Takafumi Kirimura

This paper discusses knowledge creation through collaboration amongst faculty at institutions of learning. Particularly, as a case study and in an effort to improve the management at our own university, we attempted to conceptualize this topic from the perspective of collaboration between academic and administrative faculty. We were able to evaluate the school's management as a whole and developed a system of exercises to determine how management can improve with greater collaboration between academic and administrative faculty. Mutual exchange of knowledge between academic and administrative faculty is hindered by the fixation on boundaries between specialists and nonspecialists, ensuring that knowledge can flow only in one direction. We can nurture an environment that is conducive to knowledge exchange, where for example a facilitator exists to bridge the boundary between the specialist and the nonspecialist. Collaboration in such an environment allows unobstructed flow of knowledge and the creation of new knowledge.

In this paper we describe a novel knowledge creation model, the "three-step knowledge network model," which comprises the propagation step, the mixing step, and the creation step. This model uses knowledge networks first proposed by Willard Van Orman Quine's, and graph theory to describe the knowledge creation process. We use higher education as a example of knowledge creation that this model can describe, and in the future hope to apply this model to other phenomena.

In the United States, many efforts to develop educational programs based on research results have been made by universities and private sector organizations. By adopting these programs, school districts and schools receive support from the universities and organizations. This article discusses one of these educational programs, "Success for All" (SFA), a schoolwide program for students in Grades pre-K to 6 which organizes resources to ensure that every student will reach the third grade on time with adequate basic skills and build on this basis throughout the elementary grades, with no student being allowed to fall between the cracks. Efforts of this kind include an issue raised from the point of view of administration: governance. In efforts of this kind, meta-governance is set properly for governance to function more effectively. Governance is always open to the possibility of failure. Meta-governance is widely defined as the "governing of governing", and is to govern the network properly in order to avoid the possibility of failure of governance, or to cope with the difficulty of governance. Then, what meta-governance would be required in order to ensure effective governance? This article analyzes the form of meta-governance that aim to effectively govern the governance in the SFA program. The points that should be noted in terms of capturing the meta-governance are (a) to take into account the self-organization of the network without relying on the linear model "those who control/ who are controlled", and (b) to capture the meta-governance functionally, rather than substantively. Given these two points, meta-governance refers to (the infrastructure for organizing and encouraging the dynamic mechanism) the self-organization of the network. The analytical challenges to be addressed in this article are (1) to capture the infrastructure needed for a self-organizing network in SFA, and (2) to explore the reason why the SFA Foundation could function as meta-governor. The issue to be addressed first as meta-governance in SFA, is to incorporate the research knowledge into practice, because research knowledge is heterologous for education governance. However, research knowledge cannot be incorporated directly into practice in its raw form: it must first be translated into a practicable form (e.g. lesson plan, teacher manual). And in order to enhance the practicability, training for teachers is also required. However, since the teachers could rebel against unilateral impositions of research knowledge, it is necessary to employ additional measures to alleviate the psychological resistance of the teachers. In order to solve this problem, (a) the SFA Foundation requires the schools to hold in-school votes before adopting the SFA program, and (b) the foundation permits the teachers to adapt it. The foundation will approve a adaptation as long as it is intended to respond to school goals and is intended to improve the learning outcomes of students. Further, in order to maintain a proper balance between adaptation and fidelity, the SFA Foundation devises methods by which the facilitators attempt to keep the teachers on pace and limit the number of adaptations. Then, why could the SFA Foundation function as meta-governor? In order for the foundation to function as meta-governor, the presence of the code <effective / not effective> is required, and by this code, all the meta-governance organized under this code is meaningful. But more important and fundamental is that the position of meta-governor is not given from the outside, but that the function is held barely in the dynamic process on self-reference.

