Recent trends in higher education governance, which have been underpinned by interaction with various stakeholders in society, can be divided into the following three categories: (1) changes in the role of government associated with NPM-type administrative reforms, (2) rapid responsiveness to demands from the market and the political sector, and (3) institutional diversification as seen from horizontal (eg. missions in society) and vertical (eg. ranking of research competitiveness) perspectives. The first trend has been led by the strong intention to adopt in the higher education sector the same kind of measures as those aimed at improving the level of efficiency in the provision of public services. The other two trends derive from the strong demands made by the business and political sectors for a more persuasive and more clearly visible “utilitarian” performance on the part of higher education.

　 In Japan, moreover, the Ministry of Finance has signaled its intention of allocating public money more efficiently and effectively on the basis of a set of clear criteria in order to pursue fiscal reform while laboring under the heaviest burden of public debt found among industrialized countries. This direction obviously corresponds to the recent trends mentioned above, and now strong pressure to undertake governance reform is imposed on Japanese public-sector higher education represented by national universities. That means they have become subject to pressure from political, business and fiscal decision makers instead of being free to decide their own future in response to market forces.

　 This paper examines what kind of changes have taken place in the governance and management of Japanese universities and colleges as a result of the influence exerted by the higher education reforms introduced since the 1990s.

　 The current and future issues that have emerged in higher education institutions (HEIs) as organizations are a major focus of the discussion. When we start to analyze how HEIs have changed in terms of their organizational structure and management as a result of the higher education reforms, we are immediately confronted by the necessity to give a clear definition of the terms and concepts used in governance and management. It is in this context that a theoretical model or framework is developed to underlie an analysis of the structure of HEIs and their decision-making processes, exploring how these processes have been operated and how they have changed the governance and management of HEIs. It is supposed that organizations act and change independently in part, while at the same time being affected by regulatory and juridical systems. The actual operations of an organization sometimes differ from the intended or designated outcomes as a result of reforms and changing policies. An analysis of the changes in HEIs since the 1990s shows that rather than uniformly changing from a “community of knowledge” to a “management body of knowledge”, Japanese universities and colleges have formed a new layer in their organizational structures on the basis of their specific institutional histories.

　 The purpose of this paper is to give an overview of the nature of policy assessment concerned with “quality assurance” within the framework of the higher education system of Japan. It examines “quality assurance” in higher education from three viewpoints, adding “Contents” (the educational process) to the commonly cited concepts of “Entrance” (admission approval) and “Exit” (Graduation).

　 The deregulation and liberalization of the Japanese higher education system have advanced since the outline of university establishment standards was issued as a formal criterion in 1991. Stimulated by factors such as the occurrence of scandals, etc., the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology carries out periodic reviews, and has moved in the direction of tightening regulation of the admission approval (entrance) procedures. On the other hand, insufficient attention has been paid to cooperation and complementarity between entrance admission systems and accreditation systems (contents). This is a situation in which more thought needs to be given to quality assurance in relation to such matters as “linkage” and “articulation” with other systems (degree from an institution in another country, short-term higher education course, transfer from a high school advanced course, etc.). Achievement of a consensus on such matters as the “outcome of learning” in a concrete content, the methodology of the measurement of study results, and the establishment of standards are indispensable prerequisites for improvement of quality assurance in the higher education system of Japan. A quality assurance policy in higher education cannot be expected to yield results in the absence of cooperation with various adjacent systems.

　 Since the 1990s, the reform of graduate school education in Japan has aimed to strengthen educational functions by (1) increasing the number of graduate students, (2) nurturing the growth of professional, and (3) implementing systematization e.g., coursework enrichment. However, this reform has not resulted in an increase in the positive evaluation of graduate students among persons working in companies. There is also criticism by many people of the gap between what they learned in graduate school and the knowledge and skills required in their working lives.

　 This paper examines the reason why the evaluation of graduate school education is so low, focusing attention on the experiences of persons working in companies. In autumn 2014, we conducted a questionnaire survey with a sampling size of 2,470 company employees who, in the past five years, had conducted job interviews.

