March 11, 2015

Western Washington University

Presented by Jesse Aspree, Joe Anderson and Josh Walden (Team J)
Accreditation Literature Review and Suggestions for the Higher Institute of
Business Communications and Management (ISCAM)
In this first section, I will investigate ISCAMs concerns along with my teams
suggestions regarding accreditation outcomes in a particularly American
institutional context. I will draw from the academic literature to support and add
color to some of the suggestions we have made to ISCAM. In the following section, I
would like to examine ISCAMs concerns with reference to examples from Nigeria
and transition countries in Eastern and Central Europe (mainly in the Russian
Federation).
In this analysis, I hope to situate ISCAM within broader global accreditation
processes in order to provide background on common hurdles and expectations. A
secondary aim of this analysis will be to suggest further areas of inquiry.
I will refer to the following three guiding questions provided by ISCAM throughout
this analysis:
1. What does it mean for teachers that the institution is accredited?
2. What should that imply for their activities (teaching, research, etc.)?
3. And how to help them go through the required change (knowing that there is
no funding for training)?
In addition, I will examine the following three suggestions made by my team to
ISCAM regarding potential change processes that could accompany your
forthcoming transition into accredited status. My aim will be to support these
suggestions or bring them into question:
1. Accreditation could increase curricular and institutional responsibilities.
2. This could affect teachers compensation, increased time demands with an
increase of training requirements and outcomes (could imply wage
increases?).
3. May have extra training time for faculty, student trickle down from curricular
change.
The Academic Literature:
Accreditation in American Context
One of the more abstract, but nevertheless integral aspects of accreditation
according to John Bardo is in creating a culture of accreditation (2009). What
Bardo means by this is, fostering institutional transparency and accountability

throughout the organization must be paramount in preparation for the rigors of the
accreditation process and continued accredited status. This is what can be referred
to as a culture of evidence and assessment (Bardo, 2009). We suggest that one of the
requirements toward engendering such a new cultural outlook within the
organization, is continued training, especially for faculty. We have suggested that
accreditation could result in more required training for staff and faculty. We believe
that this will not only help to create a robust culture of accreditation, building
team trust and buy-in during the change process, but also that it will be required. In
fact, Ann Wood (2006) suggests that for American institutions undergoing national
or regional accreditation, action plans must be developed that incorporate
additional time budgeted for ongoing and continued faculty training as assessment
and accreditation processes evolve. Her suggestions include building out strategic
and modular and departmental peer-review teams (2009, pp. 45-46). Coordinators
for these teams should have a great facility with accreditation standards and
guidelines and be in charge of leading workshops and volunteer accreditation team
meetings (Wood, 2006, p. 46). For Patrick McGuire, detailing the accreditation
process at a small American womens college, communities of practice and action
teams must be carefully chosen to account for disparate faculty and staff
personalities (2009). In addition, McGuire details how including individual faculty,
team and institutional goals with quantitative as well as qualitative outcomes
measures is instrumental in evolving beyond the accreditation process and related
organizational changes (2009, p. 35). For McGuire, at Trinity College, individual
faculty and staff will pursue accreditation standards primarily to augment their
professional expertise in a range of higher education issues (2009, p. 29), but it is
clear that creating healthy and balanced peer teams of complimentary individuals is
key to reaching organizational goals (McGuire, 2009).
However, simply pouring time and resources into faculty training will not
necessarily support student outcomes during the change process (Davis & Rivera,
2014). In fact, the strategic composition of accreditation teams composed of faculty
and institutional leadership is critical to the change process during and after
accreditation. Wood suggests, it is important to give accreditation team members
release time to do this work which is time-intensive and should not be simply added
on to faculty members regular academic duties (2009, p. 48). This underscores the
need to preempt necessary training time needs and build them into organizational
roadmaps and action plans. In addition to the extra time typically needed to train
staff not only in the culture of accreditation, but in new and requisite methods and
standards, Davis and Rivera suggest that the newly accredited organization
strategically target for extra resources and attention departments and individuals
who will be disproportionately affected by organizational changes (2014, p. 397).
Moreover, they point out that organizational change and institutional resource
allocation generally have a positive relationship, however, change efforts may be
more successful in some parts of the organization than in others, and the less
successful efforts may counterbalance gains derived from the more successful
works (Davis & Rivera, 2014, p. 21).

