1
Profile of Japanese Research
Universities: Aiming for
World Class status
Akiyoshi Yonezawa
NIAD-UE, Japan
3
Shanghai Jiao Tong (2004)
World Rank Institution Total Score
Score on
Alum
ni
Score on
Awar
d
Score on
HiCi
Score on
N&SScore on SCI Score on Size
14 Tokyo Univ 51.9 36.1 14.4 44.5 55.0 91.9 49.8
21 Kyoto Univ 48.3 39.8 34.1 40.0 37.2 77.1 46.4
54 Osaka Univ 31.5 12.6 0.0 26.2 31.2 72.1 30.2
69 Tohoku Univ 28.8 18.9 0.0 19.5 26.1 69.3 27.7
97 Nagoya Univ 25.2 0.0 14.4 15.1 23.7 55.3 24.2
101-152 Hokkaido Univ 0.0 0.0 17.5 15.5 56.7 20.0
101-152 Kyushu Univ 0.0 0.0 15.1 22.3 57.7 21.2
101-152Tokyo Inst
Tech16.6 0.0 21.4 21.4 53.5 23.3
101-152 Tsukuba Univ 0.0 20.4 8.7 11.7 44.6 19.0
4
THES (2004)
RankPeer
Review
Int'l Faculty
Int'l Student
Fuculty/Student
Citation/Faculty
Final
12 Tokyo U 371 3 3 30 60 482.0
29 Kyoto U 207 3 3 25 57 303.7
51 TIT 118 3 13 27 50 217.0
69 Osaka U 78 3 5 28 63 181.8
153Tohoku
U48 6 2 27 39 125.7
167Nagoya
U45 3 3 19 47 120.0
5
Share of articles
(Kaneko, Koma)
1. Harvard
2. Tokyo
3. UCLA
5. Kyoto
7. Cambridge
11. Osaka
15. Tohoku
Nagoya/Kyushu/Hokkaido/
Seoul National/
Taiwan/NUS/ANU/Jinghua/Keio
/Peking/Fudan/Mahidon/Dehli
6
Outline
examines current profile of Japanese top
research universities especially focusing on
the international aspects
current governmental and institutional trials to
strengthen the international presence of
Japanese national universities
policy implication for fostering „world class
universities‟ in Japanese context.
7
Current Profile of Japanese Top U
Identify the top research universities based
on the COE21 programme
Indicators on research performance
Indicators on Internationality
8
The Guideline for the Restructuring of
(National) University System(2001)
Promote drastic reorganisation and integration of national universities: Revitalisation through Scrap and Build
Introduce management methods of private sector to the national universities: Early transformation to the new “National University Corporation”
Introduce principle of competition by third-party (external) evaluation system: Foster „Top 30‟ Universities towards global top standards
9
The performance indicators for
selecting COE21 research unit Excellent researchers related to the field and their contribution
facts that show recognition and approval in foreign countries
fellow, honorary memberships in academic societies in Japan and internationally
The publication of research outcomes and standards publication in journals of highly esteem
degree of citation
patents, their usage and implementation
organisation of international conferences
Mobility of academic staff post-doctoral fellows
visiting researchers from abroad
academic staff with foreign research experience
Postgraduate education presentation in academic society by postgraduate students
activities of graduates in society
characteristic educational methods for fostering excellent human resources
10
Linkage with industry and local governments; international network contract research, donations, etc.
recruitment of academic staff from industry
contribution to policy development in local communities
international linkages in education and research
Institutional management and conditions for education implementation or external assessment
conditions for research and education (libraries, ICT, facilities and equipments)
Others classes in English
Ph.D holders among academic staff
donations from graduates
system of class evaluation by students
international staff members
movement or promotion to other universities
11
COE21 Research Units
2002 2003 2004 total
Tokyo 東京 11 15 2 28
Kyoto 京都 11 11 1 23
Osaka 大阪 7 7 1 15
Nagoya 名古屋 7 6 1 14
Tohoku 東北 5 7 1 13
Hokkaido 北海道 4 6 2 12
Keio 慶應 5 7 12
TIT 東京工業 4 5 1 10
Waseda 早稲田 5 4 9
Kyushu 九州 4 4 8
Kobe 神戸 1 6 7
12
Indicators on research performance
Web of Science: Highly cited papers (1%)
ISI Citation
Science Direct
Chemical Abstract
Nature & Science
International Journals in Economics
Patents
Research Grant from JSPS (Public)
External Research Fund
13
Web of Science: Highly cited Papers
(1%)
Avarage Degree of Citation
Total Citation
Highly Cited Papers
1 Tokyo 72.58 40572 559
2 Kyoto 70.42 24435 347
3 Osaka 81.94 25075 306
4 Tohoku 74.33 16724 225
5 Nagoya 72.05 11096 154
