Streamlining accreditation: a cross-disciplinary analysis.

IF 3.4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Danielle Blouin
{"title":"Streamlining accreditation: a cross-disciplinary analysis.","authors":"Danielle Blouin","doi":"10.1007/s10459-026-10520-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study seeks to understand how accreditation of professional education programs achieves its positive impacts on the quality of education. It examines accreditation standards and processes across seven professional education disciplines (business administration, computer sciences, engineering, nursing, pharmacy, dental education, and medical education). The underlying theoretical assumption proposes that similar accreditation components drive similar endpoints, i.e. that commonalities in standards and processes across disciplines represent the core of accreditation and drive its impacts on education quality, since each accreditation organization independently considers them as important components of its accreditation practices. Accreditation carries significant costs (human, financial, lost opportunities) for programs. Understanding which components most contribute to its positive impacts will inform reforms of accreditation systems, improve cost-effectiveness and decrease accreditation burden on programs without sacrificing education quality METHOD: Thematic analyses of accreditation standards and processes were performed across seven professional education domains.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Common themes of standards across organizations related to 'Student', 'Curriculum', 'Program Resources', and 'Program Management', although their granularity varied widely between organizations. Two themes of standards were not shared ('Institution', 'Learning Environment'), suggesting that these themes were not universally seen as essential, thus offering opportunities for revisions and simplification of standards in remaining organizations. Accreditation processes were similar across organizations, but their intensity varied, impacting programs' workload and resources in preparing for accreditation CONCLUSIONS: The identification of core accreditation standards and processes, and of several areas where efficiencies can be achieved, provides practical avenues to reform accreditation systems to improve cost-effectiveness and decrease accreditation burden without sacrificing education quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-026-10520-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study seeks to understand how accreditation of professional education programs achieves its positive impacts on the quality of education. It examines accreditation standards and processes across seven professional education disciplines (business administration, computer sciences, engineering, nursing, pharmacy, dental education, and medical education). The underlying theoretical assumption proposes that similar accreditation components drive similar endpoints, i.e. that commonalities in standards and processes across disciplines represent the core of accreditation and drive its impacts on education quality, since each accreditation organization independently considers them as important components of its accreditation practices. Accreditation carries significant costs (human, financial, lost opportunities) for programs. Understanding which components most contribute to its positive impacts will inform reforms of accreditation systems, improve cost-effectiveness and decrease accreditation burden on programs without sacrificing education quality METHOD: Thematic analyses of accreditation standards and processes were performed across seven professional education domains.

Results: Common themes of standards across organizations related to 'Student', 'Curriculum', 'Program Resources', and 'Program Management', although their granularity varied widely between organizations. Two themes of standards were not shared ('Institution', 'Learning Environment'), suggesting that these themes were not universally seen as essential, thus offering opportunities for revisions and simplification of standards in remaining organizations. Accreditation processes were similar across organizations, but their intensity varied, impacting programs' workload and resources in preparing for accreditation CONCLUSIONS: The identification of core accreditation standards and processes, and of several areas where efficiencies can be achieved, provides practical avenues to reform accreditation systems to improve cost-effectiveness and decrease accreditation burden without sacrificing education quality.

精简认证:跨学科分析。
目的:本研究旨在了解专业教育项目认证如何对教育质量产生积极影响。它审查了七个专业教育学科(工商管理、计算机科学、工程、护理、药学、牙科教育和医学教育)的认证标准和流程。潜在的理论假设提出,相似的认证组件驱动相似的终点,即跨学科的标准和过程的共性代表了认证的核心,并驱动其对教育质量的影响,因为每个认证组织都独立地将其视为其认证实践的重要组成部分。认证为项目带来了巨大的成本(人力、财力、失去的机会)。了解哪些组成部分对其积极影响最大,将为认证系统的改革提供信息,在不牺牲教育质量的情况下提高成本效益,减轻项目的认证负担。方法:对七个专业教育领域的认证标准和流程进行专题分析。结果:跨组织标准的共同主题与“学生”、“课程”、“项目资源”和“项目管理”相关,尽管它们的粒度在组织之间差异很大。标准的两个主题没有共享(“机构”,“学习环境”),这表明这些主题并没有被普遍视为必不可少的,因此为其余组织的标准的修订和简化提供了机会。各组织的认证流程相似,但其强度各不相同,影响了项目在准备认证时的工作量和资源。结论:确定核心认证标准和流程,以及可以实现效率的几个领域,为改革认证系统提供了切实可行的途径,以提高成本效益,减少认证负担,同时不牺牲教育质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Health Sciences Education is a forum for scholarly and state-of-the art research into all aspects of health sciences education. It will publish empirical studies as well as discussions of theoretical issues and practical implications. The primary focus of the Journal is linking theory to practice, thus priority will be given to papers that have a sound theoretical basis and strong methodology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书