Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of compliance and aspirational accreditation models: recounting a university’s experience with both a Taiwanese and an American accreditation body

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the widespread adoption of accreditation processes and the belief in their effectiveness for improving educational quality, the search for good accreditation practices remains a critical issue. This article recounts one university’s experiences when simultaneously undergoing the accreditation processes of both the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) and the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT); the former is a regional accreditor in the USA, while the latter is a national accreditor in Taiwan. Based on in-depth interviews and document reviews, a comparison of the two accreditations was undertaken in terms of both their processes and their impacts on the university. The HEEACT accreditation process tended more toward requiring compliance, while the MSCHE process was more aspirational in nature, with the former body emphasizing control and external regulation and the latter emphasizing collaboration and improvement. One feature that was revealed to distinguish these two approaches is the degree of institutional centeredness, i.e., the emphasis on the university’s uniqueness and specific stage of development, as well as the culture of engagement during the process of change. The pros and cons of both approaches and the government’s role in the context of higher education are likewise discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This new model was not given a fixed name by Neubauer (2008); the descriptor “aspirational” was inspired, however, by her descriptions of the characteristics of the new model.

References

  • AACSB. (2014). “Accreditation institutions.” AACSB. Accessed April 20, https://www.aacsb.net/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?Site=AACSB&WebKey=CADEF77A-6573-49BB-9BA2-CE21EC93841E

  • Bernhard, A. (2008). An institutional perspective on quality assurance in higher education. The example of the Austrian accreditation council (ÖAR). Problems of Education in the 21th Century, 8, 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I. (1998). Justifying the evaluative state: New public management ideals in higher education. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 299–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brittingham, B. (2008). An uneasy partnership: Accreditation and the federal government. Change, 40, 32–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brittingham, B., O’Brien, P. M., & Alig, J. L. (2008). Accreditation and institutional research: The traditional role and new dimensions. New Directions for Higher Education, 141, 69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CHEA. (2012). The condition of accreditation: U.S. accreditation in 2011. Washington: CHEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. L. (2008). Scholars plead: evaluating “the combination of university accreditation and termination mechanism” policy. Evaluation Bimonthly, 14. http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2008/07/01/684.aspx. Accessed May, 2013.

  • Cret, B. (2011). Accreditations as local management tools. Higher Education, 61(4), 415–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Higher Education. (2007). 2007 University accreditation combined with termination mechanism. http://epaper.edu.tw/e9617_epaper/topical.aspx?topical_sn=130. Accessed 28 May 2013.

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, Z. (2000). Community and autonomy: Key goals for academe. International Higher Education, 19, 4.

  • Harvey, L. (2002). Evaluation for what? Teaching in Higher Education, 7(3), 245–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J. N. (2008). Higher education and quality assurance: Trends and tensions in Asia. Evaluation in Higher Education, 2(2), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • HEEACT. (2008). University program accreditation plan. http://www.heeact.edu.tw/lp.asp?ctNode=482&CtUnit=212&BaseDSD=7&mp=2. Accessed 30 May 2013.

  • Hou, A. Y. C. (2011). Quality assurance at a distance. Higher Education, 61(2), 179–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kondakci, Y., & Van den Broeck, H. (2009). Institutional imperatives versus emergent dynamics: A case study on continuous change in higher education. Higher Education, 58(4), 439–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, B. (2010). Has external quality assurance actually improved quality in higher education over the course of 20 years of the ‘quality revolution’? Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 153–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristoffersen, D. (2012). Evolutionary approaches to peer review and future directions. Evaluation in Higher Education, 6(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Faur, D. (1998). The competition state as a Neomercantalist State. Journal of Socio-Economics, 27(6), 655–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ling, P. (2005). From a community of scholars to a company. In K. Fraser (Ed.), Education Development and Leadership in Higher Education. New York: Routedge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mok, K. H. (2008). When domestic forces meet the global trends: The liberalization of the privateness in East Asian higher education. Evaluation in Higher Education, 2(1), 53–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • MSCHE. (2006). Characteristics of excellence in higher education. Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • MSCHE. (2009). Becoming accredited. Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • MSCHE (2015). Institution directory. http://www.msche.org/Institutions_Directory.asp. Accessed January 10.

  • Neubauer, D. (2008). U.S. higher education accreditation old and new: The emergence of a new paradigm. Evaluation in Higher Education, 2(2), 23–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norcini, J. J., & Banda, S. S. (2011). Increasing the quality and capacity of education: the challenge for the 21st century. Medical Education, 45(1), 81–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez, G. B. (2014). A world of brands: higher education and the emergence of multinational quality franchises. Quality in Higher Education, 20(2), 216–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibolski, E. H. (2012). What’s an accrediting agency supposed to do? Institutional quality and improvement vs regulatory compliance. Planning for Higher Education, 40(3), 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stromquist, N. P. (2007). Internationalization as a response to globalization: Radical shifts in university environments. Higher Education, 53(1), 81–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarc, P. (2012). The uses of globalization in the (shifting) landscape of educational studies. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(3), 4–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trapnell, J. E. (2007). AACSB international accreditation: The value proposition and a look to the future. Journal of Management Development, 26(1), 67–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T. L. (2010). Twelve years later…60 universities will cease operations. The United Evening News. http://mag.udn.com/mag/edu/storypage.jsp?f_ART_ID=216722. Accessed May, 2013.

  • Wolff, R. A. (2010). Key trends for quality assurance in the US today. Evaluation in Higher Education, 4(2), 55–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, D. (2010). The pursuit of international standards. Evaluation in Higher Education, 4(2), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y., Yang, K. S., Huang, C. K., & Hsu, Z. Z. (2012). A study of the meta-evaluation of university program evaluation between 2007 and 2009. Higher Education Evaluation and Development (special issue), 3–42.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ming Chuan University, No. 250 Chung-San North Rd. Sec. 5, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

    Nellie S. Cheng

Authors
  1. Nellie S. Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nellie S. Cheng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheng, N.S. A comparison of compliance and aspirational accreditation models: recounting a university’s experience with both a Taiwanese and an American accreditation body. High Educ 70, 1017–1032 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9880-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9880-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation