether and how fees can be reduced or exempted Information about learning Location of school; traffic situation; sports equipment and environment arrangements for extracurricular activities Student counseling and related Student counseling organizations; methods for applying policies of scholarships for scholarships Source The Measures to Promote University Information Disclosure, published by the Central Council for Education. Link: http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/kouhyou/1295576.htm

The council recommended that universities themselves determine whether or not to disclose information regarding their methods to improve teaching quality (such as revising teaching evaluation systems, special teaching and researching achievements, fostering the development of the teaching faculty, etc.). The Central Council for Education also explored the types of information that should be disclosed from the perspective of conducting international university-evaluating activities. Information in this category includes the scale and content of education (basic student information, curriculum and curriculum quality, number of foreign experts, productivity and quality of academic research, information on funds received), universities’ strategies for international cooperation, policies related to exchange students, implementation of external assessment, etc. In addition to stipulating items of information which should be disclosed, the Central Council raised further issues related to educational information disclosure that need to be studied and explored. At present, it is not unusual for different schools and majors to handle information disclosure quite differently. With the promotion of information disclosure, it is very necessary to construct a uniform disclosure system so that all universities can conduct information disclosure in the same or similar ways. For instance, UNESCO’s portal of higher education institutions is a website for supervising the quality of universities’ education. Many countries have engaged with this website.

3.1 The State of Japanese Universities’ Information Disclosure

31

We expect that international platforms like this one can become further enriched and more informative. In order to build such a uniform disclosure system, the Public University Association of Japan published the Instructions on Educational Information Disclosure5 Making full use of the chance to revise the educational information disclosure system, the Association promulgated, and published instructions based on advice from the departments in charge of MEXT. The instructions required not only that information disclosure abide with the law but also that information disclosed be made as accessible as possible to the public. The Association also requested that different universities’ primary ways of disclosing information be compared with each other. Finally, besides the quality-guaranteeing system and the international evaluation team, the Central Council hopes that the operation departments of universities would also take heed of the need to disclose information related to the operation and finances of university-owned enterprises. 2. The basic ideas of the Ministry of Education The Law of Education and the Standard for the Establishment of Universities have the same stipulations: in order to promote and popularize academic achievements and the application of educational outcomes, universities should disclose information related to their education and research. The purposes of educational information disclosure are twofold: first, it can provide valuable information to students who are choosing among different universities to help them make appropriate judgments; second, as public institutions, universities are responsibility-bound to disclose information about their daily operations and the way they are run. Such information disclosure should not be done out of reluctance but with active and strategic significance. These are the basic ideas that underlie the policies of MEXT. 3. The revision of the regulations on implementation of the Law of Education Based on the guiding principles of MEXT, a revision of the regulations was conducted in 2012 One item was added into the 172nd entry, which made the information disclosure mandatory. Table 3.2 shows the information that universities should disclose related to teaching and researching activities. In addition, this amendment also stipulates the categories of information that universities are duty-bound to disclose. Universities should actively publicize the knowledge and activities they expect from students in order to achieve their learning objectives. In order to improve teaching quality, universities must also clearly inform students of what the teaching schedules are and what kinds of knowledge and abilities students can gain.

5

Instructions on Educational Information Disclosure, Public University Association of Japan, https://www.janu.jp/eng/.

3 Japanese University Information Disclosure …

32

Table 3.2 The aspects and specific items of information disclosure Aspects

Specific items

University

Objectives of teaching and conducting research How teaching and research activities are organized Locations, living conditions and teaching equipment Teaching Organization of teaching faculty, number of teachers, quality of the faculty and achievements in academic research Offered courses, teaching methods and contents and yearly teaching schedule Evaluation system for student academic performance and requirements for obtaining a degree Student Requirements for recruiting, number of newly enrolled students, quotas, total number of students, number of graduates and those who finish school and number of students who further their studies or seek employment, etc Tuition, entrance fees and fees charged by the university Counseling and support for students’ study, graduation and the betterment of students’ mental and physical health Source Notice on Revising the Regulations of Implementing the Law of Education. Link: http:// www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/nc/08030410.htm

3.1.3

Social Background of Japanese University Information Disclosure

Society has stepped into an information age, and the fast development of internationalization and globalization has encouraged society to go through drastic changes. In addition, aging has become an increasingly serious issue in Japan. In such an environment, education and research activities in universities are also seeking major reforms. Thus, universities have also changed drastically. However, public understanding of universities has not; it would not be inaccurate to state that the day-to-day activities of Japanese universities is largely beyond the understanding of broader society. At the same time, the impact of aging in Japan has also started to manifest itself, and the university enrollment rate has reached more that 50% of that in developed countries—a so-called universal stage. Universities have shifted from “the position of choosing students” to “the position of being chosen by students.” In this context, the quality of the information published by universities themselves is of utmost importance. In addition, in a modification of the Law of Education, the entry for universities appears. The 7th article states, “universities, as academic centers, while cultivating good manners and professional skills, also profoundly explore truth and create new knowledge. These results will be widely provided to society and contribute to the development of society.” Meanwhile, the 83rd article of the Law of Education defines the purpose of universities: “universities are academic centers. While widely promoting knowledge, they also deeply explore professional skills, so as to spread the intellectual, moral and practical abilities.” Universities are defined as key

3.1 The State of Japanese Universities’ Information Disclosure

33

contributors to societal development, rather than as “ivory towers” that have no connection to broader society.

3.1.4

The Status Quo of Japanese University Information Disclosure

In Japan, financial and non-financial information both indicate the true nature of educational research activities. The formation and disclosure of information must obey at least two principles. First, the principle of authenticity. Consumers of universities’ disclosed information cannot directly perceive the educational research activities performed at universities. Since universities are indirectly known through the information they disclose, the information must authentically and accurately report the educational research activities which take place. Second, the principle of correctness. The consumers of disclosed university information are not only students but also their parents. Universities should treat all kinds of consumers equally, correctly understand their needs and providing information relevant for their decision-making. According to the principles above, the University Subcommittee of the Central Council for Education of MEXT has held many rounds of discussion on the systematization of university educational information disclosure. The School Education Act Enforcement Regulations were announced on June 15, 2010 and put into effect in April 2011. As of August 2013, there were three related laws and regulations on educational information disclosure: the Law of Education, the Standards for University Establishment and the Enforcement Notice which was announced in 2005. They all clearly demand university information disclosure. Even though educational information disclosure is a legal obligation of universities, it provides them with a chance to demonstrate their activities and promote themselves. For those universities that have consistently and steadily provided high quality education over the years, simply disclosing their educational information can raise their reputation in society. For example, universities can attract students by flexibly using the Internet because it is the most important information source for candidates. However, at present, the articles posted on universities’ websites about their educational ideas are too alike and abstract; the ones that are truly accessible to the general public are few. Under such circumstances, conveying specific educational information that can differentiate and distinguish one university from the others is of great value. Consequently, with the systematization of information disclosure, universities have started disclosing educational information not passively, but rather actively and strategically. In this section, the author uses on the results of empirical investigations to explore the following: (1) the general present situation of Japanese educational information disclosure; (2) the present situation of high school teachers’ and guardians’ requirements for Japanese universities’ educational information

3 Japanese University Information Disclosure …

34

disclosure; and (3) the effects that university information disclosure is having on university enrollment and employment guidance. In the end, results of the empirical investigation point to a key pathway to solving the major problems of educational information disclosure: the form of university information disclosure needs to be standardized, and difficulties in searching for information should be eased. 1. The general situation of university information disclosure In Japan, the organizations that collect university information are predominantly non-government entities. In the university rankings published by Asahi Shimbun, the basic facts about each university are provided, and universities are compared from several angles. Yomiuri also regularly publishes special editions on the strengths of universities. Newspapers about the economy also compare universities from many angles. The following are data published by the Benesse Educational Research and Development institute (Fig. 3.1). As Tables 3.1 and 3.3 show, universities do best in disclosing information related to the organizations of teaching and working staff, the equipment and the required number of students in different schools. Over 80% of universities disclosed these items. Nearly 70% of universities disclosed information related to teaching contents and methods and the number of students who applied for examinations, who qualified in the entrance exams and who finally enrolled. These are the areas in which universities perform well in information disclosure. Among universities that responded, “the information is about to be disclosed,” state-owned public universities show better performance than other universities in most areas. This phenomenon, to a large extent, is caused by the legal personalization in state-owned public universities. Most of the private universitiesalso promote legal personalization. Therefore, it can be considered that the term “information providing” stipulated in the 22nd entry of the Law on the Disclosure of Information Retained by Independent Administrative Institutions helps the

Already disclosed

Scheduled to disclose in the future The number of dropouts

No schedule for disclosure

10.1

Information related to students' academic performance

33.6

40.2

17.3

43.7

Universities’ reports on how the yearly plans are conducted

21.2

Policies on conferring degrees

21.9

The permission and declaration of university establishment

No response

31.7

17.6

28.1

19

54.8

30.4

Curriculum

16.1 21.4

26.7

4.9 23.4

61.8

Policies of recruiting students

18.1

47 57.2

Financial information

15.5

24.8

34.3

Students' directions for further studies and employment

7.9

13.2

62

13.7

6.6

12.8

12.1

12.9

25

1.6 11.3

The rates of the graduates who seek further studies and employment

62.7

20.1

4.7 12.5

Results of various assessments and evaluations on universities

63.2

20.6

3.2

13

13.7

7.1

11.6

The number of students qualified in the entrance exams and ultimately enrolled in

67.6

Teaching contents and methods

69.7

The organizations of teaching and working staff, the equipment

17.2 80

The required number of students in different schools

80 0%

10%

20%

Fig. 3.1 University information disclosure on different items

30%

40%

2.8 10.3 7.9 1.5 10.6

6.8 2.5 10.7 50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

3.1 The State of Japanese Universities’ Information Disclosure

35

disclosure of information related to organization, business, financial situation, evaluation and supervision. But state-owned public universities did not do enough to disclose financial information. Among all public universities, only 40% disclosed their financial information, and only 30% responded “there will be no public reservations.” This phenomenon may be due to the fact that different types of universities receive different degrees of supervision. In Japan, local governments tax universities according to their reported financial information. Some universities do not disclose their financial information, which can result in tax dodging and tax evasion. Therefore, the insufficient disclosure of financial information will bring some financial losses to stakeholders, and the government can also be affected. Although very few universities can voluntarily disclose information related to degree policies, curriculum setting, and students’ academic performance, the investigation shows that the percentage of universities that plan to disclose these types of information is high: 54.8%, 47% and 43.7% respectively. From this it can be concluded that, in order to meet the needs of students, guardians and enterprises, universities should actively disclose information related to their teaching content and achievements. Table 3.3 shows that universities are making efforts to meet the demand in disclosing these types of information. In terms of the information related to the number of the dropouts and universities’ performance in implementing plans, the percentage of universities that can disclose these types of information is very small, and the percentage of those that promise to disclose this information in the future is quite big. The rate of zero response was approximately 10–20% of universities for all items, which may suggest that many of the presidents and staff in charge were unaware of the current state of information disclosure in their university. The information disclosed by Japan’s universities fall into two principal categories: information related to education and information about universities’ operations and finances. There are different sub-items within the two categories, and universities show different levels of information disclosure performance between the categories. But in general, whether judging from the number of universities that disclose this information or the contents that are disclosed, their performances are relatively satisfactory. 2. The situation of disclosing educational information Starting from 2008, in order to produce abundant human resources and achieve other objectives in terms of educational research, educational information disclosure in undergraduate schools became obligatory. In Japan, there are already 747 universities that have disclosed their educational information on their home pages. Table 3.4 lists the main items disclosed by universities and the number and percentage of universities who disclosed them. 3. The situation of disclosing financial and operational information According to statistics from MEXT, the number of university corporations that disclosed general financial information in YEAR increased by 2.4% compared to the previous year, reaching 628 (and accounting for 94.6% of all school

3 Japanese University Information Disclosure …

36

Table 3.3 Universities’ performance at information disclosure

State-owned universities (181)

Public universities (80)

Private universities (590)

The number of dropouts

13.3

8.8

9.3

Information related to students’ academic performance

14.4

33.8

15.9

Universities’ reports on how the yearly plans are conducted

24.3

25.0

19.7

Policies on conferring degrees

23.2

22.5

21.4

The permission and declaration of university establishment

31.5

28.8

30.3

Curriculum

34.3

46.3

32.7

Students’ directions for further studies and employment

61.3

63.8

55.1

Financial information

59.1

40.0

65.6

Policies of recruiting students

77.3

85.0

54.2

The rates of the graduates who seek further studies and employment

68.5

63.8

60.8

Results of various assessments and evaluations on universities

68.0

70.0

60.8

The number of students who applied for examinations, who qualified in the entrance exams and who finally enrolled

76.8

83.8

62.5

Teaching contents and methods

77.9

67.5

67.5

The required number of students in different schools

82.3

91.3

77.8

The organizations of teaching and working staff, the equipment

80.1

91.3

78.5

Note Light gray cells indicate performance that is better than the general situation by over 5%. Dark gray cells indicate performance that is worse than the general situation by over 5%. Source Benesse Educational Research & Development Institute (2009)

3.1 The State of Japanese Universities’ Information Disclosure

37

Table 3.4 Statistics on the items of information disclosure and universities Items

Number of universities that disclose the item

Percentage (of X universities)

Universities’ rules and regulations 352 47 Total number of students 498 67 Total number of faculty 437 59 Main objectives of teaching and conducting 674 90 academic research in different departments General information on curriculum in different 672 90 departments Teaching plans and syllabus 437 59 Number of students who apply for taking the 493 66 entrance examinations, who are enrolled and who are officially registered Graduation destinations of students 619 83 Source Report on the Reform of Universities’ Teaching Contents, published by MEXT. Link: http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/daigaku/04052801/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/08/25/13102 69_1.pdf

corporations). The number of universities that disclosed financial information on their homepages went up by 36 (or 5.8%), reaching 579 (and accounting for 87.2% of all school corporations). From Table 3.5, it can be seen that the number of school corporations that close to disclose information rose from 2010 to 2011, and most school corporations chose to publish the information on website home pages.

Table 3.5 Statistics of universities’ disclosing financial information Items

The total number of school corporations

2011 2010 2011

School corporations that disclosed general financial information

2010

Channels of disclosure

Home pages Magazines and other publications Notice boards

University corporation

Short-term university corporation

Total

541 541 520 (96.1%) 511 (94.5%) 495 (91.5%) 329 (60.8%)

123 126 108 (87.8%)

664 667 628 (94.6%) 615 (92.2%) 579 (87.2%) 374 (56.3%)

74 (13.7%)

104 (82.5%) 84 (68.3%) 45 (36.6%)

29 (23.6%)

103 (15.5%) Source Report on the reform of university in 2010. Link: http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/ shinkou/07021403/1331137.htm

38

3.2 3.2.1

3 Japanese University Information Disclosure …

Features of Japanese University Information Disclosure Background of University Information Disclosure in Japan

Through the analysis on the background of Japanese university information disclosure, it can be concluded that with the sharp decline of the young population in Japan, universities are facing a “survival crisis.” Therefore, in order to increase their competitiveness and meet the demands of students and their parents for access to information, universities need to disclose educational information which details how they are run and operated. In addition, through displaying their management philosophies, universities can become more attractive to those enterprises that want to employ their graduates. Therefore, well-conducted information disclosure can help high-quality universities enroll sufficient numbers of students of the right caliber and ensure that their graduates attract good employment opportunities. This can in turn help ease universities’ struggle for survival and give those with good schooling conditions a strong edge in the competitive environment. Additionally, especially in the context where international communication becomes increasingly frequent, effective information disclosure can also attract foreign students to increase the total enrollment. By the same token, the current survival crisis would definitely have weakened the willingness of universities with poor schooling conditions to disclose their information. Huge differences in the degree of Japanese universities’ information disclosure constitute one problem which stands in the way of the further development of universities’ information disclosure as a whole. With the legal promotion of information disclosure by the Japanese government, the influence of the survival crisis and the increasingly fierce competition among universities, the scale of universities’ information disclosure is becoming larger and larger. Meanwhile, private universities like Waseda University in Tokyo have begun to strategically explore how to better avoid risks and gain new opportunities under these new circumstances. At present, Waseda University’s information disclosure practices can be considered a good trial that has already yielded satisfactory outcomes. As one of the pioneers in this field, Waseda University has set an example for other universities to follow by forming complete and standardized systems of information disclosure. This example shows that a university’s practice in disclosing information can go beyond simply implementing regulations and performing social obligations, and give them an edge in strategic competition.

3.2 Features of Japanese University Information Disclosure

3.2.2

39

Good Examples of Universities in Information Disclosure

With the promotion of government and non-governmental organizations, some universities became the pioneers of university information disclosure. Doshisha University is one of the most typical examples. Located in the city of Kyoto, this university has been devoted to information disclosure since the end of 1990s and the beginning of the twenty-first century. In 2002, Doshisha University published the syllabuses of all its courses and the GPA scoring distribution of 7200 courses. In 2006, its educational reform project was selected to become one of the distinct educational projects funded by MEXT. After 2007, the university began to conditionally disclose the information in its basic database, which contains such information as the number of students who attend examinations and who qualify, the graduate employment rate, the number of dropouts and the number of students expelled. Since 2007, this database has been disclosed without any conditions. In 2008, Doshisha began to disclose the teaching records written by teachers in order to further enhance the transparency of educational information. In these teaching records, information like students’ study attitudes, the intention of examinations and the grading criteria are disclosed. Since 2009, the university also began to disclose the number of student complaints through pamphlets or websites. All these measures increase university transparency and earn social trust and a reputation for having a good quality of education.

3.2.3

Motivations for University Information Disclosure in Japan

In conclusion, based on a review of the background of Japan’s promotion of information disclosure, this study highlights two principal reasons or motivations behind the development of Japan’s information disclosure. The first is that institutional regulations and supervisions are very clear and the enforcement measures are strong. The second is that Japan is an aged society, and universities are competing fiercely for students. Universities can improve their competitiveness and increase enrollment rates through information disclosure.

40

3.3 3.3.1

3 Japanese University Information Disclosure …

The Existing Problems in Japan’s University Information Disclosure Degree of University Information Disclosure is not Unified

At present, there is insufficient legislation and standardization on what items of information should be disclosed. Although many laws like the Law of National University’s Juridical Person, Law of Local Independent Administrative Legal Person, Law on Private Schools, Law of Education and the University Establishment Standard have promoted the development of university information disclosure, the stipulations only cover a limited range of items which are to be disclosed. In April 2011, MEXT stipulated that universities were duty-bound to publish educational information like total enrollment, academic performance and related assessments and graduate employment figures. However, in terms of information related to improving teaching quality and the measures taken by different universities to improve teaching quality (including the improvement of assessment evaluations, special teaching activities and research and the development of teaching staff), universities could choose whether to disclose them to the public. This disunity in information disclosure standards can result in some negative influences, which in turn can impact the development of the educational courses. Among these negative influences, one that might occur with the highest likelihood is the spreading of rumors that can lead to public distrust of universities and an eventual loss of public support, funds and investments. Therefore, at present, during the course of promoting educational information disclosure within the legal framework, in order to overcome the differences among different universities and to set up the names of the courses based on planned schedules, it is necessary to build a unified system among different universities.

3.3.2

Data Collection of Universities Information Disclosure is not Unified

With the need to provide information becoming increasingly important, the burden of information disclosure rises concomitantly. The various stipulations on disclosing information are becoming a burden on institutions of higher learning, especially the process of data collection. When Japanese universities collect the necessary data, they do not do so in a uniform way. Therefore, this can make it difficult for students to compare learning outcomes from one university with those of another and make informed choices. With the diversity among different institutions of higher learning, the possibilities of comparing institutions with each other should not be excluded. A unified platform for investigating and collecting data

3.3 The Existing Problems in Japan’s University …

41

should be established so that the efficiency of the higher education sector as a whole can be increased.

3.3.3

The Resulting Risks of University Information Disclosure

The function of information disclosure is to allow the consumer to make decisions and take actions. In the process, there are possible risks, as follows. First, the consumer could deviate from the original intention (expectation) of the university and be left with a different understanding. Another possibility is that the information disclosed by the university does not satisfy the motivation (purpose) of the consumer, and the consumer feels unsatisfied with the university. Furthermore, if the information contains errors, it will generate a sense of distrust of the university. Lastly, if the disclosed information suggests that the university is less competitive than others, the brand competitiveness of the university will decrease.

3.3.4

The Information Disclosure System that Could Improve Education Quality is Incomplete

Despite both students and teachers gradually becoming increasingly internationally mobile, communication between Japanese universities and overseas universities still has shortcomings. From the angle of practical utilization of information, an analysis of information about universities’ educational research activities reveals that the information disclosure system that could improve education quality is still incomplete. To perfect information disclosure in this area, each university must take responsibility.

Chapter 4

Information Disclosure at National and Private Universities: A Microscopic Perspective

There are plenty of similarities regarding university information disclosure between China and Japan, for example: 1. Similar main force of university information disclosure In Japan, the Central Council for Education (of MEXT) is the main force behind the promotion of university information disclosure. In China, the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (henceforth PRC) plays the same role. Therefore, university information disclosure is mandated by the government in both Japan and China. 2. Similar information required to be disclosed The Ministry of Education of the PRC issued the “Basic Requirement of Information Disclosure Items in Colleges and Universities (1st Edition),” in which 50 different categories of information were required to be disclosed. The information disclosure requirements of Japan also include 50 categories. In Japan, MEXT has produced the “Rules for the Implementation of Law of Education (Revised)”, which also contains 50 categories of required information to be disclosed. The content of the two regulations is highly similar. 3. Similar cultural background between Japan and China Both China and Japan are in Asia. Due to the communication since ancient times and amalgamation of national culture over a long period of time, these two countries have highly similar social rules, which is reflected in a similar community culture in both countries. This similarity in culture enables us to regard the standards and requirement of information disclosure in China as a comparative reference for Japan. On this basis, a survey was conducted by the Ministry of Education of the PRC, namely the “Measures for the Information Disclosure of Institutions of Higher Learning,” which was put into effect on September 1, 2010 and the “List of © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 K. Ryu, Developing University Social Responsibility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5489-3_4

43

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

44

Information Disclosure Items in Colleges and Universities” (hereinafter referred to as the “List”), which was brought into effect on July 29, 2014. The focus of the survey (which is printed in Appendix A) was on the current situation of university information disclosure in Japan as well as the perceptions and demands of the relevant parties. The survey mainly targeted students, who were familiar with the information disclosure situation at their university. Research on the current state of information disclosure in national and private universities was conducted through both investigation and surveys. In order to investigate specific differences between national and private Japanese universities in terms of information disclosure, we used a questionnaire survey. Questionnaires were distributed to national universities such as the University of Tokyo and Kyoto University and private universities including Ritsumeikan University and Waseda University. The number of valid responses from students at national universities is 125, and the number from students at private universities is 82. Since Kyoto University and Ritsumeikan University are located in Kansai and the University of Tokyo and Waseda University are located in Kanto, the results of the survey can be regarded as representative of their region. More importantly, the survey questionnaire was randomly distributed to students, therefore, the questionnaires that were returned can be understood to reflect the real situation of information disclosure at national universities and private universities. In addition, the valid returned questionnaires can be classified by gender, among which 33% were male and 67% were female. In terms of education level, the responses can be subdivided into high school education or below (9.76%), junior college for professional training (0.488%), bachelor’s degree (60%), master’s degree (23.9%) and PhD degree (5.85%). In addition, sample mean and other relevant statistics about the sample set regarding national and private universities are listed in Table 4.1. In order to make sure that information disclosed during the survey is objective and unbiased, the targeted survey respondents had to have the relevant knowledge and understanding of the situation regarding university information disclosure at their university. Based on this requirement, one of the questions asked was “Have Table 4.1 Sample mean Category

Sample size (Total)

Sample mean (Total)

Sample size (National)

Sample mean (National)

Sample size (Private)

Sample mean (Private)

Gender High school or below Bachelor Master PhD Junior college

206 205

0.330 0.0976

124 125

0.218 0

82 80

0.500 0.250

205 205 205 205

0.600 0.239 0.0585 0.00488

125 125 125 125

0.504 0.392 0.0960 0.0080

80 80 80 80

0.750 0 0 0

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

Very Familiar

Relatively Familiar

Familiar

45

Not Very Familiar

Never Heard of

Fig. 4.1 Participants’ relevant knowledge of university information disclosure

you heard of university information disclosure?” The result, shown below, was that most of the participants had some understanding of university information disclosure. Only a small portion of the participants (2 out of 206) had never heard of this term (Fig. 4.1).