As our team has suggested, it appears accreditation changes require time, patience,
and attention to new and evolving institutional changes and processes. However, it
is the evolving culture of the organization that will ultimately determine the ongoing
success of any institution. As Patricia McGuire details regarding her experience,
accreditation alone has not guided Trinity College through the last twenty-five years
of healthy operations: However, at significant benchmark moments during the past
two decades, accreditation processes implemented with self-study and the insights
of thoughtful visiting teams helped Trinity to forge new pathways to institutional
success (2009, p. 36).
Nigerian and Eastern and Central European Context
In this section, we would like to examine international contexts in light of ISCAMs
concerns for faculty and staff in terms of the accreditation process and its aftermath.
We hope that you will agree that some of the same themes recur. In addition, we
believe the international examples detailed here particularly highlight an increased
responsibility for accredited staff and faculty that must be accounted for and
included in organizational planning.
In the Nigerian contextual example, we see detailed again that change efforts may be
more successful in some parts of an organization than in others, and that less
successful efforts may counterbalance gains derived from more successful teams
(Alani & Ilusanya, 2008). This mirrors the American context in important ways.
During the peer and team planning phases, individual faculty personalities should
be matched in strategic ways that incentivize cooperation and facilitation. In
addition, it is important in the design and preparation phase to identify vulnerable
areas of the organization that may be inordinately affected by change processes
resulting from accreditation. Commensurate planning and resource time with those
departments and individuals can then be allocated. As Davis and Rivera indicate in
an American context, though applicable here (citing Clayton) [f]rom a higher
education administration perspective, organizational misalignment can lead to
conflicting ideas about how to implement change that is required in the
accreditation process (2014, p. 394).
One of the particular recurring themes in the Nigerian example, is the focus by
institutions to pursue valid [certification] to the international community that the
academic programmes [sic] offered in Nigerian universities are of high standards
and that their graduates are adequate for employment and further studies (Alani &
Ilusanya, 2008, p. 303). For public and private universities in Nigeria, the last
twenty years have increasingly seen accreditation efforts move toward
standardization and universal transferability (Alani & Ilusanya, 2008). This speaks
to a need in research and planning for continued efforts at standardization for
student credits and transcripts. In fact, in the transition country example, the
authors point out a general push for a switch to North American credit-based

courses (Hendel & Lewis, 2005, p. 251). Hendel and Lewis indicate how in 1999, the
ministers of higher education in 29 Euro countries committed to the credit system
and to the establishment of a European Credit Accumulation and Transfer System
(EUROCATS) for transfer ease (2005, p. 251). This speaks to student need to open
the discussion for ease of transfer for student credits as a possible source of anxiety
for students and faculty alike.
Both the Nigerian and transition countries examples discuss the need for constant
attention to transparency and assessment rigor on the part of faculty and the
organization as a whole. For instance, a common problem in the many Nigerian
institutions that were monitored in this example over the course of nearly two
decades were failing standards and lack of commitment to rigorous accreditation
changes (Alani & Ilusanya, 2008, pp. 308-309). These oversights included lack of
ongoing quality assurance, academic content issues, staffing problems, and
particularly, there were oversights on standard[s] of tests and examinations,
academic regulations, and so on, staffing (quantity and quality of teaching and
non-teaching staff, staff development programmes [sic] put in place) (Alani &
Ilusanya, 2008, p. 309).
The transition country context suggests a truly necessary commitment on the part
of faculty and student body to increasing student performance after accreditation. In
fact, Hendel & Lewis note that [t]he 1999 OECD report on Tertiary Education and
Research in the Russian Federation noted a greater emphasis on desired student
competencies in the development of associated assessment mechanisms (2005, p.
250). This underscores the need for accredited faculty and staff to provide even
more rigorous attention to outcomes, assessment and student accountability in the
wake of accreditation.
Finally, it is worth noting that, to address one of ISCAMs stated concerns, the
transition countries example does mention financial inflexibility as a possible
problem area for accredited organizations trying to keep up with new and evolving
requirements and practices. Many Russian programs have had issues with
matching lack of budgetary flexibility with new requirements and responsibilities
for faculty and staff (Hendel & Lewis, 2005, p. 252). However, it is good to note
again from the American context that, quoting Hanushek, Davis and Rivera confirm
the accumulated research surrounding estimation of education production
functions simply says there currently is no clear, systematic relationship between
resources and student outcomes (2014, p. 389). In fact, it could simply be that a
lack of strategic planning and performance objectives along with more robust
assessment and accountability measures at the institutional level could be causal
agents in the antagonism between resource investment and outcomes (Handel &
Lewis, 2005, p. 252).
In the preceding sections, we hope to have addressed some of ISCAMs principle
concerns regarding typical institutional change following the accreditation process.

