PERSPECTIVES Facilitation VIKALPA

The Journal for Decision Makers

45(1) 7–24, 2020

includes research articles and Regulation © 2020 Indian Institute of

that focus on the analysis and
resolution of managerial and
academic issues based on
analytical and empirical or
case research
Management, Ahmedabad
Reprints and permissions:
of Educational in.sagepub.com/journals-
permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/0256090920917263
Institutions: The Role journals.sagepub.com/home/vik

of Accreditation
Mathew J Manimala, Kishinchand Poornima Wasdani and
Abhishek Vijaygopal

H
igher education is in transition, evolving continuously. This evolution
has been accelerated by the post-cold war economic liberalization and
the economic, political, and technological changes in the 21st century.
Revolutionary developments in information and communication technologies (ICT)
have led to a networked and borderless society (Coville, 2013; Eaton, 2001). There
is also a felt need for the quality assurance and universalization of programmes
offered by higher educational institutions (HEIs), given their variety and number.
Accreditation systems, the principal means of quality assurance of HEIs are also
under pressure. Possible implications for accreditation in this context identified by
Van Damme (2001) are as below:
1. New demands on universities: Developments in ICT mean that universities must
cater to net-savvy learners by designing newer programmes with online delivery
modes. They also allow for increased opportunities for secondary data to be
used in research.
KEY WORDS
2. Availability of different types of higher study options: Skill development (special-
Accreditation ized learning) has emerged as an important learning consideration and can be
Benchmarking obtained through shorter-duration courses rather than a long-term degree or
diploma.
Educational Institutions
3. Redefinition of national educational/regulatory frameworks: Enhancement of
Information and academic networks and partnerships between universities means that norms and
Communication requirements of both partners need to be honoured, which could lead to harmo-
Technologies (ICT)
nizing their degree curricula, evaluation norms, and pedagogies. However, this
Quality could also cause conflicts with national regulatory frameworks and culturally
embedded programmes and practices.

Disclaimer: An earlier version of this paper was presented at the AMDISA-SAQS Conference on Accreditation for Institutional Learning and
Growth, held at Hyderabad, India on 8 December 2015, and was published in the Conference Proceedings

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-Commercial use, reproduction
and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

VIKALPA • VOLUME 45 • ISSUE 1 • JANUARY-MARCH 2020  7

4. The emergence of borderless education: More academic
institutions would promote their offerings across
borders through branch campuses, e-learning,
and franchising agreements. ICT capabilities are
replacing bricks-and-mortar classrooms with
virtual classrooms, leading to changes in accredita-
tion as well (Eaton, 2001).
In view of such developments, the accreditation
systems would also need to deal primarily with the
following three issues (Van Damme, 2001):
1. Developing commonly accepted norms for various
forms of borderless education programmes.
2. Developing norms for international recognition of
academic qualifications and credit transferability.
3. Developing an agreement on an international
approach to educational accreditation and quality
assurance considering the special circumstances
and requirements of different countries.
Accrediting agencies must shift from their earlier
approach of input/process-orientation to an
outcome-oriented approach about HEIs. This paper is
organized as follows: The second section presents the
evolution of accreditation and its recent growth in the
context of developing countries, especially in South
Asia; the third section focuses on the principles and
processes of accreditation; the fourth section discusses
the accreditation criteria of different systems/agencies;
the fifth section outlines the impact of accreditation on
institutional learning and growth, and the sixth and final
section provides the conclusion and future directions.
ACCREDITATION SYSTEM: EVOLUTION AND
GROWTH
The US accreditation system is a pioneer and a role
model for other accreditation systems. In the late 1800s,
an increased number of educational institutions were
set up by private operators. This led to more choices
for students and also the need for guidance in choosing
appropriate educational programmes and the norms
for credit transfer between them. Safety of clients of
practising engineers and doctors, who had graduated
from engineering and medical schools, was also an
issue of concern. These concerns led to the emergence
of an inter-institutional system among the academic
fraternity in the 1880s with regional-level accredita-
tion. As the safety of patients was paramount, this
process began in the medical field. For-profit insti-
8 Facilitation and Regulation of Educational Institutions: The Role of Accreditation
tutions operating at the forefront were also keen to
establish their credibility. In 1912, 23 private schools
came together to form the National Association of
Accredited Commercial Schools (NAACS), which
later became the Accrediting Council for Independent
Colleges and Schools (ACICS). In 1918, a more inclu-
sive agency, the American Council on Education (ACE)
was formed, which had 14 member associations (ACE,
2020). However, the government’s initiative of funding
the training and education of war veterans led to a
governmental intervention after the Second World
War and the Korean War. An example of such an initi-
ative was the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944
(colloquially dubbed as the ‘GI Bill of Rights’), which
contained incentives for returning war veterans to
pursue their education (U. S. Department of Defense,
2019). This created a system for reviewing and recog-
nizing accreditation agencies as only the ‘recognized’
programmes would be eligible for funding support.
Funding concerns also led to the passage of the Higher
Education Act in 1965 (ACICS, n. d.; Brittingham, 2009;
Khan, 2018). Thus, the accreditation system, created
on a voluntary basis for self-regulation, was further
regulated and monitored at multiple levels.
The tremendous growth in the number of institutions
in different professions and disciplines has led to the
creation of specialized accreditation agencies too. The
more prominent ones for the management schools, for
example, are the Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB), Accreditation Council
for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP), European
Quality Improvement System (EQUIS), and Association
of MBAs (AMBA). While the first two are US-based,
EQUIS is European in origin, and AMBA is UK-based.
In Europe, serious consideration for the development
of a national accreditation body began almost half a
century after the formation of ACICS in the USA. In the
1980s, the AMBA was formed in the UK to cater to this
objective and it soon spread beyond European insti-
tutions. The convergence of accreditation took place
in Europe in the 1990s, driven by the need to preserve
European educational values and in the backdrop of
new educational priorities by governments in Europe
led by state deregulation (Hedmo et al., 2006; Hedmo &
Sahlin-Andersson, 2007). The different national accred-
iting organizations in the European Union came together
to form the European Foundation for Management
Development (EFMD) Quality Improvement System
(EQUIS) with a quality benchmark of the European
Quality Link (EQUAL) standard (Hedmo et al., 2001).
Introduced in 1997, EQUIS, administered by EFMD,
specializes in the accreditation of HEIs of management
and business administration.
With the financial and academic support of the EFMD
between 2004 and 2006, the Association of Management
Development Institutions in South Asia (AMDISA),
created the South Asian Quality Assurance System
(SAQS) between 2004 and 2006 (AMDISA, 2018), which
has accredited more 26 business schools in the South
Asian region so far (AMDISA, 2020).
One example of a government-led initiative for
accreditation in Europe is the case of the Swiss
Federal Government, which together with the cantons
(district administration) established the Accreditation
and Quality Assurance Board (AQAB) in December
2000. AQAB does not make decisions on its own but
puts forth a proposal for accreditation to the Swiss
University Conference, which decides based on the
proposal’s merit. Institutions have a right to appeal
before a board of arbitration. The accreditation process
is a three-step collaborative process involving the
definition of standards (along with relevant partners
and internal quality efforts), assessment of the insti-
tution against them, and accreditation decision
(Schenker-Wiki, 2002).
Accreditation: The Indian and South Asian
Scenario
Accreditation of HEIs is a relatively new phenom-
enon in India, the need for which was not felt when
higher education was almost entirely controlled by
state-owned universities. In 1994, government initia-
tives began by setting up of autonomous accreditation
agencies such as the National Board of Accreditation
(NBA) by the All India Council for Technical Education
(AICTE) and the National Assessment and Accreditation
Council (NAAC) by the University Grants Commission
(UGC), which was based on the recommendations of
the National Policy on Education of 1986 (Kaul, 2006;
Stella, 2004). NBA carries out accreditation of technical
and management programmes in specific areas, and
NAAC assesses institutions, their departments, schools
and programmes. In 2010, NBA was made an autono-
mous body, and in 2013, it became a body independent
of the AICTE. Such independence made the NBA
eligible for membership of the Washington Accord,
which made their accreditation internationally accept-
able. The accreditation system followed by the NBA has
also changed from an input-based 8-point set criteria to
VIKALPA ∑ VOLUME 45 ∑ ISSUE 1 ∑ JANUARY-MARCH 2020
an outcome-based 1,000-point scale (Abbhilash, 2016;
MHRD, 2019; NBA, 2019). From 2007 onwards, NAAC
has been following a two-step process of accredita-
tion with seven criteria (see Table 1) comprising 34 key
indicators (KIs) used for assessment (MHRD, 2016;
NAAC 2018).