4.1 4.1.1

The Impact of Information Disclosure on Universities Positive Impact of Information Disclosure on Universities

Students from national and private universities were surveyed regarding the possible positive impact of information disclosure on universities. Among all the participants, 60.9% believed that university information disclosure could reduce corruption in universities, 52.2% held the stance that the university’s reputation would be enhanced by effective disclosure, 40.1% believed that it could help attract more excellent students and enlarge the number of students, 47.3% thought that information disclosure could enhance the harmonious relationship between teachers and students and 46.5% stated the possible benefit of support from society. Moreover, 50.0% of the participants believed that there would be positive incentive to push forward the process of reform in universities and improve their management systems (Table 4.2).

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

46

Table 4.2 Possible positive impact of information disclosure on universities (Total) Variable

Sample

Mean

Standard deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Corruption reduction Reputation enhancement Number of applicable students Harmonious relationship enhancement between teacher and students Support acquirement from society Reform process pushing forward

207 207 207 207

0.609 0.522 0.401 0.333

0.489 0.501 0.491 0.473

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1

207

0.314

0.465

0

1

207

0.541

0.500

0

1

In this survey, the number of valid responses from national universities was 125. Among this portion of participants, 75.2% believed that university information disclosure could reduce corruption in universities, 57.6% held the stance that university reputation would be enhanced by effective disclosure, 44.4% believed that it could help attract more excellent students and expand the source of students, 39.2% thought that information disclosure could enhance the harmonious relationship between teachers and students, 45.6% stated the possible benefit of support from society and 68.8% of the participants believed that there would be positive incentive to push forward the reform process of universities and improve their management systems. Based on the above results, the two most important positive impacts of information disclosure for national universities are corruption reduction and pushing forward the reform process (Table 4.3). In terms of private universities, the total number of valid responses was 82. Among this portion of participants, 39.0% believed that university information disclosure could reduce corruption in universities, 43.9% held the stance that

Table 4.3 Possible positive impact of information disclosure on universities (National) Variable

Sample

Mean

Standard deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Corruption reduction Reputation enhancement Source of students expansion Harmonious relationship enhancement between teacher and students Support acquirement from society Reform process pushing forward

125 125 125 125

0.752 0.576 0.440 0.392

0.434 0.496 0.498 0.490

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1

125

0.456

0.500

0

1

125

0.688

0.465

0

1

4.1 The Impact of Information Disclosure on Universities

47

university reputation would be enhanced by effective disclosure, 34.1% believed that it could help attract more excellent students and expand the source of students, 24.4% thought that information disclosure could enhance the harmonious relationship between teachers and students, 9.76% stated the possible benefit of support from society and 31.7% of the participants believed that there would be positive incentive to push forward the reform process of universities and improve their management systems. Based on the above results, the distribution of favorable impacts of information disclosure is relatively scattered in private universities. Among all impacts, the three most important positive impacts of information disclosure for private universities are corruption reduction, reputation enhancement and source of students expanding (Table 4.4). In order to contrast the views of students from national and private universities on the positive impact of information disclosure, sample mean analysis and t-test were conducted. Results of the sample mean analysis show that there are significant differences regarding “corruption reduction,” “harmonious relationship enhancement between teacher and students,” “support acquirement from society” and “reform process pushing forward.” For “corruption reduction”, the selection percentage in the sample of national universities is 36.2% higher than that of private universities. There are 35.8% more participants from national universities than private ones who regarded “support acquirement from society” as a positive impact. In terms of pushing forward the reform process of universities, the voting rate of participants from national universities was 37.1% higher. Therefore, there are significant differences regarding these three areas between the samples from national universities and private universities (Table 4.5).

Table 4.4 Possible positive impact of information disclosure on universities (Private) Variable

Sample

Mean

Standard deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Corruption reduction Reputation enhancement Source of students expansion Harmonious relationship enhancement between teacher and students Support acquirement from society Reform process pushing forward

82 82 82 82

0.390 0.439 0.341 0.244

0.491 0.499 0.477 0.432

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1

82

0.0976

0.299

0

1

82

0.317

0.468

0

1

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

48

Table 4.5 Difference between the view of students from national and private universities regarding the positive impact of information disclosure on universities Item

Mean value difference (private mean-national mean) (t-stat)

Corruption reduction

−0.362*** (−5.57) −0.137 (−1.94) −0.0985 (−1.41) −0.148* (−2.23) −0.358*** (−5.84) −0.371*** (−5.60) 207

Reputation enhancement Source of students expansion Harmonious relationship enhancement between teacher and students Support acquirement from society Reform process pushing forward N t statistics in parentheses *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

4.1.2

Negative Impact of Information Disclosure on Universities

Students from national and private universities were also surveyed regarding the possible negative impact of information disclosure on universities. The total valid sample numbered 198. Among all the participants, 31.3% believed that the information acquired by the audience might digress from the university’s initial intention and lead to misunderstanding, which could cause negative impacts on universities; 57.1% held the stance that information users may compare the information of different universities and place universities in an unfavorable position; 14.2% of the participants believed that this would reduce the incentive for university operators to push forward the reform process; 22.2% thought that information disclosure would disrupt the normal operation of universities; and 24.7% stated that in order to cope with various reactions of audiences, some administrative personnel might devote too much effort on public relationship management, which would lead to a dispersion of concentration away from academic performance or even away from the operation of the university. (For details, please refer to the Table 4.6). In order to contrast perception of the negative impact of information disclosure by students of national universities with students of private ones, total samples were separated into two categories and analyzed separately. The number of valid responses from students of national universities was 120. Of that sample, 33.3% believed that the information acquired by the audience might digress from the

4.1 The Impact of Information Disclosure on Universities

49

Table 4.6 Negative impact of information disclosure on universities (Total) Variable

Sample

Mean

Standard deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Lead to misunderstanding Lead to competitions among universities Pull backward reform process Disrupt the normal operation activities Disperse concentration on academics

198 198

0.313 0.571

0.465 0.496

0 0

1 1

197

0.142

0.350

0

1

198

0.222

0.417

0

1

198

0.247

0.433

0

1

university’s initial intention and lead to misunderstanding; 71.7% held the stance that information users may compare the information of different universities and place universities in an unfavorable position; 8.33% of participants believed that this would reduce the incentive for university operators to push forward the reform process; 17.5% thought that information disclosure would disrupt the normal operation of universities; and 35.8% stated that university information disclosure would lead to a dispersion of concentration away from academic performance. Based on the above views regarding negative impact of university information disclosure, the most common stance is that disclosure would lead to competition among universities and universities would be placed in an unfavorable position (Table 4.7). In terms of private universities, the total number of valid responses was 88. The distribution of unfavorable impacts of information disclosure is relatively scattered from respondents of private universities, in which 28.2% believed that information disclosure could lead to a misunderstanding of universities; 34.6% held the stance that it would lead to competition among universities; 23.4% believed that it may hinder the reform process; 29.5% thought that information disclosure could disrupt the normal operation of the university; and 7.69% stated the possible drawback regarding dispersion of concentration away from academics (Table 4.8).

Table 4.7 Negative impact of information disclosure on universities (National) Variable

Sample

Mean

Standard deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Lead to misunderstanding Lead to competition among universities Hinder reform process Disrupt the normal operation of the university Disperse concentration away from academics

120 120

0.333 0.717

0.473 0.453

0 0

1 1

120 120

0.0833 0.175

0.278 0.382

0 0

1 1

120

0.358

0.482

0

1

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

50

Table 4.8 Negative impact of information disclosure on universities (Private) Variable

Sample

Mean

Standard deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Lead to misunderstanding Lead to competition among universities Hinder reform process Disrupt the normal operation of the university Disperse concentration away from academics

78 78

0.282 0.346

0.453 0.479

0 0

1 1

77 78

0.234 0.295

0.426 0.459

0 0

1 1

78

0.0769

0.268

0

1

In order to contrast the views of students from national and private universities on the negative impact of information disclosure, sample mean analysis and t-test were conducted. Result of the sample mean analysis show that there are significant differences regarding “leading to competition among universities,” “pulling backward reform process,” “disruption of normal operation activities” and “dispersing concentration on academics.” There are 37.1% more participants from national universities than private ones who regarded “leading to competition among universities” as a negative impact. For dispersion of concentration away from academics, the selection percentage in the sample of students from national universities is 28.1% higher than those of private universities. In terms of hindering the reform process of universities and disruption of normal operations, the voting rate of private university participants was 15 and 12% higher (Table 4.9).

Table 4.9 Difference between the view of students from national and private universities regarding the negative impact of information disclosure on universities Item

Mean value difference (private mean-national mean) (t-stat)

Lead to misunderstanding

−0.0513 (−0.76) −0.371*** (−5.50) 0.150** (3.00) 0.120* (1.99) −0.281*** (−4.71) 198

Lead to competitions among universities Pull backward reform process Disrupt the normal operation activities Disperse concentration on academic N t statistics in parentheses *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

4.2 Analysis of Information Disclosure Channels

4.2

51

Analysis of Information Disclosure Channels

At present, university information can be acquired by the public through the following types of channels: 1. Campus media: school websites, school newspapers, school magazines and campus radio 2. Media outside campus: public newspapers, magazines, radio and TV programs 3. News conferences, annual journals, minutes of general meetings, presentations of the university 4. Public reference rooms and places for data and information collection set up by the university 5. Information disclosure board, website, electronic screens and other facilities set up by the university 6. Other channels. In order to analyze different university information disclosure channels, the survey questioned participants about which mainstream channels were used to disclose information at their universities. Among all responses collected, the number of valid responses from students of national universities was 123 and the number from students of private universities was 82. In order to compare the information disclosure channels of national universities with those of private ones, sample mean analysis and t-test were conducted to find out the differences between the two sets of responses and their significance. (Statistical summary is shown in the Table 4.10.) Results indicate that the most popular medium for obtaining university information is via campus media, including school websites, school newspapers, school magazines and campus radio. More than 80% of the participants got access to university information through this medium. In addition, there was not much difference between the proportion of students acquiring relevant information through “public reference rooms and places for data and information collection set up by the university” at national and private universities. However, there were significant differences in use of three channels of information disclosure by national and private universities, namely “media outside campus: public newspapers, magazines, radio and TV programs,” “news conferences, annual journals, minutes of general meetings, presentations of the university” and “information disclosure board, website, electronic screens and other facilities set up by the university.” For national universities, apart from campus media there were two other important channels of information disclosure: “media outside campus: public newspapers, magazines, radio and TV programs” and “information disclosure board, website, electronic screens and other facilities set up by the university.” However, for private universities, campus media was shown to be the only common channel for information disclosure. Several responses were collected to Question 8 of the second questionnaire: “What do you think is the most effective channel of university information

52

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

Table 4.10 Difference between channels through which national and private university students acquire university information Item

Mean (National)

Mean (Private)

Mean (Private)Mean (National) (t-stat)

Campus media: school websites, school newspapers, school magazines and campus radio Media outside campus: public newspapers, magazines, radio and TV programs News conferences, annual journals, minutes of general meetings, presentations of the university Public reference rooms and places for data and information collection set up by the university Information disclosure board, website, electronic screens and other facilities set up by the university Other channels

0.878

0.805

−0.0732 (−1.43)

0.463

0.195

0.179

0.0488

0.0732

0.0610

0.447

0.0864

−0.268*** (−4.07) −0.130** (−2.78) −0.0122 (−0.34) −0.361*** (−5.91)

0.0650

0.0244

N t statistics in parentheses *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

−0.0407 (−1.32)

205

disclosure?” (see Appendix B). Waseda University ZN, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs in the School of Japanese Studies at Ritsumeikan University, held the stance that website construction, cloud systems and big data are the channels to concentrate on by universities. Whereas ZXM from Hitotsubashi University and Hitotsubashi University Press thought that the Internet is the most effective channel for information disclosure. The deputy director of University of Tokyo, LWG, suggested web publishing and distribution of relevant materials containing reports and instructions. WT, the associate professor of Economics and Business Administration as well as director of the Institute of Japanese Studies at Tokyo Institute of Technology, stated that services to society provided by lectures, such as public lectures, academic conferences and relevant reports, was the most effective method. Moreover, both ZYL, President of the International Cultural Exchange School of SISU, and ZJ, the Associate Professor of Japanese Studies as well as Director of the Institute of Japanese Studies at SISU thought that the Internet is the most effective channel for information disclosure.

4.3 Survey of Contents Most Required for Information Disclosure

4.3

53

Survey of Contents Most Required for Information Disclosure

As a whole, the distribution of contents required for information disclosure was relatively scattered and all the contents were considered significant by some participants. However, among the listed contents, four of the items received more than a 50% selection rate: (1) basic information about the university (55.2%); (2) regulations of student recruitment, examination and admission for different education levels and degrees; management of students’ roll and data; methods of degree assessment; approaches for student appeal and processing procedures; graduates’ employment guidance and services providing situation and so on (59.1%); (3) disciplinary structure and specialty arrangement, development of key disciplines, plan for curriculum and teaching; facilities including laboratories, equipment and library collection; evaluation of teaching and research performance, result of national teaching evaluation and so on (56.7%); (4) application and administrative regulations regarding scholarships, financial aid, tuition waivers, student loans, work-study program and so on (53.2%). Therefore, the above four categories contain the information that is most required by the public (Table 4.11). In order to contrast the significance of contents required for information disclosure to students of national universities versus students of private ones, sample mean analysis was conducted (results shown in the Table 4.12). Among all responses collected, the number of valid responses from students of national universities is 123 and the number from students of private universities is 80. For participants from national universities, 50% or more believed that all of the five categories of information (4), (5), (6), (8) and (9) should be disclosed. According to the result of participants from private universities, many voted for categories (1) and

Table 4.11 Contents required most for information disclosure (Sample population) Variable

Sample

Mean

Standard deviation

Minimum

Maximum

a10 1 203 0.552 0.499 0 1 a10 2 203 0.330 0.471 0 1 a10 3 203 0.399 0.491 0 1 a10 4 203 0.591 0.493 0 1 a10 5 203 0.567 0.497 0 1 a10 6 203 0.532 0.500 0 1 a10 7 203 0.300 0.460 0 1 a10 8 203 0.468 0.500 0 1 a10 9 203 0.473 0.500 0 1 a10 10 203 0.217 0.413 0 1 a10 11 203 0.369 0.542 0 4 Note a10 1 represents the first category of content of information disclosure, as shown in (1), and so on

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

54

Table 4.12 Difference between contents required most for information disclosure by national and private university students Item

Mean (National)

Mean (Private)

Mean (Private)Mean (National) (t-stat)

a10 1

0.561

0.537

a10 2

0.333

0.325

a10 3

0.455

0.313

a10 4

0.780

0.300

a10 5

0.667

0.412

a10 6

0.667

0.325

a10 7

0.439

0.0875

a10 8

0.650

0.188

a10 9

0.634

0.225

a10 10

0.301

0.0875

a10 11

0.431

0.275

−0.0235 (−0.33) −0.00833 (−0.12) −0.143* (−2.04) −0.480*** (−7.71) −0.254*** (−3.67) −0.342*** (−5.03) −0.352*** (−5.73) −0.463*** (−7.21) −0.409*** (−6.20) −0.213*** (−3.71) −0.156* (−2.02)

N 203 Note a10 1 represents the first category of content of information disclosure, as shown in (1), and so on t statistics in parentheses *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

(5), but the selection rates for other categories was relatively low. It can be concluded based on the table of mean difference analysis that there is no obvious difference between national and private universities in the categories of “basic information about the university” and “university constitution, other established rules and regulations and so on”, since both groups rated these categories over 50%. In terms of other categories, the selection rate for national universities is significantly higher than for private universities. Especially for categories (4) and (9), the selection rate for national university participants was over 40% higher than that of private university participants. In order to triangulate the credibility of student survey results, interviews were conducted with some university lecturers. Professor LQ from the Faculty of Education, Waseda University, believed that the most useful information to disclose

4.3 Survey of Contents Most Required for Information Disclosure

55

is the major decisions made by the university regarding personnel, finance and materials. JFN from the School of Education of University of Tokyo stated that the content required most for information disclosure are finance, employment, university constitution as well as the relevant flows of revenue and expenses. However, JFN also believed that information disclosure should follow the principle of “the more, the better” as long as it did not violate laws and regulations. ZXM from Hitotsubashi University and Hitotsubashi University Press thought that information could be disclosed as long as it does not involve personal privacy and can enhance the community’s understanding of the university. From his point of view, the contents required most were related to the quality of teaching and courses offered. WT, the associate professor of Economics and Business Administration as well as director of the Institute of Japanese Studies at Tokyo Institute of Technology, stated that information related to academics, education, government affairs and logistics should be disclosed, among which education information is the most essential. Lecturers should teach the courses corresponding to his/her research field, instead of random allocation in order to complete education tasks. ZJ, the Associate Professor of Japanese Studies as well as Director of the Institute of Japanese Studies at SISU thought that the content most required for information disclosure relates to financial revenue and expenditure, freshman enrollment information, teaching quality management system and research management. ZYL, President of the International Cultural Exchange School of SISU, stated that information related to development plans, provisions and regulations, personnel adjustments and quality of teaching should be disclosed, among which personnel adjustments and new ordinances are the most essential. Based on the combined result of questionnaires and interviews from students and lecturers, these are some categories that were frequently mentioned: (4) regulations of student recruitment, examination and admission for different education levels and degrees; management of students’ roll and data; methods of degree assessment; approaches for student appeal and processing procedures; graduates’ employment guidance and services providing situation and so on; (5) disciplinary structure and specialty arrangement, development of key disciplines, plan for curriculum and teaching; facilities including laboratories, equipment and library collection; evaluation of teaching and research performance, result of national teaching evaluation and so on; (6) application and administrative regulations regarding scholarships, financial aid, tuition waivers, student loans, work-study program and so on; (7) total number of teachers and other professionals, classifications of academic and professional titles; post setup, management and employment method; teachers’ dispute settlement and so on; (8) charging items, standards, measures, methods of complaint and so on; (9) financial affairs, assets and financial management regulations; source of funds, annual financial budget, and annual financial report; usage and management condition of fiscal funds and donated properties; procurement of equipment, books, medicines and other materials; bidding for major infrastructure projects and so on.

56

4.4

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

Survey and Analysis of Satisfaction with Information Disclosure

The “List” details ten types of information to be disclosed, including: (1) basic information; (2) admission and entrance examination information; (3) financial affairs, assets and charging information; (4) personnel and teaching resource information; (5) teaching quality information; (6) students’ management and services information; (7) academic atmosphere construction information; (8) degree and subject information; (9) foreign exchange and cooperation information; (10) other information. Within the 10 major categories listed above are subsumed 50 detailed items, many of which are closely related to the hot topic of fraudulent practices and corruption cases in universities. For instance, the category of “admission and entrance examination information,” includes “methods and regulations for special-type admissions” and “qualifications and testing result for special-type admissions including examination-free admission, independent recruitment, ranking athletes and students with art specialty” should be disclosed. Under the category of “personnel and teaching resource information,” “details about professional affiliations and official overseas trips of university-level leading cadres” and “appointment and removal of middle-level cadres as well as staff recruitment information” should also be disclosed. The following paragraphs are analysis of respondents’ satisfaction with information disclosed, as detailed in the “List.” For the 120 valid responses from national university students, mean analysis was conducted on the 10 main categories of the “List.” (The means of satisfaction of samples in national universities is shown in the Table 4.13) The four categories with the highest satisfaction rating were (high to low): (9) foreign exchange and cooperation information; (8) degree and subject information; (6) students’ management and services information; (5) teaching quality information. As for the 80 valid responses from private university students, the four categories with the highest satisfaction rating were (high to low): (2) admission and entrance examination information; (1) basic information; (9) foreign exchange and cooperation information; (8) degree and subject information. Therefore, there are significant differences in the level of satisfaction with information disclosure between students of national and private universities. Overall, national universities have a higher satisfaction rating compared with private universities. As for the top four categories with highest satisfaction rating, “foreign exchange and cooperation information” and “degree and subject information” were selected by students of both national and private universities. However, national university participants showed a high satisfaction with “students’ management and services information” and “teaching quality information” while private university participants ranked these two categories with the lowest satisfaction level. The questionnaire not only concentrated on the satisfaction of students regarding each of the ten categories in the “List”; it also contained surveys regarding the overall satisfaction with university information disclosure. In terms of the

4.4 Survey and Analysis of Satisfaction with Information Disclosure

57

Table 4.13 Difference between satisfaction with information disclosure by national and private university students Item

Mean (National)

Mean (Private)

Mean (Private)Mean (National) (t-stat)

a16 1

3.496

3.400

a16 2

3.567

3.418

a16 3

3.025

3.190

a16 4

3.325

3.128

a16 5

3.600

3.177

a16 6

3.608

3.125

a16 7

3.571

3.150

a16 8

3.714

3.203

a16 9

3.723

3.397

a16 10

3.454

3.165

−0.0958 (−0.91) −0.149 (−1.28) 0.165 (1.46) −0.197 (−1.75) −0.423*** (−4.41) −0.483*** (−4.11) −0.421*** (−3.91) −0.512*** (−4.73) −0.325** (−2.79) −0.289** (−2.87)

N 203 t statistics in parentheses *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

regression process, the number of valid responses was 112 for students of national universities and 65 for students of private universities. Among responses from national university students, the overall satisfaction was significantly influenced by respondents’ level of satisfaction with (1) basic information, (3) financial affairs, assets and charging information and (8) degree and subject information. Among responses from private university students, the overall satisfaction was significantly influenced by respondents’ level of satisfaction with (1) basic information, (6) students’ management and services information, (7) academic atmosphere construction information, (9) foreign exchange and cooperation information and (10) other information (Table 4.14). In the sections below, we analyze the contribution and impact of the satisfaction rating of sub-items (50 detailed items) on the satisfaction rating of the 10 main categories regulated in the “List.”

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

58 Table 4.14 The contribution of separate satisfactions of the ten categories to the overall satisfaction of information disclosure between students of national and private universities

4.4.1

Variables a16_1

National a22

0.177** (0.0773) a16_2 0.0296 (0.0767) a16_3 0.149* (0.0781) a16_4 0.0770 (0.0855) a16_5 0.0610 (0.0894) a16_6 0.0952 (0.0727) a16_7 −0.0905 (0.0884) a16_8 0.181* (0.0931) a16_9 0.112 (0.0852) a16_10 0.0968 (0.0928) Constant 0.269 (0.325) Observations 112 R-squared 0.527 Standard errors in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

Private a22 0.417*** (0.104) −0.0701 (0.0926) −0.146 (0.113) −0.139 (0.113) −0.0200 (0.129) 0.553*** (0.121) −0.472*** (0.114) −0.0280 (0.0954) 0.241*** (0.0756) 0.774*** (0.101) −0.576 (0.395) 65 0.764

Basic Information

There are six sub-items contained in the main category of basic information: (1) school scale, profile and division of labor of the university-level leadership, structural establishment, curriculums, majors, various types of current students, number of lecturers and professionals, and so on; (2) university constitution, established rules and regulations; (3) institutions and reports of College Faculty Congress; (4) institutions and annual reports of the Scholarship Committee; (5) university’s future development plan, year plan and focus for the future; (6) annual report on information disclosure. The number of valid responses from students of national universities was 115. Using regression models where the satisfaction ratings of the six sub-items are independent variables and the satisfaction rating of the main category of basic

4.4 Survey and Analysis of Satisfaction with Information Disclosure Table 4.15 The contribution of satisfaction ratings of the sub-items to the overall satisfaction rating of the “basic information” category at national and private universities

Variables

National a16_1

a16_1_1

0.273*** (0.0893) a16_1_2 0.130 (0.102) a16_1_3 −0.0815 (0.0977) a16_1_4 0.258*** (0.0887) a16_1_5 0.261*** (0.0873) a16_1_6 0.150** (0.0748) Constant −0.0834 (0.331) Observations 115 R-squared 0.554 Standard errors in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

59 Private a16_1 0.0131 (0.109) 0.0823 (0.113) 0.263** (0.125) 0.0636 (0.110) 0.289** (0.121) 0.0348 (0.126) 0.912*** (0.329) 79 0.508

information is the dependent variable, it is shown that sub-items (1), (4) and (5) correlate significantly with the satisfaction rating of the category as a whole. The number of valid responses from students of private universities was 79. It is shown that sub-items (3) “institutions and reports of College Faculty Congress” and (5) “university’s future development plan, year plan and focus of the future” correlate significantly with the satisfaction rating of the overall category “basic information” (Table 4.15).