We have provided examples from several organizational loci, in Africa, Europe and
North America. We believe that our teams hypotheses regarding probable issues to
be encountered by ISCAM are valid in light of these analyses. Increased
responsibility and time-investment, particularly on the part of staff and
accreditation peer- and developmental-group members, tend to occur in all the
above examples. It is also of note to recognize the ongoing and fluid, evolving, and
emergent nature of the accredited organization, constantly adapting to change in
preparation for and especially after being accredited.
Interview Data: Accreditation and Praxis
Our team conducted two interviews of administrators who were responsible for the
coordination of their organizations accreditations. The interviews asked questions
regarding their institutions accreditation practices; namely, institutional changes,
including what kind of curricular activities have increased. Per ISCAM, we focused
on three areas of interrogation: In general, what kind of increase in curricular
responsibilities has been experienced by other places undergoing accreditation?
Similarly, what kind of institutional changes have they seen? And when talking
about these changes, what worked for what institution and what did not work so
much.
We conducted our first interview with Jim Mulik, Director of Evaluation and
Assessment at Edmonds Community College (EdCC). EdCC is an American 2-year
public college that offers 68 associate degrees and 58 professional certificates in 29
programs of study (EdCC website, 2015). EdCC is accredited by the Northwest
Commission on Colleges and Universities and governed by the Washington State
Board of Community and Technical Colleges. The school has an annual enrollment of
more than 21,000 students, and employs more than 1,480 employees, including 137
full-time and 324 part-time instructors. Our second interview was with Dr. Gail
Goulet, who was the President and CEO of the Career Connections Training Center
(CCTC) in British Columbia, Canada. The center was a private post-secondary
training center that coordinated contracts with provincial and federal departments
to provide employment and vocational training. At the time her institution provided
5 programs and employed 45 staff members.
The interviews showed that accreditation efforts at both institutions impacted
workloads at the administrative, staff/faculty, and student levels in different ways.
Edmonds Community College
Mulik, who spearheads accreditation efforts at Edmonds Community College, says
that (There is) a lot of time spent on measuring student learning in accreditation;
making sure curriculum is up to date, and working with industry to update (their)
professional technical programs (J. Mulik, personal communication, February
26th, 2015). He maintains that the emphasis has changed in the accreditation

