A Rare Look Behind the Accreditation Curtain

In his study, J. J. Collins found a significant “accountability gap” (this is my term) existed between the rhetoric that touted the “benefits of accreditation,” and how these supposed “benefits” or claims for accreditation were actually perceived in the field. Although published almost 40 years ago, there have been no large-scale changes in the accreditation processes that he describes, and the frankness of his early assessments proves to be refreshing, especially in today’s climate of political correctness. In addition, the benefits claimed for accreditation have not changed either over the decades, for reasons I will attempt to explain. This is what makes J. J. Collins groundbreaking study of the benefits of accreditation, as perceived by those working in newly accredited institutions, worth returning to: by going back to accreditation’s past, we can gain insight into our present situation.

Beginning with what he calls the "eighteen claims made for accreditation" in the relevant literature, J. J. Collins interviewed 72 staff and board members at seven recently accredited California community colleges, for their perceptions about claimed benefits. His major finding, not surprisingly, was that "In short, the participants all perceived the process of accreditation from their own particular vantage points, and responded accordingly" (J. J. Collins, 20).

Self-Study
"One of the major claims made for accreditation is that it stimulates a comprehensive self-study that is evaluative in nature. As a matter of fact, it is often stated without qualification that this is the prime reason for the entire procedure." However, those "interviewed did not perceive of accreditation as an examination in depth into the qualitative aspects of their colleges” (J. J. Collins, 20).

Here is why:

When a case is made for accreditation stimulating a sweeping self-study, there is always mention made of the importance of staff involvement at every level. A sure sign that exhaustive self-analyses were not made is the dearth of involvement at the department chairman and instructor levels. Although more than half of the chairmen felt that a self-study of substantial magnitude had preceded the accreditation visits, most of them were unable to say how they were involved in it. Instructors were even less involved than chairmen, with many noting that they had not participated at all in preparing for accreditation. Applications were usually completed by simply answering the questions in the kit of accreditation materials. As far as accreditation stimulating a comprehensive evaluative self-study, the evidence indicates that it just doesn't happen ... (20)

Another claim advanced for accreditation is that preparation for it is a process rather than an event. This is exactly how the staff members interviewed felt about it. Although they had no illusions that they could involve themselves in a formalized self-evaluative study so early in their histories, they insisted that they were committed to continuous and effective institutional appraisal. They reported that their many meetings were devoted to assessment; that the process was dialectical and the results dynamic. They perceived themselves as anything but complacent and therefore they did not feel that they needed accreditation to motivate self-study. There was near unanimous agreement among the seventy-two participants that their colleges were engaged in a never-ending process of self-evaluation that makes formal preparation for accreditation and reaccreditation of questioned value (20).

Finally, the claim is often made that educational improvements result directly from preparing for accreditation. When asked to comment on this claim, participants commonly mentioned only one supportive point: i.e., they were convinced that in assembling, editing, and finally publishing the application for accreditation that new avenues of intra-staff communication were created. It was their view that even if preparation for accreditation is not evaluative, it is informative, and that is value enough. The claim, then, that educational improvements stem from the preparation for accreditation is supported only by this one point of view shared by most of those interviewed (20).

These responses clearly demonstrate just how far short the self-study component falls, never reaching the beneficial claims advanced by accreditation proponents. This is an example of the “accountability gap” that, we believe, dominates higher education accreditation in the

today.

Accreditation as Status Attainment

The participants interviewed strongly confirmed the claim that the status of being accredited is crucial by agreeing that there are potent reasons for early accreditation, all of which cluster around the achievement of status. Requests for early accreditation are not made for reasons of stimulating internal improvements, but rather with one major goal in mind-to get the college's name 'on the list.' It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the attainment of status was the major and overriding consideration in the minds of participants as they perceived the process of accreditation. All ranks spoke plainly and frequently of the importance of being recognized as an accredited college. There was no equivocation on their part -- status is important (20). ... They wanted the type of accreditation that would mean that the names of their respective colleges would appear on the list of accredited colleges published by the National Commission on Accrediting. Nothing less would suffice (21).

