cre The Pow er of Accreditation: view s of academ ics Professor - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
cre The Pow er of Accreditation: view s of academ ics Professor Lee Harvey Centre for Research and Evaluation Sheffield Hallam University, UK lee.harvey@shu.ac.uk ENQA W orkshop Rom e Nov 2 0 0 3 cre Overview Accreditation View s
The Pow er of Accreditation: view s of academ ics Professor Lee Harvey
Centre for Research and Evaluation Sheffield Hallam University, UK lee.harvey@shu.ac.uk
ENQA W orkshop Rom e Nov 2 0 0 3
Overview
I ntroduction
experience of analysing external evaluations of quality and standards.
the sam e thing.
Am erican view s of accreditation.
Political
precipitously into accreditation.
accreditation.
taken-for-granteds that legitim ate accreditation.
fundam entally about a shift of pow er concealed behind a npm ideology, cloaked in consum erist dem and and European conform ity.
Accreditation
threshold of quality has been achieved or surpassed.
transparent agreed, pre-defined standards or criteria.
there is often a provisional status.
Accreditation types
– Licence to operate
– Professional accreditation: com petence to practice. Long-term in UK and US – Accredited for their academ ic standing: new er accreditation in Eastern European countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia and the new W estern European approaches to b-m
Process
W e w ill have a subject accreditation visit every w eek. W e have a perm anent
going to be very costly. The accreditation w ill last eight years and then w e are supposed to go through the w hole cycle again. How ever, w e expect the m ethodology w ill only last
( Com m ent on the new Flem ish system )
external ex assessm ent audit accreditation
Object
im provem ent accountability
Rationale
External evaluation
Approach
learner
provider
Focus
learning experience curriculum design govern- anace & regulation control com pliance program m e financial viability content of program - m es m edium of delivery qualifi- cation adm in support
ational processes student support inspection Self- assessm ent PI s peer visit proxy delegate docum ent analysis stakeholder surveys direct intervention
Methods
external ex assessm ent audit accreditation
Object
im provem ent accountability
Rationale
External evaluation
Approach
learner
provider
Focus
learning experience curriculum design govern- anace & regulation control com pliance program m e financial viability content of program - m es m edium of delivery qualifi- cation adm in support
ational processes student support inspection Self- assessm ent PI s peer visit proxy dlegate docum ent analysis stakeholder surveys direct intervention
Methods
external ex assessm ent audit accreditation
Object
im provem ent accountability
Rationale
External evaluation
Approach
learner
provider
Focus
learning experience curriculum design govern- anace & regulation control com pliance program m e financial viability content of program - m es m edium of delivery qualifi- cation adm in support
ational processes student support inspection Self- assessm ent PI s peer visit proxy dlegate docum ent analysis stakeholder surveys direct intervention
Methods
Nuances of accreditation
1 . accreditation as a process applied to applicant organisations. 2 . accreditation is the label that institutions or program m es m ay acquire as a result of the accreditation procedures. 3 . underpinning the first tw o, accreditation is an ‘abstract notion
( Haakstad, 2 0 0 1 , p. 7 7 )
Abstraction
accreditation its legitim acy.
for-granted, traditionally is not an intrinsic aspect of accreditation.
– ‘The original audience for accreditation [ in the US] w as the academ y itself. The process did not arise in response to concerns about quality expressed by external audiences….’ ( Jones, 2 0 0 2 , p.1 )
Professional and regulatory bodies
PRBs play three roles ( Harvey & Mason, 1 9 9 5 ) . 1 . They are set up to safeguard the public interest. 2 . Som e professional bodies also represent the interest of the professional practitioners 3 . They represents their ow n self- interest.
Respondent sam ple
been involved in accreditation ( UK and
North Am erica)
accreditation
Necessity
either necessary for professional em ploym ent or enhanced the job prospects of their graduates.
linked to the m arketability of program m es and a concern that failure to achieve accreditation w ould be problem atic.
som ething that attracted better students.
Better students
The recognition elem ent can be substantial, both in term s of institutional internal recognition ( = if accredited, m ust be good, so w e’ll support it) but especially in attracting increasingly capable students from a w ider pool of applicants. W e see that gradual developm ent in our program s. Som etim es, it is sim ply essential for your students to be able to enter the field being prepared for w ithout extra
External objectivity
The assum ption is that there is an
province of the external accrediting body. The ‘objectivity’, though, m ay be tem pered by the controlling function of the organisation, itself possibly a function of its ow n self-interest.
Uniform ity
A significant and often repeated rationale for accreditation in som e areas is uniform ity across the sector.
‘My personal view is that it is a valuable process in that it m eans that to som e degree a psychology degree m eans roughly the sam e thing across the sector. Psychology is a broad field — w ithout accreditation it is likely that m any institutions w ould have addressed only selected aspects of the field.’
( R1 7 , UK, psychology)
Uniform ity
The presum ption is that uniform ity is desirable and thus that all courses should ‘cover’ the sam e content. This assum es that covering the sam e course content equates w ith uniform ity
subject area. But is the dem and for uniform ity the professional body safeguarding the public, representing its m em bers’ interests or reinforcing its ow n status?
I t is about com plying/ m easuring up to external requirem ents ( in term s of coverage and resources) .
( R1 7 , UK, psychology)
External guiding hand
The assum ption is that there is an external guiding hand that know s w hat’s best and that academ ia has to conform to it. An alternative view is less benign.