process from a focus of, Having stuff, such as enough library books, to now,
supporting resources, growing and nurturing them, and improving (programs)
over time. He stresses that the, Focus on student learning is key, in the
accreditation process. This is evident in the accreditation language, Show the
students are learning and grades dont count, because grades are subjective from
one instructor to another. That is to say, instructors grade distributions will be
different. Mulik says the consistency comes from asking questions such as, Is there
a common rubric that is agreed upon to measure an assignment and show students
have met those skills? Do we have a portfolio, internship/practicum, or something
that would demonstrate their skills? He goes on to say that, If a student
measurement is not connected to learning, theres a problem there.
In the U.S. there are three different accreditation bodies that colleges and
universities are accountable to; these are at the regional, state, and national levels.
Depending on the program, different specialized programs within the college may
have additional accreditation requirements. For example, the construction
management program at EdCC is also accredited through the national association of
construction management. These bodies also have very similar standards to those
of regional and state accreditation.
Faculty within specialized departments have peers (other faculty) rate the quality of
the programs. The department chair is the responsible party in this process. Mulik
explains that at a state university, such as the University of Washington, they may
have hundreds of accreditations at various department levels, but the school itself
has only one regional accreditation.
Mulik says that, Faculty need to be involved in this process because their course fits
into the bigger puzzle of the institutions mission (e.g. developing skills to get a job,
course transfer to another institution). He finds that, Faculty can also help drive
processes as well, but the problem is that faculty are usually teaching and cant be in
two places at once. He mentions the conundrum for administrators of whether to
take them out of the classroom, and reassign time, or compensate them in another
way.
Mulik explains that he has found that there are barriers that affect faculty from
participating in accreditation. The two most prevalent being faculty may not have
time, and they do not recognize the benefits of being involved. He says that they
struggle with faculty representation for their 5 committees, Because the meeting
times are difficult to attend, and (they) also dont see value in it. There are a few
faculty who are diehard supporters and who try to get support from their
colleagues, and explain the importance of accreditation, explaining that,
Accreditation is not all about mundane administrative check off lists, but can also
generate good discussions on why were offering what were offering, and where we
want to move as an institution, driving the curriculum, and programs of studies
offered. He also says that it is important to make sure accreditation is not just a

checklist of yes, we are doing this, but instead to look towards standards in this
process and making sure students are participating in quality learning. There is a
different mindset there. Mulik cites that, Faculty are less interested in checklists
like, Do we have a library or cafeteria, but more ignited by a focus of issues such as
how can we prepare students for careers, or skills to become better citizens.
Another struggle Mulik mentions is that they do not have a faculty senate, although
they are moving towards this though. We have 6 different divisions;
humanities/social sciences, international, STEM, business, health human services,
pre college, corrections. He goes on to explain that there is more work involved
without a senate because they need to go to each division to vote on issues, creating
a seesaw effect of going back and forth between division until an agreement is made.
This is no easy task since there are important questions raised such as, Do we want
to change our college liabilities? What do we want to do with our program
outcomes? How do we want to demonstrate them to those outside the institution?
Mulik says that these are rich conversations that faculty should be influencing and
involved in. The process, he says, is difficult if departments are disconnected in this
process.
Alternately, Mulik has created mechanisms for faculty participation including
surveys, forums, and focus groups to get a faculty voice. He says, Institutions vary
on how they weight faculty voice. Some have a consensus model where everyone
needs to be in agreement, or a majority rules model, depending on the culture of the
institution. From his experience he notes that, Transparency from the top is vital
and important to both faculty and staff members, and administrators should
indicate what the problems are, what the solutions weve come up with and are
there other possible solutions, the pros/cons, and what needs to happen for us to be
successful as we move forward.
Edmonds Community College has 5 accreditation standards that the college had
created, and which the accreditation commission uses to align their evaluations
with. The process by which EdCC has operated for the past several years was to first
write the first standard, and two years later write the second standard. They can
then go back and update the first standard once they turn in a rough draft to the
accreditation committee. Along the way, the commission gives them continuous
feedback that may aid them in the process. They are currently writing standards
three through five, and updating their first two standards. Mulik says, This process
is much different than in the past when we would form a cross representational
committee of faculty, staff, and administrators that would work on a specific
standard. Now it is all integrated. Currently, they set up teams now based on each
of their core themes. Each of these themes must show how they integrate into their
core planning, operations, and allocation of resources for the college. In the past the
accreditation commission had given standards that each school had to follow. This
was problematic because the standards were uniform throughout, and many
schools were different (community colleges, research institutions, regional
universities, historically black serving institutions, tribal colleges). Schools

