In many parts of the world, higher education institutions (HEIs) loathe their national accreditors and prefer the international quality assurance agencies (QAA). Thailand allows selected international accreditations in place of their ONESQA accreditation. Indonesia is reportedly considering qualified international QAAs to accredit its HEIs in "collaboration" with its national accreditor - BAN-PT. HEIs in Malaysia are urging for the same and probably also in other ASEAN and Asia-Pacific countries.
This preference for International QAA is totally understandable in many former colonies of the West. But there is much more to it. International QAAs originating from countries with a strong tradition of autonomy and academic freedom and operating on the basis of this governance model are a natural attraction for these non-European HEIs. Most Asian HEIs do not have or enjoy high level of autonomy or academic freedom. India is just permitting distance learning amongst its regular HEIs. It is also just permitting foreign branch campuses on its soil, and allowing Indian HEIs to venture abroad. So a policy allowing international QAAs in place of University Grants Commission and National Assessment and Accreditation Council will be cause of celebration. In a country that still honors everything foreign and colonial, international QAAs are a superior badge of honor. This also is true of many Asian countries.
International QAAs tend to do quality assessment against a set of common or universal criteria. The don't set standards of achievement but merely describe the position of the HEI on their scale of goodness or excellence. The principle-based QA is now the hot trend QA. National QAAs are high on standards and are tied to their national qualifications frameworks which makes them more compliance oriented. National QAAs are invested with statutory powers which also makes them fairly coercive in the attitude and approach unlike the International QAAs. The international QAAs have to rely on their professional and at time foreign charm and reputation to get HEIs to conform.
The enhancement approach is a great attraction to HEIs burden with compliance to standards. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, UK is developing a new approach in it national and international reviews which focuses on enhancement. It has also recently launched an international QA service. ABEST21 - a Japanese management education QA just provides a list of strengths and weaknesses. It is more keen on the continuous quality improvement element in the spirit of Kaizen. AACSB blends consulting and accreditation into a nice albeit expensive package. A mentor advises and prepares the HEI to AACSB's requirements. Most national and also international QAAs provide guidance and not consulting to avoid conflict of interest.
Some International QAAs are extremely responsive and may be even irresponsibly so. ASICs - a QAA from UK does not just accredit foreign HEIs but also occasionally declares some of the HEIs as champions much to the dismay of many locals who know better! One Malaysian HEI was proclaimed Global TVET Champion! This one is the darling of the national QAA for all the wrong reasons.
There is an hierarchy amongst International QAAs - the good, mediocre and the dubious. Price is a good proxy. AACSB, EQUIS, AMBA, EFMD, ABET etc. charge a pretty penny for their badge. Their quality mark has tremendous pull and recognition. CHEA-CIQG has done it differently. It is tackling an unserved market. It now has an international assessment scheme for alternative providers of higher education and skills (not your traditional universities and colleges). For now, it is not in competition with the national QAAs.
Will it be open season on national QAAs? Not really, international accreditation is likely to be expensive. For example, AUN-QA - an elite university network supported QA body affiliated with ASEAN, charges between 8,000 to10,000USD for programme accreditation which is RM40k in Malaysia. MQA charges only a quarter of this sum. There are also ecosystem rules that may still hinder entry by international QAAs like recognition by funding bodies, employer groups etc. HEIs targeting international students will value the international accreditors. Its easier for these HEIs with little international reputation to claim comparable quality. Frankly, HEIs considering international QAAs are better established institutions by the national QA reckoning. These HEIs are confident of making the grade and therefore, are willing to pay the pretty penny. Foreign QAAs are also picky. The rickety clients are likely to be shunned and left to the national QAAs. They will, in all likelihood, focus on the low investment and high return segment. The national QAAs will still be handling the messy business of looking after most of the national HEIs, protecting the interests of learners and the state by making sure at the very least compliance to basic standards is evidenced.
Do regional and global watchdogs of QA bodies like ENQA, INQAAHE, APQN, have an opinion on this? Generally, they do not. They leave it to the national law makers to decide whether to have a closed door policy. The global watchdogs assure that all QA agencies under their wings are capable of credible assessments. But as their members start to go global, it is in the interest of these regional or international watchers to inquire how assessment is accomplished in varied HE systems - history, laws, culture, governance and rights. Regional QAA like AQAN which is seeing incoming international QAAs, may be able to provide a measure of control by extending its agency accreditation services to international QAAs seeking to provide accreditation services in their backyard.
Comments