Though they evolved differently, the principal
features of the Indian accreditation system are similar
to the international systems. The Indian system origi-
nated as a government initiative that was later made
independent of conforming to the international
system based on the principles of autonomy and
self-regulation. The western system of accreditation,
on the other hand, had its origin as a collegial system
of peer-review and self-regulation, with the govern-
ment stepping in as a regulator at a later stage to
ensure commonality of standards while safeguarding
the individual initiatives and innovations of private
institutions (Agarwal, 2006; Brittingham, 2009).
While only three institutions were accredited in 1997,
NAAC had accredited 105 universities and 2,311
colleges by mid-2005 (Agarwal, 2006). A combined
total of over 3,000 institutions and universities all
over the country were accredited between 2015 and
2018 (IndiaStat.com, 2002; 2018), indicating the preva-
lence of accreditation. As of August 2019, NAAC had
accredited a total of 326 universities, 5,392 colleges
and 126 autonomous institutions that are in transi-
tion (NAAC, 2019). According to the All India Survey
on Higher Education (AISHE) 2017–2018, the total
number of universities, colleges and stand-alone
institutions in the country stood at 903, 39,050 and
10,011 respectively (MHRD, 2018). This indicates
that the accreditation bodies still have quite a bit
of distance to cover in assessing and benchmarking
institutions in the country.
Table 1: Accreditation Criteria—NAAC
Sl. No. Criterion
1. Curricular aspects
2. Teaching-learning and evaluation
3. Research, innovations and extension
4. Infrastructure and learning resources
5. Student support and progression
6. Governance, leadership and management
7. Institutional values and best practices
Source: NAAC (2018)
9
A few initiatives regarding accreditation in the
context of other developing countries in south Asia
are also discussed briefly. Developments in the case
of Sri Lanka are more recent, around the first decade
of the 21st century. A collaboration between the UGC
and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Directors
(CVCD) of the universities in Sri Lanka led to the
creation of a Quality Assurance (QA) Framework in
2002 and to the publication of the Quality Assurance
Handbook for Sri Lankan Universities (Coomaraswamy,
2013; CVCD-UGC, 2002; Peiris, 2007). Further devel-
opments in this direction later led to the establish-
ment of a Quality Assurance and Accreditation (QAA)
Council in September 2005 (Peiris, 2007; Quality
Assurance Council, 2018) to oversee accreditation
of HEIs. The quality framework had four compo-
nents: (a) codes of practice, (b) credit and qualifi-
cation framework, (c) external quality assessments
(including subject and institutional reviews), and (d)
subject benchmarking (in a broad range of disciplines)
(Peiris, 2007). Initial activities of the QAA Council
were supported through a World Bank-funded project
on improving relevance and quality of higher educa-
tion (IRQUE) (Peiris, n. d.). In Brazil, the Ministry of
Education established the National Higher Education
Evaluation System (SINAES) by legal decree in 2004.
SINAES had three main pillars: (a) institutional evalu-
ation (both internal and external), (b) course evalu-
ation, and (c) student performance. Each of these
pillars is evaluated using different sub-parameters
and the evaluation system has already undergone an
improvement in terms of assessment parameters in
2016 (Pereira et al., 2018).
In Pakistan, the National Business Education
Accreditation Council (NBEAC) was set up in 2007
under the Higher Education Commission for accredi-
tation of HEIs (Batool & Qureshi, 2007; NBEAC, 2017).
A study by Nadeem et al. (2015) concluded that there
existed reasonable similarities between the NBEAC
and EQUIS accreditation principles. However, the
authors also mentioned that a programme was the unit
of evaluation (as compared to an institution in terms of
EQUIS) and that NBEAC accreditation was voluntary at
that time (Nadeem et al., 2015). In Bangladesh, the UGC
implemented a World Bank-Funded Higher Education
Quality Enhancement Project (HEQEP) between 2009
and 2018 that had four components as its focus (HEQEP,
2010): (a) promoting academic innovation, (b) building
institutional capacity, (c) enhancing the connectivity
capacity of the higher education sector, and (d) empha-
sizing project management (HEQEP, 2010; World Bank,
10 Facilitation and Regulation of Educational Institutions: The Role of Accreditation
2018). The National Education Policy (NEP), 2010 listed
the creation of an Accreditation Council for assessment
and certification of academic institutions (Ministry
of Education, 2010) as an objective. Though Kabir et
al. (2008) have reported the formation of the Board
of Accreditation for Engineering and Technological
Education by the Institution of Engineers Bangladesh
(IEB) for accrediting engineering courses in their study,
the Accreditation Council Act was passed only in 2017
and its first chairman was appointed only in August
2018 (Solamain, 2018).
Such developments serve to highlight that accredita-
tion of HEIs is gradually gaining importance even in
the developing world, though the progress in some
countries might be relatively slow. Nevertheless,
country-based accreditation of HEIs is expected to
move towards attaining internationally accepted stand-
ards in the coming decade.
ACCREDITATION: DEFINITION, PRINCIPLES
AND PROCESS
Irrespective of the route by which accreditation has
come into being, the principle involved is the same,
namely: self-regulation and continuous improvement
based on periodic reviews under the guidance of a recog-
nised accrediting agency. Accreditation is a voluntary
process; hence its definitions are also quite elaborate
with descriptions of the process and benefits. The
simplest and yet comprehensive definition is that of the
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA),
an association of 3,000 degree-granting colleges and
universities established in 1996 that recognized 60
accrediting organizations (Eaton, 2011), which states,
‘Accreditation in higher education is a collegial process
of self-review and peer-review for improvement of
academic quality and public accountability of institu-
tions and programs’ (CHEA, 2000). The principles to be
followed in an accreditation process are enshrined in
the many definitions of it, which could be elucidated as
follows (as adapted from the University of Wisconsin
System, 2015):
1. Focus on the programme outcomes, even when
evaluating the academic processes.
2. Develop and propose flexible standards to
encourage innovations.
3. Propose diagnostic, not prescriptive,
recommendations.
4. Recognize and respect institutional diversity.
5. Avoid isolated evaluation even for specialized
programmes; link and benchmark with other
programmes wherever possible.
6. Minimize the burden of accreditation (in terms
of the size of the visiting team, duration of visit,
amount of data required, etc.).
7. Consult the concerned institution on the composi-
tion of the visiting team.
8. Give greater weight to academic than professional
concerns, even when evaluating professional
institutions.
9. Clarify the educational goals and develop align-
ment of other systems with these goals.
10. Address, on a priority basis, the concerns emerging
from the current context and issues faced by the
institution (rather than focus on a standardized set
of concerns).
The procedure followed for accreditation is also indic-
ative of the principles enumerated above, especially
those of integrating ‘self-review’ and ‘peer-review’,
thereby addressing the concerns of the institution as
well as the external stakeholders. A brief outline of the
seven-step procedure of accreditation is given below
(as compiled and integrated from the procedures being
followed by various accrediting agencies):
1. Expression of interest: Since accreditation is a volun-
tary exercise, the institution wishing to get accred-
ited should contact the accrediting agency of its
choice and express their interest in initiating the
process.
2. Preparation of the self-report: Once the ‘application’
from the institution is received, the accrediting
agency would supply the standards according to
which the applicant has to prepare a self-review
report. On request from the applicant, the accred-
iting agency may also assign a ‘mentor’ to work with
the applicant institution. The self-report prepared
by the institution would typically highlight its
accomplishments within the standards and frame-
work prescribed by the accreditor.
3. Constituting the peer-review team: The accreditor will
constitute the peer-review team with academic
and administrative experts drawn from sister insti-
VIKALPA ∑ VOLUME 45 ∑ ISSUE 1 ∑ JANUARY-MARCH 2020
tutions. In some countries, there is a practice of
including enlightened members of the public and/
or corporate executives in the peer-review team.
4. Peer-visit and review: The peer-review team visits the
institution and conducts detailed interviews with all
stakeholders and examines the physical premises,
equipment, and facilities as well as documents and
records to assess the veracity of the claims made in
the self-report.
5. Judgement and recommendation: Based on the discus-
sions and examinations with the stakeholders, the
peer-team prepares a written report wherein they
identify the areas for improvement and make their
recommendation on the award of accreditation,
which may be for five years, three years (also called
‘conditional accreditation’), or for no accreditation.