complained that some standards did not apply to them, and consequently, the
process had changed. The accreditation commission decided to ask the respective
schools to tell them what their own core mission and themes were, and how they
used these to drive their accreditation planning efforts. Additionally, EdCC has to
fulfill a checklist of federal law regulations (e.g., Title 9 Compliance and financial
audits).
EdCC has 5 core themes and councils:
1. Strengthening our diverse community: Is the diversity of our community and
employees represented in the college? Equitably treating all of our students
the same vs. equally.
2. Providing access to education opportunities: Academic, continued learning,
etc.
3. Helping students access career opportunities: Preparing students to go into
the workforce
4. Supporting student success: Supporting movement through educational
pathways, making sure there are not bottlenecks such as courses students
are not passing. Colleges can get funding by showing that students are
moving through these pathways. Government funding examines rates of
completion for a students first 15 credits, then 30 credits, and so forth. This
process is consequently performance based.
5. Encouraging innovation, service and lifelong learning: Looking for unique
ways to support funding base, grants/contracts and international
partnerships, helping people continue education who have attended here
(Edmonds Community College Website, 2015).
Finally, Mulik says that some colleges have a different number of themes that they
need to work through. He says, The main importance of accreditation is primarily
around transferability of courses and funding for financial aid.
Career Connections Training Center
In contrast, Dr. Goulet explained that the accreditation process at her institution
focused on going through extensive checklists, which was a big ordeal. Goulet stated,
Different groups met with one person in charge(G. Goulet, personal
communication, March 5th, 2015). She explained that in the accreditation process
there were Several things she wanted to get done saying, The mission statement
had to be just right, and it took a considerable amount of time.
Also, a peer review process was implemented that included instructors, counselors,
administrative staff, and placement officers. Goulet had chosen to cross-pollinate
programs and pull from their existing programs when proposing to implement new
programs. This way, the institution could backfill existing staff and create
opportunities to develop leadership skills. On occasion, there were special projects
people from different programs could collaborate on. Teams would make their own

protocol of what they wanted to review (e.g., teaching staff). The peer review
process was held internally, that is to say, someone would volunteer to be the peer
reviewer and another would volunteer to be the reviewee. The person who was
reviewed would specify what things she would like to focus on. According to Goulet,
The focus on the peer review process was on reflection and improvement of
processes. At the conclusion of the peer review process the reviewer would write
up a report with the help of the reviewee. Throughout the process they
implemented departmental team meetings as well as total team meetings so that
The groups could work together to reflect upon their practice and get other points
of view.
Before overseeing the accreditation process at EdCC, Mulik had worked at the
College of the Marshall Islands, and was responsible for their accreditation efforts.
He says that, After the war when the colleges were initially set up in the US Trust
Territories (which are now all independent countries), each location had a
specialization. So, instead of all colleges offering the same program, many schools
provided programs based on their region. Instead of schools competing with each
other, there was a finite number or programs (e.g., Saipan has the only regional
medical school , Palau has the sole education program). After independence in the
late 1980s/early 1990s, the colleges in Saipan, the Federated States of Micronesia,
and the Marshall Islands all moved from specialized colleges to become more
comprehensive institutions. Saipan now offers a nursing program, a business
school, and an education program. He says that many schools now struggle because
it is expensive to run all of these programs. Mulik questions if this is the most
efficient way, or if they should partner with other institutions, going back to the old
system of specialization?
Goulet explains that they did not experience much institutional change, Since this
was a formalized process and they have been doing several assessments
beforehand. The accreditation led them to receive better training contracts since
the government wanted to contract with institutions that were accredited.
The accreditation process also contributed to the need for additional training.
Goulet and her team addressed this need by instituting a full training day each
month for employees, and sending people out for training so that they could bring
the info back to the organization, a more cost effective way to transfer learning.
Some of the programs had budgets allocated for this, while other programs did not.
Goulet commented that she believed the lack of an increase in funding for training
was Partly a function of implied curricular responsibilities. She expressed that
some employees thought they would have an increased workload as a result of
accreditation, and that they prioritized teaching as their main concern. It is
important to note that the staff was being paid to be involved in this process.
However, because the nature of some of the work was introspective, or having to
think about their practices and reflect on it, there was some resistance encountered.

