Twenty years have passed since university evaluation systems were introduced in Japan. In this paper, we will review and examine how the focus and methods of Japanese university evaluations have changed. When the Certified Evaluation and Accreditation and the National University Corporation Evaluation systems were introduced, the individual objectives of each university were emphasized, and the comparability of the results of different universities was denied. Therefore, interest in evaluation did not increase, and other approaches similar to evaluation arose. However, there has been discussion of standardized criteria, indicators of learning outcomes, and multi-faceted measurement for each field. In addition, the Ministry of Finance and Cabinet Office are likewise strongly requesting objective evaluation of educational and research outcomes. To respond adequately, university evaluation must be systematically reviewed.

　 The Japanese Certified Evaluation and Accreditation (CEA) system, effective since 2004, has been criticized for focusing too closely on compliance and meeting minimum standards and heavy workload problems, rather than on enhancing the quality of education and student learning outcomes. Furthermore, the CEA system is still little understood by in the labor market, by high schools, and among prospective students and their parents, as well as elsewhere in society.<p>

　The discussion now emphasizes the enhancement of connectivity with society and improving the efficiency of quality assurance (QA) mechanisms in internal QA systems as well as information disclosure to enhance accountability to society. MEXT requires universities to build internal QA systems around three policies, to be implemented at the degree and program level defined by each university; however, in principle, they are focused on the level of the program that confers the degree. To promote student-centered learning, international compatibility, and the credibility of degrees, the Japanese higher education community should develop a reference standard and qualifications framework to provide expected learning outcomes for students for each qualification in each academic field.</p><p>

　After the transition from external QA to internal QA, from institutional QA to program QA, and from teacher-centered to learner-centered learning, QA system of Japanese higher education has tackled challenges of accountability and social connectivity. To promote common awareness of the CEA goals in the wider society, the higher education community should both distribute user-friendly information about distinctive university initiatives and good practice more widely and develop and apply a shared learning outcome framework among multiple stakeholders for students to acquire at the end of the program.

　 This paper examines the relationship between university evaluation and resource allocation. The National University Corporation Evaluation Committee has introduced an evaluation system for national universities, and the government has developed an evaluation system based on a novel framework in recent years. We examine the relationship between resource allocation and the impact of competitive resource allocation on national and private universities. Differences between Japan and the United States are evaluated by examining the relationship between state-centered evaluation and resource allocation in the United States and the problems of resource allocation in relation to evaluation in Japan.

　In the United States, unlike Japan, evaluation and resource allocation for public universities and community colleges are conducted in each state. In Japan, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology's central control system targets national universities nationwide and subsidizes private universities with common indicators. A significant difference in resource allocation based on evaluation is that in the United States, it is targeted to public universities and community colleges alone at the state level, and private universities are not subject to evaluation or resource allocation.

　The characteristics of resource allocation in Japanese institutions of higher education are based on university reform through the introduction of common indicators, regardless of whether they are public or private. Here, it is characteristic that university reform is promoted by governmental control and management rather than bottom-up within universities. Although the PF index is considered an outcome index in the United States, faculty members voluntarily promote educational reform to achieve these outcomes.</p><p>　 It is necessary to discuss educational missions based on the founding spirit and the evaluation of individuality. The allocation of resources through evaluation is becoming more common worldwide, and the associated challenges are great.

　 Academic research productivity has fallen in Japan in recent years. For example, Japan’s top 10% of highly cited papers ratio is below the world average. It has been asserted that this stagnation is because of the inefficient research system present in Japanese universities. However, such discussion sometimes lacks sufficient evidence to evaluate academic research and funding to enable informed policy making. Universities in leading countries, such as the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom exhibit high research productivity. This article describes the funding systems used in these countries to support research, especially in the context of a dual support system in which funding is conducted through both a competitive grant funding and stable block grant funding. The evaluation system of competitive grant funding and block grant funding are different, and it is important to understand the unique aspects of these funding mechanisms. In Japan, policy makers are discussing the possibilities for university reform in both competitive funding and block funding. This article explores some implications for the reform of the university research system in Japan.

　 Within the international movement toward results and performance-based management in higher education, we explore the background and theory of the personnel evaluation of academic staff at the institutional level and to what extent it is implemented in Japan. The main findings are that the results and performance-oriented personnel system have been rapidly strengthened by university reform carried out by the government and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). Using the results of personnel evaluations to assign pay increases has also become widespread. The thinking of the new public management (NPM) approach and expectation theory holds that the rewarding staff performance can increase motivation. However, it is not easy to measure the results of the teaching, research, and public services of the academic staff or their other contributions to the institution with the same accuracy. It is therefore necessary to consider the relationships between performance measurement, staff motivation, and the financial resources to administer rewards in developing the personnel evaluation systems.

　 Quality assurance requires us to identify issues in the evaluation and management of teaching and learning as challenges to promote the enhancement of Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) in universities. To determine the implications for proactive evaluation and management of teaching and learning, this paper examines the characteristics of and challenges of the IQA system and institutional research for teaching and learning at Ritsumeikan University and Kansai University, which are large-scale institutions, and Seisen University, which is a small-scale institution. These universities were accredited during the third phase of the Certified Evaluation and Accreditation, conducted by Japan University Accreditation Association in the 2018-2019 academic year. For instance, Ritsumeikan University utilizes an IQA system that is appropriate for the divisions of academic affairs, education and research environment, student enrollment, student affairs, university management and finance, and social cooperation; this system recognizes the multilayered organizational structure of the university. Through an examination of case studies of the three universities, this paper discusses ways that a proactive approach of evaluation and management of teaching and learning can be implemented in universities.

　 This paper examines the last 20 years of development in international collaboration for quality assurance in higher education in relation to the international mobility in learners and cross-border educational provision, its impact on university settings, and its future challenges and prospects. Examining the case of Japan in the context of the dynamism of global dialogue and practice, the author analyzes the interactions among the various actors involved in international cooperation in quality assurance for higher education. While this analysis confirms the progress of the systematic refinement of quality assurance and assessment reflecting international trends in Japan, it does not directly act as a driving force to increase mobility in students and education provisions. The author asserts the importance of interactive collaboration for comprehensive internationalization within each university and institution of higher education through dialogue among various stakeholders.