Special Issue
Knowledge Transformation and Networking of Higher Education Research
Through a Comparison between Related Three Associations
2013 Volume 16 Pages 183-201
Details
2013 Volume 16 Pages 183-201
We looked back over the 15 year’s activities of JAHER or Japanese Association of Higher Education Research, and examined the process and state of institutionalizing its knowledge and organization. Then we analyzed the coming problems and prospects. Concretely, we compared JAHER with LGESJ (Liberal and General Education Society of Japan) and JUAM (Japan Association of University Administrative Management) which were established in the same year of JAHER and analyzed research presentations at the annual conferences of them (from 1998 to 2011). The followings are what we found.
1. The percentage of existing themes of the other two associations, that is, “Lesson Analysis” and “Undergraduate Education” for LGESJ and “Management” for JUAM, has decreased. On the other hand, the percentage of themes, that is, “Lesson Analysis” for JUAM and “Management” for LGESJ and the number of presentations for those themes have increased. Some themes, such as “Academic profession & FD” and “Campus life & Student Culture,” have increased for all three associations. On the other hand, some themes can be found only for a particular association, such as “Quality Assurance” and “Globalism” for JAHER. Research orientation and approach vary by a theme. More appropriate approach has been chosen for every theme.
2. Complexity of joint research network for JAHER is more prominent compared to the other two associations. The number of researchers who join more than two associations is small, but the number of presentations is not small for all three associations.
3. Joint research network of JAHER consists of three groups such as a core (I, II), a middle, and a peripheral group. As for research approach, the percentage of hypothesis testing research has decreased and the percentage of fact-finding approach and case study has increased for the core II and the middle groups. On the contrary, the percentage of hypothesis testing research has increased for the core I and the peripheral groups.