6. Award of accreditation: The accrediting agency
considers the peer-team report, makes its decision
on the type of accreditation or no accreditation and
conveys it to the applicant institution along with
recommendations for improvement.
7. Continuous improvement: Since the accreditation is
for a specified period (normally five, three, or zero),
there is a need for re-accreditation at the end of that
period if the institution wants to stay accredited.
They have to go through the same process of self-re-
view and peer-review in the subsequent accredita-
tion cycles as well. This is the built-in incentive for
the institution to do self-review and improvements
continuously. The areas of improvements identified
by the peer-review team are particularly useful for
the institution in this regard.
In short, the three crucial phases in the process of
accreditation include:
· Establishing the standards and criteria.
· Inspection by the expert team from the accreditation
agency.
· Publication of the decision to award accreditation or
not (Allyn, 1966).
ACCREDITATION: CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
While there is a consensus that the evaluation should
be outcome focused, the criteria are mostly about the
inputs by the institutions. It is the responsibility of the
peer-review team to examine the connections and guide
11
the schools to modify the inputs accordingly to meet SAQS criteria assesses the operational context of the
the standards required for accreditation. Though there institution in accordance with its stated mission. This
are some variations in the extent of details provided is indeed an important issue especially when every
by the different accrediting agencies, the major dimen- region of the world is facing accelerated changes in the
sions are by and large similar. The variations are mostly technological, economic, and geopolitical scenarios,
because of the differences in the relative importance and therefore would like to see its educational institu-
given to various outcomes. For example, the ACBSP tions making continuous adaptation to such changes
was established in 1988 with accreditation standards, for which they should also receive support from accred-
which, though similar to those of AACSB, were more iting agencies. The specialized focus of an accred-
teaching oriented (Hunt, 2015). AACSB gives more iting agency can have a far-reaching influence on the
importance to research and publications compared to detailed criteria chosen under the major ones, which
ACBSP, which focuses primarily on teaching. can be illustrated by the ‘impact metrics’ prescribed by
AACSB (2013) under eight major headings, namely:
To highlight the similarities in the major themes and the
differences in the details, we have reproduced the signif- 1. Mission alignment impact
icant criteria being adopted by three different accred-
2. Academic impact
itation agencies below, namely: ACICS (USA), NBA
(India), and SAQS (South Asia). Accrediting Council 3. Teaching/instructional impact
for Independent Colleges & Schools (ACICS) is the first 4. Bachelor’s/master’s level education impact
(founded in 1912) and the largest accrediting organization
of degree-granting institutions in the USA, accrediting 5. Doctoral education impact
professional, technical and occupational programmes, 6. Practice/community impact
and is one of the two US accreditors recognized by both
the US Department of Education and the CHEA. The 7. Executive education impact, and
other two (NBA and SAQS) also have the distinction 8. Research centre impact (see the Annexure for
of being the first in their own country/region, but one details).
of them (NBA) is initiated by the government whereas
the other (SAQS) is initiated and operated, as in the case
Table 2: Accreditation Criteria—ACICS
of the US agencies, by an association of institutions,
namely, the Association of Management Development Sl. No. Criterion
Institutions in South Asia (AMDISA).
1. Mission: purpose and objectives
2. Institutional effectiveness
ACICS being the pioneer in accreditation, focusing on a
variety of degree-awarding institutions with technical, 3. Organization
professional and occupational programmes specifies 4. Administration
not only a larger number of dimensions than the other 5. Relations with students
two but is also more elaborate in listing out the details 6. Admissions and recruitment
under each of these criteria (which are too many to 7. Standards of satisfactory progress
reproduce here). The other two (NBA and SAQS) are
8. Tuition and fees
rather narrowly focused on management education,
9. Student services
which may be the reason for having a fewer number
of criteria than ACICS. To understand the special focus 10. Educational activities
of a particular accrediting agency, ideally one should 11. Programme administration, planning, development,
examine the elaborations provided under the major and evaluation
dimensions. Viewed from this perspective, the ACICS 12. Credentials conferred
criteria are quite comprehensive and can serve as a 13. Instruction
model for accrediting institutions having programmes 14. Faculty
in a variety of disciplines (see Table 2): 15. Educational facilities
16. Publications
The lists of criteria from NBA and SAQS are about the
accreditation of management programmes (see Tables 17. Library resources and services
3 and 4). It may especially be noted that the first of the Source: ACICS (2015)

12 Facilitation and Regulation of Educational Institutions: The Role of Accreditation

For this illustration, we have chosen AACSB because (Table 3 continued)
it has been known to have a special focus on research.
Sl. No. Criterion
Prior to the mid-1990s, schools underwent a rigorous
10. Association with journals: editorship and reviewers
process to obtain AACSB accreditation, which often
involved the hiring of faculty with doctorates and a 11. Research-based projects with NPOs
research focus. This changed with the adoption of the 12. Career success of already graduated students
mission focus in 1994 (Hunt, 2015). Consistent with this 13. Facilities and technical support
special emphasis, it may be noted that out of the eight 14. Academic support units
dimensions, three are exclusively on research: 15. Teaching-learning process
16. Governance, Institutional support and financial resources
1. Academic impact: for which all the sub-items are
17. Continuous improvement in the attainment of outcomes
about research and publication, with ‘teaching’
separately dealt with in another section. 18. Consultancy projects
19. Board memberships in corporate organizations
2. Doctoral education impact: which is all about research 20. Representation on policymaking bodies
and its guidance and the ensuing publications, and
Source: NBA (2015)
3. Research centre impact: where there is an implicit
assumption that every institution should have a
research centre that is externally funded, recog- Table 4: Accreditation Criteria—SAQS
nized for its research output especially in terms
of publications, and networked with government Sl. No. Criterion
and other relevant agencies based on its expertise). 1. Context and mission
Additionally, all the other criteria are also rated 2. Students and participants
concerning their linkages with research activities, 3. Faculty
some more and others less. For example, all the 4. Physical resources
sub-items under ‘teaching/instructional impact’ are
5. Executive education
about issues related to ‘research’ such as grants for
pedagogical research, development of case studies 6. Personal development
and instructional software, publications on teaching 7. Programme quality
and its methods, and research-based learning 8. Research and development
projects with external agencies. Similarly, the items 9. Contribution to the community
under the criterion ‘practice/community impact’
Source: AMDISA (2015)
are mostly based on recognition and usefulness of
the research from the institution for the community
Rao and Hans (2011) compared the accreditation systems
of practitioners outside. It can be seen that research
permeates the other criteria as well. followed by NBA and SAQS. NBA is a national body
that accredits programmes. SAQS, which is derived
from EQUIS and is a regional accreditation system
Table 3: Accreditation Criteria—NBA, India (for South Asia) was found to place more emphasis on
Sl. No. Criterion corporate connections and internationalization. Some
1. Institutional vision and mission of the key parameters on which they found differences
2. Programme educational objectives between the two systems are as follows:
3. Programme outcome
1. Vision, mission and goals: NBA while assessing the
4. Programmed curriculum
‘organization and mission’ aspect, placed greater
5. Students’ performance
emphasis on the physical, structural and govern-
6. Faculty contributions: publications and citations
ance issues, whereas SAQS was more focused on
7. Research awards and grants the appropriateness of the mission in the context in
8. Fellowships and patents which the institution is operating and the extent to
9. Association with international schools which the mission is achieved.
(Table 3 continued)

VIKALPA ∑ VOLUME 45 ∑ ISSUE 1 ∑ JANUARY-MARCH 2020 13

2. Guidance and mentoring support: Guidance provided
by NBA is restricted to the written guidelines avail-
able on the site, according to which the institution
would prepare the self-assessment report (SAR).
SAQS, on the other hand, would provide a mentor
to the institution on request, with whose assis-
tance the institution can work on their deficiencies
while preparing the SAR and thereby improve their
performance during the process of accreditation
itself.
3. Financial resources and infrastructure: SAQS was
found to focus on the availability of dedicated facil-
ities such as the library and research databases to
further higher education and on considering the
financial performance of the institution over the
previous five years. In contrast, the NBA accredita-
tion process tended to focus more on the utilization
of the facilities with special focus on the self-suffi-
ciency of their campuses, adequacy of floor area for
academic activities, and monitoring of its premises
to maintain levels of hygiene.
4. Industry and corporate connections: It was found that
the criterion of corporate connections was given a
high degree of weight by SAQS and that the impact
of corporate connections had to be reflected on
the other parameters. In other words, the involve-
ment of the corporate executives in the institutional
processes would help the institution score well on
this criterion. For institutions not located in tier 1
cities (which are many in the south Asian region),
it was difficult to maintain good corporate connec-
tions, and hence they perceived this criterion to be
discriminatory.
