You say “the evaluation system by peer review” but did you conduct a peer review between two schools this time?
	We didn’t do it this time.

What about training to be an evaluator?

This time, we didn’t do it. The evaluation process which was originally drawn up includes training for evaluating members, but this trial is regarded as one mainly intended for careful selection of items, and therefore we didn’t conduct it. We have heard that in the United States, those who are to be evaluated also take in a gathering where a detailed orientation is performed. We think both of them are challenges.

	If there any advices such as what are difficult points during the process of data creation when receiving evaluation and what kinds of data would be desirable for evaluators to make evaluation easier, please tell about it.
	As one receiving evaluation, we just tried to submit everything we have. In the accreditation evaluation, we were told to show transition by fiscal year and changed parts, and then we learned the way of submitting data should be like this. In the future, we will be able to do it a little better.
	Instead of doing something in a hurry just because of evaluation, it is important to properly keep data usually. For example, it would be desirable that the committee can organize the number of implementations in a year, themes, summaries of results, etc. for every fiscal year.

	Please tell us the way of making best use of this evaluation eventually in terms of whether the results of it have compelling force, or whether it just ends with pointing out problematic points.
	In the committee, we have not yet led to discussion as to how much it has compelling force. However, at the time when any problem is revealed by the evaluation, you may be able to improve it right now in some way.

	In case of single-department colleges, if a third-party accreditation evaluation has been already received, repeating the same process is a hard work, placing a rather heavy burden. What about the way of thinking that if a single-department college received accreditation once, the number of evaluation items of the JANPU will be reduced, taking into account this.

	With regard to expenses, how much expenses actually incurred for the evaluation per school, and as a school receiving the evaluation, how much money should be paid?
	This time, the amount is estimated to be around 120,000 – 150,000 yen, as transportation expenses for field research, expenses for exchanging documents and communicating/delivering materials, fees for copying materials, etc. Personnel costs, secretariat expenses, etc. were not included, but those seem to be very large.
	There are many consultative meetings, etc., and hence dealing with expenses is a problem. Paying out is difficult unless the significance of the evaluation is deliberated in the whole university/college. If the evaluation will be conducted by specialty area, what about narrowing down the target and looking at indeed necessary parts as field investigation?