Pow er
Som etim es it seem s to be about how pow erful the agencies are — the professional body or the institution and I ’ve had experience of it going both w ays…. I n relation to psychology, it initially resulted in inflexibility in relation to residential schools — m andatory to get a nam ed degree and this disadvantaged w om en w ith childcare needs. W e then renegotiated after m uch feedback and because student voted w ith their feet ( didn’t sign up) and w e then found m oney to provide an alternative, and an on-line experience w as developed.
( R8 , UK, psychology)
Pow er
I s this safeguarding the public or is this inflexibility born of the society invoking its public security m ission to reinforce its political pow er and
W hat w ould it m atter if undergraduate psychology students on different degree courses took different syllabuses taught in different w ays?
Tony Gale ( 2 0 0 2 ) , ex- Honorary General Secretary of the British Psychology Society ( BPS) , argues that, given that a first degree in psychology does not give you a licence to practice, the society accredits undergraduate courses for political reasons, w hich have little to do w ith public security or pedagogy.
Academ ic or practitioner
This leads to the relative influence of academ ics and practitioners in each
‘There is often a clear tension
betw een academ ic priorities and professional ones in say engineering
( R3 0 , UK, general)
Process
Accreditation processes are valuable w hen:
the academ ic side of the program m e;
students are being educated and not just trained for a profession;
least one academ ic on the panel alongside the practitioners) ;
docum entation;
the expertise and judgem ents of, for exam ple, external exam iners. They can be harm ful and irritating, though, w hen the opposite of any of the above happens. I think it is a m atter of particular concern w hen professional bodies try to overrule academ ic judgem ents on academ ic m atters, for exam ple, curriculum design and content and assessm ent
( R3 5 , UK, speech and language pathology, pharm acy, engineering)
Tension
Mainly in three areas; 1 . program m e content, 2 . program m e delivery — contested control and inhibition of innovation 3 . bureaucratic requirem ents — burden, unnecessary requirem ents and synchronicity of processes.
A few exam ple quotes from the paper…
I nnovation
Let m e be frank. I believe accreditation to be a dead hand discouraging innovation and restricting students in w hat they do. I w ould far prefer to w ork in the non-accredited courses ( e.g. BSc) than in the accredited ones ( BEng) because they can be so m uch m ore
considered opinion after 1 3 years as a professor of engineering.
( R1 9 , UK, engineering)
Stasis
The Geological Society had just taken upon itself a new role as w atchdog over professional qualifications for geologists… Not all our courses could actually be accredited because the Society put som e very stringent requirem ents on the fieldw ork com ponent of an accreditable course…. W e believed that w e had to do it to retain credibility and that it w as indeed just a hoop to jum p through. W e even see accreditation as a force for stasis, because it prevents us from accrediting innovative new courses that w e m ight w ant to run.
( R4 3 , UK, geology)
Control
The term inology here is instructive: ‘w atchdog’ and ‘hoop to jum p through’ im ply not only the com pliance requirem ent of the latter but also that the organisation set itself up as a controller of the discipline, although no evident public interest is served by the requirem ents.
Lack of synchronisation
My difficulties w ith the current system are the huge am ount of paperw ork w hich is spilling out and the lack of cohesion regarding validation-type visits. I often find the QAA, the NMC and NAO are visiting an institution at the sam e tim e but rarely share the sam e docum ents!
( R4 7 , UK, nursing)
The lack of synchronisation and incom patible docum entation is indicative of the desire for different agencies to control their corner of the quality and standards m onitoring process and, again, one m ight ask w hether this is in the public interest or the m onitoring organisations’ self- interest?
Specialist activity
W hat em erges from all the responses is that accreditation is a gam e for specialists; it is not som ething that engages the m ajority of staff nor, to any significant extent, exercises the students. Part of the controlling elem ent of accreditation is that it does not engage everyone and retains an elem ent of m ystification. ‘For m y colleagues and students this w ill be a m ysterious ordeal, w hich they barely understand except that schools are closed dow n or get into serious trouble as a result
( R9 , UK, architecture)
Pow er struggle
it is not a benign process.
those w ho have m et ( and continue to m eet) m inim um criteria to join the club.
that accreditation is just one of m any processes that dem and accountability and com pliance in the face of m anagerialism .
the skills and experience of educators.
alongside assessm ent, audit and other form s of standards and output m onitoring.
Conclusion
accreditation is a benign protector of the public interest or a process to sustain the self-interest of the accrediting agency.
( although im portant) .
ideological presum ption sum m ed up in Jon Haakstad’s ( 2 0 0 1 ) third nuance of an ‘abstract notion of a form al authorising pow er’.
through hoops, tail w agging dogs, asking perm ission and the like.
Conclusion ( continued)
legitim ates the accreditation activity.
‘m yth’ of benign guidance is perpetuated by the pow erful as a control on those w ho provide the education.
shift of pow er from educators to m anagers and bureaucrats.
in the UK tow ards ‘delegated accountability’ ( Harvey & Knight, 1 9 9 6 ) but reverses the delegation trend in m ost of the rest of the Europe.
Conclusion ( continued)
accreditation — the starting point of this presentation — requires a holistic view that sets the control function of accreditation w ithin the w ider context of higher education as a public good.
legitim ations of European unity and consum erist rhetoric to reveal the pow er processes and the ideology that legitim ates the control function of accreditation.
Thank you
lee.harvey@shu.ac.uk