Management scholars Gabriela Contreras and Bareerah Hafeez Hoorani conclude, in their paper ‘Co-Creating the Future of Accreditations in the Management Education and Research Ecosystem’, published in European Management Review, that the current methods of assessing quality do not always align with how universities in different countries operate. According to the researchers, there are three areas of tension that can arise during accreditation processes.
More than just a checklist: business school accreditations are in need of an overhaul
Accreditation is a stressful period for universities. It is a rigorous and structured process designed to demonstrate that their education meets certain quality standards. However, new research from Radboud University shows that there is an urgent need to rethink the way in which international accreditations, such as AACSB and EFMD, can influence business schools.
Anglo-Saxon perspective versus non-Anglo-Saxon Institution
There is a discrepancy between accreditations designed from an Anglo-Saxon perspective (with standards originating in the US or the UK) and the reality of non-Anglo-Saxon institutions, such as Nijmegen School of Management. This means that accreditation processes assume certain data and structures are universally available, such as detailed diversity figures, which in countries like the Netherlands cannot be collected for legal or ethical reasons.
Contreras: “For example, during the accreditation process, they expect you to be able to provide figures on the ethnic background of students. But we don’t have those to hand. As a result, business schools have to look for other ways to convincingly demonstrate that they are doing well in the area of diversity and inclusion.”
Gathering evidence
Another problem the researchers observe is that accreditation processes sometimes resemble a tick-box exercise rather than an opportunity to commit to meaningful, mission-driven improvement. As a result, business schools are primarily focused on proving what they do, rather than being given the space to demonstrate why they do it and what impact it has.
Hoorani: “Universities in general need to be given more scope to tell their own story. This is not just about figures, but specifically about context, collaborations and creativity”.
Relational versus transactional nature
The final area of tension concerns the relational versus transactional nature of accreditation. Ideally, accreditation should promote dialogue and co-creation between institutions and assessors. In contrast, accreditation is primarily about compliance, leaving little room for reflection.
New accreditation model
According to Contreras and Hoorani, accreditations need to consider both global engagement and societal embeddedness. This includes social engagement, as well as context-aware education and partnerships that strengthen social resilience. They advocate for a broader perspective, so that greater justice is done to what business schools actually do and consider important.
Literature reference
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emre.70071
Contact information
Questions or comments? Please get in touch with one of the researchers.
- Organizational unit
- Nijmegen School of Management, Institute for Management Research