Perhaps one of the most important lessons learned, Mulik says, was that it is
extremely important for institutions first starting the accreditation report to create
a crosswalk of the old and new standards. He continues, Knowing what language
has changed from the previous accreditation to the current one will help the process
immensely. Sometimes people are surprised that the changes arent that different,
they are just stated differently, or theres a lot of new stuff in there that we werent
responsible for before, or look at all the things that have gone away and that they
arent looking for anymore. In the 2008 accreditation they learned that using the
old accreditation report as a template and to duplicate past efforts instead of using a
crosswalk made more work for them in the long run, and in the end they had to start
from scratch as new questions were raised by the new accreditation report that did
not fit with the old format.
After CCTCs accreditation they were then audited every year. Goulet says that The
accreditation process became corrupted five years later, when the accreditation
body required all organizations to show their financial records. This caused a
conflict of interest to the fact that the accreditors were the competitors. She
suggests that organizations should Keep (their) eyes on the governing bodies and
changing climate of accreditation auditors. She also advises that institutions Have
membership and an active voice in the process by having their own staff involved
as part of the committee, if their budget allows for this.
To combat a lack of funding, she rearranged organization time to set aside time for
those departments that didnt have a budget. If there were a team that needed
training, she would send someone out from a group that got did receive funding,
then design a training for the department. Sometimes she would invite the
community as well as other program clientele to the sessions, which also generated
a small amount of revenue. Goulet goes on to say that she Sometimes used other
department budgets, while at other times she used her own.
Goulet adds that her staff Couldnt get a raise because the government set all
wages. Her organization did not pay as much as some of the others, but other
organizations did not care for their employees as much. She added that employees
often didnt care about their pay but, Felt that they were making progress in their
careers, and, Enjoyed and felt empowered to become more knowledgeable to
become leaders. She continues, People want to be with their peers, feel like they
are contributing, and that they are advancing and getting better. Because their
work was contractual, they could not offer long-term job security. Goulet saw the
need to create a great work environment, and offer quality programs to offset this
anxiety. This told the staff that she cared about them through offering these types of
training opportunities, and that she was listening to what they wanted. She
explained that this created a Win-win situation with little money since staff liked
to learn and they recognized that they were becoming more marketable. She notes
that there were some employees that had learning anxieties, and that this should be
taken into account as well.

Leadership and Business Management Literature

Following the cases that have been made using example institutions and differing
regions undergoing accreditation, we would like to further address the issue of how
to best help faculty cope with the change process. It has been said that change
related to faculty is like herding cats (Kezar, 2012, p. 181). We will use several
different sources that address the accreditation process and change in learning
organizations in general.
In The Dance of Change, Senge et al. discuss that there are no less than ten
challenges that face a learning organization undertaking change. Some of these are
time, help, leadership, fear and anxiety, just to name a few. While it is not necessary
to go through all ten in the case of ISCAM, many are relevant.
One of these is the idea of Walking the Talk. This phrase is used to characterize a
situation in which the advocates of change, in most cases those at the top of the
organization, are true to their values and aims. Senge et al. point out that those who
advocate change must be prepared to have their own behavior judged (1999). In
the absence of leadership that demonstrates commitment to stated goals, Senge et
al. go on to describe what they deem trust gaps that develop leading to lack of
commitment on the part of others in the organization to follow through with the
planned changes (1999).
As Susan M. Awbrey states [in] general education change is not just a task of
curricular change: it is also cultural change (2005, p. 4). This idea is repeated in
The Dance of Change when Arie de Geus comments that Organizations are
ultimately human communities(Senge et al., 1999). In this case it is of the utmost
importance that leadership displays dedication to the stated goals and helps to
reinforce those goals through their actions.
Senge et al. also introduce what is termed as a reflection gap. This reflection gap is
the result of the lack of trust in a safe environment to reflect openly on the aims,
values, change processes and the individual actors themselves. This issue can be
relieved in an environment of clarity and credibility (Senge et al., 1999). It is often
the case that leadership can be remote and disconnected from those they task with
carrying out the change initiative, but it is imperative that they come down into the
trenches where the change is being created so that they can foster an atmosphere of
community.
Another factor that makes walking the talk so important is that social diversity
and background of those implementing the change can affect their perception of it.
Kezar points out that social background of people and social class, ethnicity or
gender affect the way people make meaning of a particular type of change (2012, p.
188). She also states that, key concepts such as the interpersonal meaning or

