The quality continuum: perceptions of institutional accreditation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Academics and administrators frequently lament the bureaucracy in higher education, which diverts attention from teaching and research. Heightened monitoring of institutions as a result of dominant neoliberal ideologies shapes perceptions of accreditation as a bureaucratic burden rather than a value-added tool for continuous quality improvement. This paper aims to identify factors that positively and negatively impact a culture of quality in North American accredited postsecondary institutions to address issues of equity and inform policy changes that are relevant to community needs. Design/methodology/approach Academics’ and administrators’ perceptions of accreditation processes are explored through an interpretivist mixed-methods study that combined focus group and survey results from over 200 participants representative of four-year private and four- and two-year public institutions and tribal colleges in North America. Findings Findings suggest that a utilitarian and exclusionary mindset perpetuated by neoliberal logics restricts participatory decision-making processes in postsecondary institutions. Furthermore, the research identified a noticeable gap between those who are invited to participate in accreditation processes and those who contribute to decision-making. This lack of inclusive governance inhibits the ability of institutions to respond appropriately to the needs of its community. Originality/value The scope of the study and prioritization of qualitative data offers a comprehensive picture of academics’ and administrators’ perceptions and positions them as the experts in their own learning and development. Through participant narratives, strategies for increasing the value of quality assurance processes are illuminated. As a result, the study participants become the change agents who provide the solutions for ameliorating academics’ and administrators’ resistance to quality assurance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".