The reason for this attitude is clear and easily understood: without official accreditation there is no access to Title IV Federal student aid grants and guaranteed loans, without which institutions cannot survive, and people lose their jobs. With the rapid growth in institutional dependency upon Federal funds, this is truer today than it was 40 years ago. Accreditation, as conducted by accrediting associations, is the key credential for colleges and universities, the coin of the academic realm in all interactions with the US Department of Education. But what does earning that accreditation actually signify?

Accreditation as Quality Control?
"There is no doubt that participants viewed accreditation as a system of quality control. This was a nearly unanimous opinion shared by all ranks of staff members. They not only perceived this to be true, they viewed it favorably and held that minimal standards must be set and maintained. They viewed the accrediting agency as a watchdog of standards (21)."

For those that have heard anything about accreditation for institutions of higher education, the “watchdog of standards” feature seems to be most prominent. However, the peer-review and self-improvement processes for which the regional accrediting associations were first created more than a century-ago, are substantially different from the more recent Federal legislative purposes now being imposed on the earlier organizational foundation (1992 and 1998 amendments to the Higher Education Act, HEA Sec. 496. See Note 2.). It would not be inaccurate, however unflattering it would be, to describe these regional accrediting associations as accrediting guilds. They are, in actuality, self-regulated mutual benefit associations that legitimate the educational product of their members through accreditation, and are in many ways similar to medieval university guilds that emerged in Europe more than 800 years ago (see Note 3).

J. J. Collins goes on to make an important observation about a curious institutional bias pertaining to the “quality control” aspect of accreditation: this remedial function only applies to other institutions, and never to the interviewees’ own institution. In other words, their support and approval of “quality control” by a “watchdog of standards” is curiously never associated with the possible need for improvements at one’s own institution (see Note 4).

This presents us with a revealing contradiction. On the one hand, the perception that accreditation has to do with “quality control” to ensure that minimum educational standards are being met is widely held across all constituencies, including the public, government, and the institutions themselves. But on the other hand, individual institutions deny that this could possibly apply to themselves, and peremptorily rule out the idea that they themselves may be the ones in need of “quality control” improvements; rather it is understood to apply only to other institutions, those whose educational quality is lower (i.e., small struggling colleges, or historically black colleges and universities). (See Note 5.)

There are additional benefits for maintaining this biased cognitive construct: adhering to a belief in the quality control dimension of accreditation applies primarily to other institutions, and this contributes to its taken-for-grantedness, its natural-ness. However, the failure to apply this perception reflexively also constitutes its biggest danger, since it subtly constrains the level of psychological commitment needed for honest self-assessments. As a result, the self-study process is incomplete or biased. Meaningful outcomes, especially those resulting from unbiased self-criticism, become more unlikely. At the same time, however, the possibility of cognitive dissonance is diminished, if not eliminated, by curtailing critical reflexivity (see Note 6).

The long-term benefit to the institutions is that once everyone accepts the idea that accreditation is a kind of “Household Seal of Approval” for higher education and ensures some kind of minimum standard is being met, whether or not it is really accurate, this serves as a high-level endorsement and legitimation of the institution. This approval then confirms the quality of the educational product for the various stakeholders, with or without actual verification. Consistent with this is the fact that no one has been able to show a correlation between accreditation and educational quality.

Some Problems with Self-Regulation
Asking institutions to perform their own self-study for accreditation is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house, and then having the farmer come by to ask the fox how things are going. The fox, of course, will assure the farmer that things are fine, and the farmer is predisposed to believe him, without evidence, because he put the fox in charge of the hen house to begin with (see Note 7).

This analogy gives us another reason to question the value of institutional self-study. By placing the responsibility for determining compliance (that is, whether or not a set of minimum standards is being met) in the hands of those being evaluated, the self-study puts the fox in charge of the hen house.

This is why the understanding that accreditation primarily serves a “quality control” function is perhaps the most widespread of all misconceptions about accreditation. But this should not surprise us, for, as K. E. Young explains (1983: 15), accreditation "has never been well understood -- not by the general public [n]or, for that matter, by the institutions of post-secondary education it primarily serves."