6 TIT 57.6 8697 151
7 Kyushu 46.89 5439 116
8 Tsukuba 57.55 6043 105
9 Hokkaido 40.49 2875 71
10 Tokyo Metropolitan 63.38 4310 68
14
ISI Citation (100=Japanese average,
1993-2000)
1 Tokyo 57470 137
1 Nara Fronteer S&T 1730 137
3 Juntendo 3273 134
4 Kyoto 40901 129
5 Osaka 36175 126
6 Miyazaki Medical 1658 125
6 Jichi Medical 3553 125
6 Meijo 1659 125
9 Tokyo Metropolitan 4589 124
10 Himeji I of Tech 2764 123
10 Aoyama Gakuin 896 123
15
Science Direct (2003)
Papers
1 Tokyo 1711
2 Kyoto 1260
3 Osaka 1182
4 Tohoku 1070
5 Nagoya 737
6 Kyushu 692
7 Hokkaido 691
8 TIT 655
9 Hishoshima 460
10 Tsukuba 452
16
Chemical Abstract (2003)
1 Tokyo 3807 11 淅江 (CHN) 1568
2 Osaka 3216 12 Stanford (US) 1534
3 Kyoto 3137 13 Johns Hopkins (US) 1503
4 Harvard (US) 3035 14U Michigan-Ann Arbor (US)
1496
5 Tohoku 2668 15 Seoul (KOR) 1482
6 Tsing Hua (CHN) 2082 16 UCLA (US) 1448
7 Kyushu 1916 17 Pennsylvania (US) 1445
8 Hokkaido 1766 18 Peking (CHN) 1442
9 TIT 1710 19 Tronto (CAN) 1439
10 Nagoya 1647 20 U Washington (US) 1414
17
Chemical Abstract per faculty (2003)
1 ETH (Swiss) 2.84 11 Nagoya 0.93
2 Caltech (US) 2.37 11 Seoul (KOR) 0.93
3 Aarhus (DEN) 2.28 13 Tokyo 0.92
4 Weizman (ISR) 1.94 14 Cambridge (UK) 0.91
5 TIT 1.54 15 Stanford (US) 0.90
6Baylor College Med (US)
1.37 16 Milano (Italy) 0.89
7 Osaka 1.31 17 Kyushu 0.85
8Imperial College (UK)
1.19 18 MIT (US) 0.84
9 Kyoto 1.08 18 Oxford (UK) 0.84
10 Tohoku 1.05 18 Hong Kong (CHN) 0.84
18
Nature & Science (1999-2004)
1 Tokyo 104
2 Kyoto 44
3 Osaka 24
4 Tohoku 22
5 Nagoya 19
6 TIT 17
7 Kyushu 11
7 Hokkaido 11
9 GS of CPS 10
10 Tsukuba 6
19
International Journals in Economics
(1999-2004)
1 Tokyo 36
2 Hitotsubashi 35
3 Osaka 29
4 Kobe 27
5 Kyoto 25
6 Tsukuba 15
7 Tokyo Metropolitan 8
8 Tohoku 10
9 Nagoya 6
10 Osaka City 4
20
Patents (1994-2004)
1 Tokai 122
2 TIT 119
3 Nagoya 98
4 Tokyo 88
5 Osaka 87
6 Tohoku 71
7 Waseda 58
8 Kyoto 50
9 Hiroshima 48
10 Keio 37
21
Research Grant from JSPS (Public)
(2004, million JPY)
1 Tokyo 22,102
2 Kyoto 12,244
3 Osaka 9,244
4 Tohoku 8,476
5 Nagoya 6,722
6 Kyushu 5,415
7 Hokkaido 5,348
8 TIT 4,160
9 Tsukuba 2,611
10 Hiroshima 2,403
22
External Research Fund
(2003 million JPY)
1 Tokyo 23,155
2 Kyoto 11,026
3 Osaka 10,126
4 Tohoku 7,502
5 Hokkaido 6,478
6 Keio 6,281
7 TIT 4,389
8 Nagoya 4,074
9 Waseda 3,688
10 Kobe 3,099
23
Indicators on Internationality
Number/share of international students
Number of international faculty
Regional Unbalance even in top universities
24
Number of international students (post
graduates)
1 Tokyo 1,482
2 Waseda 870
3 Kyoto 802
4 Nagoya 798
5 Tsukuba 764
6 Tohoku 757
7 Kobe 632
8 Kyushu 604
9 TIT 541
10 Hiroshima 540
25
Share of international students (post
graduates)
1 Ritsumeikan APU 90.2
2 Takamatsu 84.6
3 Niigata Sangyo 83.3
4 Ryutsu Keizai 81.4
5 Suzuka International 81
6 Ryutsu Kagaku 81
7 Aichi Bunkyo 80
8 Asia 79.1
9 Hokkaido Bunkyo 73.3
10 Nagasaki Pref. 68.8
26
Number of international faculty
1 Ritsumeikan 103
2 Sophia 93
3 Kansai Gaidai 90
4 Waseda 84
5 Kanda Gaigo 58
6 Tohoku 54
7 Tokyo 52
7 Keio 52
9 Nanzan 51
10 ICU 49
27
Regional Imbalance even in top
universities
Tokyo University: 83.8% of the students are
from Asia, 36.8% are from China (including
Hong Kong and Taiwan) and 22.1% are from
Korea.
Kyoto University: 85.6% of the non-Japanese
students are from Asia, 47.8% are from China
(including Hong Kong and Taiwan), 15.8%
are from Korea.
28
strengthen the international presence
of Japanese national universities
National Government
Strengthening the international strategy
Support institutional trials to enhance the
international activities
JSPS set up the office in DC, San Francisco,
Bonn, London, Stockholm, Bangkok, Cairo,
Nairobi, Strasbourg
29
fostering ‘world class universities’ in
Japanese context
Drastic Internationalisation is urgently needed
Comfortable atmosphere for the researchers and students with diverse background
Services in English
Further increase of student/academic exchange
Benchmarking with world top universities should be implemented
Strengthen the international viability of educational programme, especially in post-graduate education
Government should support institutional initiatives for improving international reputation for getting status as „world class universities‟