Research Article

Making Meaning in Evaluation: Fulfilment and Frustration in Japanese University Quality Assurance

Volume: 7 Number: 1 April 28, 2026

Making Meaning in Evaluation: Fulfilment and Frustration in Japanese University Quality Assurance

Abstract

This study explores how evaluators involved in Japanese university quality assurance (QA)—including both internal staff and certified external reviewers—experience fulfilment or frustration in their work. Drawing on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and the Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) model, the study conceptualizes evaluator fulfilment as arising from conditions that support autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Using a qualitative case study approach, data were collected from eight evaluators through open-ended responses and thematically analyzed. The findings reveal contrasting experiences between internal evaluators, who frequently reported procedural burden, ambiguous criteria, and formalism, and certified evaluators, who emphasized institutional politics, mission misalignment, and limited comprehension of policy frameworks. Despite these constraints, several participants also described a sense of professional growth, meaning-making, and collaborative potential. The study argues that evaluator fulfilment is not merely a personal sentiment but a structural indicator of the health of QA systems. It proposes practical reforms including the introduction of mission-sensitive rubrics, structured post-evaluation feedback mechanisms, and continuing professional development (CPD) for evaluators. These insights contribute to the growing recognition of QA as a professional, improvement-oriented process, and offer concrete policy directions for agencies and institutions aiming to enhance the integrity and developmental impact of university evaluation practices.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

This work was supported by the Seinan Gakuin University Researcher Grant 004536.

Ethical Statement

This study was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Seinan Gakuin University. All participants were informed of the purpose of the research, assured of confidentiality and anonymity, and provided informed consent prior to participation.

Thanks

The author wishes to express sincere gratitude to the eight university staff memberswho generously participated in this study. Their candid reflections and thoughtful insights were invaluable to the analysis and greatly contributed to the findings of this research.

References

  1. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands–Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
  2. Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers' professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001
  3. Broucker, B., & De Wit, K. (2015). New public management in higher education: A case study of the implementation of performance indicators in Flanders. Tertiary Education and Management, 21(3), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2015.1062085
  4. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
  5. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands–resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
  6. Harvey, L., & Newton, J. (2004). Transforming quality evaluation. Quality in Higher Education, 10(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/1353832042000230635
  7. Harvey, L., & Williams, J. (2010). Fifteen years of quality in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 16(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538321003679457
  8. Kominato, T., & Nakai, T. (2007). Characteristics and challenges of institutional research organizations in national university corporations. Research on Academic Degrees and University Evaluation, 5, 19–34. [in Japanese]

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Quality Assurance in Higher Education

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

April 28, 2026

Submission Date

September 16, 2025

Acceptance Date

March 1, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 7 Number: 1

APA
Ito, A. (2026). Making Meaning in Evaluation: Fulfilment and Frustration in Japanese University Quality Assurance. Higher Education Governance and Policy, 7(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.55993/hegp.1785370
AMA
1.Ito A. Making Meaning in Evaluation: Fulfilment and Frustration in Japanese University Quality Assurance. HEGP. 2026;7(1):1-16. doi:10.55993/hegp.1785370
Chicago
Ito, Akihiro. 2026. “Making Meaning in Evaluation: Fulfilment and Frustration in Japanese University Quality Assurance”. Higher Education Governance and Policy 7 (1): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.55993/hegp.1785370.
EndNote
Ito A (April 1, 2026) Making Meaning in Evaluation: Fulfilment and Frustration in Japanese University Quality Assurance. Higher Education Governance and Policy 7 1 1–16.
IEEE
[1]A. Ito, “Making Meaning in Evaluation: Fulfilment and Frustration in Japanese University Quality Assurance”, HEGP, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–16, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.55993/hegp.1785370.
ISNAD
Ito, Akihiro. “Making Meaning in Evaluation: Fulfilment and Frustration in Japanese University Quality Assurance”. Higher Education Governance and Policy 7/1 (April 1, 2026): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.55993/hegp.1785370.
JAMA
1.Ito A. Making Meaning in Evaluation: Fulfilment and Frustration in Japanese University Quality Assurance. HEGP. 2026;7:1–16.
MLA
Ito, Akihiro. “Making Meaning in Evaluation: Fulfilment and Frustration in Japanese University Quality Assurance”. Higher Education Governance and Policy, vol. 7, no. 1, Apr. 2026, pp. 1-16, doi:10.55993/hegp.1785370.
Vancouver
1.Akihiro Ito. Making Meaning in Evaluation: Fulfilment and Frustration in Japanese University Quality Assurance. HEGP. 2026 Apr. 1;7(1):1-16. doi:10.55993/hegp.1785370