4.4.2

Admission and Entrance Examination, Degree and Subject Information

1. Admission and entrance examination information There are eight sub-items contained in the main category of “admission and entrance examination information”: (1) general admission regulations and methods for special-type admissions, recruitment plan for different batches and subjects; (2) qualifications and testing result for special-type admissions including examination-free admission, independent recruitment, ranking athletes and students with art specialty; (3) channels and methods for individual candidates to check their admission status, number of successful candidates and minimum score for different

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

60

batches and subjects; (4) admission consultation and channels for candidates’ appeal; investigation and result of accusations arising during the freshmen checking period; (5) general admission regulations, list of majors, admission methods of university-specific test for postgraduate students; the number of successful candidates for different faculties (schools, departments), subjects or majors; (6) testing result of the university-specific test for all candidates; (7) list of successful candidates for postgraduate students; (8) admission consultation and appeal channels for postgraduate students. The number of valid responses from students of national universities was 119. Using regression models where the satisfaction ratings of the eight sub-items are independent variables and the satisfaction rating of the “admission and entrance examination information” category is the dependent variable, it is shown that sub-items (2), (3), (4), (5) and (8) correlate significantly with the satisfaction rating of the category as a whole. The number of valid responses from students of private universities was 75. It is shown that sub-items (1), (3) and (8) correlate significantly with the satisfaction rating of the “admission and entrance examination information” category as a whole (Table 4.16).

Table 4.16 The contribution of satisfaction ratings of the sub-items to the overall satisfaction rating of the “admission and entrance examination information” category at national and private universities

Variables a16_2_1

National a16_2

0.102 (0.0784) a16_2_2 0.200*** (0.0703) a16_2_3 −0.140* (0.0819) a16_2_4 0.207** (0.0834) a16_2_5 0.150* (0.0778) a16_2_6 0.0994 (0.0622) a16_2_7 0.00513 (0.0120) a16_2_8 0.323*** (0.0673) Constant 0.213 (0.283) Observations 119 R-squared 0.645 Standard errors in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

Private a16_2 0.275** (0.138) −0.0871 (0.139) 0.304** (0.127) −0.0211 (0.0198) 0.00233 (0.138) 0.160 (0.226) −0.243 (0.249) 0.557*** (0.185) 0.241 (0.380) 75 0.576

4.4 Survey and Analysis of Satisfaction with Information Disclosure

61

2. Degree and subject information There are four sub-items contained in the main category of “degree and subject information”: (1) basic requirement for conferment of a doctor's, master's or bachelor's degree; (2) qualification examination and education level authentication for students to be conferred master’s and doctor’s degrees; (3) examination and verification approaches to universities with newly authorized ability to offer degrees (master’s, doctor’s) of certain subjects and majors; (4) declaration and proof materials to apply for newly authorized ability to offer degrees of certain subjects and majors. The number of valid responses related to “degree and subject information” was 119 from students of national universities and 79 from students of private universities. Among participants from national universities, the satisfaction rating of sub-items (1) and (4) directly influences the overall satisfaction rating of “degree and subject information.” However, for private university students, sub-item (3) also contributes significantly to the overall satisfaction, in addition to (1) and (4) (Table 4.17).

4.4.3

Finance, Assets and Charging Information

There are seven sub-items contained in the main category of “financial affairs, assets and charging information”: (1) financial affairs and assets management regulations; (2) usage and management of fiscal funds and donated properties; (3) level of assets and liabilities, appreciation and hedging of state-owned assets and other information about university-owned enterprises; (4) procurement of Table 4.17 The contribution of satisfaction ratings of the sub-items to the overall satisfaction rating of the “degree and subject information” category at national and private universities

Variables a16_8_1

National a16_8

0.270** (0.115) a16_8_2 0.0761 (0.116) a16_8_3 0.0583 (0.118) a16_8_4 0.361*** (0.111) Constant 0.811*** (0.286) Observations 119 R-squared 0.514 Standard errors in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

Private a16_8 0.290* (0.162) −0.239 (0.154) 0.282* (0.166) 0.465** (0.185) 0.732** (0.347) 79 0.436

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

62

equipment, books, medicines and other materials; bidding for major infrastructure projects; (5) total financial budget, income budget, expense budget, fiscal appropriation budget; (6) total financial report, income report, expense report, fiscal appropriation report; (7) charging items, standards, measures and methods of complaint. Under this category, the number of valid responses from students of national universities was 118 and the number from private universities was 78. It is shown from the questionnaires of national university participants, that sub-items (5) and (7) correlate significantly with the satisfaction rating of category “financial affairs, assets and charging information” as a whole. As for participants from private universities, sub-items (1), (2) and (7) correlate significantly with the satisfaction rating of the category as a whole (Table 4.18).

4.4.4

Personnel and Teaching Resource Information

There are five sub-items contained in the main category of “personnel and teaching resource information”: (1) professional affiliations of senior professors; (2) official overseas trips of university-level leading cadres; (3) post setup, management and Table 4.18 The contribution of satisfaction ratings of the sub-items to the overall satisfaction rating of the category “financial affairs, assets and charging information” at national and private universities

Variables a16_3_1

National a16_3

0.0987 (0.0698) a16_3_2 0.0651 (0.0782) a16_3_3 0.0509 (0.0924) a16_3_4 0.00284 (0.0154) a16_3_5 0.419*** (0.0858) a16_3_6 −0.0163 (0.0113) a16_3_7 0.219*** (0.0659) Constant 0.392** (0.182) Observations 118 R-squared 0.702 Standard errors in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

Private a16_3 0.378*** (0.118) −0.341*** (0.111) 0.172 (0.105) 0.105 (0.110) −0.0817 (0.186) 0.196 (0.148) 0.524*** (0.154) 0.181 (0.239) 78 0.725

4.4 Survey and Analysis of Satisfaction with Information Disclosure Table 4.19 The contribution of satisfaction ratings of the sub-items to the overall satisfaction rating of category “personnel and teaching resource information” at national and private universities

Variables a16_4_1

National a16_4

0.0792 (0.0618) a16_4_2 0.0852 (0.0706) a16_4_3 0.0630 (0.0742) a16_4_4 0.442*** (0.0815) a16_4_5 0.252*** (0.0662) Constant 0.279 (0.180) Observations 116 R-squared 0.746 Standard errors in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

63 Private a16_4 0.161 (0.147) 0.189 (0.144) 0.0368** (0.0177) 0.0454 (0.125) 0.183 (0.132) 1.156*** (0.314) 78 0.381

employment method; (4) appointment and removal of middle-level cadres as well as staff recruitment information; (5) dispute settlement methods for staff. The number of valid responses regarding “personnel and teaching resource information.” was 116 from students of national universities and 78 from students of private universities. Among participants from national universities, the satisfaction rating of sub-items (4) and (5) directly influence the overall satisfaction rating of “personnel and teaching resource information.” However, for private university students, only sub-item (3) contributes significantly to the overall satisfaction level (Table 4.19).

4.4.5

Teaching Quality and Management Information

1. Teaching quality information There are nine sub-items contained in the main category of “teaching quality information”: (1) proportion of undergraduates among all full-time students, number of teachers and teaching structure; (2) list of all available majors, newly-added majors and abolished (i.e., no longer recruiting) majors; (3) total number of courses provided, credits of practical-teaching courses to total credits ratio, electives credit to total credits ratio; (4) proportion of professors teaching undergraduate courses, proportion of undergraduate courses in terms of all courses; (5) favorable policies and career guidance offered to graduates for employment; (6) scale, structure, employment rate and career direction of graduates; (7) annual

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

64 Table 4.20 The contribution of satisfaction ratings of the sub-items to the overall satisfaction rating of category “teaching quality information” at national and private universities

Variables

National a16_5

a16_5_1

0.268*** (0.0609) a16_5_2 −0.0764 (0.0629) a16_5_3 0.000650 (0.000784) a16_5_4 0.00935 (0.0562) a16_5_5 0.101 (0.0651) a16_5_6 0.225*** (0.0640) a16_5_7 0.0784 (0.0691) a16_5_8 0.0925 (0.0577) a16_5_9 0.248*** (0.0655) Constant 0.142 (0.229) Observations 118 R-squared 0.741 Standard errors in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

Private a16_5 −0.00123 (0.0844) 0.137 (0.0854) −0.0305 (0.0927) 0.256*** (0.0960) 0.0170 (0.0145) 0.276** (0.113) −0.0552 (0.0884) 0.203** (0.0874) 0.00522 (0.0126) 0.563** (0.260) 79 0.615

report on the employment quality of university graduates; (8) annual report on the development of artistic education; (9) report about teaching quality of undergraduate students. The number of valid responses related to “teaching quality information” was 118 from students of national universities and 79 from students of private ones. Among participants from national universities, the satisfaction ratings of sub-items (1), (7) and (9) directly influence the overall satisfaction rating of “teaching quality information”. Among participants from private universities, the satisfaction ratings of sub-items (4), (6) and (8) directly influence the overall satisfaction rating of category “teaching quality information” (Table 4.20). 2. Students’ management and services information There are four sub-items contained in the main category of “students’ management and services information”: (1) detailed methods of students’ role and data management; (2) application and administrative regulations regarding scholarships,

4.4 Survey and Analysis of Satisfaction with Information Disclosure Table 4.21 The contribution of satisfaction ratings of the sub-items to the overall satisfaction rating of category “students’ management and services information” at national and private universities

Variables

National a16_6

a16_6_1

0.185** (0.0862) a16_6_2 0.193** (0.0865) a16_6_3 0.280*** (0.0983) a16_6_4 0.382*** (0.0710) Constant −0.232 (0.313) Observations 119 R-squared 0.615 Standard errors in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

65 Private a16_6 0.110 (0.124) 0.214 (0.131) 0.309* (0.163) 0.00188 (0.120) 1.098*** (0.409) 78 0.290

financial aid, tuition waivers, student loans, work-study program; (3) reward and penalty system for students; (4) channels and methods for student appeals. The number of valid responses related to “students’ management and services information” from students of national universities was 119 and from students of private universities was 78. Among participants from national universities, the satisfaction ratings of all four sub-items have a direct influence on the overall satisfaction rating of the category “students’ management and services information”. However, for participants from private universities, only sub-item (3) has direct influence on the overall satisfaction rating of the category (Table 4.21). 3. Academic atmosphere construction information There are three sub-items contained in the main category of “academic atmosphere construction information”: (1) department of academic atmosphere construction; (2) regulations and enforcement of academic standards and rules; (3) investigation process for academic misconduct. The number of valid responses related to the category “academic atmosphere construction information” was 119 from students of national universities and 79 from students of private universities. For participants from both national universities and private universities, the satisfaction levels of all three sub-items have a direct influence on the satisfaction level of the category as a whole (Table 4.22).

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

66 Table 4.22 The contribution of satisfaction ratings of the sub-items to the overall satisfaction rating of category “academic atmosphere construction information” at national and private universities

4.4.6

Variables

National a16_7

a16_7_1

0.390*** (0.0790) a16_7_2 0.312*** (0.0785) a16_7_3 0.294*** (0.0666) Constant −0.0552 (0.211) Observations 119 R-squared 0.728 Standard errors in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

Private a16_7 0.326*** (0.0821) 0.235** (0.0912) 0.381*** (0.0928) 0.125 (0.289) 79 0.607

Foreign Exchange and Cooperation Information

There are two sub-items contained in the main category of “foreign exchange and cooperation information”: (1) current situation of Chinese (Japanese)-foreign cooperation programs; (2) administrative system and regulations of international students in China (Japan). The number of valid responses related to the category “foreign exchange and cooperation information” was 119 from students of national universities and 79 from students of private universities. Among participants from national universities, the satisfaction levels of both sub-items have a direct influence on the overall satisfaction level of the category as a whole. However, for participants from private universities, only sub-item (2) has a direct influence on the overall satisfaction level of “students’ management and services information” (Table 4.23).

Table 4.23 The contribution of satisfaction ratings of the sub-items to the overall satisfaction rating of category “foreign exchange and cooperation information” at national and private universities

Variables a16_9_1

National a16_9

0.502*** (0.0612) a16_9_2 0.435*** (0.0583) Constant 0.190 (0.193) Observations 119 R-squared 0.749 Standard errors in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

Private a16_9 0.00317 (0.0286) 0.787*** (0.0813) 0.781*** (0.291) 78 0.557

4.4 Survey and Analysis of Satisfaction with Information Disclosure

4.4.7

67

Other Information

There are two sub-items contained in the main category of “other information”: (1) feedback and suggestions from supervision team; rectification and measures taken based on feedback received; (2) contingency plan and processing for natural disasters and other emergencies; investigation and process of major events related to the school. The number of valid responses related to “other information” was 119 from students of national universities and 79 from students of private universities. Among participants from national universities, the satisfaction ratings of both sub-items have a direct influence on the overall satisfaction rating of the category “other information”. However, for participants from private universities, only sub-item (2) has a direct influence on the overall satisfaction rating of the category (Table 4.24). As part of a triangulated approach to research on the information disclosure, interviews were conducted with university lecturers at several universities. Two principal questions were asked: (1) Based on your current knowledge, what do you think of the current situation of information disclosure for (Japanese) universities overall and for the university you work for? (2) What do you think are the best and the worst categories and fields of university information disclosure? Professor LQ from the Faculty of Education, Waseda University, believed that the current state of university information disclosure is not satisfactory. Little information is disclosed; therefore, it is difficult for the target audience to locate relevant information. The worst area of information disclosure relates to university decisions about personnel and financial affairs, which are rarely disclosed by most universities. The best part of current state of affairs is that there has been rising awareness among teachers, students and other audiences of the universities’ obligation to disclose relevant information. ZN, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs in the School of Japanese Studies at Ritsumeikan University, held the stance that the quantity of information disclosure is currently not enough. As a result, it is difficult

Table 4.24 The contribution of satisfaction ratings of the sub-items to the overall satisfaction rating of category “other information” at national and private universities

Variables a16_10_1

National a16_10

0.305*** (0.0859) a16_10_2 0.291*** (0.0822) Constant 1.378*** (0.237) Observations 119 R-squared 0.411 Standard errors in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

Private a16_10 0.0170 (0.0193) 0.0518*** (0.0191) 2.929*** (0.115) 79 0.097

68

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

to get access to information through the Internet. In addition, the unsatisfactory state of university information disclosure is due to a lack of specific staff working on the collection, summary, classification and management of information. The worst issue described by ZN was that hardware and software facilities were not advanced enough and there was a lack of professional staff for addressing technical problems and facility maintenance. The best area could be the disclosure of basic information and material sharing. JFN from the School of Education of University of Tokyo believed that only part of the information is disclosed currently, including some basic information, sponsorship and granting policies and employment information. However, there was less disclosure of accrue information by most universities. JFN said that University of Tokyo had satisfactory information disclosure, but some data were not disclosed. The worst aspects of information disclosure at University of Tokyo were the platform and channels of disclosure as well as the quantity of information disclosed. The best aspects were that basic information was almost fully disclosed and most academic resources could fulfill the needs. The deputy director of University of Tokyo, LWG, claimed to have witnessed a huge improvement in university information disclosure over the previous X years. Despite the different amounts of information disclosed from university to university, 100% of universities now disclose some information about themselves. The percentage of information disclosure of University of Tokyo reached approximately 90%. Information disclosure about recruitment and admission is the best overall, while the worst area is financial affairs information. WT, the associate professor of Economics and Business Administration as well as director of the Institute of Japanese Studies at Tokyo Institute of Technology, stated that the current situation of information disclosure for universities was generally pretty good, motivated by the need to recruit more outstanding students. Tokyo Institute of Technology, being a military university, had plenty of restrictions on information disclosure. However, basic information about the university was fully disclosed to the public. At present, the profiles and introductions of teachers lack detailed descriptions and timely updates and can be regarded as the worst aspect of information disclosure at the university. The best aspect is the introduction to university leadership, history, and unique features of different subjects. Dr. ZLP from the School of Education, Hitotsubashi University, believed that university information disclosure had low transparency and low incentive in recent years. Moreover, the public had low requirements and standards toward university information disclosure. The worst part of information disclosure could be “financial affairs, assets and financial management regulations; source of funds, annual financial budget, and annual financial report; usage and management condition of fiscal funds and donated properties; procurement of equipment, books, medicines and other materials; bidding for major infrastructure projects,” which has almost zero disclosure in most universities. The best part is “disciplinary structure and specialty arrangement.” ZJ, the Associate Professor of Japanese Studies as well as Director of the Institute of Japanese Studies at SISU gave a negative evaluation of the current overall state of information disclosure by universities. In his opinion, the worst aspects were financial affairs and freshmen recruitment, while the best was disclosure of

4.4 Survey and Analysis of Satisfaction with Information Disclosure

69

scientific research achievements. ZYL, President of the International Cultural Exchange School of SISU, believed that the overall performance was pretty good. From his point of view, financial affairs information was ranked the worst and teaching quality information was ranked the best.

4.5

4.5.1

Subtracting and System Structuring of Student Satisfaction Indicator for Information Disclosure of National and Private Universities Subtract of First Class Indicators of Students’ Satisfaction with Information Disclosure at National and Private Universities

A regression test on the general satisfaction degree and the ten satisfaction indicators in the student questionnaire indicates that the contribution of each of the ten indicators to the general satisfaction degree is different. As a result, we can calculate the weight of each indicator and ascertain which indicators are contributing more to the general satisfaction degree. The weight of each indicator is generated by separately normalizing the ten indicators to 1. Since the ten indicators are expected to be positively correlated with the general satisfaction degree, negative correlation and non-significance are not considered (Table 4.25). According to the regression results, indicators “basic information”, “student management service information”, “external communication and collaboration information” and “others” were positively correlated with private university students’ general satisfaction degree. Their weights were calculated at 10%, 30%, 15% and 45% respectively (Table 4.26). According to the regression results, “financial information”, “asset and charging information” and “degree and program information” were positively correlated with national university students’ general satisfaction degree. Their weights were calculated at 55%, 20% and 25% respectively.

Table 4.25 First class significant indicators and their weights—private universities Item

a16_1

Coefficient 0.177** Weight (%) 10.3 Weight (in unit of 5) (%) 10 Standard errors in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

a16_6

a16_9

a16_10

0.553*** 32.3 30

0.241*** 14.1 15

0.774*** 45.3 45

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

70 Table 4.26 First class significant indicators and their weights—national universities

4.5.2

Item

a16_1

Coefficient 0.417*** Weight (%) 55.8 Weight (in units of 5) (%) 55 Standard errors in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

a16_3

a16_8

0.149* 19.9 20

0.181* 24.2 25

Subtract of Second Class Indicators of Students’ Satisfaction with Information Disclosure at Private and National Universities

The Table 4.27 shows the relationship between first class indicators and second class indicators of the level of satisfaction with information disclosure at private and national universities according to the regression analysis. In the category of “basic information”, students of private universities attach most importance to (1.3) the faculty congress related systems, work reports and (1.5) school development plans, annual work plans and key work plans, separately weighing 45 and 55%. In the category of “student management service information”, students attach most importance to (6.3) rules of penalty and award for students. In the category of “external communication and collaboration information”, students attach most importance to (9.2) foreign student management rules. And In the category of “other” factors, students pay most attention to (10.2) contingency plans, warning system and disposition for natural disasters and other emergencies, investigation and handling of major events involving the school. In the category of “basic information”, students of national universities attach most importance to (1.1) size of school, university leadership profile and division of labor, the school institutions, condition of subjects and majors, the basic situation of all kinds of school students, the number of teachers and other professional technical personnel, (1.4) academic committee regulations, annual reports, (1.5) school development plans, annual work plans and key work plans and (1.6) annual report of information disclosure situation, separately weighing 30, 25, 25 and 20%. In the

Table 4.27 Second class indicators and their weights at private universities First class indicators

Second class indicators

Coefficient

Weight (%)

Weight (in units of 5) (%)

a16_1_1 a16_1_4 a16_6 a16_6_3 a16_9 a16_9_2 a16_10 a16_10_2 Standard errors in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

0.263** 0.289** 0.309* 0.787*** 0.0518***

47.6 52.4 100 100 100

45 55 100 100 100

a16_1

4.5 Subtracting and System Structuring of Student …

71

Table 4.28 Second class indicators and their weights at national universities First class indicators a16_1

Second class indicators

a16_1_1 a16_1_4 a16_1_5 a16_1_6 a16_3 a16_3_5 a16_3_7 a16_8 a16_8_1 a16_8_4 Standard errors in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

Coefficient

Weight (%)

Weight (in units of 5) (%)

0.273*** 0.258*** 0.261*** 0.150** 0.419*** 0.219*** 0.270** 0.361***

30 27.4 27.6 16 65.6 34.4 42.7 57.3

30 25 25 20 65 35 40 60

category of “student financial information, asset and charging information”, students attach most importance to (3.5) budget summary table, revenue budget sheet, expenditure budget sheet, and financial provision expenditure budget sheet and (3.7) charged programs, charging basis, charging standards and complaining methods, separately weighing 65 and 35%. In the category of “degree and course information”, students attach most importance to (8.1) basic requirements for granting doctors, masters and bachelor’s degree and (8.4) the application and proof material for planned new degree authorizing courses or degree authorizing points, separately weighing 40 and 60% (Table 4.28).

4.5.3

Simulation and Construction of Information Disclosure Evaluation System for National and Private University Students Based on the Survey Results

We can build an information disclosure evaluation system for students based on the subtraction of the first and second class indicators and regression analysis of satisfaction degree correlation. Following are the information disclosure evaluation systems for private and national university students (Tables 4.29 and 4.30).

4.6

Principal Factor Analysis of Information Disclosure

The List in Sect. 4.4 includes 50 specific items in ten different categories. In this section, we analyze the principal factors of information disclosure based on the satisfaction survey of private and national university students on the 50 items,

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

72

Table 4.29 Information disclosure evaluation system for private university students First class indicator

Weight for first class indicator (%)

Second class indicator

Weight for second class indicator (%)

1. Basic information

10

1.3. The faculty congress related systems, work reports 1.5. School development plans, annual work plans and key work plans 6.3. Rules of penalty and award for students

45

15

9.2. Foreign student management rules

100

45

10.2. Contingency plans, warning system and disposition for natural disasters and other emergencies, investigation and handling of major events involving the school

100

6. Student management service information 9. External communication and collaboration information 10. Others

30

55

100

simplify the 50 items and further analyze the first class items to find out the difference in principal factors of information disclosure for national and private universities.

4.6.1

Principal Factors of Information Disclosure for National Universities

According to the questionnaire results for national universities, we analyze the factors of 50 items mentioned in “the Sheet” in the Table 4.31. There are 34 final factors; among them, the first 22 explain all 50 items of information disclosure. Also, according to the eigenvalue analysis, since the first 9 factors had eigenvalues greater than one and these 9 factors can explain 82.9% of all information disclosure items, we can conclude that the 50 information disclosure items for national universities can be divided into 22 principal factors to explain all information disclosure items, or 9 principal factors to explain 82.9% of all information disclosure items. We made a scree plot with STATA to reflect the explanatory power of principal factors in a more intuitive way. The scree plot has displayed the eigenvalues of 50 factors in principal factor analysis. The first factor had the highest eigenvalue and

4.6 Principal Factor Analysis of Information Disclosure

73

Table 4.30 Information disclosure evaluation system for national university students First class indicator

Weight for first class indicator (%)

Second class indicator

Weight for second class indicator (%)

1. Basic information

55

1.1. Size of school, university leadership profile and division of labor, the school institutions, condition of subjects and majors, the basic information of all kinds of school students, the number of teachers and other professional technical personnel 1.4. Academic committee regulations, annual reports 1.5. School development plans, annual work plans and key work plans 1.6. Annual report for information disclosure 3.5. Budget summary table, revenue budget sheet, expenditure budget sheet, and financial provision expenditure budget sheet 3.7. Charged programs, charging basis, charging standards and complaining methods 8.1. Basic requirements for granting doctor’s, master’s and bachelor’s degrees 8.4. Application and proof material for planned new degree authorizing courses or degree authorizing points

30

3. Financial information, asset and charging information

8. Degree and course information

20

25

25 25%

20% 65

35

40

60

the eigenvalues turned negative after the 34th factor (the eigenvalue of the first factor being 19.06, that of the 34th being 0.0116) (Fig. 4.2). Applying KMO analysis to the analysis result, it is apparent that KMO had more obvious effects, which provided a value above 0.8 for almost all 50 information disclosure items, with an average of 0.844 (Table 4.32). In order to further simplify the structure of the factors, we did factor analysis rotation on all information disclosure items in the survey sample and got an orthogonal factor table for the factors. According to the eigenvalue analysis, the first 9 factors had eigenvalues greater than 1, and these 9 factors can explain 82.9% of all information disclosure items. As a result, this book will keep the 9 principal factors of the 50 factors in “the Sheet,” and reclassify according to these 9 principal factors (Table 4.33).