　 Results show that: 1) Interviewers who are consciously aware, because of the globalization of their own companies, of educational background disparity between the employees of Japanese and those of foreign enterprises, consider graduate students to be potential employees; 2) A positive evaluation of such students depends on the number of interviews conducted; 3) Interviewers who are satisfied with personal study achievements at university ask more questions about the interviewee’s university study experience, concluding that postgraduate applicants are promising candidates; and 4) Most significantly, few interviewers in Japan have experience in positively evaluating graduate students, indicating that a reason for the passivity of Japanese companies in hiring postgraduates is an insufficiency of experienced interviewers.

　 Hence, a possible solution might be found in getting experienced interviewers to share instances of business contributions made by postgraduates, taking into consideration that, although they are few in number, such interviewers realize the worth of postgraduates. Through the “reliving” of such experiences on the part of other companies, the relative inexperience of corporate interviewers in general may be compensated for to some extent, leading to an increased awareness of the worth of postgraduates and of graduate school education.

　 This paper describes changes in Japan’s science and technology policy after 1990 and discusses the impact they had on the higher education policy.

　 The Science and Technology Basic Act was promulgated in 1995. Government investments in research and development have increased. This benefited universities, but a concentration of some investments may have widened disparity among universities. The number of published papers reflecting the resulting research grew in the latter half of the 1990s, but that growth has stalled. Following the introduction of innovation policy in 2001 and the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011, the Cabinet of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe began promoting a science, technology and innovation (STI) policy in 2013.

　 The nuclear power plant disaster resulting from the Great East Japan Earthquake seriously undermined public trust in Japan’s technological caliber and the science and technology organization. Council for Science and Technology Policy started a review of the science and technology policy to date, assessment of potential risk in science and technology, and risk management. A Science for Re-designing STI Policy was started in fiscal year 2012 as a program to seek realization of policy based on objective evidence.

　 Among the various forms of higher education, the principal concerns of STI policy were confined, to science majors, graduate schools, research activities, world-class universities and so on. STI policy must go hand-in-hand with higher education policy in these domains. The other domains should be promoted with higher education policy so that an overall balance in higher education system is maintained.

　 Japan’s STI policy today should pay more attention to the development of innovative human resources, regional innovation policy, and the role of human resources with backgrounds in the social sciences and humanities in innovation. These items, which much more higher education institutions can contribute to, are desired first within the framework of higher education research.

　 This article examines the relationship between internationalization and reforms in Japanese higher education since 2003, when Japan reached its goal of accepting 100,000 international students. Firstly, the author gives an overview of the discussions and practices concerned with the internationalization of higher education that can be observed in many countries in the world and which can be thought of as having influenced Japan. Secondly, the author reflects on what policies the Japanese government has issued with the aim of promoting internationalization and related higher education reforms, and also how these policies have been aligned with market factors generated by trends in industry and the student world. Thirdly, the author analyzes what kind of institutional reforms have taken place in Japanese higher education in the context of internationalization, referring to global trends as well as to state policies and the market. Finally, the conclusions to date and the implication for likely emerging research issues over the coming decade are set out.

　 The purpose of this article is to carry out an empirical examination of the actual content and the role of “welfare and guidance” at postwar Japanese universities by focusing on the four training courses which had “welfare and guidance” as their theme among the courses offered by the section of welfare and guidance of the Institute for Educational Leadership (hereafter IFEL) (1949―1951), implemented during the American occupation by the then Ministry of Education and GHQ/SCAP Civil Information and Education Section (CIE).

　 Previous studies have pointed out that the concept of “welfare and guidance” appeared for the first time in the documentation issued by the “Institute of Welfare and Guidance” (Kosei-Hodo Kenkyukai) (1951-1952). It seemed likely, however, that some activity concerned with “welfare and guidance” got under way before the Institute of “welfare and guidance” was formed.

　 Therefore, relying on both Japanese and American primary sources which I unearthed and collected, I clarified the actual details of the lectures provided by the “Section of Welfare and Guidance in IFEL”. Next, I examined and analyzed the situation and the role of this section from three points of view, namely, “philosophy”, “activities”, and “diffusion”.

