Stakeholder engagement is an universally enduring principle or self evident truth in accreditation. This engagement makes the institution or programme socially, economically and functionally connected with the society it serves. It also reinforces the notion that education as a public good (which may be privately provided) must consult the stakeholders in its design and delivery. The simplicity stops about here.
There are many different ways to characterise the stakeholders namely, few vs many; powerful vs low influence; internal vs external; primary vs secondary; dominant vs passive; nominal vs actual etc. Accreditors require institutions to have active engagement with the stakeholders and temper their programmes with these feedbacks. The theory of stakeholder engagement is compelling but simplistic.
In the business arena, the stakeholder holder theory is still struggling to find strong legal footing despite eloquent advocacy. Stockholders are the primary or key stakeholders. In public institutions, the regulators as the watch dog for the taxpayers or the government, are the key stakeholders. To the extent that there is a commonality of interests between the key stakeholders and others, dilemmas are few. Private providers cater to the needs of those paying for the services - students, parents and state subject to the satisfaction of the regulators and investors. Public providers are compelled to meet many conflicting social, political and educational needs of the society. It is a fine balancing act.
Against these background of ownership and establishment driven mandates, how do institutions address the stakeholder engagement expectations? They typically describe mechanisms in place to periodically consult the students, graduates, alumni, industries, employers, regulators etc., to seek their feedback for programme and institutional enhancements. QAAs too are happy to see the engagement with many stakeholders. They are delighted when the feedback is used in programme improvements. Rarely do the institutions or the assessors actually describe the conflicting and contradictory interests and inputs from the stakeholders. Neither the institutions or the accreditors explore the practice of balancing the expectations of different groups or how the institutions have resolved to act or not act on these feedback or how much the business sustainability arbitrates these expectations.
Rarely, if ever, do institutions refer to their Boards as a place where important stakeholders vie for influence over directions and decisions. Increasingly, many modern Boards are incorporating important stakeholders in their fold. Students, alumni, civil society, regulators environmentalists etc. are finding a place at the Board. How does the consultation outside and inside the Board work?
Its time for accreditation agencies to get real and sophisticated on stakeholder engagement. It should not only look at stakeholders outside the organisation but also those already in it especially in the Board through diversity practices. It should examine the dynamics and complexities of managing conflicting expectations of stakeholders. Most importantly, how the institutions arbitrate the disputes and what interests are held sacrosanct? This will provide better understanding of the type and pace of changes in the higher education sector.