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

74

Table 4.31 Indicator analysis for 50 information disclosure items—national universities Principal Factor

Factors Eigenvalue

34 Difference

Factors Proportion

Retained Cumulative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

19.06 2.860 2.158 2.044 1.610 1.438 1.258 1.067 1.002 0.869 0.845 0.731 0.629 0.605 0.514 0.493 0.481 0.399 0.379 0.348 0.276 0.253 0.239 0.216 0.182 0.167 0.123 0.0988 0.0726 0.0612 0.0497 0.0325 0.0237 0.0116 −0.00639 −0.0179 −0.0293 −0.0393 −0.0448

16.20 0.701 0.114 0.435 0.172 0.179 0.191 0.0656 0.132 0.0246 0.114 0.102 0.0245 0.0910 0.0203 0.0128 0.0813 0.0205 0.0304 0.0722 0.0235 0.0136 0.0227 0.0340 0.0150 0.0441 0.0244 0.0262 0.0114 0.0115 0.0172 0.00881 0.0121 0.0180 0.0115 0.0113 0.0101 0.00553 0.0202

0.486 0.0729 0.0550 0.0521 0.0411 0.0367 0.0321 0.0272 0.0255 0.0222 0.0215 0.0187 0.0160 0.0154 0.0131 0.0126 0.0123 0.0102 0.00970 0.00890 0.00700 0.00640 0.00610 0.00550 0.00470 0.00430 0.00310 0.00250 0.00190 0.00160 0.00130 0.000800 0.000600 0.000300 −0.000200 −0.000500 −0.000700 −0.00100 −0.00110

0.486 0.559 0.614 0.666 0.707 0.744 0.776 0.803 0.829 0.851 0.873 0.891 0.907 0.923 0.936 0.948 0.961 0.971 0.980 0.989 0.996 1.003 1.009 1.014 1.019 1.023 1.027 1.029 1.031 1.032 1.034 1.035 1.035 1.035 1.035 1.035 1.034 1.033 1.032 (continued)

4.6 Principal Factor Analysis of Information Disclosure

75

Table 4.31 (continued) Principal Factor

Factors Eigenvalue

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 obs = 108

−0.0650 −0.0715 −0.0822 −0.0946 −0.104 −0.113 −0.124 −0.132 −0.138 −0.158 −0.168

34 Difference

Factors Proportion

Retained Cumulative

0.00649 0.0107 0.0124 0.00901 0.00942 0.0112 0.00809 0.00612 0.0199 0.00959

−0.00170 −0.00180 −0.00210 −0.00240 −0.00260 −0.00290 −0.00320 −0.00340 −0.00350 −0.00400 −0.00430

1.030 1.028 1.026 1.024 1.021 1.018 1.015 1.012 1.008 1.004 1

Scree Plot of Eigenvalues after factor Fig. 4.2 Scree plot of factors for 50 information disclosure items—national universities

According to the result of the orthogonal rotation factor, the main contents of the first principal factor are “academic atmosphere building institutions” (0.680), “basic requirements of awarding doctors, masters and bachelor’s degree” (0.747), “qualification examine and scholastic level identification of people with similar

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

76 Table 4.32 KMO analysis for 50 information disclosure items—national universities

Variables

KMO value

Variables

KMO value

a16 1 1 a16 1 2 a16 1 3 a16 1 4 a16 1 5 a16 1 6 a16 2 1 a16 2 2 a16 2 3 a16 2 4 a16 2 5 a16 2 6 a16 2 7 a16 2 8 a16 3 1 a16 3 2 a16 3 3 a16 3 4 a16 3 5 a16 3 6 a16 3 7 a16 4 1 a16 4 2 a16 4 3 a16 4 4 Overall

0.865 0.796 0.877 0.795 0.794 0.846 0.786 0.863 0.829 0.798 0.883 0.657 0.479 0.898 0.705 0.783 0.868 0.287 0.876 0.550 0.876 0.830 0.835 0.891 0.861 0.844

a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16

0.926 0.875 0.889 0.283 0.810 0.865 0.774 0.849 0.876 0.898 0.875 0.872 0.774 0.844 0.887 0.900 0.890 0.903 0.889 0.895 0.871 0.844 0.816 0.875 0.874

45 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 61 62 63 64 71 72 73 81 82 83 84 91 92 10 1 10 2

scholastic of doctors and masters” (0.745), “Auditing standards for new master and doctorate degree authorizing courses or degree authorizing points” (0.760) and “application and proof material for new master and doctorate degree authorizing courses or degree authorizing points” (0.774). These five sub-items are within the categories “academic atmosphere building information” and “degree and course information.” The second factor mainly contains “the usage and management of donated property” (0.826), “school run enterprises assets, liabilities and state-owned assets and other information” (0.822) and “budget summary table, revenue budget sheet and expenditure budget sheet, financial allocations expenditure budget sheet and financial provision expenditure budget sheet” (0.7369). These three sub-items are within the category “financial information, asset and charging information”, which can therefore be identified as the second factor.

4.6 Principal Factor Analysis of Information Disclosure

77

Table 4.33 Principal factor analysis table for 50 information disclosure items at national universities in the survey sample Variable

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Factor 6

Factor 7

a23 1 1

Factor 8

Factor 9

0.621

a23 1 2

0.760

a23 1 3

0.654

a23 1 4

0.781

a23 1 5 a23 1 6 a23 2 1

0.491

a23 2 2

0.640

a23 2 3

0.747

a23 2 4

0.706

a23 2 5

0.407

a23 2 6 a23 2 7 a23 2 8 a23 3 1

0.676

a23 3 2

0.826

a23 3 3

0.822

a23 3 4 a23 3 5

0.7369

a23 3 6 a23 3 7

0.533

a23 4 1

0.714

a23 4 2

0.723

a23 4 3

0.526

a23 4 4

0.494

a23 4 5 a23 5 1 a23 5 2 a23 5 3 a23 5 4 a23 5 5

0.472

a23 5 6

0.828

a23 5 7

0.796

a23 5 8

0.527

a23 5 9

0.554

a23 6 1 a23 6 2

0.710

a23 6 3

0.776

(continued)

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

78 Table 4.33 (continued) Variable

Factor 1

a23 6 4

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Factor 6

Factor 7

Factor 8

Factor 9

0.509

a23 7 1

0.680

a23 7 2

0.450

a23 7 3

0.506

a23 8 1

0.747

a23 8 2

0.745

a23 8 3

0.760

a23 8 4

0.774

a23 9 1

0.711

a23 9 2

0.699

a23 10 1 a23 10 2 Overall

The third factor includes “scale, structure, employment rate and employment flow of the graduates” (0.828) and “Annual Report of College Graduates Employment Quality” (0.796). These sub-items are held under “teaching quality information”. The fourth factor includes “eligibility and testing result for special type of enrollment like recommended admission, independent enrollment, high-level athletes and art students” (0.640), “information query channels and approaches for individual candidates and the minimum admission score in different batch and courses” (0.747) and “admission counseling and the candidates appeal channels, reporting, investigation and results about new student reviews” (0.706). These three sub-items are held under “student examination and enrollment information”. The fifth factor includes “part-time information of school leaders” (0.714) and “information about school leaders going abroad on business” (0.723). These two sub-items are held under “HR and teacher information”. The sixth factor includes “application of regulations for student scholarships, grants, tuition remission, student loans and work-study” (0.710) and “rules of penalty and award for student” (0.776). These two sub-items are held under the category “student management service information.” The seventh factor includes “the faculty congress related systems, work reports” (0.654) and “school development plans, annual work plans and key work plans” (0.781). The eighth factor includes “size of school, university leadership profile and division of labor, the school institutions, condition of subjects and majors, the basic situation of all kinds of school students, the number of teachers and other professional technical personnel” (0.621) and “school rules and regulations established by

4.6 Principal Factor Analysis of Information Disclosure

79

the constitution” (0.760). Both the seventh and eighth factors are relate to sub-items held within the category “general information.” The ninth factor includes “situation of joint schooling” (0.711) and “foreign student management rules” (0.699). These two sub-items are from the category “external communication and collaboration information” (Table 4.34).

4.6.2

Principal Factors of Information Disclosure for Private Universities

According to the questionnaire results for private universities, we analyze the factors of 50 items mentioned in the list in the following table, and there are 40 final factors. Among them, the first 33 can explain all 50 items of information disclosure. Also, according to the eigenvalue analysis, since the former 10 factors had eigenvalues greater than one and these 10 factors can explain 81.7% of all information disclosure items, we can conclude that the 50 information disclosure items for private universities can be divided into 33 principal factors to explain all information disclosure items, or 10 principal factors to explain 81.7% of all information disclosure items (Table 4.35). We made a scree plot with STATA to reflect the explanatory power of principal factors in a more intuitive way. The scree plot displays the eigenvalues of 50 factors in the principal factor analysis. The first factor had the highest eigenvalue and the eigenvalues turned negative after the 40th factor (the eigenvalue of the first factor being 21.54, that of the 40th being 0.00597) (Fig. 4.3). Applying KMO analysis to the analysis results, it is apparent that KMO had more obvious effects, which provided a value above 0.6 for almost all 50 information disclosure items, with an average of 0.619 (Table 4.36). In order to further simplify the structure of the factors, we performed a factor analysis rotation on all information disclosure items in the survey sample and got an orthogonal factor table. According to the eigenvalue analysis, the former 10 factors had eigenvalues greater than 1, and these 10 factors can explain 81.7% of all information disclosure items. As a result, this book will keep the 10 principal factors of the 50 items in “the Sheet,” and reclassify according to these 10 principal factors (Table 4.37). According to the results of the orthogonal rotation factor, the main contents of the first principal factor are “financial and asset management system” (0.718), “maintaining and appreciating of assets, liabilities, state-owned assets in school run enterprises” (0.762), “procurement of material and equipment like apparatus, books, medicines and bidding and tendering for major infrastructure projects” (0.701), “budget summary table, revenue budget sheet, expenditure budget sheet, and financial provision expenditure budget sheet” (0.810) and “charged programs, charging basis, charging standards and complaining methods” (0.824). These 7 sub-items are from the category “finance, assets and billing information”.

80

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

Table 4.34 Principal factors of national universities created according to the results of the orthogonal rotation factor Factor

Sub factor

Factor 1: academic atmosphere building information (58.6%)

Academic atmosphere building institutions; Basic requirements of awarding doctors, masters and bachelor’s degree; Qualification examine and scholastic level identification of people with similar scholastic of doctors and masters; Auditing standards for new master and doctorate degree authorizing courses or degree authorizing points; Application and proof material for new master and doctorate degree; authorizing courses or degree authorizing points; The usage and management of donated property; School run enterprises’ assets, liabilities and state-owned assets and other information; Budget summary table, revenue budget sheet and expenditure budget sheet, financial allocations expenditure budget sheet and financial provision expenditure budget sheet; Scale, structure, employment rate and employment flow of the graduates; Annual Report of College Graduates Employment Quality; Eligibility and testing result for special type of enrollment like recommended admission, independent enrollment, high-level athletes and art students; Information query channels and approaches for individual candidates and the minimum admission score in different batch and courses; Admission counseling and the candidates appeal channels, reporting, investigation and results about new student review; Part-time information of school leaders; Information about school leaders going abroad on business; Application of regulations for student scholarships, grants, tuition remission, student loans and work-study; Rules of penalty and award for student; The faculty congress related systems, work reports; School development plans, annual work plans and key work plans; Size of school, university leadership profile and division of labor, the school institutions, condition of subjects and majors, the basic situation of all (continued)

Factor 2: financial information, asset and charging information (8.8%)

Factor 3: teaching quality information (6.6%)

Factor 4: student examination and enrollment information (6.3%)

Factor 5: HR and teacher information (5.0%) Factor 6: student management service information. (4.4%)

Factor 7: system and work report (3.9%) Factor 8: general information about the school (3.3%)

4.6 Principal Factor Analysis of Information Disclosure

81

Table 4.34 (continued) Factor

Sub factor

Factor 9: external communication and collaboration information (3.1%)

kinds of school students, the number of teachers and other professional technical personnel; School rules and regulations established by the constitution; Situation of joint schooling; Foreign student management rules;

The second factor contains “information about school leaders going abroad on business” (0.719), “proportion of undergraduates of full time students, the number and structure of lecturers” (0.614), “total number of courses, proportion of practical teaching credits and electives credits in total credits” (0.797) and “proportion of undergraduate lecturer professors of total professors, proportion of undergraduate courses taught by professors of all courses” (0.819). These factors are sub-items held under the categories “HR and teacher information” and “teaching quality information”. The third factor includes “academic misconduct investigation mechanism” (0.848), “auditing standards for new master’s and doctorate degree authorizing courses or degree authorizing points” (0.603) and “application and proof material for new master’s and doctorate degree authorizing courses or degree authorizing points” (0.612). These factors can be subsumed under the category “academic misconduct, application materials of courses”. The fourth factor includes “scale, structure, employment rate and employment flow of the graduates” (0.856) and “Annual Report of College Graduates Employment Quality” (0.842). These factors can be subsumed under the category “graduate information.” The fifth factor includes “test scores of graduate re-examinations” (0.720), “planned admission list” (0.683) and “consulting and complaint channels for graduate admissions” (0.683). These three sub-items are held within the category “student examination and enrollment information”. The sixth factor includes “regulation for special type of enrollment, enrollment plan in different batches and courses” (0.876) and “eligibility and testing result for special types of enrollment like recommended admission, independent enrollment, high-level athletes and art students” (0.745). Although the previous factor also relates to enrollment information, these two sub-items belong to the category “special enrollment information”. As a result, these 2 factors can be called “special enrollment information.” The seventh factor includes “school rules and regulations established by the constitution” (0.668) and “the faculty congress related systems, work reports” (0.725). These two sub-items are held under the category of “basic information” and can be termed “regulation and reports.” The eighth factor includes “international joint schooling”. The ninth factor includes “management regulation for school role”.

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

82

Table 4.35 Indicator analysis for 50 information disclosure items—private universities Principal Factor

Eigenvalue

40 Difference

Factors Proportion

Retained Cumulative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

21.54 3.343 2.481 2.331 1.912 1.661 1.444 1.288 1.134 1.103 0.871 0.854 0.805 0.730 0.691 0.634 0.493 0.454 0.394 0.347 0.309 0.293 0.277 0.247 0.207 0.186 0.162 0.141 0.128 0.120 0.0953 0.0729 0.0724 0.0417 0.0327 0.0316 0.0175 0.0168 0.0124

18.20 0.862 0.150 0.419 0.251 0.216 0.157 0.154 0.0309 0.232 0.0168 0.0497 0.0742 0.0396 0.0569 0.141 0.0384 0.0602 0.0468 0.0377 0.0164 0.0162 0.0298 0.0402 0.0210 0.0242 0.0212 0.0128 0.00804 0.0244 0.0224 0.000520 0.0307 0.00892 0.00114 0.0141 0.000680 0.00439 0.00644

0.460 0.0714 0.0530 0.0498 0.0409 0.0355 0.0309 0.0275 0.0242 0.0236 0.0186 0.0183 0.0172 0.0156 0.0148 0.0135 0.0105 0.00970 0.00840 0.00740 0.00660 0.00630 0.00590 0.00530 0.00440 0.00400 0.00350 0.00300 0.00270 0.00260 0.00200 0.00160 0.00150 0.000900 0.000700 0.000700 0.000400 0.000400 0.000300

0.460 0.532 0.585 0.634 0.675 0.711 0.742 0.769 0.793 0.817 0.836 0.854 0.871 0.887 0.901 0.915 0.925 0.935 0.944 0.951 0.958 0.964 0.970 0.975 0.980 0.984 0.987 0.990 0.993 0.995 0.997 0.999 1.000 1.001 1.002 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.004 (continued)

4.6 Principal Factor Analysis of Information Disclosure

83

Table 4.35 (continued) Principal Factor

Eigenvalue

40 Difference

Factors Proportion

Retained Cumulative

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 (obs = 71)

0.00597 −0.000780 −0.00447 −0.00793 −0.0141 −0.0185 −0.0199 −0.0226 −0.0241 −0.0282 −0.0343

0.00675 0.00369 0.00346 0.00612 0.00442 0.00144 0.00264 0.00152 0.00412 0.00613

0.000100 0 −0.000100 −0.000200 −0.000300 −0.000400 −0.000400 −0.000500 −0.000500 −0.000600 −0.000700

1.004 1.004 1.004 1.004 1.003 1.003 1.002 1.002 1.001 1.001 1

10 0

5

Eigenvalues

15

20

Scree plot of eigenvalues after factor

0

10

20

30

40

50

Number

Fig. 4.3 Scree plot of factors for 50 information disclosure items—private universities

The tenth factor includes “contingency plans, warning system and disposition for natural disasters and other emergencies, investigation and handling situation of major events which the school involved in” (Table 4.38).

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

84 Table 4.36 KMO analysis for 50 information disclosure items—private universities

4.7 4.7.1

Variable

KMO

Variable

KMO

a16 1 1 a16 1 2 a16 1 3 a16 1 4 a16 1 5 a16 1 6 a16 2 1 a16 2 2 a16 2 3 a16 2 4 a16 2 5 a16 2 6 a16 2 7 a16 2 8 a16 3 1 a16 3 2 a16 3 3 a16 3 4 a16 3 5 a16 3 6 a16 3 7 a16 4 1 a16 4 2 a16 4 3 a16 4 4 Overall

0.524 0.816 0.660 0.619 0.808 0.634 0.441 0.531 0.660 0.252 0.641 0.554 0.592 0.685 0.714 0.632 0.735 0.692 0.581 0.781 0.644 0.645 0.669 0.0620 0.849 0.619

a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16 a16

0.738 0.611 0.653 0.537 0.724 0.216 0.542 0.596 0.778 0.135 0.557 0.590 0.592 0.606 0.580 0.610 0.503 0.665 0.618 0.687 0.824 0.103 0.579 0.594 0.118

45 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 61 62 63 64 71 72 73 81 82 83 84 91 92 10 1 10 2

Investigation on Views About University Information Disclosure Based on Scholar Interviews Reasons Preventing Information Disclosure

It can be concluded from the survey results that there are unsatisfactory aspects in the information disclosure systems of both national and private universities. In this section we will discuss this topic from two perspectives: barriers to information disclosure and risks of information disclosure. Scholars expressed various views concerning the barriers to information disclosure. Professor LQ from the Faculty of Education, Waseda University, believes that the main barrier to information disclosure is the lack of a balanced system for managing power and responsibility. ZN, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs at Ritsumeikan University, believes that differences in the educational level of the

a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3

Variable

0.718 0.790 0.762 0.701 0.846 0.810 0.824

Factor 1

0.591 0.719

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

0.720 0.815 0.683

Factor 5

0.876 0.745 0.505

Factor 6 0.668 0.725

Factor 7

Factor 8

Table 4.37 Principal factor analysis table for 50 information disclosure items of private universities in the survey sample Factor 9

(continued)

Factor 10

4.7 Investigation on Views About University … 85

a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23 a23

4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9

4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2

Variable

Factor 1

Table 4.37 (continued)

Factor 2

0.797 0.819

0.558 0.543 0.614

0.848 0.514 0.595 0.603 0.612

Factor 3

0.856 0.842

Factor 4

Factor 5

Factor 6

Factor 7

0.931

Factor 8

0.795

Factor 9

(continued)

Factor 10

86 4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

a23 10 1 a23 10 2 Overall

Variable

Factor 1

Table 4.37 (continued)

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Factor 6

Factor 7

Factor 8

Factor 9 0.934

Factor 10

4.7 Investigation on Views About University … 87

88

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

Table 4.38 Principal factors of private universities created according to the results of the orthogonal rotation factor Factors

Sub-factors

Factor 1: finance, assets and billing information (56%)

Financial and asset management system; Management and usage of donation assets; Procurement of material and equipment like apparatus, books, medicines and bidding and tendering for major infrastructure projects; Procurement of material and equipment like apparatus, books, medicines and bidding and tendering for major infrastructure projects; Budget summary table, revenue budget sheet, expenditure budget sheet, and financial provision expenditure budget sheet; Charged programs, charging basis, charging standards and complaining methods; Information about school leaders going abroad on business’; Proportion of undergraduates in full time students, the number and structure of teachers; Total number of courses, proportion of practical teaching credits and electives credits in total credits; Proportion of undergraduate lecturer professor in total professors, proportion of undergraduate courses taught by professors in all courses; Academic misconduct investigation mechanism; Auditing standards for new master and doctorate degree Authorizing; courses or degree authorizing points; application and proof material for new master and doctorate degree; authorizing courses or degree authorizing points; Scale, structure, employment rate and employment flow of the graduates; Annual report of college graduates employment quality; Test scores of graduate re-examination; Planned admission list; Consulting and complaint channels for graduate admissions; Regulation for special type of enrollment, enrollment plan in different batch and courses; Eligibility and testing result for special type of enrollment like; recommended admission, independent enrollment, high-level athletes and art students; School rules and regulations established by the constitution; the faculty congress related systems, work reports (continued)

Factor 2: HR and teacher information and teaching quality information (8.7%)

Factor 3: academic misconduct, application materials of courses (6.5%)

Factor 4: graduate information (6.2%)

Factor 5: student examination and enrollment information (5%)

Factor 6: special enrollment information (4.5%)

Factor 7: regulation and reports (3.8%)

4.7 Investigation on Views About University …

89

Table 4.38 (continued) Factors

Sub-factors

Factor 8: international joint schooling (3.4%) Factor 9: management regulation for school roll (3%) Factor 10: information for unexpected events (2.9%)

Situation for international joint schooling; Management regulation for school roll; Contingency plans, warning system and disposition for natural disasters and other emergencies, investigation and handling situation of major events which the school involved in

public and a lack of awareness of information disclosure has led to dissatisfactions in information disclosure. JFN from the School of Education at University of Tokyo pointed out that the exactification of universities, lack of clarity of senior leadership responsibilities in universities and lack of related regulations are reasons for insufficient information disclosure. Dr. GW from the Faculty of Education, Waseda University, believes that reasons for unsatisfactory information disclosure lie in the lack of specifically tasked departments and the low awareness of the issue by universities. Editor of Hitotsubashi University Press, ZXM from Hitotsubashi University regards tradition, concepts, knowledge and policy as the main barriers to information disclosure. Deputy Director of University of Tokyo, LWG, believes that barriers include differences in the knowledge of staff and the lack of related regulations. WT, the associate professor of Economics and Business Administration as well as director of the Institute of Japanese Studies at Tokyo Institute of Technology, thinks that the lack of universities’ awareness of disclosure and not being able to accept lecturers’ advice are reasons behind unsatisfactory information disclosure. Moreover, the risks of information disclosure cannot be ignored. For example, personal income is not disclosable. Dr. ZLP from the School of Education at Hitotsubashi University believes that there are in total four barriers to information disclosure: lack of regulations, the opacity of the operation process, corruption and black-box operations and requirements for competition. ZJ, the Associate Professor of Culture and Economics, Ritsumeikan University, believes the barrier lies in the incompleteness of the information disclosure system and its management. ZYL, President of the International Cultural Exchange School of SISU, believes that the barriers are people’s ideas, and that we need to disclose more beneficial information and less harmful information. Scholars expressed their opinions on the risks of information disclosure from various perspectives. Professor LQ from the Faculty of Education, Waseda University, believes that to some extent, risks exist in everything. Information disclosure may enhance public inspection and accountability. ZN, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs in the School of Japanese Studies at Ritsumeikan University, believes that risks associated with information disclosure, include the abuse of information and that increasing amounts of information may increase the difficulty of information searching, choosing and conforming. JFN from the School of

90

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

Education at University of Tokyo pointed out that information disclosure makes comparison between universities more convenient, which will lead to candidates flooding a limited number of universities and will result in disputes and negative social impact. WT, the associate professor of Economics and Business Administration as well as director of the Institute of Japanese Studies at Tokyo Institute of Technology, thinks the main risks lie in talent loss, wherein outstanding teachers are easily discovered and extracted to other universities. ZLP from the School of Education at Hitotsubashi University believes that information disclosure involves risks, especially considering the general atmosphere that society operates opaquely in Japan. Risks include enhanced public inspection that may reduce a leader’s power, malicious peer competition, public criticism for administrative blunders and loss of power for some members of university personnel or faculty staff. ZJ, the Associate Professor of Japanese Culture and Economics, Ritsumeikan University, believes that information disclosure risks include increase of staff mobility and management difficulty. ZYL, President of the International Cultural Exchange School of SISU, believes that the risk is reflected in the fact that information harmful to school development is hardly disclosed or often delayed.