symbolic significance of change are grasped through the language of discourse

(2012, p. 187). Considering these statements in the case of a safe environment
where the change advocates demonstrate their values through their actions and it is
clear why they deserve consideration.
Another challenge that should be addressed briefly is that of time. With ISCAM being
on a strict schedule to enact the changes demanded it is important to eliminate time
stressors. The mismanagement of time can rapidly create anxiety. One of the key
strategies for this is building in what is characterized as focus time. Allow faculty
to schedule time blocks, concurrent days or hours, of time for specific tasks so that
teams or individuals can dedicate themselves to resolving a problem instead of
having to come back to the issue several times (Senge et al., 1999). Another way to
create more effective use of time is to allow for experimentation with time (Senge
et al., 1999). Give faculty the opportunity to be flexible with their time so that they
may experiment to find the best use of it.
William Bridges described a transition model when change occurs that consisted of
3 stages. In the second stage, or what he termed The Neutral Zone, he sites
characteristics such as low morale, low productivity, and anxiety about their role,
status or identity as being common (1991). He also states that, Despite these, this
stage can also be one of great creativity, innovation and renewal. This is a great time
to encourage people to try new ways of thinking or working (Bridges, 1991).
Considering these assertions, allowing for flexibility and experimentation can only
bring about positive results.
Remaining focused on the high priority tasks can be difficult as demands outside of
the immediate goals can also be placed on the facultys time. As Senge et al. point
out, Most unnecessary tasks are... obvious once people talk through their processes
together (1999). Therefore it is important to allow faculty to say no to these less
important requests to alleviate time management issues.
As the changes are put into place it is only natural that there be fear and anxiety in
the workplace. Uncertainty about individual standing and further demands can
bring about feelings of instability that may be unfounded but feel very real. Bridges
would recommend that one way of dealing with these types of emotions would be to
set short-term goals, so that people can experience some quick wins (1991). This
can quickly reestablish the confidence and security that can be questioned following
an initiation of change. Referring to a different type of small win, Senge et al.
recommend dealing with smaller issues that can threaten psychological states
instead of attempting to force resolution of larger ones (1999).
One of the prevailing themes when trying to deal with allaying fears is to foster an
open and transparent environment that respects the opinions, views and feelings of
all members of the organization, and in the case of ISCAM, this could particularly be
the faculty. When discussing the structure of organization, Awbrey points to the