Now "evidence" is required even in education. In the United States, the discussions around what is "scientific educational research" have been notable since 2000. This paper discusses epistemological and methodological positions from which one investigates and examines the effectiveness of the interventions, what works on the outcome interested, or causation between the variables. On the methodological positions, Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) is especially important element to decide the position because quantitative researchers often regard RCT as a determinate means to discover the causation. The purpose of this paper is to show the diversity and disparity on the epistemological and methodological positions. This paper examine the five actors, (i) U.S. Department of Education、(ii) SRE、(iii) Pierre、(iv) Howe、(v) Maxwell. First, Department of Education takes a stance of positivism and regard RCT as 'gold standard' for evaluating an intervention' s effectiveness. Second, SRE takes a stance of postpositivism whose difference from positivism is accepting the incompleteness of human. postpositivism is that SRE gives qualitative method the role in the scientific research, although it remains limited to the auxiliary role. Third, Pierre takes a stance of postpositivism and makes a critical attack on SRE in the terms of not accepting the diversity of epistemology and methodology. Fourth, Howe exposes the problem of black-box about RCT. Finally, Maxwell takes "realist approaches in philosophy that see causation as fundamentally a matter of processes and mechanisms rather than observed regularities."

In this article, it is attempted to deconstruct the schema with which we hunt causation which is labeled the regularity approach, and to replace it with the realist approach that sees causality as fundamentally referring to the actual causal mechanisms and processes that are involved in particular events and situations. In the regularity approach, the actual process of causality is treated as unobservable a, "black box, " and discovering whether there is a systematic relationship between inputs and outputs is focused on. This conception of causality leads to quantitative research that we need comparison in order to establish causality. In the realist approach, it is argued that causation can be identified in a single case and qualitative research is given the priority over quantitative research. Realist researchers place considerable emphasis on the context dependence of causal explanation. In the 3rd chapter, the effectiveness of Success for All is to be reconstructed into this schema.

It may be true that improving student outcomes is the ultimate purpose of all educational policymakers and educational researchers. Improving the effectiveness of the intervention, which involves an educational program, a product, a practice, or a policy aimed at improving student outcomes is a typical purpose to be accomplished. However, it should be noted that this study addressed the question "how and why can you say that intervention X caused the outcome Y?" or "what gives assurance that intervention X caused the outcome Y?" and not "did intervention X cause the outcome Y?" That is, the purpose of this study was not to discuss the effectiveness itself but pave the way for discussing the effectiveness. The target of this paper is the methodology used in the Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center report, which evaluated and rated the effectiveness of models used by the schools in the Comprehensive School Reform program. The characteristic of the methodology is a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT), which is the "gold standard" for evidence-based policies in the USA. This paper demonstrates why the methodology is superior to the econometric methodology based on the theory of Cartwright.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the legitimacy of the standard of "scientifically based research". The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act seeks to improve the quality of public education by requiring educators to use programs and practices that are based on scientific research. The term "scientifically based research" appears 111 times in the NCLB Act. For all other programs under NCLB except for the Reading First program and the Comprehensive School Reform program, the law contains a highly specific definition of scientifically based research. The term "scientifically based research" includes research that is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random-assignment experiments. The U.S. Department of Education has issued guidance about implementing scientifically based research in the Reading First program and the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program. The definition of scientifically based research that applies only to the Reading First program as well as the definition of "strong evidence" in the CSR program is different from, and less rigorous than the definition that applies to all other programs in the NCLB Act.

This paper analyzes the political process surrounding the enactment of the exemption law permitting the system of stock-corporation schools. The analysis will be conducted from the following two points of view: Why the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology allowed the exemption law to be enacted, and what are the features that should be considered when comparing the political process and the contents of the resulting exemption law. I propose two hypotheses to explain the aforementioned points. The first hypothesis is that the Ministry was forced to permit the system as a result of the crisis regarding government subsidy funding for compulsory education. The second is that several politically strategic elements that would allow the Ministry to win the dispute over the enactment of the law, are included in the exemption law.