　 The results of my analysis are as follows. Firstly, the U.S. lecturers took a leading role in focusing on the new concept of “philosophy” in the training courses. Secondly, in the “Section of Welfare and Guidance in IFEL”, the nature of “welfare and guidance” is shown in the “activity content”, participated in by all the students, responsibility for which was shared by the U.S. and Japanese lecturers. Thirdly, the “Section of Welfare and Guidance in IFEL” fostered the training of the personnel who were to be responsible for “welfare and guidance” measures in postwar Japanese universities. Hence the “Section of Welfare and Guidance in IFEL” developed training courses before the “Institute of Welfare and Guidance” was established, inferring that it was an attempt to lay the foundation of “welfare and guidance” measures in the new university system.

　 In this paper, I have taken up and considered the topic of salaries paid to faculty members of Japanese national universities from the point of view of merit increment. To be concrete, I conducted questionnaire-based surveys with the deans of university schools and the heads of departments to confirm what was actually happening and to measure the awareness on the part of faculty members of the issues raised by the system of an annual pay rise and the diligence allowance. The main findings are as given below.

　 Firstly, the annual pay rise and the diligence allowance are calculated on the basis of each professor’s performance in research, teaching, and administration. This means that every aspect of work, with the exception of service to the local community, is equally emphasized.

　 Secondly, faculty members who receive merit salary increases are in fact chosen by deans. Faculty meetings and heads of departments do not have a great deal of influence.

　 Thirdly, a majority of deans and department heads had difficulty with a short-period rating and felt fear of being given a dysfunctional rating. But these problems were not major factors to the extent of affecting general aspirations for the expansion of wage differentials, or a performance-related pay orientation.

　 Fourthly, those who answered that rating of faculty members by deans and heads was incompatible with academic culture did not form a majority. But they tended not to agree with a performance-related pay orientation.　 Fifthly, heads of departments who had difficulty discriminating between faculty members tended not to agree with a performance-related pay policy.

　 On the basis of those findings, I discussed standards and a system for judging who should get merit salary increases.

　 The relationship between university and government has grown more complex and become increasingly important all over the world at the start of the twenty-first century. However, neither complete university autonomy separate from higher education policy nor complete accountability of universities vis-a-vis government exist. It follows that the validation of individual cases is required to assess where the line of demarcation between autonomy and accountability should be drawn. This study aims to question the relationship between university autonomy and governmental control by focusing on the redefinition of teacher training in university education implemented in the National University Reform Plan from 2012 to 2013 because various issues related to university autonomy such as funding, personnel matters and academic affairs were dealt with in the course of work on the plan. Three analytical perspectives are applied and the following results are obtained. First is the relationship between the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology (MEXT) and the government. The reform of teacher training in university was strongly promoted by the government but that also gave strong power to MEXT about the requirements for reform to be obtained from each university. Second is the relationship between MEXT and universities. MEXT gave strong guidance on the direction of reform to be followed by each university and that in turn impeded the true development of university autonomy. Third is the differentiation of policy among departments in the Higher Education Bureau of MEXT. It is pointed out that the compromise plan for the direction of reform has the possibility of creating a situation of chaos within each university, making reform prospects vague.

　 This article examines the choice of future career direction after graduation from an “art university” by students who have a desire to become artists, and considers what kinds of social and educational conditions result in the relatively low ratio of such graduates who are given a promise of regular employment before graduation.

　 Firstly, we examine the reasons underlying the two main postgraduate routes for aspiring artists, namely going to graduate school and getting a part-time job. The former is explained as a way for the student of realizing the formation and evolution of their artistic identity, giving themselves resources of time and space to continue art-making, and accumulating social capital. Doing part-time jobs after graduation is discussed in terms of getting the time needed for art-making, clarifying their future direction in life, building up through their “social” experiences forms of capital that are hard to obtain within the university, and preparing for their new career direction.

　 Secondly, we clarify that for students, employment signifies the end of creating art or the transformation of art into a hobby, and that the process of giving this meaning to employment is realized and maintained through the interaction among teachers and students in an educational environment which emphasizes art-making. However, they do not completely reject employment as a future direction if it makes it possible for them to continue creating art because their main concern is not whether they can get employment, but whether they can continue to produce art.