4.7.2

Reasons Promoting Information Disclosure

Despite the shortcomings of information disclosure in Japanese universities, survey results show that there are some aspects of information disclosure that universities have done really well and which have garnered rather high satisfaction. Scholars expressed various views on the value of information disclosure. Professor LQ from the Faculty of Education, Waseda University, believes that since the majority of universities in our countries are national universities and are supported mainly by public financing, taxpayers have the right to access information and monitor operations. Moreover, with the popularity of the cost sharing mechanism for higher education, consumer’s property is more and more apparent. Information disclosure is an important tool for protection the public’s rights to know and choose; without it, these rights are hard to protect. ZN, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs in the School of Japanese Studies at Ritsumeikan University, believes that the value of information disclosure lies in sharing resources, collecting big data and offering new platforms. JFN from the School of Education at University of Tokyo pointed out that the value of information disclosure is in improving management concepts for universities. Dr. GW from the Faculty of Education, Waseda University, believes that it is beneficial to the realization of justice and promotion of democracy. It also helps maintain an efficient university system. Editor of Hitotsubashi University Press, ZXM from Hitotsubashi University regards information disclosure as beneficial to national universities because it helps taxpayers get to know the university and encourages them to donate more. It is also good for the selection of students. ZN from Osaka University believes that the most valuable effect of information disclosure is to make university management more

4.7 Investigation on Views About University …

91

transparent and efficient under the close inspection of society. Deputy Director of University of Tokyo, LWG, believes that the value is to promote standardization and improve the efficiency of universities. WT, the associate professor of Economics and Business Administration as well as director of the Institute of Japanese Studies at Tokyo Institute of Technology, thinks that the value of disclosing information is in attracting outstanding students to the school and helping the university develop. Dr. ZLP from the School of Education at Hitotsubashi University believes that information disclosure can promote understanding and support within the university, help society better understand the operation of the university, reduce corruption and inefficiency and correct faults over time. ZN from Osaka University believes that firstly, CSR is a must. Most of our universities enjoy public financial support. As a result, universities should disclose information to the public. Secondly, information disclosure builds tighter connections with stakeholders and allows for inspection by the public. ZJ, the Associate Professor of Japanese Culture and Economics, Ritsumeikan University, believes that information disclosure can promote justice and efficiency and further enhance the general strength of a university. ZYL, President of the International Cultural Exchange School of SISU, believes that information disclosure can help improve management and promote the healthy development of the university. Scholars expressed various views on the motivations for information disclosure. Professor LQ from the Faculty of Education, Waseda University, believes that motivation lies in rewards and punishment. ZN, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs in the School of Japanese Studies at Ritsumeikan University, believes that information disclosure can mutually promote and realize the sharing of big data. JFN from the School of Education at University of Tokyo pointed out that there are at least three aspects to motivation: the management system, the awareness of leaders and the demand (both students and lecturers possess a strong need for information). Editor of Hitotsubashi University Press, ZXM from Hitotsubashi University believes the motivation for disclosing information is to improve the school’s reputation to generate more outstanding students and more donations. WT, the associate professor of Economics and Business Administration as well as director of the Institute of Japanese Studies at Tokyo Institute of Technology, thinks that the motivation is to attract outstanding students, promote the development of academics and promote the healthy operation of universities.

4.7.3

Discussion About Enhancing the Inspection and Neediness of University Information Disclosure

Professor LQ from the Faculty of Education, Waseda University, believes that the inspection system is still not complete, yet inspection is an indispensable part of the information disclosure process. ZN, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs in the School of Foreign Studies at Ritsumeikan University, believes that information disclosure

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

92

is not mature and the inspection framework is not complete. We need to discover problems during the information disclosure process and advance the system. Editor of Hitotsubashi University Press, ZXM from Hitotsubashi University suggests attaching importance to an external inspection rather than disliking it. Only by doing this can universities improve teaching quality. ZN believes that social supervision, public opinion and legal supervision are the three important aspects of constructing a supervision mechanism; WT, the associate professor of Economics and Business Administration as well as director of the Institute of Japanese Studies at Tokyo Institute of Technology, thinks that university leaders being responsible and lecturers being positive and promoting full participation can help better construct a supervising mechanism. Dr. ZLP from the School of Education at Hitotsubashi University believes that the public inspection system needs to be enhanced in the following areas: the inspection of educational and administrative departments, the making of plans and annual reports about information disclosure and the allowing of inspection by citizens, legal professionals and other organizations. ZSR from Osaka University believes that society and the public should be included instead of accepting inspection only from related departments. ZJ, the Associate Professor of Japanese Culture and Economics, Ritsumeikan University, believes that Party and union constitutions are important components of the supervising mechanism. ZYL, President of the International Cultural Exchange School of SISU, believes that we need to define what information must be disclosed and punish false information. In addition, we need to define what information should be disclosed.

4.8 4.8.1

Conclusion Motivation of Information Disclosure for National and Private Universities Are Separately School Reform and Attraction of Students

Students of national universities believe the two most important benefits of information disclosure are reducing corruption and promoting school reform. For private universities, the perceived benefits are rather dispersed, but two relatively important items are reducing corruption and enhancing the reputation of the university in order to gain more students. In other words, the most urgent thing for national universities is promoting school reform by information disclosure, while private universities use information disclosure as a means to advertise the university in order to attract students.

4.8 Conclusion

4.8.2

93

The Negative Factors for Information Disclosure Are Both Risks

In terms of the reasons preventing information disclosure, within the national university sample, information disclosure is thought to potentially exacerbate competition among universities, which is not good for school management. There were in total 88 valid questionnaires in the private university sample. Concerns that information disclosure may negatively affect universities are not as much: 28.2% believe that information disclosure may cause misleading conceptions of schools, 34.6% believe information disclosure may lead to competition, 23.4% believe that it is not beneficial to university reform and 29.5% believe that it would distract from normal management activities. Both national universities and private universities are aware of risk control factors.

4.8.3

National Universities Need Accountability Mechanisms Most While Private Universities Need to Broaden Their Information Disclosure Channels

The information acquisition rate in public reading rooms or material generating points is similar to that of external media like newspapers, magazines, radio and TV, or in annual Press Conferences, annual reports and brief reports. Information boards and electronic screens set up by the university are two other important methods of disclosing information. We can conclude from the above analysis that national universities possess rather broader methods for information disclosure while private universities mainly rely on internal information publishing. National universities need more information disclosure protection mechanisms like laws and administrative accountability to make sure their information disclosure practices make substantial progress. Private universities rely on posters and classes to communicate with students, which is far from enough. Broader information disclosure methods are a must. Aside from communicating with students, active communication with government, society and enterprises can also help the university positively take on social responsibilities, better understand related requirements and further lay the foundation for positive management.

94

4.8.4

4 Information Disclosure at National and Private …

Apparent Differences Exist in Student Satisfaction Indicators Between National and Private Universities

For private universities, the first class indicators related to satisfaction are (1) basic information, (6) students’ management and services information, (9) foreign exchange and cooperation information and (10) other information, with the weights 10, 30, 15 and 45%. Under basic information, students pay most attention to (1.3) the faculty congress related systems, work reports and (1.5) school development plans, annual work plans and key work plans, with the weights 45 and 55%. Under students’ management and services information, students pay most attention to (6.3) rules of penalty and award for students. Under foreign exchange and cooperation information, students pay most attention to (9.2) foreign student management rules. Under other information, students pay most attention to (10.2) contingency plans, warning system and disposition for natural disasters and other emergencies, investigation and handling situation of major events that involve the school. For national universities, the first class indicators related to satisfaction are (1) basic information, (3) financial affairs, assets and charging information and (8) degree and subject information, with the weights 55, 20 and 25%. Under basic information, students pay most attention to (1.1) size of school, university leadership profile and division of labor, the school institutions, condition of subjects and majors, the basic situation of all kinds of school students, the number of teachers and other professional technical personnel, (1.4) academic committee regulations, annual reports, (1.5) school development plans, annual work plans and key work plans and (1.6) annual report for information disclosure, with the weights 30, 25, 25 and 20%. Under financial affairs, assets and charging information, students pay most attention to (3.5) budget summary table, revenue budget sheet, expenditure budget sheet, and financial provision expenditure budget sheet and (3.7) charged programs, charging basis, charging standards and complaining methods, with the weights 65 and 35%. Under degree and subject information, students pay most attention to (8.1) basic requirements for granting doctors, masters and bachelor’s degree and (8.4) application and proof material for planned new degree authorizing courses or degree authorizing points, with the weights 40 and 60%.

4.8 Conclusion

4.8.5

95

National Universities Pay Most Attention to Student-Related Information Disclosure While Private Universities Pay Most Attention to Management Information Disclosure

From the principal factor analysis it can be indicated that national universities disclose mainly on 9 factors: academic atmosphere building information (58.6%), financial information, asset and charging information (8.8%), teaching quality information (6.6%), student examination and enrollment information (6.3%), HR and teacher information (5.0%), student management service information (4.4%), system and work report (3.9%), general information of the school (3.3%), external communication and collaboration information (3.1%). Meanwhile, private universities disclose mainly on 10 factors: finance, assets and billing information (56%), HR and teacher information and teaching quality information (8.7%), academic misconduct, application materials of courses (6.5%), graduate information (6.2%), student examination and enrollment information (5%), special enrollment information (4.5%), regulation and reports (3.8), international joint schooling (3.4%), management regulation for school roll (3%), information for unexpected events (2.9%). According to the result of principal factor analysis, national universities pay most attention to academic atmosphere building information (58.6%), a student-related concern. By contrast, private universities pay most attention to management-related information: finance, assets and billing information (56%), HR and teacher information and teaching quality information (8.7%), academic misconduct, application materials of courses (6.5%) and graduate information (6.2%). The above analysis results illustrate a difference between information disclosure for national and private universities. If we looked through the informational leaflet of a private university, it is very likely that we would find no information about student examination and enrollment. This is because private universities were not putting effort into collecting student enrollment information. Also, each leaflet contains information about only one certain faculty member rather than information about the university in general, which makes the information disclosure lack a sense of consistency.

Chapter 5

A Study of Japanese University Information Disclosure from a Risk and Opportunity Perspective: Towards a “Visualization” Framework

The growing practice of information disclosure in Japanese universities has become a mainstream social phenomenon, driven in part by a shortage of students resulting from a rapidly aging population. Internal and external demands for greater disclosure have also increased as a direct result of Japan’s slowing economy and the rising expectations of companies to attract high quality talent. In response, the Japanese government has promulgated a series of laws and regulations to mandate and offer guidance with respect to the development of enhanced disclosure policies. This article offers an overview of information disclosure in Japanese universities, discussing recent developments as well as outstanding problems and exploring effective disclosure strategies from a risk and opportunity perspective. The article concludes with a case study of B University, whose successful disclosure strategies should serve as a model for the future of university information disclosure in Japan.

5.1

Background of Information Disclosure in Japanese Universities

Unlike corporations and government agencies, which tend to be organized from the top down, the organization of educational, research and other departments within the university system remains complex and varied. It is difficult even for individuals within academia to gain an understanding of the internal workings of a given university, much less prospective students and parents. In the eyes of the average Japanese citizen, the university therefore remains an ivory tower far removed from daily life and even its graduates can only guess at how their schools are run based on their past experience as students. As for the universities themselves, they have never felt the need to allow prospective students to understand them until recently and have historically been loath to disclose any information concerning the nature

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 K. Ryu, Developing University Social Responsibility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5489-3_5

97

98

5 A Study of Japanese University Information Disclosure …

of their internal workings. The old saying that Japanese universities have refused to be known by the outside world is not far from the truth. Some of the underlying dynamics behind the growing need for the greater disclosure of university information in Japan are as follows: The population of young people continues to decline, and universities are struggling to enroll new students. As related doubts over teaching quality have grown more and more prominent and functional differentiation has only increased, universities need to put more effort into improving the quality of their teaching. Greater disclosure of educational information should help encourage this trend. As Japan’s long-term economic recession continues, the demand for a greater understanding of how universities are managed and operated continues to grow despite the ability of businesses and households to endure difficult conditions. More and more companies have expressed discontent over the lack of communication and practical application skills of new employees, reflecting a growing distrust over the quality of the university curriculum. Given the expanding scope of international exchange, foreign students have an even greater need for access to information concerning Japanese universities. Because of these concerns, Japanese universities have been under increasing pressure to convey additional information concerning the nature of their activities and initiatives to a greater number of people. One of the primary objectives of such disclosure is to provide prospective students with sufficient information to make informed decisions as to which schools would be best for them. At the same time, as public educational institutions, universities also have a social responsibility to disclose relevant information to the public. Given its growing importance, the disclosure of educational information should therefore be more than a matter of passive compliance with applicable laws and regulations, but rather part of a comprehensive strategy to attract the best and brightest.

5.2 5.2.1

The Japanese Government’s Promotion of Information Disclosure Governmental Deliberations Over Information Disclosure

1. The Promotion of Educational Information Disclosure The conclusion of the Committee was that, as public education institutions, universities are required to disclose to students, parents and society at large information concerning their basic organizational structure, faculty, curriculum, graduation requirements, student body, tuition payment, learning environment, as well as student assistance programs and scholarships. The Committee also proposed a list of specific items to be disclosed by all universities. Basic organizational information to be disclosed includes the name of

5.2 The Japanese Government’s Promotion of Information Disclosure

99

each school, department and course as well as the number of students and admission quotas of the various departments; faculty information includes the number of teachers and student-faculty ratios as well as the teachers’ academic degrees and achievements; curriculum information includes course names, teaching methods, teaching content and one-year teaching plans; graduation requirements and other relevant information includes the academic system, credits and degrees as well as the degrees and professional titles offered; student information includes basic admission requirements, the number of new students, total number of students, number of graduates, number of individuals pursuing further studies, employment statistics and post-graduation career paths; payment information includes the categories and amount of tuition, payment schedules, tuition waivers and other waiver options; learning environment information includes campus locations, traffic conditions, campus maps, sports facilities and extracurricular activities; and student assistance and scholarship information includes on-campus student assistance organizations, and scholarship categories and application methods.1 The Committee thereby specified the various types of information to be disclosed (including items subject to mandatory disclosure under the terms of the University Benchmarks, as discussed below) from the perspective of improving educational quality, taking into account: the role of educational research in establishing graduate schools, various departments, courses and majors; the types of knowledge and ability systems to be derived from the courses (which specifically involves determining what types of teaching programs can lead to what types of knowledge and abilities); as well as methods of evaluating academic performance and related graduation criteria. As for the specific measures adopted by each university to implement such improvement (i.e., the various evaluation systems for improving educational quality, the status of unique teaching research and the functional development of the faculty), the Committee left the decision of whether to actively disclose them to the individual universities themselves. The Committee also addressed the types of information to be subject to mandatory disclosure from the perspective of international university evaluation activities and overseas disclosure by Japanese universities. Such information primarily involves the content and scope of related educational activities (including basic student information, curriculums and standards based on clear policy, the number of foreign faculty, research productivity and standards and access to external capital, etc.); international cooperation strategies concerning university education; international student policies; and the implementation of external evaluations.

1

This list has been compiled by the author from MEXT’s Certain Policies on the Promotion of Education Information Disclosure, available at http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/kouhyou/ 1295576.htm.

100

5.2.2

5 A Study of Japanese University Information Disclosure …

The Discussion of Problems with Educational Information Disclosure

In addition to the types of university information to be disclosed, the Committee also explored various problems with the current status of such disclosure. As things stand, the Committee found that disclosure methods of different schools, even within the same university, are not standardized, and concluded that overcoming these differences and developing a standardized system through which each university discloses information is of paramount importance. For example, the information portal network of UNESCO’s higher education authority, which was established to ensure the quality of university education, has already attracted the participation of several countries, and we look forward to the further expansion of this type of borderless and objective information disclosure. In an effort to develop a standardized system for the disclosure of information on the domestic front, the Japan Association of Public Universities2 has also developed and released Education Information Disclosure Guidelines, which are based in part on the recommendations of the Central Education Consideration Committee. The Guidelines essentially require that the form of educational information disclosure not only comply with the law, but also be accessible to the public to the greatest extent possible and that universities do their best to utilize common disclosure methods so as to ensure that the information can be cross-referenced by its intended audience. Finally, with respect to the subject and content of information disclosure, and in addition to quality assurance systems and international university evaluation working groups, the Japanese government hopes that university operating departments also consider disclosing related operating and financial information to the public.

5.2.3

The Basic Idea Behind MEXT’s Initiatives

Article 113 of the School Education Law3 as well as the University Benchmarks4 require universities to disclose the status of their educational research activities in an effort to popularize educational research and promote its application. According

2 Comprised of Japan’s 83 public universities and headquartered in Tokyo, the Japan Association of Public Universities is a general corporate body whose primary goal is to study Japan’s public higher education system. 3 The School Education Law is the basic law regulating Japan’s educational system, which was passed along with the Basic Education Law at the 92nd meeting under UN military occupation, officially promulgated and implemented in 1947, and most recently amended on June 3, 2011. 4 The University Benchmarks are regulations promulgated by MEXT to establish mandatory minimum requirements to be satisfied by universities in accordance with Articles 3, 8, 63 and 88 of the School Education Law.

5.2 The Japanese Government’s Promotion of Information Disclosure

101

to MEXT, the underlying purpose of the disclosure of educational information is two-fold: to offer materials to help prospective students choose the right university, and for public education institutions to fulfill their responsibility to explain the terms and methods of their educational research activities to society at large. Again, such disclosure should not simply be a matter of legal and regulatory compliance, but rather part of a larger effort to ensure that the information provided is disclosed in a more positive and strategic manner. This is the basic idea behind MEXT’s initiatives.

5.2.4

Amending the School Education Law Implementation Rules

When MEXT amended the School Education Law Implementation Rules in accordance with this basic approach, it added Article 172(2) setting forth the specific information to be subject to mandatory disclosure. Information concerning schools primarily includes: the purpose of the university research and education; the basic organizational composition of the research; as well as the location of the campus and the conditions of the buildings and other educational research facilities. Information concerning the quality of education primarily includes: faculty organizations, number of faculty, faculty degrees and research achievements; course content, teaching methods and one-year lesson plans; and teaching achievement evaluation criteria and graduation or completion standards. Information concerning students primarily includes: enrollment criteria and the number of new students, enrollment numbers, the number of graduates, the number of student pursuing further studies, employment numbers and other further study and employment information; tuition, registration fees and other fees charged by the university; as well as student assistance programs, graduation choices and physical and mental health.5 MEXT’s amendment of the School Education Law Implementation Rules also sets forth the general types of information students are expected to master over the course of their studies, essentially requiring universities to actively disclose the necessary knowledge and skills to be cultivated by students in order to graduate. When disclosing such information, universities are required to focus on improving teaching quality and to clearly notify the students of the lesson plans as well as the types of knowledge and skills they should expect to acquire over the course of their studies. Finally, the amendment revises the rules governing disclosure methods, requiring that educational information be disclosed on a sound and systematic basis and be implemented through print publications, the Internet and various other methods accessible to the largest number of people possible.

5

This information was compiled by the author from MEXT’s Notice concerning Amendments to the School Education Law Implementation Rules, available at http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/ hakusho/nc/08030410.htm.

102

5.3

5 A Study of Japanese University Information Disclosure …

The Status of Japanese University Information Disclosure

The disclosure of university information essentially involves two types: basic educational information and information concerning the university’s operating and financial conditions.

5.3.1

Disclosure of Basic Educational and Financial and Operating Information

Beginning in 2008, as part of an effort to cultivate talent and reach other educational research goals, the Japanese government mandated the disclosure of certain information concerning undergraduate education. Statistics show that over the last five years, almost all of the 747 universities in Japan have disclosed basic educational information on campus homepages: 352 of these (or 47%) disclose their school rules; 498 (or 67%) disclose the number of their students; 437 (or 59%) disclose their faculty numbers; 672 (or 90%) disclose the course outlines for each school; 437 (or 59%) disclose teaching plan outlines; 493 (or 66%) disclose the number of their candidates, admissions and enrollments; and 619 (or 83%) disclose graduate employment information. With respect to the disclosure of financial and operating information, MEXT statistics show that general finances were disclosed by 628 (or 94.6%) of the 644 universities with legal entity status, including 520 (or 96.1%) of the 541 four-year universities and 108 (or 87.8%) of the 123 two-year universities. The methods of disclosure were found to be diverse. Of the 579 universities (87.2%) for which disclosure took place on university homepages, 495 (or 91.5%) were four-year universities and 84 (or 68.3%) were two-year universities. Of the 374 universities (56.3%) for which disclosure took place in print publications, 329 (or 60.8%) were four-year universities and 45 (or 36.6%) were two-year universities. The required disclosure was implemented through school bulletin boards for a total of 103 universities (or 15.5%), including 74 four-year universities (or 23.6%) and 29 two-year universities (or 23.6%).6 In accordance with the National University Corporation Law and the Local Independent Administrative Agency Act, both national university corporations and public university corporations are required to disclose relevant financial and operating information, while Article 47 of the Private School Law mandates that school corporations disclose property listings, accounting, income and expense statements as well as business and inspection reports dating back to April 2003.

6

Compiled by the author from MEXT’s University Education Reform of 2010, available at http:// www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/shinkou/07021403/1331137.htm.

5.3 The Status of Japanese University Information Disclosure

103

Table 5.1 University financial information disclosure statistics Item Number of university corporations University corporations disclosing general finances

Four-Year Universities

Two-Year Universities

Total

2011 2010 2011

541 541 520 (96.1%)

123 126 108 (87.8%)

2010

511 (94.5%)

104 (82.5%)

664 667 628 (94.6%) 615 (92.2%) 579 (87.2%) 374 (56.3%) 103 (15.5%)

Disclosure methods

School 495 (91.5%) 84 (68.3%) homepages Print 329 (60.8%) 45 (36.6%) publications School 74 (13.7%) 29 (23.6%) bulletin boards Data source compiled by the author from MEXT’s University Education Reform of 2010, available at http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/shinkou/07021403/1331137.htm

MEXT statistics show that 628 (or 94.6%) of all school corporations disclosed general financial information in 2011, an increase of 2.4% from the previous year, with 579 (or 94.6%) disclosing such information through school homepages, an increase of 5.8% from the previous year (Table 5.1). As evident above, the number of universities disclosing financial and operating information is increasing, with the majority of these choosing to disclose via online homepages. There is also a growing tendency to disclose accounting, income and expense statement information as well as business reports and other relevant data, with 70% of all university corporations including easy-to-understand information along with their general finances.

5.3.2

Information Disclosure Trends

It is widely accepted that one of the greatest problems facing Japanese society today involves its rapidly aging population, which has also meant a significant decline in the number of prospective university students. In order to ensure a competitive advantage and counteract this trend, the following information disclosure strategies should be adopted. First, the scope of information disclosure should be expanded from simply conveying general information to the public to providing information in the context of an overarching strategic vision. Second, the format of the information conveyed should be standardized, and databases should be established to facilitate one-on-one comparisons to serve as a resource for prospective students. Third, the value of information should be enhanced by clarifying exactly what items will be provided to whom, all of which requires an in-depth inquiry into the

104

5 A Study of Japanese University Information Disclosure …

individual background and needs of the target audience. Finally, while familiarizing oneself with the makeup of the target audience is important, it is also essential to go back to the starting point and identify exactly why such information should be disclosed as well as the extent and purpose of such disclosure. Only by doing so can we clarify exactly what information should be disclosed and to whom. The following case study has been selected as an example of how these considerations play out in a well-known institution, which should serve as a model for the development of university information disclosure going forward.

