Abstract
We analyze the debated legitimacy of formal accreditation procedures in Germany and give reasons for why accreditation as compared to other higher education reforms has not gained legitimacy over time. Conceptually, we combine two perspectives that put the issue of legitimacy at the forefront of analysis: sociology’s new institutionalism and Luhmann’s work on the legitimacy of procedures. Using the first approach, it is clear that in particular the external, macro-legitimacy is debated. Following Luhmann, it becomes obvious that the requirements for legitimacy of procedures at the internal, micro-level requirements are hardly met. For the two approaches, we give reasons why this is the case. After a brief overview of the German accreditation system, we illustrate the contested legitimacy by reconstructing the perspectives of professors who are members of the academic profession and central individual actors in the accreditation system. Empirically, we draw on collective statements in the broader accreditation discourse, participant observations of different procedures, expert interviews with professors and a survey with more than 1900 professors who acted as peers in accreditation processes. We finally assume that the reasons for the debated legitimacy are manifold and not limited to the inherent properties of the accreditation system.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abgeordnetenhaus Berlin (2017) ‘Drucksache 18/0362: Staatsvertrag über die Organisation eines gemeinsamen Akkreditierungssystems zur Qualitätssicherung in Studium und Lehre an deutschen Hochschulen (Studienakkreditierungsstaatsvertrag)’, https://www.parlament-berlin.de/ados/18/IIIPlen/vorgang/d18-0362.pdf (accessed 3 July 2017).
Aktionsrat Bildung (2013) ‘Qualitätssicherung an Hochschulen: von der Akkreditierung zur Auditierung’, http://www.aktionsratbildung.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Gutachten_Qualitaetssicherung_an_Hochschulen.pdf (accessed 12 November 2016).
Accreditation Council (AC) (2013) ‘Regeln für die Akkreditierung von Studiengängen und für die Systemakkreditierung’, http://www.akkreditierungsrat.de/fileadmin/Seiteninhalte/AR/Beschluesse/AR_Regeln_Studiengaenge_aktuell.pdf (accessed 1 December 2017).
Bitekine, A.B. and Haack, P. (2015) ‘The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process’, Academy of Management Review 40(1): 49–75.
Bleiklie, I., Enders, J. and Lepori, B. (eds.) (2017) Managing universities: policy and organizational change from a Western European comparative perspective, Cham: Springer.
Bromley, P., Hwang, H. and Powell, W.W. (2012) ‘Decoupling revisited: common pressures, divergent strategies in the U.S. nonprofit sector’, M@n@gment 15: 469–501.
Clark, B.R. (1983) The higher education system: academic organization in cross‐national perspective, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Deephouse, D.L., Bundy, J., Tost, L.P. and Suchman, M.C. (2017) ‘Organizational legitimacy: six key questions’, in R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T.B. Lawrence and R.E. Meyer (eds.) The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, Los Angeles, London: SAGE, pp. 27–54.
Federal Constitutional Court (BverfG) (2016) Order of the First Senate of 17 February 2016—1 BvL 8/10—paras (1–88), http://www.bverfg.de/e/ls20160217_1bvl000810en.html (accessed 11 July 2017).
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) (2016) ‘Heidelberger Aufruf gegen die Akkreditierung’, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/forschung-und-lehre/heidelberger-aufruf-gegen-die-akkreditierung-14224001.html (accessed 12 May 2017).
Free Coalition of student Bodies (2013) ‘Positionspapier: Systemakkreditierung’, http://www.fzs.de/positionen/281008.html (accessed 11 July 2017).
German Association of University Professors and Lecturers (DHV) (2001) ‘Zur Akkreditierung von Studiengängen’, https://www.hochschulverband.de/506.html# (accessed 11 January 2018).
German Association of University Professors and Lecturers (DHV) (2006) ‘Prozeßakkreditierung statt Programmakkreditierung’, https://www.hochschulverband.de/fileadmin/redaktion/download/pdf/resolutionen/Prozessakkreditierung.pdf (accessed 11 January 2018).
German Association of University Professors and Lecturers (DHV) (2010) ‘Eckpunktepapier zur Neuordnung der Akkreditierung’, https://www.hochschulverband.de/780.html#_ (accessed 11 January 2018).
German Association of University Professors and Lecturers (DHV) (2016) ‘Akkreditierung gehört in die Hände der Universitäten’, http://m.hochschulverband.de/1080.html?&cHash=1fd76f0f1014878bf285476d12396b3c&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=230 (accessed 11 January 2018).
