Navigating similarities and differences in national and international accreditation standards. A proposed approach using US agency requirements
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-02-2016-0005 |
Date | 03 April 2017 |
Published date | 03 April 2017 |
Pages | 126-145 |
Author | Judy R. Wilkerson |
Subject Matter | Education,Curriculum, instruction & assessment,Educational evaluation/assessment |
Navigating similarities and
differences in national and
international accreditation
standards
A proposed approach using US
agency requirements
Judy R. Wilkerson
College of Education, Florida Gulf Coast University, Ft. Myers, Florida, USA
Abstract
Purpose –Understanding and navigating the differences in standards, and the roots and rationales
underlying accreditation reviews, is necessary for all institutions that seek multiple accreditations. The
purpose of this paper is to demonstrate a method to assist institutional-level leaders and assessment
practitioners analyze and align these differences in various national or international agency requirements, to
develop a framework for assessment and data collection. The proposed method is demonstrated by using
multiple accreditors’ standards from the USA.
Design/methodology/approach –Guided by a set of process questions, a review and content analysis of
national standards and 12 accreditation agency requirements from the USA was conducted using Web-based,
documentary sources. An operational denition of institutional quality was derived based on the core themes
that emerged. Examples of evidence matched to each core theme were outlined to suggest an assessment
framework. The 12 US agency requirements were compared and contrasted with the core themes and
validated.
Findings –In the USA, recognition requirements set by two national bodies, the US Department of
Education and Council of Higher Education Accreditation, drive the standards applied by various agencies
that accredit institutions and programs. Six themes emerged from their requirements, serving as a core
framework for designing institutional assessment systems. The themes are student achievement and
continuous improvement; curriculum quality; faculty; facilities, equipment and supplies; scal and
administrative capacity; and student support services, admissions and information-gathering systems. While
the 12 sampled accreditation agencies generally used these core themes, divergences were found in how they
treated the themes in published requirements.
Practical implications –Where multiple US or other accreditations are sought, the approach
recommended could facilitate the work of institutional accreditation leaders and practitioners in establishing
assessment systems that reduce redundancy while also maximizing efciency in assessment and data
collection.
Originality/value –There is little guidance in the literature on how institutional leaders and practitioners
confronting the challenges of accreditation can negotiate multiple, and sometimes conicting, sets of
requirements. This paper demonstrates a possible solution strategy. Outside the general utility of the
demonstrated method, the ndings and core assessment framework produced could be useful for institutions
seeking accreditation through the agencies in the study sample, in both the USA and overseas.
Keywords Quality assurance, Higher education, Assessment, Standards, Accreditation
Paper type Viewpoint
The author gratefully acknowledges the input and support from the Co-Editor, Professor Madhabi
Chatterj, and the reviewers.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
QAE
25,2
126
Received 10 February 2016
Revised 26 April 2016
2 July 2016
5 August 2016
Accepted 10 August 2016
QualityAssurance in Education
Vol.25 No. 2, 2017
pp.126-145
©Emerald Publishing Limited
0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/QAE-02-2016-0005
The problem
Many institutions of higher education (IHEs) at present want or need to be accredited by
more than one national or international accreditation agency. However, these IHEs are often
confronted with the challenge of sorting through marked differences and similarities in the
required processes and standards. Because of the complexities of meeting various
accreditation agency requirements, personnel responsible for leading institution-level
accreditation processes struggle to nd solutions to this common problem (Cheng, 2015;
Zhang and Gao, 2012;Ramirez, 2014;Wilkerson, 2012).
Understanding the similarities and differences, along with the roots and rationales underlying
accreditation requirements, is a basic and necessary rst step for all institutions seeking multiple
accreditations. There is little guidance in the literature on how leaders and assessment
practitioners can negotiate the multiple, and sometimes unclear or conicting, sets of
requirements. To these ends, this paper presents an analysis of US standards and demonstrates
a pragmatic solution strategy for the design of appropriate assessment systems.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate a method to assist institutional-level leaders and
assessment practitioners in analyzing and aligning the sources, similarities and differences
in accreditation standards from different national or international agencies. The method is
demonstrated using multiple US accreditation agency standards as data sources. Through a
discussion of the process and accompanying recommendations, the paper aims to assist
institutions in: understanding the roots of the accreditation process, comparing and
contrasting different accreditation agency requirements and developing and streamlining
data collection systems to maximize assessment efciency, productivity and data quality.
The ndings reported could be of direct use to all institutions, based within or outside US
boundaries, which may be seeking accreditation through the particular US agencies that are
the focus of the present analysis. Additionally, the method could have more general utility in
assisting institutions with implementing accreditation processes at large.
In presenting an analysis of selected US standards, this paper neither advocates for the
US system nor compares it to accreditation in other countries. The analysis, instead, is
presented as a means for illustrating a process to improve understanding and alignment of
criteria set by different accreditation bodies, regardless of the country in which the
accreditors are located or the number of recognitions sought by particular institutions.
Institution of higher education accreditation as a form of quality assurance
The European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) (2001)
differentiates between accreditation and evaluation, noting that accreditation is one of
several complementary measures in a quality assurance system. They note that:
The starting point is the need to maintain and improve good quality in IHEs. Evaluations will
normally assess to what extent programs or institutions are meeting the levels of quality set before,
whereas accreditation passes a verdict on whether programs, degrees or institutions meet certain
outside standards or requirements. The specic object of accreditation is to certify a dened
standard of quality, although it may be imbedded in a larger evaluation process with multiple aims
[…]” (Sywelem and Witte, 2009,p.7).
Sywelem and Witte (2009) categorize accreditation and quality assurance frameworks into
three basic forms: the European model of central control of quality assurance by state
educational ministries; the US model of decentralized quality assurance combining limited
state control with market competition; and the British model in which the state essentially
cedes responsibility for quality assurance to self-accrediting universities. The comparison of
127
Accreditation
standards
To continue reading
Request your trial