5.4

University: A Case Study of Information Disclosure

B University is notable for its efforts to disclose the lesson plans for each and every subject as well as the GPA7 distribution for more than 7200 subjects. These measures not only effectively prevent risks but also improve operational transparency, thereby helping the university win the trust of society and generate substantial opportunities.

5.4.1

Information Disclosure as an Essential Facet of Educational Reform

B University has been evaluating performance on the basis of GPA since 2004, while introducing a Claim Committee to deal with student concerns and dissatisfaction concerning teaching and performance evaluations. The university has been strategic in its early adoption of educational reform. Another important measure it has taken to promote greater transparency has been to actively implement information disclosure online. B University has been disclosing curriculums, lesson plans, performance evaluation standards and other related content for all of its courses since 1999. According to the results of a 2002 student teaching evaluation questionnaire, it began disclosing the GPA distribution for more than 7000 subjects in 2004, along with the number of student registered for each course, the percentage of grades A–F, average scores and other related information. The enhanced scope of its disclosure was officially recognized in the “Featured University Education Support Project” sponsored by MEXT in 2006. The extent of B University’s basic data set, established in 1995 and available online since 2004, also includes the number of applicants and qualified applicants, employment rates as well as dropout and expulsion statistics. All data after 2007 is currently accessible to the public, with the number of student complaints dating

GPA stands for “Grade Point Average,” which in Japan is distributed between A+ , A, B, C and F. 7

5.4 University: A Case Study of Information Disclosure

105

back to 2009 available in brochures and online. In 2008 Waseda also began disclosing so-called “teaching comments” by the faculty for each subject, which covers such related topics as student attitudes, the intent behind exam questions, scoring criteria and other information meant to further advance the transparency of educational information disclosure.

5.4.2

Information Transparency as the Responsibility of Every University

At the outset of its disclosure of GPA distribution, questions were raised concerning “whether deviations in performance evaluation should be disclosed to the public” and the inevitable risks associated therewith. According to B University, however, the improvement of information transparency is the responsibility of every university and the honest disclosure of problematic information would only win the trust of society while promoting the school’s internal development and creating additional opportunities. When the prospect of enhanced disclosure was first raised at B, it was met with little resistance, as it did not require any additional work on the part of the faculty and simply involved publicizing the integrated system of information that the university had already developed. It was thought that lesson plans had to be created for students anyway, and that teachers were only required to hand in the scoring tables to the office of educational administration, which would then take responsibility for collecting, collating and disclosing GPA distribution. This type of institutionalized and standardized disclosure process effectively subjects schools to extensive supervision by society, all of which leads to greater transparency. By forcing universities to operate under the dual supervision of internal and external mechanisms, it obliges them to fulfill their social responsibility to win the trust of students, faculty, parents and society at large.

5.4.3

Coordinating with Public Relations to Facilitate More Direct Disclosure

The measures adopted by B University have drawn considerable attention from universities currently searching for a more effective approach to disclosure. Particularly after it was officially recognized by MEXT, questions arose concerning why such extensive disclosure should be required and whether it met with the unanimous cooperation of the faculty. Surprisingly, however, there was no reaction from senior high schools. Between 2004 and 2006, the Education Development Center established senior high school and university union department meetings to explore ways to reach out to high school students, though no assessments

106

5 A Study of Japanese University Information Disclosure …

concerning information disclosure were ever made. This surprising oversight could indicate there was relatively little dissatisfaction over university information disclosure practices, or simply that there was not much focus on the content of university education at the time. In its own analysis, B University favored the latter. In response to a question concerning “reasons to choose this university” on the 2002 student teaching evaluation questionnaire discussed above, “deviation value”8 and “university image” accounted for the majority of responses, with the number of students focused on educational content being negligible. B University therefore sought to improve overall interest in the actual content of the education it provided through the ongoing disclosure of related information, and now intends to go one step further by coordinating with the public relations department. In its inter-departmental approach, B University is actively taking its disclosure efforts well past mere compliance and ensuring that the information disclosed to the public is as simple and easy to understand as possible.

5.4.4

An Increasing Focus on Teaching Content and Evaluation

As long as there is support for focusing more attention on the educational content of universities, the disclosure of lesson plans, GPA distribution and other related information will continue to benefit both students and teachers alike. From GPAs, students are now able to place their grades in context. At the same time, the disclosure of course evaluations and the establishment of the Claim Committee has improved the transparency of the evaluation process and strengthened the credibility of test results. Faculty awareness has also changed considerably as a result. In the past, teachers never learned whether student evaluations of them were positive or negative. But by enabling comparisons with other teacher evaluations, enhanced disclosure has allowed for more objective speculation as to the validity of the evaluations. In addition, the disclosure of lesson plans has allowed for organic integration with other courses, thereby promoting a more informed course selection as well as inter-disciplinary learning. The following discussion offers concrete recommendations for the formulation of more effective disclosure methods to enhance the operation and management of universities.

The so-called “deviation value” is comprised of the following formula used to calculate student intelligence and aptitude: (individual grades—average grades)  standard deviation  10 + 50, i.e. (1) standard deviation = ■; (2) standard deviation = ■ + 50. As Japan adheres to a system of spring enrollment, its high school graduates take part in a national examination in the winter, and the various universities rely on this standard deviation to measure students’ learning ability as an important (and in some cases the only) criterion for admission.

8

5.5 More Effective Approach to Disclosure

5.5

107

More Effective Approach to Disclosure

Faced with slowing economic growth and an aging society, Japanese universities need to take a strategic approach towards information disclosure in order to ensure their continued survival. Two fundamental questions should be addressed: what information should be provided to whom? And how should this information be disclosed? Perhaps even more importantly, the various potential risks and opportunities of disclosure should also be taken into account so that universities can gain and hold onto a competitive advantage. So what exactly are the risks and opportunities of university information disclosure? What disclosure strategies need to be taken in order to gain a competitive advantage? And how should risks be avoided and opportunities seized? The following discussion attempts to answer these questions.

5.5.1

What Are the Risks and Opportunities of Information Disclosure?

Derived from “in” and “form,” the literal meaning of the term “information” is “to form inside,” suggesting that accepted information turns into effective information after being processed. In this sense, the role of information is to stimulate judgments and lead to action, though the entire process is fraught with various risks. When individuals receive information that deviates from the university’s intentions or expectations, divergent understandings will result. And if the information disclosed by the university does not satisfy the motives (or purpose) of the receiver, dissatisfaction will result. Finally, if the information disclosed is not up to the standards of its competitors, the university’s brand competitiveness will decline. “Disclosure,” on the other hand, refers to the process by which an unspecified audience is granted access to information irrespective of their motives (or purpose), so that this unspecific group can make informed comparisons. The disclosure of information can therefore bring about the following opportunities: it can strengthen the level of trust and incentive to enroll in the university, thereby increasing the number of applicants taking the entrance exam; and it can allow university administrators to gain an intuitive and comprehensive understanding of the overall condition of the university, thereby improving university management and educational quality. Therefore, while there are certain risks associated with these opportunities, effective information disclosure should enable universities to gain a better reputation than their competitors, thereby significantly improving brand competitiveness.

108

5.5.2

5 A Study of Japanese University Information Disclosure …

Basic Steps to Avoid Risk and Seize Opportunities

Following a detailed analysis of risks and opportunities, the strategic question becomes how to avoid risks and seize opportunities. Since the relative value of information is dependent on the needs of the receiver, we need to ask ourselves what types of individuals are going to receive this information and for what purpose, as well as what information should be provided and in what manner. Given these considerations, some basic steps for avoiding risks and seizing opportunities are as follows. First, it is essential to identify the potential stakeholder groups on the receiving end of the disclosure and ensure that each receiver’s motivation (or purpose) correlates with the underlying motivation (or purpose) behind the disclosure. The information content and form of disclosure appropriate to the motivation (or purpose) of the receiver and provider should then be considered in light of the associated risks and opportunities. Finally, the specific content and form of disclosure should be developed based on the results of this analysis. The following is a simplified example of the disclosure process involving typical university stakeholder groups. Today, there are a large number and variety of stakeholder groups with a vested interest in university education, including but not necessarily limited to students, prospective students, graduates, faculty, business cooperation units, employment cooperation units, local communities, financial institutions and government agencies. Only through an individual analysis of each group’s underlying motivation for seeking out the information can an accurate determination of the appropriate type of disclosure be made. Table 5.2 outlines the process of identifying information to be disclosed, taking students, parents and affiliated enterprises as an example.

5.5.3

Strategic Disclosure Priorities to Secure a Competitive Advantage

Following an analysis of these basic steps, the question then becomes how to improve disclosure strategies. Only through the adoption of appropriate strategies can the information receiver and other stakeholder groups successfully obtain useful information, which in turn enables them to make well-informed decisions and gain a competitive advantage. The following explores various strategic priorities for developing effective strategies based on the current disclosure policies of Japanese universities. First, taking into account the content of the information to be disclosed is not enough; an effective strategy also demands in-depth analysis of informational needs. For example, most universities currently disclose potential employers and employment rates to prospective students. But most students also want to know such things as whether they will be able to find a job, how to deal with layoffs or corporate bankruptcies, and whether there have been any instances of bullying or

5.5 More Effective Approach to Disclosure

109

Table 5.2 The process of identifying information to be disclosed Step 1: Identify the various stakeholders

Step 2: Assess their motivation for seeking out the information

Step 3: Determine what type of information can help them come to a decision

Prospective students

To determine whether the entrance exam is worth taking

Parents

Same as above

Related enterprises

To determine whether there is value in collaboration

School structure, curriculum, evaluation standards Student counseling services Post-graduation career paths and employment statistics Student and graduate satisfaction All those listed above, plus: Temporary expenses Rent, price of commodities and on-campus security Mechanisms, contents and successful cases of the industrialization of research results Number of negotiations and success rate of industrialization of research results Facility utilization and vacancy rate of industrialization of research results User satisfaction

discord at the university. In order to prevent any discrepancies between the information being disclosed and the information requested, it is essential to start with the source of the request and modify the content of the information disclosed accordingly, which in this case would involve providing appropriate employment guidance and graduate student services as well as any negative information so as to respond directly to the needs of prospective students. Second, any information related to the university that could potentially provide a competitive advantage should be fully exploited and adequately disclosed. For instance, the employment rate at large corporations for some university graduates remains low, but such graduates are still attractive to local small and mid-sized businesses. This trend should be promoted by placing information concerning small and mid-sized companies in a prominent location and offering related courses. Third, an awareness of the related conditions of competing universities should be strengthened over the course of disclosure. Information disclosure is largely synonymous with information comparison, and it is necessary to appropriately highlight one’s own comparative advantages in order to better manage risk and seize opportunities. Fourth, personal communication tools should be used frequently. The value of information is ultimately determined by the needs of individual receivers. Since the values of individuals tend to differ, judgments concerning the same item of information can also differ. Therefore, rather than adopting the traditional approach involving the unilateral and widespread release of information to unspecified individuals, the comparative advantages of a university can be conveyed more

110

5 A Study of Japanese University Information Disclosure …

effectively through dynamic interaction with specific individuals or groups. This could include the strategic use of modern online tools, such as Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, message boards and other interactive communication platforms in which information disclosure is tailored to the needs of information requesters. Fifth, universities need to start institutionalizing their disclosure policies by establishing or strengthening specialized information disclosure departments and linking the various university institutions, thereby ensuring the accuracy, security, stability and effectiveness of the disclosure.

5.5.4

Improving the Disclosure Process

In sorting through the risks, opportunities and steps involved in the disclosure of information, the actual process of disclosure has also grown particularly important. As the disclosure process necessarily involves strict attention to detail and a series of specific steps, any deviations or mistakes over the course of this process are likely to affect the purpose and impact of the disclosure. As discussed below, the process of information disclosure essentially involves two stages: the investigation and compilation of information resources and the systemic establishment of disclosure channels. 1. The Investigation and Compilation of Information Resources The process begins with the compilation, classification and strategic organization of the items of information to be disclosed based on educational, business and financial relevance. For example, the skills, learning abilities and technical expertise of graduates as well as the school’s research capacity and funding are all relevant categories of strategic information. Yet because these items cannot be presented directly, such information needs to be deconstructed according to its unique characteristics (i.e., quantitative vs. qualitative, static vs. dynamic, etc.). Following this deconstruction, the underlying performance and ability levels of graduates can then be conveyed through such information as course credits, qualification certificates and employer feedback. This should enable the collection of specific and actionable data, including but not necessarily limited to students’ grades in various courses, the number of credits for each course, graduate student ID numbers, basic coursework, minor and elective coursework and the status of academic certification prior to and following graduation. This actionable data can then be classified into categories comprised of pre-existing information, uncollected information and non-existent information. Information that already exists in the school information system can be directly inputted into the standardized information items. Incomplete and uncollected information consists of information accumulated and retained by the various departments, and requires further standardization so that it can be enhanced through a formal collection system. Finally, non-existent information consists of information that does not yet exist in the university’s records and must therefore be created.

5.5 More Effective Approach to Disclosure

111

Once these three categories are compiled and organized, any new information can then be incorporated into existing records as part of the development of effective disclosure policies and principles (as explained further below). The final stage of the process involves an investigation into the source of new items of information and the development of collection methods. The relative importance and collection costs of nonexistent information should be assessed to determine what information should be disclosed from a strategic perspective. At the same time, the source of the nonexistent information should also be confirmed and investigated, particularly with respect to whether it is internal or external. After a decision is made to go forward with collection, methods of information collection, organization and application need to be developed. For example, whenever a school seeks to establish a new category of disclosure concerning the “status of students’ abilities and certification,” the relevant information source must be confirmed and the information categorized as related to on-campus students or off-campus graduates. A suitable collection method should then be established, which for on-campus students could involve the registration of certificates with the career guidance center, and for off-campus graduates could involve follow-up questionnaires and surveys. 2. The Systemization of the Disclosure Process Once the individual items of information to be disclosed are compiled, the development of a systematic and standardized disclosure process then becomes particularly important. First, disclosure policies and procedures must be confirmed to ensure security, comprehensiveness and accuracy. Adequate time should be taken to properly deliberate and assess the potential risks inherent in the process, which should then be incorporated into a written document and released as a series of formal rules. In an effort to avoid potential risks, disclosure committees and other organizational departments should also be established. Because making a single department solely responsible for all disclosure would be highly risky, an internal audit department tasked with managing the information in a standardized way and ensuring its security and accuracy should also be set up, in addition to having a department responsible for information production, design and disclosure. These two departments could interact with each other to greatly reduce the risks of information disclosure and improve security and accuracy, thereby directly enhancing the university’s brand competitiveness. Ultimately, once these basic principles, procedures and departments have been established, information management and application should be standardized so that a comprehensive systematic structure can be developed. In the end, the specific disclosure process can be characterized by an analysis of risks that may arise following disclosure, the formulation of corresponding countermeasures, and the incorporation of these countermeasures into an effective policy.

112

5.6

5 A Study of Japanese University Information Disclosure …

Conclusion: An Existential Crisis as an Incentive for Further Disclosure

The dramatic reduction in the population of young people in Japan has given rise to an existential crisis on the part of universities faced with an increasing lack of students. In order to make themselves more marketable and meet the needs of both students and parents, universities need to expand their disclosure policies so that these individuals can better understand how they are managed and operated and make more informed decisions. At the same time, granting corporations a better understanding of a university’s operating principles can also stimulate on-campus recruitment. With international exchange between universities becoming increasingly close, such disclosure can also effectively attract foreign students. Effective disclosure thereby enables high-quality universities to attract enough students while allowing graduates to find good jobs, which should theoretically provide universities with a comparative advantage in overcoming the existential crisis currently facing the industry. Yet this crisis is also bound to offer universities with less-than-stellar credentials little incentive to enhance information disclosure. Generally speaking, driven by government legislation and an awareness of this existential crisis, the scale of information disclosure in Japan adheres to the principle of survival of the fittest. At the same time, universities like Waseda have begun to explore various disclosure strategies designed to avoid risks and seize opportunities under these changing circumstances. At present, B University’s disclosure strategy represents an excellent experiment and has achieved tremendous results. As a pioneer in the field, B University should cause other institutions to develop their own comprehensive and standardized disclosure systems. These practices suggest that information disclosure is not simply a matter of regulatory enforcement and social responsibility, but will also play an essential role in the strategic competition between universities going forward. Nonetheless, if universities continue to lack a sense of crisis and instead rely entirely on the promotional efforts of the government, the impact of enhanced disclosure will be greatly reduced. China, for example, has also initiated the widespread promotion of greater disclosure through such efforts as its University Information Disclosure Regulations, promulgated by the Chinese Ministry of Education in 2010. As things stand, the essential difference between the respective approaches of China and Japan lies in the fact that information disclosure in Japan is the direct result of an existential crisis whereas the reform of information disclosure in China stems mainly from college enrollment requirements and the principles of educational democracy and fairness. Because these are primarily external pressures lacking any sense of crisis, university information disclosure reform in China has been relatively slow. It is clear from the above that the driving force behind reform essentially dictates the process of information disclosure.

Chapter 6

Designing a University Information Disclosure Framework Based on University Social Responsibility

6.1

The Aim of Information Disclosure: Social Responsibility Towards Stakeholders

According to literature studies of information disclosure methods in colleges and universities, the amount of research based on social responsibility is relatively small. There is a lack of concrete research on the specific content of university information disclosure and no clear construction of an information disclosure system. Therefore, this section aims to present a logical perspective on information disclosure focusing on social responsibility and incorporating elements of stakeholder theory. First of all, society expects universities to stand at the forefront, to solve significant social problems, to guide the development of society and to predict the future development of society through education and scientific research. Universities must therefore assume a certain spirit, a certain concept of management and specific management plans, and its operations must reflect its social responsibility. This can only be realized by constructing a superstructure for the whole entity, encouraging all researchers and implementing an effective strategy. Meanwhile, the most important thing is to ensure that operating strategy, direction and activities be consistent with both university and societal demands. Secondly, the contents of university information disclosure that are most required are more likely to crystallize when universities aim to better meet their social responsibility. In order to satisfy higher education and teaching responsibilities, disclosed information should encompass education resources and process, academic research and stakeholders’ concerns, including important decisions such as the use of project funds. Therefore, in the case where clear laws or regulations are not available, using social responsibility to construct the information disclosure system is beneficial.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 K. Ryu, Developing University Social Responsibility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5489-3_6

113

114

6 Designing a University Information Disclosure Framework …

Thirdly, there are numerous purposes for university information disclosure, among which the most essential is to enable the continued existence, development and sustainability of universities. Social responsibility can not only be a logical starting point for constructing an information disclosure system, but it can also provide a framework for the system. In addition, studying university information disclosure on the basis of social responsibility could provide a normative research structure. Finally, as major subjects of university information disclosure, stakeholders regard transparent information disclosure as a comprehensive realization of social responsibility. Stakeholder theory is therefore a relevant framework for analyzing university information disclosure in this context. In other words, the primary issue in the study of university social responsibility is to identify the stakeholder groups, what their specific needs are, and how the operations of the university impact them. The interaction between universities and stakeholders is also worth exploring. Major stakeholders correlated with university activities may include students, graduates, parents, faculty, staff, government, media, local community, enterprises, donors, institutions, social organizations and various evaluation institutions. When considering the contents of information disclosure, we must pay full attention to the kind of information these stakeholders each need, the most effective method of communication and correct usage.

6.2

Construction of University Information Disclosure Framework Based on Social Responsibility

This framework adopts stakeholder theory for the study of university information disclosure. Inevitably, the university is the core subject of its own information disclosure. Universities must build a comprehensive information disclosure system in order to provide relevant information to society and promote their own sustainable development. Additionally, there must be a rightful code of conduct to help school spirit be effectively appreciated, including internal controls such as university supervision, risk management and abidance by law. Such internal control mechanisms must be correlated with social, economic, financial and social aspects, all of which are better achieved through information disclosure. To strengthen university social responsibility (hereafter USR), it is of vital importance to discern the best method for combining social requirements and university management. Universities should think in terms of social requirements, as the management of USR is related to long-term risk management as well as sustainable development. Realizing USR through information disclosure must focus on risk management, namely building a flexible internal inspection system and reducing the risks associated with university management. Thus, universities must gradually establish internal inspection departments which will carry out inspection policies and inspection plans and reduce overall risk as far as possible.

6.2 Construction of University Information Disclosure Framework …

115

Information disclosure to stakeholders should include financial statements, economic achievements and stakeholder communications regarding duties and responsibilities. In addition, corporate profile information such as undertaking summaries and business reports should be included to supplement the financial information. Universities’ organizational structures and school corporation information are difficult to compare horizontally, therefore, university business reports enable stakeholders to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the university structure. In this way, all stakeholders are able to evaluate university management as well as express their requirements and hopes towards them. Ultimately, universities could achieve sustainable development and a deep level of interaction with their stakeholders. Figure 6.1 can be used to represent the information interaction process between the university and its stakeholders.

6.3

Social Responsibility-Based Management of University Information Disclosure

To continue to develop under conditions of slowing economic growth and an aging population, Japanese universities need to adopt strategic thinking and action in the process of information disclosure. It is of vital importance to clarify the target objects of information disclosure, in addition to the optimal time of disclosure and the type of information that is needed. Primary stakeholders are students and their parents, as they pay the university and entrust it to provide quality education

Fig. 6.1 Construction of university information disclosure framework based on social responsibility

116

6 Designing a University Information Disclosure Framework …

services. Therefore, as their trustee, the university takes on an important responsibility. In order to gain competitive advantage in information disclosure, universities must have clear insight into their information disclosure strategy.

6.3.1

Promoting Education Reformation Based on the Idea of University Social Responsibility

Besides guaranteeing the quality of functional differentiation of university management, information disclosure should also ensure quality education and upward development. In other words, a university’s capability to offer graduate degrees to students with corresponding qualifications and abilities is also affected by its business transparency and coverage. Relevant law reformation could track and investigate universities’ responsibilities, which would support the goal of building a diversified and globalized society. In addition to achieving a new level of quality, universities should also pay adequate attention to the content of reformation and improvement, especially ideas about education goals and objectives at private universities. For instance, without a clear description of their talent cultivation, such universities might remain buried in their complex and volatile environments.

6.3.2

Content Recognition of Information Disclosure Based on Stakeholder Theory

The value of information is determined by the consumer. In order to clarify problems including specific people, purposes and proper methods of information conveyance, we should take the following steps. First, recognize the associated stakeholders of the information. Second, ensure the consistency of stakeholders’ purpose and the university’s motivation in relation to the issued information. Third, recognize that discussion is needed regarding the content and form of the disclosed information. We should also assess whether the retained information is associated with risk or opportunity. Finally, as a result of this evaluation, the university would disclose the relevant information. The following Fig. 6.2 gives an example of stakeholders and a simplified process of information disclosure. As shown in Fig. 6.2, there are plenty of groups associated with universities in today’s society. Only after specific analysis of the motivation of each group can we accurately arrange the content of information disclosure required by each one. Table 6.1 uses several of these groups as examples to present the evaluation process that should form part of successful information disclosure projects.