imagery of an iceberg to illustrate the concerns of those that inhabit the

environment (2005). She describes the unseen portion of the iceberg as the
informal organization that is made up of elements such as power and influence
patterns, personal views and interpretations of the organization, interpersonal
relationships, norms, trust, risk-taking, values, emotions, and needs (2005, p. 5). If
any aspect of this unseen portion is not clear to the organizations members,
chances for misunderstanding and confusion grow.
In the following section we believed that it would also be useful to take a look
forward at the rising themes in delivery mechanisms of education and growing
challenges that face institutions of higher learning in regards to accreditation. As
ISCAM is currently undergoing institutional change, giving consideration to the
future possibilities now could ease later transitions. As Adrianna Kezar states,
organizational change is likely to be more common as technology and cultural
exchange allow for greater sharing of ideas that may lead to innovation (2012,
pp. 181-182).
As the landscape of education evolves it would also be useful to keep an eye on the
current trends in the ways instruction is delivered and what that means for
accreditation now and in the future. In Thinking about Accreditation in a Rapidly
Changing World (2013), Paul J. Leblanc points out that only 20% of students are
taking part in the traditional residential college experience today. The emergence of
e-learning, massively open online courses (MOOCs), and for-profit institutions
means that the options for students are more plentiful than ever. This presents a
whole new challenge for faculty, accreditors, and institutions of higher learning.
Faculty could face a unique change, in these evolving circumstances, from the
traditional role as the sage on the stage (Leblanc, 2013). Leblanc points out that in
todays world faculty can be hired as experts to design a course they never teach or
be asked to teach a pre-packaged course that they have no power to change
(Leblanc, 2013). The changes in delivery methods also mean that the demand for
faculty is lowered, often leading to the most expensive staff losing their role to
others who can reach a larger numbers through new technology. This sense of
instability brings about trust issues and concerns of stability that must be
addressed.
The disaggregation of education has brought about difficulties for accreditors as
well. Traditionally accreditors have required a demonstration of control and
quality over areas that are no longer controlled by one entity (Leblanc, 2013). The
diversification of education means that the old standards of accreditation are no
longer suited to the postmodern educational landscape. Leblanc also includes
credentials and the ways in which differing organizations recognize student
achievements as a challenge to accreditors (2013).

One of the key components of this challenge is the rising cost versus value of
traditional education. Expense has been a motivating factor for many students to
move on to more appealing options such as MOOCs to improve job skills or search
for new careers. Competency-based education (CBE) has seen a dramatic rise in
interest as competition for traditional accreditation due to the value. President
Obama asked the US Congress to consider value as a requirement in the
accreditation process and as a requirement for institutions to receive federal
funding (Leblanc, 2013). Accreditors, like faculty, have been put in difficult positions
as technology advances.
While many of these scenarios may not be applicable to ISCAM in the current change
initiative, we would recommend that they be taken into consideration. By
considering the future of education and accreditation now, ISCAM could position
their organization preemptively with an eye toward an unavoidably emergent
macro-climate of technological and educational evolution.

References

Alani, R.A., & Ilusanya, G. (2008). Accreditation outcomes, quality of and access to
university education in Nigeria. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 301312.
doi:10.1108/09684880810886295
Awbrey, S. M. (2005). General education reform as organizational change: Integrating
cultural and structural change. JGE: The Journal of General Education, 54(1), 121.
Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.wwu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?d
irect=true&db=a9h&AN=17604438&site=ehost-live
Bardo, John. (2009). The impact of the changing climate for accreditation on the
individual college or university: Five trends and their implications. New Directions for
Higher Education, 145(Spring), 47-58. doi:10.1002/he.334
Bridges transition model: Guiding people through change. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10,
2015, from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/bridges-transition-model.htm
Darwin D. Hendel & Darrell R. Lewis (2005) Quality assurance of higher education
transition countries: Accreditation - accountability and assessment. Tertiary
Education and Management, 11(3), 239-258. doi:10.1080/13583883.2005.9967149
Davis, J. & Rivera, J. (2014). A college administrator's framework to assess compliance
with accreditation mandates. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
38(5), 383-402. doi:10.1080/10668926.2010.544553
Edmonds Community College website. Retrieved from http://www.edcc.edu
Kaplan, S., & Suter, V. (2005). Community of practice design guide. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/nlii/VirtualCommunities/944
Kezar, Adrianna (2012). Organizational change in a global, postmodern world. In Bastedo,
M. (Ed.), The organization of higher education: Managing colleges for a new era (pp.
181-221). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Leblanc, Paul J. (2013, March/April). Thinking about accreditation in a rapidly changing
world. Educause Review. Retrieved from
https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM1322.pdf
McGuire, Patricia. (2009). Accreditations benefits for individuals and institutions.
Directions for Higher Education, 145(Spring), 29-36. doi:10.1002/he
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of
change. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Wood, Ann. (2006). Demystifying accreditation: Action plans for a national or regional
accreditation. Higher Education, (31)1, 43-62. doi:10.1007/s10755-006-9008-6