Thus, it is primarily for the participating institutions’ benefit that most do believe the misconception that accreditation is a “watchdog of standards,” since it gives the assurance of educational quality at their institution. In addition, as we have been discussing, the belief that ‘our’ institution has above-average educational quality works to support this bi-polar cognitive construct regarding the QC aspect of accreditation. Yet, under special circumstances, these benefits can become institutional motives for resisting improvement. Bender (1983) explains that although the public perception of accreditation is that it is a quality control mechanism, it is actually a quality enhancement process "that calls on each institution to strive for self-improvement" (84; cited by Van Miller, 22. See Note 8.). This misperception is also shared by many in higher education, creating "schools [that] are fearful they may not pass the test. They want to put their best foot forward and often try to cover up or explain away any possible blemishes that are uncovered" (Bender, 84).

This, of course, is precisely the opposite of what is supposed to happen during quality improvement. Instead of wasting time and energy on covering up, institutions are supposed to be engaging in open conversations regarding improvement.

But this means admitting that something needs improvement, whereas institutional incentives weigh far too heavily toward hiding, rather then disclosing, problems. Challenges to ones self-image are generally interpreted as a personal threat, and understandably feared and resisted.

Another claim that appears frequently in the literature is that although accreditation enforces certain standards, it does not impel conformity. Since accreditation standards were perceived as flexible guides rather than fixed and arbitrary criteria, this claim is strongly supported. Participants commonly pointed out that colleges are not constrained to follow the recommendations of the accrediting association as though these suggestions were edicts. Participants viewed accreditation as an upgrading influence that does not force colleges into the bonds of uniformity. It is their opinion that the accrediting association values and respects diversity. (21)

Nevertheless, this particular claim about flexibility and the lack of constraint in accrediting recommendations contradicts the previous "watchdog of standards" claim that figures so prominently in the “quality control” function of accreditation. The inability to enforce uniformity in specific instances is also the inability to enforce any kind of minimum standard.

Site Visitation

It is often asserted that a system of voluntary accreditation by a regional agency is preferable to evaluation by an arm of the government. This claim received strong support from those interviewed. They were committed to the policy of evaluation by peers, and were highly suspicious of being inspected by specialists sent out by the state. Staff members felt that professional colleagues are much more likely to understand their problems than an official who not only represents authority, but who is also dependent on the state for his position. They became emotional in their opposition to the suggestion that the state department of education send out trained technicians to evaluate for accreditation. (21)

This is in line with what J. J. Collins reported earlier: "One president declared that if the State Department of Education was assigned the responsibility for accreditation, he would 'hire guards to keep them off my campus.' " (19)

It is generally claimed and assumed that accreditation teams are composed of competent evaluators. Those being accredited are certainly concerned with this assumption, since they know that the team can recommend that potent sanctions be invoked, including denial of accreditation. The composition of these teams, then, is of crucial importance to those who are to be judged by them. (21)

Accrediting teams are not viewed as an entity, but rather as a collection of representatives from various levels of higher education. Participants had great praise for most junior college representatives, and thought of them as knowledgeable, competent evaluators. Although they spoke well of state department of education team members, they leveled rather harsh criticism at the Western College Association delegates. These latter were singled out as being ill-prepared to evaluate junior college programs. It was commonly asserted that the only value served by their presence on the teams is the possibility that they will learn something about their junior partner in higher education. The University of California was roundly condemned for failure to involve itself in the accreditation of junior colleges. None of those interviewed could remember when a university representative last appeared on a team sent out to evaluate a junior college. (21)

There was some sentiment for including junior college instructors on accrediting teams, but there was by no means a mandate for this modification in team composition. Only two participants volunteered to make a case for instructor inclusion, and these were both presidents. (21)

Team members were criticized for not spending enough time with the teaching faculties, and there was some disapproval of evaluators who were operating outside of their fields of competency. In general, the team visit was viewed as important, but the claim that accreditation teams are composed of competent evaluators is only partly confirmed. (21)

Another claim that is commonly made is that team members are cast in the role of consultants. Participants were more inclined to view them as inspectors, although some staff members were somewhat reluctant to use such a strong term in referring to respected associates. It was felt that team members could not possibly consult in the short time allotted to them, and that their true function is, and should be, one of inspection. The claim, then, that the accrediting team is composed of a group of consultants is not confirmed by perceptions. (21)