5. Community contribution: The contribution of an insti-
tution to the community is assessed at the local,
national and international levels in SAQS. This is
done by checking the contribution of the institu-
tion to the improvement of management education,
contributions to the business community, the associ-
ation of the institute/faculty with professional
bodies, and provision of consultancy services. This
is a more broad-based assessment of the B-School’s
contribution to the business community and the
management profession, whereas, in the NBA
accreditation process, the assessment in this regard
focused mainly on some standard projects under-
taken by the institution for social welfare.
14 Facilitation and Regulation of Educational Institutions: The Role of Accreditation
ACCREDITATION: IMPACT ON INSTITUTIONAL
LEARNING AND GROWTH
Learning from the Accreditation Experience
Zocco (2011) has documented new developments in the
methodology of accreditation by the AACSB, in revising
the scope and weightage of the Assurance of Learning
(AoL) standards, which were first adopted in 1991.
The assessment heads and weights of the AACSB were
altered in 2003. Of the three heads (namely, Strategic
Management Standards, Participants Standards, and
Assurance of Learning Standards), the weightage for
the third one (AoL Standard) was raised to one-third of
the total. The revised 2003 AoL parameter was based on
the outcomes or ‘achievement of learning’ rather than
on the ‘intention to provide’ learning. These standards
were believed to have evolved over a period of time and
were periodically revised based on the emerging needs
of the particular period (Miles et al., 2004). AACSB
does not directly outline a specific process for AoL to
be adopted by institutions, but specifies the following
few tasks involved in the AoL process (AACSB, 2007):
1. Definition of student learning goals and objectives.
2. Curriculum alignment with the specified goals.
3. Identification of instruments to assess learning.
4. Collection, analysis, and dissemination of assess-
ment information.
5. Utilizing the assessment information for continuous
improvement of the programme curriculum.
Zocco’s (2011) study has offered an example of how
implementing the new AoL guidelines of the AACSB
would be beneficial for institutions of higher education.
Adopting a recursive scheme of curriculum assess-
ment and improvement that allowed for the integra-
tion of short-term time-frame-based improvements
in curricula to align with long-term time-frame-based
accreditation, assessment, and re-accreditation was the
primary benefit achieved by using this approach.
Lessons in the Indian Context
In its first decade since inception, NAAC had assessed
around 1,000 institutions using a process that included
both self-assessment and peer-review stages. NAAC
encountered the following challenges while adopting
international standards of accreditation in the Indian
context (Stella, 2004):
1. Participation: NAAC exercised its role as a planner
(in terms of the framework), developer (prepa-
ration of instruments and conduct of training
programmes), and overseer (steering the assess-
ment process) rather than being fully involved in
the assessment.
2. Voluntary assessment: Financial and sociological
constraints affected education in India and assess-
ment alone could not address all factors. Hence, it
was a voluntary rather than a mandatory process.
3. Improvement focus: The focus was more on the
improvement of institutions rather than on the
assessment. With only 6 per cent of the 17–22 age
group enrolled in higher education, an over-em-
phasis on accountability was avoided.
4. Funding decisions: Linking funding and assess-
ment is always a tenuous issue. Though there were
requirements for signals to check the funding based
on the assessment outcome, the focus was restricted
to specialized schemes and portions of develop-
mental grants.
5. Institutional versus departmental accreditation: With
an estimated number of 14,000 HEIs in India, it was
thought that retaining the initial focus on institu-
tional accreditation was better when compared to
departmental accreditation.
6. Reporting strategy: NAAC followed a public
reporting strategy to ensure all relevant stake-
holders were kept informed and their confidence
was retained.
7. Two-point versus multi-point accreditation: A staged
nine-point grading system was adopted based on the
score as neither a two-point (accredited/unaccred-
ited) system nor a multi-point (100-point) reporting
scale would help in the accurate assessment consid-
ering the increased variation and given the number
of institutions and government involvement.
8. Duration of accreditation: A fixed duration of accred-
itation meant that an assessment cycle could be
initiated again. A varying duration of accreditation
implied increased attraction of funds and staff for
highly-rated institutions for that particular duration
Upon completion of its initial set of 125 institutional
assessments, the NAAC approached the first 100
accredited institutions for feedback on its processes.
Key concerns noticed during the accreditation
process were: (a) lower-ranked institutions copying
VIKALPA ∑ VOLUME 45 ∑ ISSUE 1 ∑ JANUARY-MARCH 2020
the higher-ranked ones, (b) adoption of methods
such as coaching respondents who were interviewed
and consulting experts to prepare documents. This
showed a ‘semblance of quality’ rather than actual
quality improvement, leading to a more standard-
ized nine-level grading pattern and the mandate to
establish an internal quality assurance cell for re-ac-
creditation (Stella, 2004). An impact study conducted
by NAAC yielded significant improvements in the
functioning of institutions in three areas: administra-
tive, managerial and pedagogical. Institutions intro-
duced changes beyond the mandate of their affiliating
systems, including support for R&D by faculty, reduc-
tion of faculty workload, and better student support
and learning resources (Stella, 2015). Another study by
Pillai and Srinivas (2006) in the context of institutions in
India’s north-east (100 institution heads interviewed)
revealed that NAAC had a positive image among the
academic community. There was an overall positive
impression about the constitution of and interactions
with the peer-review team, performance of evalua-
tors, and institutional interface with NAAC. However,
there were concerns regarding inter-team variance and
geographical advantages enjoyed by urban colleges
(Pillai & Srinivas, 2006).
Benefits to Institutions
Accreditation by a professionally managed and recog-
nized agency can bring about several benefits to
different stakeholders in the education system. The
benefits accruing to the stakeholders are mostly due
to interaction with the institution so that each of these
interactions would add further benefits to the institution
as well. However, the principal beneficiary of accredi-
tation is an accredited institution. These are in addition
to the benefits brought indirectly by the accreditation
process itself, which are many, as may be seen from the
list below (Alajoutsijärvi et al., 2015; Altbach & Knight,
2007; CHEA, 2010; Cooper et al., 2014; Gordon, 2014;
Morgan, 2011; Reddy, 2008; Sarmiento-Espinel et al.,
2015):
1. Enables self-review and introspection and thereby
provides an opportunity to recognize one’s
strengths and weaknesses against internationally
accepted quality standards and to build confidence,
which would provide a benchmark for continuous
improvements and future growth.
2. Creates a culture of communication, consultation,
and collegiality among the different sections and
15
 departments of the institution as a result of the
discussions and documentation done in connection
with the accreditation process.
3. Helps in identifying the institutional priorities and
in developing appropriate strategies for executing
them along with getting guidance for planning and
resource allocation (both human and financial) for
the same.
4. Elevates the reputation and market acceptance of
the institution and creates a competitive advantage
for it, especially when it continues to stay accred-
ited by acting upon the accreditor’s recommenda-
tions and aligning itself with the best practices in
the field to continuously improve its performance.
5. Positively influences customer satisfaction because
of improved documentation and streamlining of
systems as well as consistency in policies and trans-
parency in communication, which would inculcate
a public accountability feeling within and outside
the institution.
6. May reduce legal costs since the clarity in systems,
procedures, and communication as well as the strict
adherence to quality standards are likely to reduce
disputes and disagreements.
7. Sustains initiatives for continuous improvements,
especially in terms of innovations in contents and
methods of teaching, on account of the need for
re-accreditation induced by the limited period
system of accreditation.
8. Strengthens the acceptability of one’s graduates
to employers and other institutions, which in turn
would improve the number and quality of fresh
intake.
9. Reduces multiple audits and facilitates collabo-
ration with other institutions and organizations,
especially when accredited by a highly credible and
reputed as well as the formally recognized agency,
in line with the ‘principle’, ‘certified once is accepted
everywhere.’
10. Enhances the national and international visibility
and credibility of the institutions, which in turn
would bring in greater funding support and
national and international partnership opportuni-
ties in research and education.
11. Develops an orientation towards ethics, social
responsibility, and sustainability in the institution.
16 Facilitation and Regulation of Educational Institutions: The Role of Accreditation
12. Improves the quality of education and the student
performance, which otherwise was lost due to liber-
alization of the procedures required to start an
educational institution.
The periodical reviews (every three to five years) of
accreditation have been made mandatory to ensure
that institutions remain vigilant and watchful of their
activities. The review begins with a self-examination
that matches the accomplishments with the require-
ments of the accreditation. Peer-review of the activities
helps substantiate the self-examination by the institu-
tions themselves. Accreditation is renewed based on
the self-examination report and the peer-review report
(Da Costa Marques, 2010). An institution practising
continuous improvement would easily qualify for the
renewal of its accreditation.
Benefits to Stakeholders
Although the principal beneficiary of accreditation is
the accredited institution, it would also bring several
benefits to other stakeholders. Most of the accred-
iting agencies (including the Indian agencies, the NBA
and NAAC) provide a list of stakeholders who would
benefit from accreditation (particularly in a developing
country context), which includes (Kawalekar, 2015):
1. Institutions: the status of an institution is enhanced
when its programmes are certified of a certain
quality. This would also enable easy movement of
students between institutions, collaborative initia-
tives, and attraction of grants from reputed agencies.
In the wake of globalization, India too needed to
create a platform that enabled the integration of
its degrees with the rest of the world (Kaul, 2006).
Accreditation could act as an enabler. One such
example in India is the National Skills Qualification
Framework (NSQF), which is a 10-level frame-
work of skills certification that includes courses of
the National Institute of Electronics & Information
Technology (NIELIT) (MSDE, 2018; NIELIT, 2019.
2. Students (present, past and prospective): present
students would have the confidence that they are
getting quality education; past students (alumni)
can take pride in their alma mater and derive the
tangible and intangible benefits from it in their
professions as well as higher studies; prospective
students would find it easier to choose between
different institutions based on their accreditation
status.
3. Employers: who would save on their recruitment
efforts and costs by conducting campus recruit-
ments from accredited institutions.
4. Parents: who would find it easier to guide their
wards towards the right kind of institutions.
5. Service-providers: who can tailor-make their services
to the required level of quality.
6. Licensing agencies: which have the responsibility to
ensure the safety and quality of services provided
by their certified professionals can become more
confident about their decisions if the graduates
are from accredited institutions. However, these
agencies should guard against promoting the wrong
institutions, which could misguide the students and
over a period of time lead to loss of the credibility
of the process and the agency. The agency will pay
the price for this mistake by losing its credibility on
the one hand and causing irrevocable damage to
society on the other.
7. Funding agencies: which will be assured that their
money would be used for supporting worthy
projects and programmes. In India, there is pressure
to accredit institutions from funding agencies that
could support them (Gandhi, 2013). Agarwal (2006)
has, however, pointed out that very few institutions
actually receive financial support from the UGC
and institutions such as private un-aided univer-
sities and colleges may not even be eligible for the
same. Ironically, some colleges also require (and
may fall short of) funds to prepare themselves for
NAAC accreditation (Verma, 2019). This presents
a dichotomous challenge—the need for funds for
accreditation and the requirement of accreditation
for funding (The Sentinel, 2018)—especially in the
wake of the government’s decision to set up the
Higher Education Commission of India to replace
the UGC (Vishnoi, 2018).
8. Governments: which would benefit in various capac-
ities, such as regulator, policymaker, funder as well
as the employer. Accreditation of an institution by
a recognized international agency would mean
that regulators and policymakers would have a
good idea of the current accreditation standards;
employers and funders would also be more assured
while making their decisions.
9. Society at large and the country: which would benefit
from the overall development of manpower quality
and the improvements in the research and teaching
activities.
VIKALPA ∑ VOLUME 45 ∑ ISSUE 1 ∑ JANUARY-MARCH 2020
CONCLUSION: ACCREDITATION—CREDITS,
DISCREDITS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Accreditation is the academia’s equivalent of a bench-
marking exercise being carried out in the industry,
with the difference that for the former (accreditation)
the exercise is conducted in a much more organized
manner. Such an organized system did not come about
in one day nor was it externally imposed, even though
it might appear to be so from the individual institu-
tion’s perspective. Admittedly, the peer-review team
is from outside the institution; however, the accred-
iting agencies in most cases are associations created
by several such institutions, often including the one
being accredited. Besides, the accreditation process
will be initiated only when the concerned institution
requests the same. In short, the system is designed
to preserve the sanctity of voluntariness as a funda-
mental principle behind the process. It is, therefore, a
process initiated by the institution for reviewing and
improving oneself against the ‘industry’ standards,
where the accrediting agency is an invited facilitator
and consultant. A self-initiated process usually is indic-
ative of a desire to improve, which when aided by the
peer-assisted benchmarking with the best practices in
the industry is expected to bring about innovations and
improvements.
While the merits of accreditation are generally accepted
and acclaimed, the system is not without its critics
(even among the US lawmakers). Some issues raised by
the critics are listed below:
1. The peer-review system can deteriorate into a
‘mutual back-scratching club’, where the accredi-
tors and the accredited would reverse their roles as
per the requirements of the peer-review process and
hence may tend to favour one another.
2. Since the reviewee has to make a payment to the
reviewer, the latter may feel obliged to give a
favourable report often ignoring the adverse data
being generated, which defeats the purpose of
accreditation.
3. Accreditors tend to adopt an input-oriented approach
despite the newly announced outcome-focussed
approach because it is much easier to check and
assess the inputs compared to outcomes. According
to critics, this has led to the decline in the outcomes
such as the graduation rates, academic standards,
student achievements as well as an increase in
unemployment and student loan defaults, as per
17
 the US statistics. Even if the system is changed to
focus primarily on student outcomes, it is not easy
to measure them. Since the student outcomes would
vary with the quality of the students, it might once
again translate into a measure of the quality of
student input (May et al., 2012; Wilson, 2007).
4. There could also be a need to change the accredi-
tation system based on the changes taking place
in the education system. For example, in many
programmes, the focus is now shifting away
from knowledge-acquisition to skill development
(Garfolo & L’Huillier, 2016). Similarly, distance
learning, especially through online technolo-
gies, are becoming increasingly popular (Eaton,
2001; Gordon, 2013). The emergence of shared and
blended learning options has completely changed
the paradigm in which participants access the
delivery of higher education. Massive Open Online
Courses (MOOCs) offered by universities online are
counted for exemption against their regular courses
when a student chooses to enrol for a programme of
study. Accreditation providers also need to ensure
that quality is maintained and not compromised
while assessing such learning options (Friga et al.,
2003). The diversity thus created in programmes (in
terms of their content, delivery, duration/timeslots,
place, type of interaction, etc.) should find the
rightful place in the accreditation scheme as well.
5. Since the accreditors are guided by a set of stand-
ards based on the ‘traditional’ system of educa-
tion, the process of accreditation may increase the
bureaucratic burden on the institutions and curb
their academic freedom by increasing the pressures
for conformity and restricting any innovation
in their academic activities (Harvey, 2004; Kaul,
2006). The academic freedom of the institutions is
not the only issue at stake when conforming to the
norms of an accrediting agency. Since education is
an open system with multiple stakeholders, it has
to take care of the concerns of all its stakeholders.
Moreover, since the discipline boundaries may not
always represent the boundaries in real life, educa-
tion has to facilitate interdisciplinary interaction
(Takala et al., 2001). Conformity to the norms of one
accreditation system may come in the way of inter-
action among disciplines and stakeholders as well
as prevent the effective integration of their concerns
into the education system.
6. From an evolutionary perspective, the accredita-
tion process can be stated to be foreign to institu-
18 Facilitation and Regulation of Educational Institutions: The Role of Accreditation
tions in developing countries. In the west, accredita-
tion is by peers (associations), but in the developing
countries, accreditation is pushed by the regulators.
So, the accreditation process becomes all the more
important in the context of developing countries
when compared to developed countries to ensure
all institutions ensure quality in education and its
delivery process. Institutions in these contexts find
the process cumbersome and face a lack of compe-
tencies to perform their tasks efficiently. All these
factors lead to less effectiveness of the accreditation
and increased bureaucracy and corruption. Given
the possibility of accreditation across borders and
that it could also carry commercial benefits, foreign
agency accreditations may end up being preferred
over national accreditations (Altbach & Knight,
2007).
7. If for any reason, the accreditors make and announce
a biased decision either favouring or disfavouring
the institution, it can have damaging effects on the
concerned institution and the education system at
large. Accrediting a non-deserving candidate would
lead to the deterioration in the quality of the insti-
tution and its graduates as well as the education
system. On the other hand, if a deserving candidate
is denied accreditation, its customer and support
base would progressively shrink with the result that
the institution might eventually collapse for want
of patronage. One suggestion that has come up in
this regard is to create commissions for academic
accreditation to supervise the process and ensure
that accreditation is diligently carried out and only
qualified institutions are accredited (Gordon,2013).
However, there is a danger that the system may
become regulatory and bureaucratic.
8. It is often feared that the accreditation process would
increase the workload of the faculty, who would be
asked to carry out a lot of documentation work.
They may also be apprehensive about the additional
efforts needed for implementing the recommen-
dations of the accreditors and for ensuring contin-
uous improvements after that. It may, therefore, be
difficult to get faculty cooperation for accreditation
work (Van Kemenade & Hardjono, 2009).
9. Finally, there is the cost factor. There are appre-
hensions as to whether the benefits of accredita-
tion are commensurate with the time, efforts and
costs incurred for the periodic documentation and
preparation of self-reports as well as the fees paid
to the accrediting agency. The cost issue is more
 pronounced when one considers that institutions
would like to secure accreditation from ‘multiple
significant accrediting bodies’ (Lock, 1999). This
trend has been particularly noticeable in the context
of management education in recent times, wherein
institutions view the ‘triple-accreditation’ by
AACSB, AMBA, and EQUIS to be a global bench-
mark for quality. The ‘price and value’ issue and
the need for developing funding norms based on
‘performance and results’ rather than the accredita-
tion status are among the several issues raised on
accreditation in the US Congress.
To understand and assess the impact of accreditation,
mere compliance to norms prescribed by an accred-
iting agency is insufficient. Outcomes of the educa-
tional programmes need to be considered rather than
the inputs and processes. Norcini and Banda (2011),
in their study of accreditation in medical education,
have mentioned key issues that accreditation processes
need to address to be effective in the 21st century. A
major challenge faced by educational institutions lies
in shifting their focus from the inputs and processes to
outcomes, as outlined below:
1. Increasing the application of educational research in
educational practice: Institutions must move on from
the old approaches to education based on tradition
and fashion towards approaches based on educa-
tional research. This would be difficult for institu-
tions in the current scenario of norms for the practice
of education being recommended (often prescribed)
by accrediting agencies.
2. Focusing on both quality and efficiency: In the interest
of achieving the recommended quality, institu-
tions could raise the cost of education, making it
inaccessible to poor but bright students. Balancing
of quality (as suggested by accrediting agencies)
and efficiency must be a priority for educational
institutions.
3. Developing a consensus on measuring and evaluating
outcomes: Although there is a need for outcome-ori-
entation, accrediting agencies continue to prescribe
norms for inputs and processes, such as faculty
qualifications, resource requirements, curriculum
contents, and delivery methods. There is still no
consensus on accrediting programmes and institu-
tions purely based on student outcomes or how to
measure them. Consequently, the tendency to ignore
the outcomes in favour of inputs and processes
continues.
VIKALPA ∑ VOLUME 45 ∑ ISSUE 1 ∑ JANUARY-MARCH 2020
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship and/or publi-
cation of this article.
FUNDING
The authors received no financial support for the
research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
ANNEXURE
Impact metrics for Accreditation recommended by AACSB
(2013).
Mission Alignment Impact
· Alignment of intellectual contribution outcomes with
themes or focus areas valued by the business school’s
mission (e.g., global development, entrepreneurship,
innovation)
· Percentage of intellectual contribution outcomes that
align with one or more  ”mission-related” focus areas for
research
· Percentage of faculty with one or more intellectual contri-
bution outcomes that align with one or more mission-re-
lated focus areas
· Research awards and recognition that document align-
ment with one or more     ”mission-related” focus areas
for research
· Substantive impact and carry-forward of mission as
stated in Standard 1 and as referenced throughout the
remaining accreditation standards
· Linkage between mission as stated in Standard 1 and
financial history and strategies as stated in Standard 3
Academic Impact
· Publications in highly recognised, leading peer-review
journals (journals in a designated journal list, Top 3, Top
10, etc.)
· Citation counts
· Download counts for electronic journals
· Editorships, associate editorships, editorial board
memberships, and/or invitations to act as journal
reviewers for recognised, leading peer-review journals
· Elections or appointments to leadership positions in
academic and/or professional associations and societies
· Recognitions for research (e.g., Best Paper Award),
Fellow Status in an academic society, and other recogni-
tion by professional and/or academic societies for intel-
lectual contribution outcomes
19
· Invitations to participate in research conferences, schol-
arly programmes, and/or international, national, or
regional research forums
· Inclusion of academic work in the syllabi of other profes-
sors’ courses
· Use of academic work in doctoral seminars
· Competitive grants awarded by major national and
international agencies (e.g., NSF and NIH) or third-party
funding for research projects
· Patents awarded
· Appointments as visiting professors or scholars in other
schools or a set of schools
Teaching/Instructional Impact
· Grants for research that influence teaching/pedagogical
practices, materials, etc.
· Case-studies of research leading to the adoption of new
teaching/learning practices
· Textbooks, teaching manuals, etc. that are widely
adopted (by number of editions, number of downloads,
number of views, use in teaching, sales volume, etc.)
· Publications that focus on research methods and teaching
· Research-based learning projects with companies, insti-
tutions, and/or non-profit organisations
· Instructional software (by number of programmes devel-
oped, number of users, etc.)
· Case study development (by number of studies devel-
oped, number of users, etc.)
Bachelor’s/Master’s Level Education Impact
· Mentorship of student research reflected in the number
of student papers produced under faculty supervi-
sion that lead to publications or formal presentations at
academic or professional conferences
· Documented improvements in learning outcomes
that result from teaching innovations that incorporate
research methods from learning/pedagogical research
projects
· Hiring/placement of students
· Placement of students in research-based graduate
programmes
· Career success of graduates beyond the initial placement
· Direct input from organisations that hire graduates
regarding graduates’ preparedness for jobs and the roles
they play in advancing the organisation
· Movement of graduates into positions of leadership
in for-profit, non-profit, and professional and service
organisations
Doctoral Education Impact
· Hiring/placement of doctoral students, junior faculty,
and post-doctoral research assistants
20 Facilitation and Regulation of Educational Institutions: The Role of Accreditation
· Publications of doctoral students and graduates
· Invited conference attendance, as well as awards/
nominations for doctoral students/graduates
· Research fellowships awarded to doctoral students/
graduates
· Funding awards for students engaged in activities
related to doctoral research
· Case-studies that document the results of doctoral
research training activities, such as the transfer of knowl-
edge to industry and impact on corporate or community
practices
· Research outputs of junior faculty members (including
post-doctoral junior professors, assistant professors,
doctoral research assistants, and doctoral students) that
have been influenced by their mentors/supervisors
Practice/Community Impact
· Media citations (e.g., number, distribution, and effect)
· Requests from the practice community to utilise faculty
expertise for consulting projects, broadcast forums,
researcher-practitioner meetings, faculty/student
consulting projects, etc.
· Publications in practitioner journals or other venues
aimed directly at improving management expertise and
practice
· Consulting reports
· Research income from various external sources such as
industry and community/governmental agencies to
support individual and collaborative research activities
· Case-studies based on research that has led to solutions
to business problems
· Adoption of new practices or operational approaches as
a result of faculty scholarship
· Presentations and workshops for business and manage-
ment professionals
· Invitations for faculty to serve as experts on policy
formulation, witnesses at legislative hearings, members
of special interest groups/roundtables, etc.
· Tools/methods developed for companies
· Memberships on boards of directors of corporate and
non-profit organisations
Executive Education Impact
· Sustained and consistent involvement of research-active
faculty in executive education programmes
· Sustained success of executive education programmes
based on demand, level of participation, and repeat
business
· Market research confirming value of executive education
programmes delivered by research-active faculty
· Consulting activities of research-active faculty that stem
from participation in executive education activities
· Inclusion of cases and other materials in degree
programmes that can be identified as resulting from
executive education activity
· Partnerships between the school and organisations that
participate in executive education programmes, which
benefit the school’s teaching, research, and other activ-
ities and programmes
· Involvement of executive education participants and
their organisations in the teaching mission of the school
(e.g., executive-in-residence programme)
· Linkage between organisations participating in execu-
tive education and student internships, as well as place-
ment of graduates in entry-level positions
Research Centre Impact
· Invitations by governmental or other agencies/organ-
isations for centre representatives to serve on policy-
making bodies
· Centre research projects funded by external govern-
mental, business, or non-profit agencies
· Continued funding (e.g., number of donors, scale of
donations)
· Number of web visits to research centre website (e.g.,
tracking data from Google Analytics)
· Number of attendees (representing academics, practi-
tioners, policymakers, etc.) at centre-sponsored events
· Sustained research centre publications that are funded by
external sources or that are highly recognised as authori-
tative sources of analysis and perspectives related to the
centre’s core focus
REFERENCES
AACSB. (2007). AACSB assurance of learning standards: An
interpretation. Retrieved 12 November 2015, from http://
www.aacsb.edu/~/media/AACSB/Publications/
white-papers/wp-assurance-of-learning-standards.ashx
AACSB. (2013). Eligibility procedures and accreditation stand-
ards for business accreditation. Retrieved 07 October 2015,
from http://www.aacsb.edu/~/media/AACSB/Docs/
Accreditation/Standards/2013-bus-standards-update.
ashx
American Council on Education (ACE). (2020). Our history.
https://www.acenet.edu/About/Pages/history.aspx
Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools
(ACICS). (n. d.). History of accreditation. Retrieved 15
September 2019, from http://www.acics.org/accredita-
tion/content.aspx?id=2258
ACICS. (2015). Accreditation Criteria. Retrieved 12 November
2015, from http://www.acics.org/
Abbhilash, M. (2016, 4 November). 5 things to know about the
Washington Accord and how it benefits India’s engineering
graduates. Higher Education. Retrieved 15 September 2019,
VIKALPA ∑ VOLUME 45 ∑ ISSUE 1 ∑ JANUARY-MARCH 2020
from https://www.myklassroom.com/blog/5-things-
to-know-about-washington-accord- and-how-it-bene-
fits-indias-education-sector/
Agarwal, P. (2006). Higher education in India: The need for
change (Working Paper No. 180). New Delhi, India:
Indian Council for Research on International Economic
Relations (ICRIER).
Alajoutsijärvi, K., Kettunen, K., & Sohlo, S. (2015, January).
Shaking the status quo: Business accreditation and
positional competition. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 2015(1), 17673.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization
of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 11, 290–305.
Allyn, R. G. (1966). Accreditation of accounting curriculums.
The Accounting Review. 41(2), 303–311.
AMDISA. (2015). SAQS accreditation system. Retrieved 12
November 2015, from http://www.amdisa.org/saqs_
intro.pdf
AMDISA. (2018). SAQS in perspective. Retrieved 13 February
2020, from http://www.amdisa.org/saqs/in-perspective
AMDISA. (2020). B-Schools granted SAQS accreditation.
Retrieved 13 February 2020, from http://www. amdisa.
org/b-schools_granted_saqs_accreditation.pdf
Batool, Z., & Qureshi, R.H. (2007). Quality assurance manual
for higher education in Pakistan. Higher Education
Commission, Pakistan.
Brittingham, B. (2009). Accreditation in the United States:
How did we get to where we are? New Directions in
Higher Education, 145, 7–27.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). (2000).
CHEA at a glance. Retrieved 15 September 2019, from
https://www.chea.org/about
CHEA (2010). The value of accreditation. Washington, D. C.:
Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
Coomaraswamy, U. (2013). Open university of Sri Lanka. In I.
Jung, T. M. Wong & T. Belawati (Eds.), Quality assurance
in distance education and e-learning: Challenges and solutions
from Asia (pp. 241–257). SAGE Publications.
Cooper, S., Parkes, C., & Blewitt, J. (2014). Can accreditation
help a leopard change its spots? Social accountability and
stakeholder engagement in business schools. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(2), 234–258.
Coville, T. G. (2013, November). Building a distance learning
course for students and accreditation. In Proceedings of the
Northeast Business & Economics Association 40th Annual
Meeting (p. 259). Bretton Woods, NH: Northeast Business
& Economics Association.
Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Directors and University
Grants Commission (CVCD-UGC). (2002). Quality assur-
ance handbook for Sri Lankan universities. CVCD-UGC and
Open University Press.
21
Da Costa Marques, M. D. C. (2010). O novo sistema de
avaliação e acreditação do ensino superior: impacto,
repercussões e benefícios (The new higher education
assessment and accreditation system: Impact, effects and
benefits). Revista Universo Contábil, 6(1), 142–155.
Eaton, J. S. (2001). Distance learning: Academic and polit-
ical challenges for higher education accreditation (CHEA
Monograph Series No. 1). Council for Higher Education
Accreditation (CHEA).
Eaton, J. S. (2011). U. S. Accreditation: Meeting the challenges
of student accountability and student achievement.
Evaluation in Higher Education, 5(1), 1–20.
Friga, P. N., Bettis R. A., & Sullivan, R. S. (2003). Changes
in graduate management education and new business
school strategies for the 21st century. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 2(3), 233–249.
Gandhi, M. M. (2013). International initiatives in assess-
ment of quality and accreditation in higher educa-
tion. International Journal of Educational Planning &
Administration, 3(2), 121–138.
Garfolo, B. T., & L’Huillier, B. (2016). Competency based
education (CBE): Baby steps for the United States.
Academy of Business Research Journal, 1, 97–113.
Gordon, N. (2014). Flexible pedagogies: Technology-enhanced
learning. The Higher Education Academy.
Harvey, L. (2004). The power of accreditation: Views of
academics 1. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 26(2), 207–223.
Hedmo, T., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2007). The evolu-
tion of an European governance network of manage-
ment education. In M. Marcussen & J. Torfing (Eds.),
Democratic network governance in Europe (pp. 195–213).
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hedmo, T., Sahlin-Anderson, K., & Wedlin, L. (2001). The
emergence of a European regulatory field of management
education - Standardizing through accreditation, ranking and
guidelines. Stockholm Center for Organizational Research
(SCORE).
Hedmo, T., Sahlin-Andersson, K., & Wedlin, L. (2006). The
emergence of an European regulatory field of manage-
ment education. In M. L. Djelic & K. Sahlin Andersson
(Eds.), Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics
of regulation (pp. 308–328). Cambridge University Press
(CUP).
Higher Education Quality Enhancement Project (HEQEP).
(2010). Components. Retrieved 31 December 2018, from
http://www.heqep- ugc.gov.bd/index.php/home/
Component.
Hunt, S. C. (2015). Research on the value of AACSB business
accreditation in selected areas: A review and synthesis.
American Journal of Business Education, 8(1), 23–30.
IndiaStat.com. (2002). Number of institutions accredited by
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) in
22 Facilitation and Regulation of Educational Institutions: The Role of Accreditation
India (1997–98 to 2001–02). Retrieved 15 September 2019,
from https://www.indiastat.com/table/education-
data/6370/universities- colleges-institutions-for-high-
er-education-upto- 2005/450351/286498/data.aspx
IndiaStat.com. (2018). Number of institutions accred-
ited by National Assessment and Accreditation Council
(NAAC) in India (2015–16 to 2017–18). Retrieved 15
September 2019, https://www.indiastat.com/table/
education-data/6370/universities-colleges- institu-
tions-for-higher-education/369742/1185742/data.aspx
Kabir, K. B., Khan, M. S., & Mahmud, I. (2008). Novel ideas
on engineering education in Bangladesh. Chemical
Engineering Research Bulletin, 12(1), 11–19.
Kaul, S. (2006). Higher education in India: Seizing the oppor-
tunity (Working Paper No. 179). New Delhi, India:
Indian Council for Research on International Economic
Relations (ICRIER).
Kawalekar, J. S. (2015). NAAC assessment: A boon for higher
education. International Journal of Science and Research,
4(3), 475–477.
Khan, M. A. (Ed.). (2018). Successful business schools:
Learning from the success. In Business education and
ethics: Concepts, methodologies, tools and applications (pp.
1143–1159). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Lock, A. (1999). Accreditation in business education. Quality
Assurance in Education, 7(2), 68–76.
May, G. L., Thompson, M. A., & Hebblethwaite, J. (2012). A
process for assessing and improving business writing at
the MBA level. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(3),
252–270.
Miles, M. P., Hazeldine, M. F., & Munilla, L. S. (2004). The
2003 AACSB accreditation standards and implications
for business faculty: A short note. The Journal of Education
for Business, 80(1), 29–34.
Ministry of Education. (2010). National education policy
2010. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/
resources/02.National-Education-Policy-2010-English.pdf
Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD). (2016).
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC).
Retrieved 15 September 2019, from https://mhrd.gov.
in/university-and-higher-education–1
MHRD. (2018). All India survey on higher education 2017–18.
New Delhi, India: Author.
MHRD. (2019). National board of accreditation. Retrieved
15 September 2019, from https://mhrd.gov.in/
technical-education–11
Ministry of Skills Development and Entrepreneurship
(MSDE). (2018). National skills qualifications framework
(NSQF). Retrieved 15 September 2019, from https://
www.msde.gov.in/nsqf.html
Morgan, J. (2011). The impact of AACSB business school
accreditation on quality of accounting education as
 measured by CPA exam success rates. Business Education
Digest, 18, 1–10.
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC).
(2018). Assessment and accreditation. Retrieved 15
September 2019, from http://naac.gov.in/index.php/
assessment- accreditation#units
NAAC. (2019). Accreditation status. Retrieved 15
September 2019, from http://www.naac.gov.
in/19-quick-links/32-accreditation-status
Nadeem, M. S., Abbass, Q., & Javed, U. (2015). Accreditation
of business education in Pakistan: A step towards inter-
nationalization. Pakistan Business Review, 17(3), 700–724.
National Board of Accreditation (NBA). (2019). About us.
Retrieved 15 September 2019, from https://www.
nbaind.org/about
National Board of Accreditation (NBA). (2015). NBAs accredita-
tion parameters criteria and processes. Retrieved 12 November
2015 from http://www.nbaind.org/En/1051-nbas-
accreditation-parameters-criteria-and-processes.aspx
NBEAC. (2017). History. Retrieved 31 December 2018, from
http://www.nbeac.org.pk/index.php/about-nbeac2/
history–2.
National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology
(NIELIT) (2019). NSQF courses. Retrieved 15 September
2019, from http://beta.nielit.gov.in/content/nsqf
Norcini, J. J., & Banda, S. S. (2011). Increasing the quality and
capacity of education: The challenge for the 21st century.
Medical Education, 45, 81–86.
Peiris, C. N. (n.d.). Sri Lanka’s quality assurance system. The
World Bank Group. Retrieved 31 December 2018, from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/
Resources/srilanka_qaa- council.pdf
Peiris, C. N. (2007, January). Need for quality assurance and
accreditation in Sri Lankan universities [Paper presentation].
Seminar on Knowledge for Development: Assessing the
Capacity, Quality and Relevance of Universities in Asia,
Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Pereira, C. A., Araujo, J. F. F. E., & de Lourdes Machado-
Taylor, M. (2018, July). The Brazilian higher education
evaluation model: ‘SINAES’ sui generis? International
Journal of Educational Development, 61, 5–15.
Pillai, K. N. M., & Srinivas, G. (2006). A study of the post‐
accreditation scenario in the north eastern region of
India: a meta‐evaluation of the National Assessment and
Accreditation Council processes and procedures. Quality
in Higher Education, 12(1), 95–106.
Quality Assurance Council. (2018). About us. Retrieved 31
December 2018, from http://www.eugc.ac.lk/qaa/
index.php/milestonens-in-qa/.
Rao, P. S., & Hans, K. (2011). Comparative analysis of accred-
itation systems in management education in India (NBA
and SAQS). Aweshkar Research Journal, 12(2), 17–30.
VIKALPA ∑ VOLUME 45 ∑ ISSUE 1 ∑ JANUARY-MARCH 2020
Reddy, Y. M. (2008). Global accreditation systems in manage-
ment education: A critical analysis. South Asian Journal of
Management, 15(2), 61–80.
Sarmiento-Espinel, J. A., Silva Arias, A. C., & Van Gameren,
E. (2015). Quality differences of higher education and
its determinants in a less-developed country. Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(2), 204–221.
Schenker-Wiki, A. (2002). Accreditation and quality assur-
ance: The Swiss model. Higher Education Management and
Policy, 14(2), 27–38.
Solamain, M. S. (2018, 10 August). Govt appoints
first chair of accreditation council. Daily Sun.
Retrieved from https://www.daily- sun.com/
printversion/details/328432/2018/08/10/
Govt-appoints-first-chair-of- accreditation-council
Stella, A. (2004). External quality assurance in Indian higher
education: Developments of a decade. Quality in Higher
Education, 10(2), 115–127
Stella, A. (2015). Institutional accreditation in India.
International Higher Education, 27, 17–18.
Takala, M., Hawk, D., & Rammos, Y. (2001). On the opening
of society: Towards a more open and flexible educational
system. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18(4),
291–306.
The Sentinel. (2018, 13 December). No development grants to
colleges and universities without NAAC accreditation.
Retrieved 15 September 2019, from https://www.sentine-
lassam.com/news/no-development-grants-to-colleges-
universities- without-naac-accreditation/
University of Wisconsin System. (2015). Principles on accredi-
tation of academic programs. Retrieved 12 November 2015
from https://www.wisconsin.edu/regents/policies/
principles-on-accreditation-of-academic-programs/
U. S. Department of Defense. (2019). 75 years of the GI bill:
How transformative it’s been. Retrieved 13 February 2020,
from https://www.defense.gov/Explore/Features/
story/Article/1727086/75-years-of-the-gi-bill-how-
transformative-its-been/
Van Damme, D. (2001, September). Higher education in the
age of globalisation: The need for a new regulatory framework
for recognition, quality assurance and accreditation [Paper
presentation] UNESCO Expert Meeting, Paris, France.
Van Kemenade, E., & Hardjono, T. W. (2009). Professionals
freaking out: The case of accreditation in Dutch higher
education. The TQM Journal, 21(5), 473–485.
Verma, K. (2019, 9 July). NAAC rating: Faculty, funds crunch
worries PPU colleges. The Times of India. Retrieved 15
September 2019, from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.
com/city/patna/naac-rating-faculty-funds-crunch-
worries-ppu-colleges/articleshow/70132800.cms
Vishnoi, A. (2018, 24 July). Autonomous body to fund higher
education institutes. The Economic Times. Retrieved 15
23
 September 2019, from https://economictimes.india-
times.com/industry/services/education/autono-
mous- body-to-fund-higher-education-institutes/article-
show/65111877.cms?from = mdr
Wilson, D. A. (2007). Tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow:
The ‘silent’ pillar. Journal of Management Development,
26(1), 84–86.
World Bank. (2018). Bangladesh - higher education quality
enhancement project. The World Bank Group. Retrieved
31 December 2018, from http://projects.worldbank.
org/P106216/higher-education-quality-enhancement-
project?lang = en
Zocco, D. (2011). A recursive process model for AACSB
assurance of learning. Academy of Educational Leadership
Journal, 15(4), 67–91.
Mathew J Manimala (Fellow-IIMA) has served as
Director, XIME, Bangalore, and as Professor and
Chairperson of OBHRM Area at Indian Institute
of Management Bangalore (IIMB), where he also
held the Jamuna Raghavan Chair Professorship and
served as Chairperson of N. S. Raghavan Centre
for Entrepreneurial Learning (NSRCEL). His earlier
academic positions were at the Administrative Staff
College of India (ASCI) and Cochin University of
Science and Technology (CUSAT). He is a recipient of
the Heizer Award of the Academy of Management for
outstanding research in new enterprise development,
and has published several research papers and books
in the areas of Entrepreneurship and Organizational
Behavior. email: manimala.mathew@gmail.com
24 Facilitation and Regulation of Educational Institutions: The Role of Accreditation
Kishinchand Poornima Wasdani is an Associate
Faculty at Royal Roads University (RRU), Canada. She
was awarded an Accelerate Post-doctoral Fellowship
from Mitacs (Federal Government of Canada) and was
the first postdoctoral fellow appointed in the Faculty of
Management, RRU. Her research interests include entre-
preneurship and new venture formation, and inclusive
organizations with a special interest in gender studies
and waste management. She has published numerous
books, journal articles and case studies. Wasdani’s most
recent (edited) book is Transnational Entrepreneurship:
Issues of SME Internationalization in the Indian
Context. Her current research focuses on scientometrics,
institutional voids and gender in relation to consumer
markets. email: kishinchandpoornima@gmail.com
Abhishek Vijaygopal is an Academic Associate in
the Entrepreneurship Area at the Indian Institute of
Management Bangalore (IIMB) and a Doctoral Research
Scholar at the Department of Management Studies,
Indian Institute of Science (IISc.), Bengaluru, India. His
areas of research interest include Entrepreneurship,
Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs),
Organization Behavior, Public Policy and Solid Waste
Management (SWM). He has worked in research roles
in sponsored projects in the areas of corporate govern-
ance, education, entrepreneurship, labor and SWM.
Abhishek has also co-edited the book, Transnational
Entrepreneurship: Issues of SME Internationalization
in the Indian Context, published in 2019 by Springer
Nature. email: abhishek.vijaygopal@gmail.com.