By: Dr. Eng. Daniel Hernández Jiménez
When we mention the premises that should serve as a frame of reference for the accreditation of a training program, in a particular profession, such as engineering, what we are looking for is to answer the fundamental questions that underlie the model or framework of reference which is proposed to be accredited. This is: Which is the nature of the object of interest? What is the relationship between the subject and the object of knowledge? What possibilities of generalization and establishing causal relationships exist? And what is the role of the values?
Answering these questions is of the utmost importance, if one takes into account that the proposal for an accreditation model is intended to cover the entire spectrum of training programs, even if efforts have been made to delimit the field of this, as is the case of a particular profession, and above all because it seeks to give a rating in terms of the coherence, relevance and significance of a program, which are the factors on which any consideration of quality gravitates.
A model for accreditation begins from several assumptions, and these assumptions are what we call premises, statements that we take for granted that are true, somehow unquestionable and therefore enable the act of accreditation.
In this brief document we will analyze four premises: ontological, epistemological, heuristic and axiological. It is not intended, but to manifest some elements to consider, leaving for another time the opportunity to explain them further. As always, the intention is to motivate dialogue and, therefore, the discussion of what is proposed here is open.
- Ontological premises.
What is an accreditation process? When trying to answer this question we find two fundamental references: evaluation and assurance of quality. There is no doubt that an accreditation process involves evaluative aspects. Comparison patterns are established that imply standards against which the performance of the evaluated program is checked. These patterns must be valid and reliable. This is to effectively allow the evaluation of the program of interest and, given the evaluation on different occasions, the results are consistent and consistent, manifesting a high level of stability.
However, any evaluation seeks to determine the merit and value of the object evaluated, this is to determine its intrinsic value and its extrinsic value. The first is based on the qualities that are its own and the second when a consideration of value from the outside is applied, when the performance of the program is contrasted with references that are not their own, but are established for the time being. A successful accreditation process would then be one which allows to elucidate the value and merit of the program.
But also, an accreditation process entails an attempt to clarify the quality of the program of interest and the way in which it is not only sustainable over time, but is constantly exceeded. With this we are assuming is that the quality of a program can be established at a level and that part of the accreditation process is to verify which it is, and if the conditions exist to overcome it with a reasonable effort. This is so that if a program has reached an acceptable level, but it is immutable, this program cannot qualify as quality. A concrete intention to overcome this initially acceptable minimum is required.
Now, in what terms is the quality of an academic program defined? To our understanding, in the first instance, two coherence components must be unveiled, one internal and one external. This consideration approaches the vision of quality for the purposes of the evaluation to verify the value and merit of the object of accreditation. The first, internal coherence, has to do with the declared purposes and the actions carried out, both aspects are specific to the program. The second, external coherence, is the contrast between the demands of an external entity (the criteria of an accreditation agency) and again the actions of the program. If a high degree of coherence can be established in both relationships, there would be a program that can be classified as quality.
This first approach makes it possible to give each program an equitable treatment, without imposing situations valid in other contexts, but inappropriate for the particular object of interest, since the quality would not be a comparison with the performance of others, but rather the verification of one’s performance.
It is still recognized as an indispensable requirement is that the accreditation criteria are of universal validity or at least appropriate because there exists an intersubjective consensus of the academic community that the standards are pertinent and relevant to refer to the quality of a program.
Finding the right balance between applying these agreed principles while respecting the idiosyncrasy of the program is the challenge to be overcome in the accreditation processes.
In a second approach, quality could be approached from a systemic view, which could point a little more at these coherence relationships to verify if the resources, actions, conditions and results are aligned with a higher order purpose.
In an academic process, necessarily, providing the relevant training in a field of human endeavor would be this purpose, of course, without neglecting the other substantive functions: research, extension and innovation.
We have then that an accreditation process is an evaluative act in which it is sought to determine the value and merit of a training program having as reference a notion of applicable quality. It is therefore a process of quality assurance in the academic field.
- Epistemological premises.
What relationships can be established between the object of study, accreditation, and the subjects of this, evaluators and evaluated? To answer this question, the possibility of the scientific study of accreditation as a phenomenon object of knowledge must first be made clear, and the relations between the knowing subject and the known object must be clarified, so that knowledge can occur.
As a human phenomenon, a training process can be studied by focusing attention on the relationships that arise, and these find their foothold in the considerations that justify, give meaning and determine the means of an accreditation process. Of course, these considerations can be given multiple answers, but we advocate a conception of accreditation that is justified in understanding, that seeks improvement and is carried out through dialogue.
Thus, emphasizing the comprehensive nature of accreditation means opting for an approach to knowledge that prefers depth to generality. Each accreditation process is unique and unrepeatable and therefore the best effort that can be done is to understand what is taking place in a particular historical moment and to particular actors, derive from this analysis some valid conclusions to overcome the deficiencies detected and enhance strengths to the maximum.
The raison d’être and therefore the knowledge that can be generated in an accreditation process are a function of the unveiling of the training process, its state, conditions and results. Why are the way we are? Why have we become the way we are? And perhaps the most important, why are we still not what we want to be? Answering these questions is the primary task of those who are part of a training process subject to accreditation, but they are also relevant issues for those who are part of the evaluation as members of accreditation agencies, since between evaluators and evaluated is given a reciprocal interaction that modifies them both and that gives a particular orientation to the possible answers.
We share the position that the work of the accreditation agencies is to facilitate the members of the training processes to build relevant responses and that in this construction the presence of the accreditation agency is not absent, after all, it is the one that, to some extent, proposes the evaluative framework, delimiting what is considered relevant to analyze. But, at the same time, this normative framework is influenced by any evaluative process in such a way that a dialectical relationship is established between the object and subjects of accreditation in which the synthesis is particular to the evaluated process without possibilities of generalization beyond the learning obtained applicable to the program and to the same accreditation model. And if results are extrapolated to other contexts, care should be taken to do so only by way of example, never as a determinant of the situation of a particular program.
Since evaluators and the evaluated mutually influence each other, the privileged mean to construct accreditation responses is dialogue. It must be frank, transparent, cordial, with the aim of achieving greater understanding and to promote improvement from there. The latter being the reason that defines the purpose of the evaluative effort. We could summarize this saying that, if we want to improve, overcome deficiencies, mitigate threats, take advantage of opportunities and strengthen strengths; we must fully know how we stand, that is, so we understand each other.
In short, accreditation is a dialogue between evaluators and evaluated that seeks a greater understanding of the training process, its conditions, state and results, as a starting point for making decisions that will drive for improvement in a well-founded manner. These are the aspects in which the possibility of building knowledge opens up.
- Heuristic premises
We already stated that the path of accreditation is dialogue. It is by this mean that the problems must be raised, and look for possible solutions. What happens? How does it happen? What are the particularities of the context? How do the academic actors “see” their particular situation? What explanations do they give to what happens to them? Do they suggest some answers or solutions to problematic situations? How do they perceive the participation of the accreditation agency and the frame of reference that is proposed for the evaluation? These questions must be “arrived at” with a clear and respectful disposition to the confrontation of ideas, to dissent without diminishing the quality of the relationships; on the contrary, it is about generating trust as a basis of the conversation among all those interested.
It is not about addressing the search for information through questionnaires and surveys exclusively, on the contrary, what should be preferred is participation through talks, dialogue tables, focus groups and any other tool that allows free expression even of those who disagree.
The fear of the participation of the accreditation agents must be lost, for fear of biasing the analysis, or even worse for having the intention of hiding information. On the contrary, their respectful presence enables an exercise of transparency and a foreign vision that enriches the dialogue, establishes counterpoints, shares lessons learned from other contexts and that, eventually, with the care of the case, can illuminate the conversation. The point is to build knowledge together through dialogue.
- Axiological premises.
Every accreditation process implies a declaration of the value and merit of the program taking as a reference the concept of quality assumed and that is materialized in the frame of reference for the accreditation.
It is for this reason that axiological considerations must be made explicit so that both the evaluators and the evaluated are aware of the values that are promoted.
We start from the fact that it is considered that accreditation must occur in a framework of trust, building trust is the value par excellence. It is to build bridges of dialogue in which it is assumed that what is sought is mutual benefit or, how it is now expressed, to create the conditions for a win-win scenario.
Building trust means, for the evaluator, to establish a frame of reference for accreditation focused on promoting continuous improvement from a deep self-knowledge. Without requiring spurious requirements that do not add any value and that on the contrary position form over content.
Building trust is to expect the best from the self-evaluative exercise, as well as the actions that derive from it.
But you cannot build trust unless there is a good dose of honesty, transparency and respect. If you are not afraid to recognize both successes and failures, with the genuine intention of strengthening the former and acting to mitigate the latter in a framework of action that respectfully considers the legitimate interests of the parties involved.
No less important is the role of responsibility. Etymologically, this word expresses the ability to respond, which unambiguously belongs to the academic community, the architect of its own history. The accreditation agency shares this responsibility, from the perspective of providing accessible instruments and tools that facilitate the reflection process of the academic community.
Confidence, transparency, honesty, respect, and above all a sense of deep responsibility so that the accreditation process contributes with understanding, is oriented toward improvement by giving voice to all the interested parties, are some of the values that underpin the evaluation effort in an accreditation process.
- By way of conclusion
An accreditation process is an evaluation modality that seeks to determine the value and merit of an academic program in response to a particular vision about the quality of this, which in our case is determined based on the relevance of the training.
As premises that support the possibility of building knowledge, the reason, purpose and means for an accreditation process are given. These three aspects find their answer in the deep understanding of the program as a basis for a reform that seeks improvement and that is carried out through dialogue. This latter is the means par excellence for the search of true knowledge of the situation of the program, as well as to overcome its deficiencies and enhance its strengths.
And finally, the construction of trust is the characterization par excellence of an accreditation process. Trust that is framed in transparency, honesty, respect, but above all, in responsibility.