It is often alleged that team members objectively evaluate the quality of an institution during an accreditation visit. This claim was categorically denied by almost all participants interviewed. They did not believe that accrediting teams have objective means of measuring quality, nor did they think that the two-day visit provides time for objective evaluation even if such means existed. However, there was a rather strong-almost universal-feeling that subjective judgment is used by accrediting teams [Van D. Miller (2000) gives an example in support of this], and that this is a valid means of appraising quality. It was felt that the majority of team members are sophisticated junior college practitioners who are able to apply their training and experience in making a clinical judgment. The fact that objective evaluation is impossible was felt to be irrelevant. (21-22)

In fact, the reliance upon "peer evaluators" is another bias against objectively determining compliance. This problem regarding the objectivity of site visitation further undermines the "watchdog of standards" claim, which is, as we have said, the most widespread misconception about accreditation (see Note 9).

Finally, the claim is repeatedly made that evaluation by outsiders is valuable. There was strong sentiment favoring contact with experienced educators who are external to the system being evaluated. The major shortcoming seems to be that staff members were sincerely disappointed that they had so little contact with the accrediting team. With few exceptions, those visited were well pleased with the experience. Of even greater value, in the opinion of instructors and chairmen, is the chance to spend time informally with team members. They are convinced that if the accreditation visit could provide time for more casual contacts between staff and team members, much could be gained. It is probable that team members could spend their time more profitably in conversation with the teaching staff than in visiting classes. (22)

Of great significance in the minds of staff members is the team chairman's oral report at the conclusion of the visit. In most instances this oral appraisal had a much greater impact on staff members than the evaluation report that followed months later. The claim, then, that evaluation by an external group is valuable is strongly affirmed. (22)

The Institutional Evaluation Report

The accrediting commission renders the official decision regarding accreditation after receiving the account of the team visit. The commission's report not only indicates accreditation, but specifies the length of the accreditation term or period, and cites commendations and recommendations. Once the college that has been examined receives this document the formal process is concluded. (22)

It is commonly claimed that evaluation reports are given wide circulation both internally and externally. This claim was completely substantiated by the study. In most instances the commission's account is duplicated and distributed to all interested parties. No attempt is made to keep this report a secret. As perceived by participants, the commission's report is not confidential, but is, rather, a public relations tool. (22)

Although public relations tools, by definition, are important assets for mediating and maintaining institutional legitimacy, institutional accrediting evaluations are now confidential, and rarely, if ever, are the contents of the on-site and off-site reports made public. The rationale is that the confidentiality of the evaluators, and the peer-review process itself, would be compromised otherwise. A notable exception, however, are the denial of accreditation situations that end up in court. In this case, institutional accrediting evaluations may become public if the court records are also made public.

It might be assumed that meaningful use would be made of a document that is felt to be deserving of such widespread dissemination. The claim is frequently made in the literature of accreditation that such use is made of this official account. However, staff members only partially supported this claim. Few reported that the college staff was galvanized into action by the receipt of this official appraisal. At six of the seven colleges the suggestions of the commission were either casually referred to existing groups for review, or were completely ignored. As a rule, rather superficial treatment was given to this report. Not many participants had read past the paragraph which mentioned accreditation and length of term. ... With few exceptions, participants did not view the evaluation report as a motivating force that might bring about change.

No one complained that the commission's recommendations were destructive, nor that even the most critical admonitions were unfair. There was, however, widespread concern that reports were so favorable that there was little action that could proceed from them. A very favorable report was not perceived to be worthy of more than passing notice by the staff. Evaluation reports, then, are perceived as only partially living up to the claim of constructively pointing the way to improvements. (22)

One last claim made for evaluation reports is that they can be used as levers to obtain what is desired and needed. With few exceptions, participants stoutly maintained that such a 'crutch' was not needed at their colleges. A number of staff members hedged on this by noting that they were acquainted with colleges that needed such an 'assist,' but that in their situation they felt capable of fighting their own battles. The claim, then, that commission recommendations are used as levers is only partially confirmed. (22)