German Association of University Professors and Lecturers (DHV) (2017) ‘Akkreditierungsirrsinn muss aufhören’, http://m.hochschulverband.de/1080.html?&cHash=da0f4d2d52bbf7318c700cd3745f537e&id=1080&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=272 (accessed 11 January 2018).
German Council of Science and Humanities (WR) (2012) ‘Empfehlungen zur Akkreditierung als Instrument der Qualitätssicherung’, http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/2259-12.pdf (accessed 12 September 2014).
German Education Union (2011) ‘Weißenhäuser Eckpunkte’, https://www.gew.de/studium/weissenhaeuser/ (accessed 25 September 2017).
Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T.B. and Meyer, R.E. (eds.) (2017) The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, Los Angeles, London: SAGE.
Hüther, O. and Krücken, G. (2018) Higher education in Germany-recent developments in an international perspective, Cham: Springer.
Kelle, U. (2008) Die Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden in der empirischen Sozialforschung: Theoretische Grundlagen und methodologische Konzepte, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/GWV Fachverlage GmbH Wiesbaden.
Krücken, G. (2007) ‘Organizational fields and competitive groups in higher education: some lessons from the bachelor/master reform in Germany’, Management Revue 18(2): 187–203.
Krücken, G., Mazza, C., Meyer, R. and Walgenbach, P. (eds.) (2017) New themes in institutional analysis, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lamont, M. (2009) How professors think: inside the curious world of academic judgment, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1983) Legitimation durch Verfahren, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann, N. (1999) Ausdifferenzierung des Rechts: Beiträge zur Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977) ‘Institutionalized organizations: formal structures as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology 83(2): 340–363.
Paradeise, C., Bleiklie, I., Enders, J., Goastellec, G., Michaelsen, S., Reale, E. and Westerheijden, D. (2009) ‘Reform policies and change processes in Europe’, in J. Huisman (ed.) International perspectives on the governance of higher education: alternative frameworks for coordination, New York: Routledge, pp. 88–106.
Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P. (eds.) (1991) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: policy cycles & policy subsystems, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Powell, W.W. and Colyvas, J.-A. (2008) ‘Microfoundation of institutional theory’, in R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin and R. Subbady (eds.) The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, Los Angeles, London: SAGE, pp. 276–298.
Powell, W.W. and Rerup, C. (2017) ‘Opening the black box: the microfoundation of institutions’, in R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T.B. Lawrence and R.E. Meyer (eds.) The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, Los Angeles, London: SAGE, pp. 311–337.
Power, M. (1999) The audit society: rituals of verification, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Power, M. (2000) ‘The audit society: second thoughts’, International Journal of Auditing 4(1): 111–119.
Przyborski, A. and Riegler, J. (2010) ‘Gruppendiskussion und Fokusgruppe’, in G. Mey and K. Mruck (eds.) Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 436–448.
Serrano-Velarde, K. (2014) ‘Rising above institutional constraints? The quest of German accreditation agencies for autonomy and professional legitimacy’, Minerva 52(1): 97–118.
Standing Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK) (2002) ‘Künftige Entwicklung der länder- und hochschulübergreifenden Qualitätssicherung in Deutschland’, http://www.akkreditierungsrat.de/fileadmin/Seiteninhalte/KMK/Sonstige/KMK_System_Weiterentwicklung2002.pdf (accessed 29 November 2014).
Standing Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK) (2016) ‘Akkreditierungsstaatsvertrag der KMK sichert größtmögliche Qualität von Studiengängen und Mobilität für Studierende’, https://www.kmk.org/aktuelles/artikelansicht/akkreditierungsstaatsvertrag-der-kmk-sichert-groesstmoegliche-qualitaet-von-studiengaengen-und-mobilitaet-fuer-studierende.html (accessed 15 December 2016).
Steinhardt, I., Schneijderberg, C., Götze, N., Baumann, J. and Krücken, G. (2017) ‘Mapping the quality assurance of teaching and learning in higher education: the emergence of a specialty?’, Higher Education 74(2): 221–237.
Suchman, M.C. (1995) ‘Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches’, Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571–610.
Tost, L.P. (2011) ‘An integrative model of legitimacy judgments’, Academy of Management Review 36(4): 686–710.
Witte, J. (2006) ‘Change of degrees and degrees of change: comparing adaptations of European education systems in the context of the bologna process’, https://www.utwente.nl/bms/cheps/publications/Publications%202006/2006wittedissertation.pdf (accessed 25 May 2016).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baumann, J., Krücken, G. Debated Legitimacy: Accreditation in German Higher Education. High Educ Policy 32, 29–48 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0120-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0120-x