6.3 Social Responsibility-Based Management of University …

117

Fig. 6.2 A university and its associated stakeholders

6.3.3

Emphasis on University Information Disclosure Projects from Various Perspectives

1. Information disclosure from students’ and parents’ perspective University entrance information is of the highest concern for student applicants. It is also one of the most important bases for their university application. In Japan, for example, more than 6 million high school students apply to university every year. At the same time, there are more than 800 domestic universities and endless majors available for choosing. Therefore, choices rely principally on the entrance information released by universities. In order to attract high-caliber students, universities in Japan constantly promote themselves, such as arranging more than twenty thousand selections each year and providing huge amounts of information. Students nowadays not only require the appropriate admission grades, but also the information they need to evaluate the ease and probability of admission into their target schools. They will typically rank universities according to ease of admission and avoid the risk of failing. In addition, many universities have given up actual selection as part of the university admissions process, rather preferring to accept all applicants. The reason for this is that population aging is getting more and more severe and affecting numbers of applicants to both national and private universities. Even when selection occurs, it is implemented in more diverse ways, such as the well-known ‘recommendation plus test’ method. Nearly 50% of all current university students began university life without taking examinations on their knowledge or learning abilities. Except for the top universities, admission into many middle- to high-end universities has become easier on the whole. This trend reduces the dependence on

118

6 Designing a University Information Disclosure Framework …

Table 6.1 Evaluation process for information disclosure projects Step 1: Identify associated group

Step 2: Identify motivation for obtaining information (purpose)

Step 3: Identify information useful to the associated group

Student applicants

To determine the significance of entering into examination

Parents

Same as above

Associated entrepreneurs

Value judgment

Staff and faculty members

Same as above

(1) Faculty structure, curriculum arrangement and evaluation standard (2) Student life support functions (3) Career, employment situation and employment rate (4) Satisfaction of current students and graduates (5) Improvement or enhancement of student satisfaction (6) Implementation of satisfaction survey and long-term observation (7) Presidents’ mailbox and its disclosure (8) Evaluation of class and corresponding window (9) Participation of minorities in staff meeting (10) Detailed school fees and their function (1) Above (1)–(4) in addition to (2) Existence of temporary cost (3) Surrounding rent, commodity prices and public security condition (4) Campus life report (5) Students’ individual information (6) Grades (7) System for regular meetings with lecturers in charge (1) Industrialization mechanism of research results, their content and successful cases (2) Amount and rate of successful negotiations for industrialization of research results (3) Facilities of industrialization of research with their utilization and vacancy rates (4) User satisfaction (1) Current situation of the university and its strategic instructions (2) Financial situation and future outlook (3) Countermeasures and consultation window for harassment, violence and sexual rights (4) System in view of childcare and labor environment (5) Enrichment of research staff system (6) Establishment of public reporting window (7) Implementation of service system improvements (continued)

6.3 Social Responsibility-Based Management of University …

119

Table 6.1 (continued) Step 1: Identify associated group

Step 2: Identify motivation for obtaining information (purpose)

Step 3: Identify information useful to the associated group

Local community

Same as above

(1) Regional joint and lifelong study information (2) Public lecture and guidance information (3) Regional functions and university activities (4) Plan for contacting local residents, including hanami parties and annual meetings (5) Participation in regional volunteer activities and establishing volunteer center

success in the previous examination and admission method and gives more flexibility to students and parents selecting a university. It should be clear what students can learn, acquire and achieve if they are enrolled in the school, as well as the design of the four-year curriculum and what capacities students can acquire through it. In addition, information about how the university will lead students to develop into a well-rounded person and the meaning of university education is also important. 2. Information disclosure from the perspective of the public A university is not a closed society but an open organization. The interaction between universities and society has become more involved, which also brings more responsibilities. As universities are funded by society, government and enterprises and receive tax benefits, they are supposed to make their activities and finances more transparent to the public. A greater level of information disclosure is required of national universities. In Japan, private universities have been required to release more and more details since the “university education law practice regulations” were enacted in 2010. Therefore, the majority of universities currently release information about students, staff and financial situation. In terms of specifying subjects and professions, imposing the same standard on every university would be too rigid. Universities should release information according to their characteristics within a framework. This is a reflection of a diverse society. In this way, information disclosure will be beneficial for universities themselves. Universities should consider the meaning of information disclosure. Because universities shoulder responsibilities for students, parents, graduates, employees and the general public, a single form of transparent communication is insufficient. For instance, the extent of information released for students and the media are different. The information required by the country is both qualitative and quantitative. However, it is difficult for universities to accurately provide feedback for society. In order for universities to keep their credibility and fairness, it is important to keep some negative information confidential.

120

6 Designing a University Information Disclosure Framework …

Therefore, in reality, it is necessary to supervise universities through different perspectives, which requires a flexible information disclosure system. In this way, significant content can be released when specific information is required by society. 3. Information about the university There are many schools in one university, and each school includes many departments consisting of different subjects. These each render different jobs from lecturer to lecturer and different activities from student to student. Departments may also display differences in the ways they are organized internally. Especially in Japanese universities, when departments are hierarchical, information disclosure becomes more difficult. For example, Tsukuba University releases a lot of internal information about the school but does not integrate it, which leaves the information scattered in different documents and on different web pages. Under obligatory transparency, the university improves its work and revises education information according to students’ education goals, which makes it convenient for schools to search for relevant information. Information about goals, achievements, contents and improvements are released in the same format. The university also sets the Tsukuba standard to establish bachelor’s and graduates’ criteria. In addition, it began to release course contents online through Tsukuba Open Course Ware from 2006 (now featuring more than 80 courses) to share information. Their intermediate plan is to deepen other universities’ understanding of Tsukuba and to promote a strategic operation, whose core measure is based on Tsukuba’s identity (UI) to establish a brand. Under its motto of “Imagine the Future,” Tsukuba is striving to shape and promote its image both nationally and internationally. In an effort to internationalize its information disclosure, Tsukuba releases information in different languages to ensure everyone has access to the same information and to attract overseas students. It has established five overseas centers to distribute information about Tsukuba. Tsukuba University also releases information about school activities, which enables society to evaluate the university. Releasing information in an integrated format can further increase confidence in the university. To create and share information effectively requires the university to collect and process information within its internal organization. First, information should be collected, arranged and systemized. Taking the example of student management, it should include not only the enrollment analysis, but also students’ scores, performance, expenses and employment statistics. However, this information is not currently presented systematically and remains scattered, which does not serve the interests of information users. If an integrated information system is formed, students can systematically search for comprehensive information. For those students who are likely to fall behind, prescribed plans can be made (Fig. 6.3).

6.3 Social Responsibility-Based Management of University …

121

Fig. 6.3 University information from teaching and research perspectives

This not only applies to universities in Japan but is also important for information collection and disclosure in international society and should draw concern from everyone.

6.3.4

Strategic Points for Realizing Social Responsibility

After analyzing the basic steps to disclosing university information, the key issue becomes how to improve information strategy. Only through correct information strategy can information be made beneficial to consumers. I propose several points below. First, it is insufficient to only consider open information. Information about demand should also be analyzed. For instance, the information released to students consists of employment statistics, but whether students’ employment demands are met, whether they are fired, or whether they are bullied at university are not mentioned. To avoid a mismatch between transparency and demand, we should reform the contents of information disclosure and provide information on career support and graduate services. Second, we should explore information addressing the reach of the university— for instance, when a university does not perform well at gaining employment for its graduates in large enterprises but has satisfactory performance in the local market. In such a situation, the university should accentuate this theme and enrich the courses it offers for local industry employment and future development.

122

6 Designing a University Information Disclosure Framework …

Third, we should highlight pertinent information provided by competitors. Information disclosure means information comparison, which requires the university to emphasize its comparative advantages to balance risk and opportunities. Fourth, we should use more individual interaction tools. The value of information is fundamentally decided by the consumer. People have different values and different evaluations of the same information. Therefore, effective information exchange with targeted people or groups can accentuate the reach of the university. For instance, social media, microblogs, WeChat and feedback boards can serve as interactive platforms for targeted information disclosure. Fifth, universities themselves should lift information disclosure to the strategic level and ensure the correctness, safety, reliability and timing of information.

6.3.5

Major Topics for Information Disclosure

Although information disclosure is obligatory, it is not forcibly compulsory. Universities themselves make standards for their education goals. To make society aware of those goals, it is important to know their competitors’ capacities. The obligatory topics are listed below for reference. 1. Basic information to be disclosed transparently (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Information about mission and goal Organizational information Staff: organization of staff, number, degrees and achievements Admission criteria, number of students, admission quota, number of graduates who pursue further degree and get employed Subjects, methodology and annual teaching plan Evaluation and standards Campus, facilities, equipment and environment for research and studies Tuition and fees Financial support and scholarship, psychological services and career support

2. Information disclosure which requires positivity Aside from basic information, universities should also be positive in their strategic information release of the following items. (1) (2) (3) (4)

Goals of faculty, subjects and courses Knowledge system, teaching plan Evaluative standard for academic achievements and graduation Education reform, research activities, exploration of staff

3. Financial and operational information (1) Financial statements (2) Indicators (3) Yearly comparison and figures that are easy for the public to understand

6.3 Social Responsibility-Based Management of University …

123

4. International information (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

6.3.6

Scale and contents International cooperation University strategy Overseas students External information Financial operation

Process of Systematic Information Disclosure

As information disclosure concerns specific details and procedures, loopholes in the process can harm the effects of systematic release. I will explain in-depth the process of information disclosure. 1. Research and arrangement of information First, it is necessary to arrange and categorize information that is collected. Taking the example of student management, student information should not only be divided by individual departments but also by enrollment process, credit, scores and life and employment statistics, whose data points can often be scattered across different department databases. This information is relevant to students’ studies and achievements. Universities should compare information between each other, like financial situations and teaching affairs. The information can be arranged according to education, general affairs and finance-related subjects. For instance, information about students’ study capacity and skillsets cannot be directly demonstrated; it requires division of those subjects and analysis of each subset through quantitative or qualitative means. Based on this, operable data can be obtained, such as scores, majors and minors, electives, certificates and graduation certificates. Further, those operable data can be saved in categories and put in formal information projects. Information at the faculty level should be further normalized and preserved formally. After this part, we come to the principle-making process. Finally, we should research available sources of information within the university and decide on collection methods. For information that is not yet available but requires strategic transparency, it is important to evaluate its importance and expense of collection, as well as verify possible sources of information. After deciding on collection, we should determine the methodology. For instance, if universities want to verify information about “certificate distribution,” the data should come from students both inside and outside the school. Later, the collection methodology should be determined and information on students at school can be collected through the career support center, while information on students outside the campus can be collected through surveys and tracking polls.

124

6 Designing a University Information Disclosure Framework …

The information collected should be shared with staff and students. If a university wants to reform, abstract and generic goals are insufficient. Reform should be based on solid goals and shared knowledge. At the same time, students should also pay attention to the relationship between the university and students to improve learning. 2. Systematic verification of information disclosure The systematic construction of a verifiable information disclosure process can be discussed from two perspectives: first, at the macro level, how information disclosure can be accessed by people through the same platform; second, how to build an internal system of verified transparency. 1. Systematic construction of data sharing platform among universities To succinctly demonstrate the mission and research activities of each university to incoming students, parents, social groups, corporations and educators local and overseas, as well as to reduce costs for stakeholders to access information, it is necessary to build a common information sharing platform. This not only provides sufficient information for users but also allows stakeholders to compare information from different universities. A good data sharing platform can effectively motivate information disclosure. For instance, in Japan, the platform should be able to combine information from universities, MEXT, examination centers, degree departments, academic information centers and associations of private universities and succinctly summarize information for the public. First, it is important to learn lessons from developed countries, like the middle and high education data system in the U.S., which requires comprehensive setup. Currently, many universities have basic information disclosure websites, for instance, introducing the university through a web page. Through the data it is possible to analyze the university from different perspectives, which is the foundation for the university information service we shall introduce later. In other words, this can serve as the public foundation for social information disclosure. In the U.S., since the 1990s, the federal government has operated a comprehensive middle education database, which can be searched for detailed information. Britain’s database is also able to search for statistics of different institutions, such as organizations in other European countries. From 2007, South Korea began releasing university information under the special clause of relevant educational institutions. In Japan, although university surveys collect basic information, universities are not required to implement transparency by the legislature. Aside from that, considering that information disclosure includes university promotion, it is important for university corporations to improve their information provision system. However, to build such a system, both human resources and budget are required. Therefore, as the foundation for information sharing, it would be feasible to combine all the information on a data platform where information from different universities could be connected.

6.3 Social Responsibility-Based Management of University …

125

One of the most important factors in building such a system is cooperation between universities, such as the formation of a university committee focusing on data sharing. This committee would release data as early as possible based on the information collected from different universities. In constructing the system, statistical data, obligatory data, evaluation for ranking and information required by the government and public should be researched. Building such a system is the foundation for a data sharing platform. Therefore, to ensure the smooth operation of the platform, it is important to pay attention to internal transparency. 2. Internal systematic information disclosure When an information disclosure project has been planned, the system of transparent procedures becomes the key to ensuring quality of information. First, the principles and procedures must be confirmed to ensure safety, completeness and correctness. To avoid risks, it is important to establish an information disclosure committee. In universities, the risk for a single department to be in charge of information disclosure is high. Therefore, there should be another department responsible for information management to ensure safety and correctness. In this way, the departments mutually motivate each other, which not only reduces risk but also improves the university’s brand name. Finally, with confirmed principles, procedures and responsible departments, information management must be regulated. Analyzing risks and proposing relevant solutions help determine the explicit transparency procedures.

6.3.7

New Trends in Information Disclosure

In conclusion, university information disclosure is embracing new trends with new strategies. Information disclosure should not stop at social responsibility but should establish priorities in maximizing the use of limited resources. As subjects of education information, courses, instructions and teachers’ profiles should be correctly conveyed to students, enriching the information provided on channels through which students choose a university. Aside from putting as much budget, time and human resources into information disclosure as possible, it is necessary to rank admission numbers, student statistics, employment, equipment and device and fee and tuition information according to its significance. Private universities such as Ritsumeikan University have explored a series of effective measures through information disclosure. What is more important is the positivity they have explored, which is consecutive and strategic. Those all enlighten other universities to some extent. The core problem facing Japan in relation to university information disclosure is not to what extent the law is complete, but the internal and external motivation of

126

6 Designing a University Information Disclosure Framework …

universities to participate in the process. The core factors are: the connection between transparency and social evaluation; the connection between social evaluation and social support; the connection between social support and university development; and the connection between university development and the position of university administrative officers. If those factors are highly dependent on each other, internal and external motivation will increase, which will result in self-motivated information disclosure rather than simply enforced information disclosure.

Chapter 7

Conclusions and Prospects

7.1 7.1.1

Research Conclusions Comprehensive Strategic Disclosure

1. Disclosure as a competitive strategy As discussed above, one of the most formidable challenges facing the Japanese education system, and Japan in general, is its rapidly aging population. From the year 2000, as the number of prospective students under 19 years old has fallen, Japanese universities have begun to experience a decrease in enrollment, which has predictably led to a sharp increase in competition as the remaining schools seek to attract the best and brightest students. One of the most effective ways to ensure a competitive advantage is to expand and improve the level of information disclosure offered by universities. This focus on information disclosure as a means to ensure competitive advantage has given rise to the following trends. First, a broad range of information, from the general to the specific, has become more transparent, offering the public greater insight into the types of educational resources available. Second, the development of more standardized and accessible databases has facilitated more accurate comparisons within various departments as well as between different universities. Third, greater attention is being paid to the demand for information, which has added value to the information disclosed and allowed schools to tailor such disclosure to individual groups. Finally, it has become increasingly important for universities to ascertain the underlying purpose and scope of such disclosure, which has in turn helped identify new and useful content for sharing. 2. The disclosure of standardized employment information Teachers and parents of high school students pay particularly close attention to employment statistics and related information concerning the requirements of prospective employers, yet universities continue in their failure to fully address this © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 K. Ryu, Developing University Social Responsibility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5489-3_7

127

128

7 Conclusions and Prospects

demand. It is therefore important that universities focus on the employment status of graduates in their graduate reports and other resources, while disclosing accurate and detailed employment statistics. Moreover, insofar as the surveys indicate that teachers and parents currently spend an inordinate amount of time and effort searching for such information, universities should include direct links to relevant websites on their home pages while ensuring that these pages are fully accessible to the public. Finally, the form in which such employment statistics are provided should be standardized so that useful comparisons can be made. 3. The struggle for survival as the driving force behind information disclosure The sharp decline in the population of prospective students in Japan has not only led to increased competition but has also threatened the very existence of many institutions. In this respect, the enhanced disclosure of information concerning educational resources as well as operational details can help ensure the survival of these schools by making them more attractive to domestic and overseas students, while satisfying the demands of parents worldwide. Greater disclosure is also a way for universities to publicize the quality of the education they offer to employers, while promoting their students as attractive candidates for employment. In effect, greater transparency leads to better students, thereby helping to ensure the ongoing survival of universities by placing them at a competitive advantage (though, in some cases, it can also draw attention to the inferior quality of the school). On the whole, driven by recent legislation as well as the struggle for survival in a fiercely competitive market characterized by a rapidly aging population and declining enrollment, the scope of information disclosure offered by Japanese universities is expanding rapidly. Well-known schools such as Waseda University have also been experimenting with various strategic approaches to greater transparency, which have already yielded encouraging results and should help drive the development of a comprehensive and highly-regulated information disclosure system throughout the country.

7.1.2

General Conclusions

1. The role of non-governmental organizations in promoting greater disclosure In addition to the necessary leadership provided by the government, the development of a standardized system of university information disclosure in Japan has also involved active participation by various NGOs. In 2010, one such organization, the Japanese Association of National Universities (JANU), released Guidelines for Educational Information Disclosure which incorporated comments from the Ministry of Education. Based on the notion that the scope of information disclosure should not be limited to compliance with regulations but also seek to satisfy public demand, these Guidelines are intended to promote the standardization of disclosure

7.1 Research Conclusions

129

among public universities so as to satisfy demand for more useful comparisons between different schools. As for the scope of such disclosure, and in addition to information concerning educational quality, the Guidelines encourage the release of information concerning university operations and finances. 2. Leadership of some Japanese universities Driven by the efforts of the government and NGOs, some universities have become leaders in the field of information disclosure. For example, Doshisha University, located in the ancient capital of Kyoto, has devoted considerable effort to the expansion and improvement of its information disclosure system as part of a broader educational reform policy dating from the early 1990s. In 2002, Doshisha University released details concerning the curriculum and average GPA for more than 7200 individual courses, which was one of several educational reform measures officially acknowledged by the Ministry of Education in 2006. In 2007, a sophisticated database was then made public, which greatly expanded the information available to include the number of examinees and qualifiers and the number of students expelled, as well as various employment statistics. Then, in 2008, it began releasing course evaluations for each teacher, made up of student comments, examination details and grading criteria, followed in 2009 by the release of information concerning student complaints. Doshisha University’s efforts to expand the scope of information disclosure have been widely praised, enhancing its reputation both at home and abroad.

7.1.3

Conclusions Based on Student Questionnaire

1. Incentives and channels for information disclosure at public and private universities The results of polls conducted in connection with this research suggest that students of public universities tend to view information disclosure as a means of preventing corruption and promoting reform, while private university students are more focused on disclosure as a means of improving a school’s reputation and attracting students. While the number of libraries and information collection points at public and private universities is similar, there are also important differences with respect to the types of media available to students. Public universities tend to disclose information through a broader range of external media, including websites, magazines, television and radio programs, while private universities rely more heavily on campus media such as school conferences, yearbooks, meeting minutes, information release boards, and electronic screens. In response to questions concerning the most effective means and channels for information disclosure, Professor LQ at the Department of Education of Waseda University cited legal regulations and penalties, which was echoed by JFN at the University of Tokyo School of Education. However, according to ZN from the

130

7 Conclusions and Prospects

Shanghai Foreign Language University School of Japanese Culture and Economy, information is most effectively disclosed through website design, cloud systems and big data, while Hitotsubashi University Press editor ZXM referenced the Internet as the most effective channel. Other responses include the release of special reports and booklets (LWG, administrator at University of Tokyo); networking and attendance at public lectures and academic conferences (WT, associate professor at Rikkyo University Department of Economics and Administration and Japan Research Institute); laws and regulations as well as the transparency of university policy-making (ZLP, Hitotsubashi University Department of Education); and the Internet (ZJ, associate professor at the Japanese Culture Research Institute of Shanghai Foreign Language University; and ZYL, dean of the International Cultural Exchange Center of Shanghai Foreign Language University). Generally speaking, the results of these surveys suggest that while the variety of information disclosure channels available at public universities is broader, transparency is still largely relegated to campus media, while universities have yet to establish the necessary rules and regulations to ensure that such transparency is protected. It is also clear that universities’ heavy reliance on classrooms and promotional materials to interact with students is far from adequate. In order to increase awareness among university stakeholders, it will be necessary not only to expand the number of channels available for the release of information, but also facilitate other forms of interaction which would allow for the collection of feedback from students, parents, society, government and corporations, thereby helping universities satisfy their social responsibilities while strengthening their competitive advantage. 2. Student satisfaction with information disclosure The results of a questionnaire addressing student satisfaction with information disclosure show a manifest correlation between satisfaction levels and the disclosure of basic information, student management information, information involving exchange and cooperation, and miscellaneous information, which were 10%, 30%, 15% and 45%, respectively. According to a satisfaction regression analysis, satisfaction with greater transparency at public universities involving basic information, financial information concerning assets and fees, and degree information was 55%, 20% and 25%, respectively. 3. Information most requested by public and private university students The results of the questionnaire also show that students of public universities care most about the following types of information (listed in order of importance): degree information (58.6%); financial information, including tuition and fees (8.8%); teaching quality information (6.6%); admission and examination information (6.3%); human resources information (5.0%); student management and service information (3.3%); institutional reports (3.9%); basic school information (3.3%); and exchange and cooperation (3.1%). For private university students, this list includes: financial information, including tuition and fees (56%); teaching quality

7.1 Research Conclusions

131

and overseas business trips (8.7%); cheating statistics (6.5%); employment statistics (6.2%); admission information (5%); special admission information (4.5%); rules and reports (3.8%); collaboration with overseas universities (3.4%); student management information (3%); and emergency information (2.9%). Also, as a general matter, brochures and other publications by Japanese universities tend not to include any admission information, while focusing almost entirely on degree-related information.

7.2 7.2.1

Major Contributions of This Research A Systematic Review of Disclosure Information

One of the most practical contributions of this research involves the review and analysis of all available information on the disclosure practices of Japanese universities. This research draws extensively on English, Chinese and Japanese documents to provide a solid theoretical foundation for the further study of university information disclosure.

7.2.2

Micro, Macro and Organizational Structure Analysis

This research is the product of a comprehensive review of available literature as well as case studies and comparative analysis to study the current status of information disclosure in Japanese universities, with a particular emphasis on differences between the scope of disclosure between national and private universities. At a macro level, this research involves an analysis of available documents concerning the status of information disclosure practices, which is supported at a micro level by various polling and quantitative methods to assess teacher and student satisfaction with these practices. Finally, it includes a quantitative analysis of student perspectives involving the weighing of various factors, and a major impact analysis to identify important aspects of information disclosure.

7.2.3

A Framework for Enhanced Disclosure Based on Social Responsibility

Social responsibility, which specifically includes opinions of transparency, stakeholder-related identification to realize the main points of responsibility. Universities should positively explore the new trends of projects, systematic information construction and university information disclosure. Among these,

132

7 Conclusions and Prospects

during systematic information construction, major points to be considered are: sources of information, arrangement methods, thoughts in building mutual platform and internal systematic transparency.

7.2.4

Contribution for the COVID-19 Situation on University Social Responsibility

From the empirical studies and interviews we could observe a strong relationship between university social responsibility and the information disclosure in COVID-19 situation. It is certain that both university and students could benefit from a developed and transparent information system to disclose the COVID-19 related data. In macro level, providing the big data could help preventing the expansion of the virus between students and create a safer campus, while for each student and researchers in micro level, the information disclosure will support their study and further exploration.

7.3 7.3.1

Directions for Future Research The Need for Practical Systems of Disclosure

Current research shows that the development of systems for the disclosure of university information remains largely hypothetical and idealistic, with little focus on the practical difficulties of enforcing such systems. Therefore, given that an ideal yet unenforceable system is necessarily inferior to an imperfect but enforceable one, future research should focus more on developing practical tools for use by policymakers in designing a workable information disclosure system. Given widespread university inaction, this should help strengthen the ability of the public to exercise its right to access university information by enhancing the ability of the government to enforce enhanced disclosure requirements.

7.3.2

The Need for Institutional Designs Based on Social Responsibility

As for how to best go about developing information disclosure institutions geared toward the realization of universities’ social responsibilities, this research will provide a theoretical starting point, but the physical structure which such a system of disclosure might assume should be the topic of further research.

7.3 Directions for Future Research

7.3.3

133

Building a System of Indicators

Information disclosure research based on the development of a system of indicators is rare, yet the adoption of this approach would help resolve the ambiguities associated with the respective authority of the government, universities and other entities under current laws and regulations, while identifying specific disclosure mechanisms and establishing a solid foundation for enhanced regulation and assessment going forward. In effect, the development of a system of indicators is a prerequisite for the effective implementation of any information disclosure system and needs to be the subject of further study.

7.3.4

Direction for the Post COVID-19 Era Research on University Social Responsibility

Until now the COVID-19 is still raging in all over the world and Japan could not escape from the increasing numbers of positives every day. It is still hard for Japanese Universities, both public and private ones, to conclude an explicit and exhaustive system of information disclosure to take the social responsibilities. However, this study shows that many universities are currently on their way to create the framework and we should keep a positive expectation for them to finally carry on and recover from this devastating situation.

7.4

A Vision of Transparency Separate and Apart from Disclosure Regulations

The ideal approach to university information disclosure would ensure that all stakeholders are provided with meaningful access to relevant information, and that transparency takes precedence over any competing considerations as part of an overriding effort to improve university administration and oversight. However, as discussed in more detail above, the disclosure practices currently adopted by Japanese universities leave much to be desired while applicable laws and regulations purporting to regulate such practices tend to be vague and difficult to implement. Moreover, many of the deficiencies in information disclosure and other forms of transparency are not only the result of inadequate laws but also insufficient enforcement. Obviously, the development of effective disclosure policies and practices is driven by both internal and external forces, but in the absence of the latter, there is no reason why more efforts cannot be made toward the self-cultivation and self-regulation of information disclosure institutions, which would have the added benefit of reducing the costs of external supervision. Whether

134

7 Conclusions and Prospects

these institutions are incentivized to do so depends on the strength of perceived correlation between transparency and social evaluation, social evaluation and social support, social support and university development, and between university development and university administration. If these correlations are strong, the internal motivation to ensure greater transparency will also be strong and there will be less need to rely on regulatory enforcement. Accordingly, and insofar as universities are almost certain to benefit from enhanced disclosure, demands for greater transparency should come from within.

Appendix A

Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

This survey is about the current situation of university information disclosure in your country as well as the perception and demand of the relevant parties. It is an anonymous survey and the results will be used solely for our study. All information provided by the participants is strictly confidential. Your support for our research is very meaningful toward the process of improving university information disclosure. Thank-you so much for your active participation! 1. What’s your position (Select one) A. B. C. D. E.

University undergraduate University staff Government official Parents of university students Others

2. Your gender is (Select one) A. Male B. Female 3. What’s your education level? (Select one) A. B. C. D.

High school or below Bachelor Master PhD

4. The name of the university you attended (highest education level) 5. Have you heard of university information disclosure? (Select one) A. Very familiar B. Quite familiar C. Familiar © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 K. Ryu, Developing University Social Responsibility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5489-3

135

136

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

D. Not very familiar E. Never heard 6. Do you want university information to be disclosed? (Select one) A. B. C. D. E.

Very much Pretty Fair Not really Not at all

7. Which is (are) the positive impact(s) of information disclosure on universities? (Select one or more) A. B. C. D. E. F.

Reduce corruption in universities Enhance the reputation of the university Help attract more excellent students and enlarge the number of students Enhance the harmonious relationship between teachers and students Garner support from society Push forward the reform process of universities and improve their management systems

8. Which is (are) the negative impact(s) of information disclosure on universities? (Select one or more) A. Digress from the university’s initial intention and lead to misunderstanding B. Information users may compare the information of different universities, leading to competition among universities, by which universities are placed in an unfavorable position C. Reduce the incentive for university management to push forward the reform process D. Disrupt the normal operation of universities E. Dispersion of concentration away from academic performance or even the operation of universities 9. Which is (are) the channel(s) through which you acquire university information? (Select one or more) A. Campus media: school website, school newspapers, school magazine and campus radio B. Media outside campus: public newspapers, magazines, radios, and TV programs C. News conferences, annual journals, minutes of general meetings, presentations by the university D. Public reference rooms and places for data and information collection set up by the university E. Information disclosure board, website, electronic screens and other facilities set up by the university F. Other channels

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

137

10. Which is (are) the content(s) you require most for information disclosure? (Select one or more) A. Name, location, nature, purpose, level, size, internal management structure, departments, and other basic information about the university B. University constitution, other established rules and regulations, etc. C. University’s future development plan, year plan, etc. D. Regulations of student recruitment, examination and admission for different education levels and degrees; management of students’ data; methods of degree assessment; approaches for student appeal and processing procedures; graduates’ employment guidance and services offering situation, etc. E. Disciplinary structure and specialty arrangement, development of key disciplines, plan for curriculum and teaching; facilities including laboratories, equipment and library collection; evaluation of teaching and research performance, result of national level teaching evaluation, etc. F. Application and administrative regulations regarding scholarships, financial aid, tuition waivers, student loans, work-study programs, etc. G. Total number of teachers and other professionals, classifications of academic and professional titles; post setup, management and employment method; dispute settlement methods for staff, etc. H. Fee charging, standards, measures, methods of complaint, etc. I. Financial affairs, assets and financial management regulations; source of funds, annual financial budget, and annual financial report; usage and management condition of fiscal funds and donated properties; procurement of equipment, books, medicines and other materials; bidding for major infrastructure projects, etc. J. Contingency plan and processing for natural disasters and other emergencies; investigation and process of major events related to the school, etc. K. Current situation of foreign exchange and Chinese-foreign cooperation programs, administrative system of foreign teachers and students, etc. 11. What do you think about the system and implementation of university information disclosure? (Select one) A. B. C. D.

System System System System

is is is is

advanced; implementation is satisfactory. advanced; implementation is unsatisfactory. not advanced; implementation is satisfactory. not advanced; implementation is unsatisfactory.

12. Are you familiar with the process for obtaining university information by application? (Select one) A. B. C. D. E.

Very familiar Quite familiar Familiar Not very familiar Never heard of it

138

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

13. If you discovered that a university was lacking information disclosure, would you raise an application for more information disclosure on your own initiative? (Select one) A. B. C. D. E.

I I I I I

would raise an application for sure. would raise an application on most occasions. would raise an application if in need. may not raise an application. would not raise an application.

14. Do you know that university information can be disclosed by application? (Select one) A. B. C. D. E.

Very familiar Quite familiar Familiar Not very familiar Never heard

15. If you discovered that a university was lacking information disclosure, would you raise an application for more information disclosure on your own initiative? (Select one) A. B. C. D. E.

I I I I I

will raise an application for sure. will raise an application in most occasions. will raise an application if in need. may not raise an application. will not raise an application.

16. Have you ever raised an application to a university for information disclosure? (Select one) A. Yes, I have. And I’ve received a reply from the university. B. Yes, I have. But I haven’t received any reply from the university. C. No, I haven’t. 17. If the answer is A for the previous question, what type of reply have you received? (Select one or more) A. The information was already disclosed to the public. You were informed of the channel and method for acquiring the information. B. The information could not be disclosed to the public. You were informed of the reason why it could not be disclosed. C. The information was not owned by the university or not available. You were informed of the owner of the information, including the owner’s name and contact details. D. Part of the information required could not be disclosed. However, the pieces of information could be separated. You were informed of the

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

139

information that could be disclosed and the reason why the other information required could not be disclosed. E. The information required by you was not clear. You were told to revise and add more details to the application. If you failed to revise and add the details within the time period required, the application would be regarded as waived. F. You had already raised the same application to the same university before and had received a reply. There was no change in the information required, therefore, you were told that the duplicated application was invalid. 18. Please give rankings to the disclosure situation of the following information (Select one) 18:1 Basic Information 18:1:1 School scale, profile and division of labor of the university-level leadership profile, structural establishment, curriculums, majors, various types of current students, number of lecturers and professionals, and so on. A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:1:2 University constitution, established rules and regulations A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:1:3 Institutions and reports of College Faculty Congress A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:1:4 Institutions and annual reports of the Scholarship Committee A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

140

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

18:1:5 University’s future development plan, year plan and focus of the future A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:1:6 Annual report of information disclosure situation A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:1:7 Your overall ranking of basic information disclosure A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:2 Admission and entrance examination information 18:2:1 General admission regulations and methods for special-type admissions, recruitment plan for different batches and subjects A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:2:2 Qualifications and testing result for special-type admissions including examination free admission, independent recruitment, ranking athletes and students with art specialty A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

141

18:2:3 Channels and methods for individual candidates to check their admission status, number of successful candidates and minimum score for different batches and subjects A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:2:4 Admission consultation and channels for candidates’ appeal; investigation and result of accusations arise during the freshmen checking period A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:2:5 General admission regulations, list of majors, admission methods of university-specific test for postgraduate students; the number of successful candidates for different faculties (schools, departments), subjects or majors A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:2:6 Testing result of the university-specific test for all candidates A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:2:7 List of successful candidates for postgraduate students A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

142

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

18:2:8 Admission consultation and appeal channels for postgraduate students A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:2:9 Your overall ranking of admission and entrance examination information disclosure A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:3 Financial affairs, assets and charging information 18:3:1 Financial affairs and assets management regulations A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:3:2 Usage and management condition of fiscal funds and donated properties A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:3:3 Level of assets and liabilities, appreciation and hedging of state-owned assets and other information about university-owned enterprises A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

143

18:3:4 Procurement of equipment, books, medicines and other materials; bidding for major infrastructure projects A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:3:5 Total financial budget, income budget, expense budget, fiscal appropriation budget A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:3:6 Total financial report, income report, expense report, fiscal appropriation report A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:3:7 Charging items, standards, measures and methods of complaint A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:3:8 Your overall ranking of financial affairs, assets and charging information disclosure A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

144

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

18:4 Personnel and teaching resource information 18:4:1 Professional affiliations of university-level leading cadres A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:4:2 Official overseas trips of university-level leading cadres A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:4:3 Post setup, management and employment method A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:4:4 Appointment and removal of middle-level cadres as well as staff recruitment information A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:4:5 Dispute settlement methods for staff A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:4:6 Your overall ranking of personnel and teaching resource information disclosure A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

145

18:5 Teaching Quality information 18:5:1 Proportion of undergraduates among all full-time students, number of teachers and teaching structure A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:5:2 List of all available majors, newly-added majors and abolished (stop recruiting) majors A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:5:3 Total number of courses provided, credits of practical-teaching courses to total credits ratio, electives credit to total credits ratio A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:5:4 Proportion of Professors teaching undergraduate courses, proportion of undergraduate courses in terms of all course A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:5:5 Favorable policies and career guidance offered to graduates for employment A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

146

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

18:5:6 Scale, structure, employment rate and career direction of graduates A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:5:7 Annual report of the employment quality of university graduates A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:5:8 Annual report of the development of artistic education A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:5:9 Report about teaching quality of undergraduate students A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:5:10 Your overall ranking of teaching quality information disclosure A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:6 Students’ management and services information 18:6:1 Detailed methods of students’ roll and data management A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

147

18:6:2 Application and administrative regulations regarding scholarships, financial aid, tuition waivers, student loans, work-study program A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:6:3 Reward and penalty system for students A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:6:4 Channels and methods for student appeal A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:6:5 Your overall ranking of students’ management and services information disclosure A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:7 Academic atmosphere construction information 18:7:1 Department of academic atmosphere construction A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:7:2 Regulations and disciplinarians of academic standards and rules A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

148

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

18:7:3 Investigation process for academic misconduct A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:7:4 Your overall ranking of academic atmosphere construction information disclosure A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:8 Degree and subject information 18:8:1 Basic requirement for conferment of doctor, master and bachelor’s degree A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:8:2 Qualification examination and education level authentication for students to be conferred of master and doctor’s degree A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:8:3 Examination and verification approaches to universities with newly authorized ability to offer degrees (master, doctor) of certain subjects and majors A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

149

18:8:4 Declaration and proof materials to apply for newly authorized ability to offer degrees of certain subjects and majors A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:8:5 Your overall ranking of degree and subject information disclosure A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:9 Foreign exchange and cooperation information 18:9:1 Current situation programs A. B. C. D. E.

of

Chinese(Japanese)-foreign

cooperation

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:9:2 Administrative system and regulations of international students in China (Japan) A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:9:3 Your overall ranking of foreign exchange and cooperation information disclosure A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

150

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

18:10 Other Information 18:10:1 Feedback and suggestions from supervision team, rectification and measures taken based on feedbacks received A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:10:2 Contingency plan and processing for natural disasters and other emergencies; investigation and process of major event related to the school A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

18:10:3 Your overall ranking of other information disclosure A. B. C. D. E.

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

19. What is (are) the content(s) you require most for information disclosure? (Select one or more) A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J.

Basic information Admission and entrance examination information Financial affairs, assets and charging information Personnel and teaching resource information Teaching quality information Students’ management and services information Academic atmosphere construction information Degree and subject information Foreign exchange and cooperation information Other information

20. Ranking for disclosure based on initiative (Select one) A. B. C. D. E.

Very satisfied satisfied Fair Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied

Appendix A: Questionnaire for University Information Disclosure

21. Ranking for disclosure based on application (Select one) A. B. C. D. E.

Very satisfied satisfied Fair Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied

22. Ranking for disclosure based on channels and methods (Select one) A. B. C. D. E.

Very satisfied satisfied Fair Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied

23. Ranking for disclosure based on system construction (Select one) A. B. C. D. E.

Very satisfied satisfied Fair Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied

24. Overall ranking (Select one) A. B. C. D. E.

Very satisfied satisfied Fair Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied

151

Appendix B

Interview Outline of the Construction of University Information Disclosure System

The interview results will be used in our research and will be kept strictly confidential for your information. Your support for our research and contribution to the improvement of university information disclosure is very meaningful. We are sincerely thanking you for your active participation! Time: _________________________________________. Name of interviewee: ____________________________. Position: ______________________________________. University and department: _______________________. 1. What main content do you think should be included in university information disclosure? What information do you think is most important for a university to disclose? 2. What do you think are the boundaries of public versus confidential information? 3. As far as you know, what is the current situation of university information disclosure nationally (In your country)? What is the situation in your university? 4. What do you think are the best and worst categories in terms of university information disclosure currently? 5. What do you think are the barriers hindering university information disclosure? 6. Do you think there are risks regarding information disclosure? What main areas can you think of? 7. What do you think is the value of university information disclosure? 8. What channel do you think is the most effective for university information disclosure? 9. What do you think is the motivation of university information disclosure? 10. What do you think is the current situation of university information disclosure? 11. What way do you think university information disclosure should adopt to achieve better efficiency?

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 K. Ryu, Developing University Social Responsibility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5489-3

153

154

Appendix B: Interview Outline of the Construction of University Information …

12. Do you know what the supervision mechanism of university information disclosure at your university is? 13. Do you think the current level of supervision of university information disclosure is enough? How could the supervision mechanism at your university be improved? 14. Please state your other opinions and suggestions for university information disclosure.

References

Arko-Cobbah, A.: The Right of Access to Information: opportunities and challenges for civil society and good governance in South Africa. IFLA Journal 34(2), 180–191 (2008). https://doi. org/10.1177/0340035208092154 Beagle, D.: The emergent information commons: philosophy, models, and 21st century learning paradigms. J. Libr. Adm. 50(1), 7–26 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/01930820903422347 Bergemann, D., Välimäki, J.: Information acquisition and efficient mechanism design. Econometrica 70(3), 1007–1033 (2002) Benesse Educational Research & Development Institute. https://berd.benesse.jp/koutou/research/ detail1.php?id=3161 Bingsi, F.: The right of access to information, government information disclosure legal principle theory of law foundation. Library Inf. Work 86(06), 36–38 (2008) Bok, D., Xu, X., Lu, J.: Out of the ivory tower—the social responsibilities of the modern university, p. 26. Zhejiang University Press, Hangzhou (2001) Brandon-Jones, A., Slack, N., Johnston, R., Betts, A.: Operations and Process Management: Principles and Practice for Strategic Impact, 3rd edn. Pearson PLC (2012) Brubaker, J.: Higher Education Philosophy, vol. 17, p. 140. Zhejiang Education Publishing Group, Hangzhou (2001) Burke, D.: Out of the Ivory Tower: Modern University’s Social Responsibility, In: Xu, X., Chen, J. (eds.) Zhejiang Education Publishing Group, Hangzhou, vol. 7, pp. 73–101. (2001) Canovan, M.: Politics as culture: Hannah Arendt and the public realm. History of Political Thought, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 617–642. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26212420 (1985). Accessed 14 July 2020 Chen, X., Zhu, X., Li, P.: The integration strategy of university information resources based on knowledge management. J. Mod. Infor. 27(1), 80–82 (2007) Coase, R.H.: The problem of social cost. J. Law. Econ. 3(1), 1–44 (1960). https://doi.org/10.1086/ 466560 Davies, S., Zarifa, D.: The stratification of universities: Structural inequality in Canada and the United States. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 30(2), 143–158 (2012). https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2011.05.003 Fan, W.: Governance Reform: Improve the Chinese Characteristics of Modern University System. China Education Daily (04) (2010) Freeman, R.E.: Strategic Management: Stakeholder Management Analysis Method. Shanghai Translation Publishing House (2006) Gong, F.: Social responsibilities of modern university. Peking Univ. Educ. Rev. 02, 118–127 (2008) © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 K. Ryu, Developing University Social Responsibility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5489-3

155

156

References

Guo, L.: The social responsibility of the university. J. Yangzhou University: High. Educ. Res. Edn. 3, 18–21 (2003) Hanberger, A.: Public Policy and Legitimacy: a historical policy analysis of the interplay of public policy and legitimacy. Policy Sci. 36(3), 257–278 (2003) http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/daigaku/04052801/_icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/08/25/ 1310269_1.pdf Izak, M., Kostera, M., Zawadzki, M.: The Future of University Education, pp. 1–16. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2017) Jaeger, P.T.: Information policy, information access, and democratic participation: the national and international implications of the bush administration information politics. Gov. Inf. Q. 24, 840– 859 (2007) Kang, L.: Research on Social Responsibility of Chinese Universities, pp. 28–30. Dalian University of Technology, Higher Education Press (2008) Kang, L.: The present situation, challenge and reflection of the social responsibility of the university. Mod. Educ. Manage. 05, 32–35 (2012a) Kang, L.: The university’s social responsibility and its fulfillment pattern. China High. Educ. 24, 54–56 (2012b) Kerr, C.: The Function of University, p. 211. Jiangxi Education Press, Nanchang (1993) Laffont, J.-J., Martimort, D.: Mechanism design with collusion and correlation. Econometrica 2, 309–342 (2000) Levinson-Waldman, R.: Academic Freedom and the Public’s Right to Know: How to Counter the Chilling Effect of FOIA Requests on Scholarship (2011). Available online at: http://www. acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Levinson_-_ACS_FOIA_First_Amdmt_Issue_Brief.pdf Li, T.: Social Criticism: The Social Responsibility of University. School of Management, South-Central University for Nationalities, Wuhan (2007) Liu, G.: An analysis of university education and social responsibility. J. Shenyang Constr. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Edtn.) 04, 180–183 (2008) Liu, J.: College of public access to information influencing factors and countermeasures of university library and information science (05), 12–15 (2011) Maskin, E.S.: How to implement social goals. Am. Econ. Rev. 3, 567–576 (2008) McLendon, M.K., Gilchrist, L., Hearn, J.C.: State Open-Meetings and Open-Records Laws in Higher Education: An Annotated Bibliography (2003). Available at www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/ pdf/governance_bib.pdf Myerson, R.B.: Incentive compatibility and the bargaining problem. Econometrica 47(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912346 (1979) Myerson, R.: Optimal auction design. Math. Oper. Res. (1), 60–61 (1981) Nasu, Y.: Japanese University Career Education Status and Trends. Bunkyo University International Bulletin of the Faculty of, 15 volume 1, pp. 53–62 (2004) Pan, M.: A Study of Higher Education in a Multi-Disciplinary Perspective, p. 2224. Shanghai Education Press, Shanghai (2001) Rosovsky, H.: The university: An owner’s manual, p. 309. W.W. Norton and Company, New York, ISBN 0–393–02782–1, Prometheus, 10:1, 149 (1990) https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08109029208629528 Shao, Y.: On the colleges’ power of decision in information disclosure from the perspective of academic freedom. Exploring Education Development 21(1), 79–83 (2011) Song, H.: On the social responsibility and construction of the first class university. J. Tangshan Normal Univ 4, 88–90 (2006) Surridge, P.: The National Student Survey 2005: Findings. HEFCE, London (2006) Suzuki, M.: Various Problems in the Bachelor of Education Reform in Japan and FD System of Higher Education Research, Kyoto University (13) (2008) The United States Department of Justice. Foia Update: Attorney General Reno’s Foia Memorandum. FOIA Update. Vol. XIV, No. 3. (1993). https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/ foia-update-attorney-general-renos-foia-memorandum.

References

157

Universities’ performance at information disclosure, Benesse Educational Research & Development Institute, (2008). Van Zandt, T.: Communication complexity and mechanism design. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 2–3, 543– 553 (2007) Wang, J.: Beyond the ivory tower: the modern university’s social responsibility. High. Educ. Res. 1, 1–6 (2003) Wang, S.: A preliminary study on the structural analysis of the social responsibility of university. Tsinghua Univ. 11, 1–8 (2005) Woodbury, M.: A difficult decade: continuing freedom of information challenges for the united states and its universities. E Law vol. 10, No. 4, para. 30 (2003). Available online at: http:// www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v10n4/woodbury104nf.html Woodbury, M., Broudy, H.S.: Freedom of information laws affect the autonomy of American universities. E Law-Murdoch Univ. Electr. J. Jaw 1(4) (1994) Wu, E.: The literature information resources sharing of university library. Theory Aspect 6, 1–5 (2007) Wu, J.: From the perspective of space sharing theory to share the information resources of China’s colleges and universities. J. Shandong Youth Univ. Polit. Sci. 06, 168–170 (2009) Xu, M.: University information disclosure and the construction of modern university system. Jiangsu High. Edu. 1, 43–45 (2010) Xu, H.: Social supervision in the perspective of university external governance. China High. Educ. Res. 01, 82–85 (2013) Xuan, Y.: The university must have the independent right of running school. Educ. Dev. Res. 7, 1–9 (2010) Yang, X.: A review of the social responsibility of modern university. Jiangsu High. Educ. 1, 17–20 (2009) Yin, X.: On initial construction, system crux and efficiency improving of the accountability system of compulsory education. Mod. Educ. J. (2008) Yu, B.: Information disclosure system of higher education institutions. Liaoning Educ. Res. 06, 39–41 (2008) Zhang, Y.: Thoughts on the current new human-based management model-taking Japanese business management experience as a case. Market Weekly: Business Marketing (2004) Zhang, J.: An analysis of the necessity of information disclosure in higher education institutions. High. Educ. Sci. 01, 31–35 (2012) Zhao, L.: University’s social responsibility and its role to promote. Jiangsu High. Educ. 4, 28–30 (2002) Zhao, X.: Research on the Rights of University Students Based on the Consumption of Educational Services. Hunan University Press, Changsha (2007) Zhou, Q.: Information Law, pp. 26–28. Renmin University Press, Beijing (2003) Zhu, J.: University information disclosure: an investigation based on the university website. Educ. Talent 04, 89–93 (2013) Zong, C.: The revelation of foreign information disclosure legislation to China’s “regulations on the disclosure of government information.” Inf. Theory Pract. 3, 37–40 (2010)

Index

A Academic management system, 2 B Business ethics, xi C Civil society, 4 COVID-19 situation, 4, 132 D Degree of university information disclosure, 40 Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE), 9 Disciplinary structure, 137 E Educational information disclosure, 31, 98, 128 Educational reform, 104 Enhanced disclosure, 97, 105, 106, 112, 128, 131, 132, 134 Ethical economics, xi Entrance examination system, 2 Exchange school, 52, 55, 69, 89–92 F Freedom of information act, 9, 10 Financial system and teaching system, 2 Fundamental law of education, 1, 2 G Government administration, 4

H Higher Education Funding Council for England, 9 Higher education statistics agency, 9 I Information disclosure policies, 11, 27 Information sharing theory, 18 Information transparency, 105 K Key information sets, 9 N National power, 4 National test center for university admissions, 2 National universities, 93, 95 New institutionalism theory, 18 O Operating information, 102 P Peking University, xi Pneumonia, 2 Private education law, 2 Private education promotion law, 2 Private universities, 34, 93, 125 S Sclosure mechanisms, 5 Shanghai, 17, 18, 130

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 K. Ryu, Developing University Social Responsibility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5489-3

159

160 Social organization, v Social Responsibility of University, 21 South African democracy, 4 Specialty arrangement, 53, 55, 68, 137 Stakeholders, 17, 113 Stakeholder theory, ix, 6, 14, 19, 113, 114, 116 Standards for the establishment of universities, 2 Stanford University, xi Strategic disclosure, 12, 108 Strategic management, 17 Structural analysis, 21

Index T Teaching quality, 63, 144, 150 Transparency-restricting, 18 Tsinghua University, xi, 21 U University information disclosure, 23, 30, 38, 40, 84, 102, 112, 114, 115 University information sharing, 6 W Waseda University, xi, 2, 9, 38, 44, 52, 54, 67, 84, 89–91, 100, 128, 129