Improvements Deriving from Accreditation

The major claim made for accreditation is that it is a powerful force in improving the quality of educational institutions. On the basis of reported perceptions, this claim, at best, was only partially supported and in some instances was categorically denied. Staff members had a difficult time in citing a single improvement that could be ascribed to the accreditation process. Admittedly, it is a formidable task to sort out the variables that cause change. In the main, however, those interviewed did not believe that major changes derived from accreditation. (22)

... When pressed regarding values of accreditation they kept going back to the advantages of 'being on the right list.' It was as if their total perception of accreditation was one of achieving a position rather than engaging in a process leading to improvement. (22-23)

"So, other than the status that is achieved through accreditation, what did participants view to be the major value?" Collins asks.

Only a few of those interviewed had negative comments to make about accreditation. Most were enthusiastic and sincere in their praise of it. But this acclaim was not because of motivation toward making major improvements. Instead, praise was directed toward the enforcement of minimal standards. Not a single staff or board member felt that his own college failed to measure up to minimal standards. Consequently, they necessarily must have been thinking of the value of accreditation for other colleges. As a matter of fact, they often mentioned other colleges, and not their own, when they spoke of minimal standards. Nevertheless, they understood that accreditation is like a floor that is placed under their colleges as well as other institutions, and that there is protection in the process even though this security may not be needed by their particular school at the moment. Accreditation, then, is for the purpose of upgrading other colleges. This is important, even to an outstanding college, for schools at a particular level are likely to be judged as a group. Just as 'no man is an island,' so it can be said that no college stands alone in splendid isolation impervious to criticisms that are leveled at others. (23)

We have already discussed the cognitive ramifications of this approach. I would add that it is just this shared recognition among institutions, of how truly vulnerable their shared legitimacy is if one of their members falter, that fosters group cohesion and solidarity at the level of regional accreditation. This is the meaning of the "peer review" mechanisms, as well as the widespread (mis)understanding of accreditation just described. The response to this vulnerability is support of the guild. The guild is composed entirely of its peers in higher education, whose chief decision making bodies determine the "standards" to be "evaluated."

As explained in connection with theoretical and structural flaws of self-study, it bears repeating that the placement of the responsibility for determining compliance in the hands of those being evaluated, in this case, the guild, is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. This interpretation is confirmed: "In guaranteeing minimal standards for all, accreditation provides a protective cloak for the least, as well as for the best. In this manner, then, accreditation was viewed as valuable, though the claim that it is a powerful force in the direction of improvement is denied."

Conclusion
Before any firm conclusions can be drawn from J. J. Collins’ data, we must deal with its inherent limitations. Most obvious is the fact that his data was gathered in 1965, more than 40 years ago. However, as was pointed out in the beginning of this commentary, the early-date of the study may be considered a positive benefit: the study was conducted in an atmosphere of openness and a frankness that is unavailable in today’s scholarly accreditation literature (see again Note 6).

Furthermore, accreditation processes have become more elaborate in the past 40 years, but the essential core features (i.e., self-study, site visitations, final report and recommendations) have not changed appreciably. The most significant change is in the increased confidentiality of the institutional evaluation report itself. It can be guessed from what Collins describes, that, once these reports began to cite substantive instances of noncompliance, and recommendations that proved embarrassing to the colleges or universities, a way was found to remove them from public view. That is, they became confidential.

A more significant limitation is the fact that his sample only involved newly accredited institutions. But here again, the lack of institutional embeddedness serves to augment the clarity with which his data speaks across 40 years and even ‘through’ – rather than ‘despite’ – the subtle inconsistencies and contradictions of his interviewees, which, as we have seen, remain instructive. The value of his study is that it documents a massive disconnect occurring in accreditation processes, between the publically avowed benefits and the actual perceptions at the level of the institutions themselves, even at this relatively early stage of bureaucratic development. These two poles of meaning are, in fact, diametrically opposed to each other.

This disconnect is reflected in the public documents released by the accrediting guilds and suggests that there are grave dangers in drawing unwarranted conclusions when relying solely on official accreditation documentation.

The theoretical problem is that of moving uncritically from one level of analysis and rhetoric to another, and then over-generalizing from one set of documents taken out of context, resulting in an incomplete analysis that neglects how the official documents may or may not be operationalized in the field. The dissertations focusing on SACS by Miller and Malone seek to tentatively examine this operationalization, the former in terms of recommendations made for Level 1 institutions, and the latter in terms of “institutional effectiveness.” It is likely that the “accreditation gap” uncovered by Collins points not only to the relative unimportance and irrelevance of promulgated documents for accreditation processes, but beyond this as well, to the functional centrality of the rhetorical and legitimating aspect of agency documentation. It is this interaction dynamic that dominates the various contexts in which accreditation documentation are found to operate.

These interactional contexts for accreditation documentation include:
1. between the accrediting agency and the public;
2. between the accrediting agency and the member institutions;
3. between the accrediting agency and the recognizing federal agency, i.e., US DOE; and lastly,
4. as a response by the agency to the statutory requirements of HEA, as enacted by Congress and interpreted by the Secretary of Education.

It is in the context of these levels of interaction that the distinguishing characteristics of SACS’ documentation originate, including inner contradiction and lack of clarity, since they are all defined by these competing interactions, each dominated by their own functional and self-legitimating rhetoric. Thus, for example, the rhetoric of SACS’ accreditation documentation will reflect full compliance with the statutory requirements of HEA, but will also reflect their member’s open opposition to being regulated at all by the federal government. As mentioned, this kind of middle position can sometimes lead to contradictory accreditation standards, where it is left to the individual guild members to decide what standard they will meet.

Accreditation and Systems Theory
But J. J. Collins’ review of accreditation and the attendant perceptions of accreditation also points up another painful irony. The system he has so clearly defined is that of a closed system, in which inputs are dampened and eliminated in order to maintain homeostasis. Yet, quality enhancement schemes of all kinds (i.e., Peter Senge’s "learning organizations") rely on the fact that the systems they interact with are genuinely open systems, capable of entering into a give and take with inputs, and frequently verging toward chaos and organizational disequilibrium, and then recovering. By definition, closed systems cannot engage in this kind of learning response, this kind of growth, but will neutralize any attempts to change the “way things are done around here.”

Accountability Gap Revisited
It seems to me that the gaping discrepancy between the benefits claimed by accreditation, and the actual perceptions of the participants, points in two directions. Only the predominance of rhetorical and legitimating characteristics accreditation and accreditation processes (ostensibly "quality control" mechanisms) can explain the fact that, in his study, few of the promised benefits of accreditation materialized. It is interesting to me that the most significant benefit derived from accreditation, that is, being on the 'right list' is, on the other hand, never mentioned by accrediting agencies or the US Department of Education.

Glen S. McGhee, Dir.,
Florida Higher Education Accountability Project
__________________________________
Note 1. The history of the idea of “taken for grantedness” or naturalization that occurs within the context of social institutions extends from Marx (“reification”), Gramsci (“naturalization”), to the phenomenologist Husserl (“sedimentation”), and finally to the social constructivists, Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann (“habituation”). It is well outside the scope of this commentary to explore the range and extent of the constructs in higher education accreditation that have now come to be unquestioned dogma. But a good place to start such an exploration would be the questions raised by J. J. Collins in his study.

Note 2. My investigation of the Higher Education Act, the statutes (20 USC 1099b), and the enacting regulations (34 CFR 602), leads me to believe that Congress does require minimum standards, both for the accreditation agencies themselves and the participating institutions. And although Congress and the US DOE has shown great interest in closely regulating particular aspects of higher education, such as financial grants to students, and guaranteed student loans and their repayment, etc., other areas have been almost totally neglected (i.e., the "minimum standards" of 20 USC 1099b). Take for example the Drug Awareness and Education requirements of the PPA (Program Participation Agreement between US DOE and individual institutions), which, according to department personnel are totally neglected by community colleges, even at the risk of losing their federal funding (personal communication, Ruth Trango, US DOE, October 18, 2004). Four-year colleges, on the other hand, tend to be more active in fulfilling these particular requirements.

Note 3. In order to accommodate competing demands, for example, SACS first re-classified faculty preparation requirements to be voluntary “guidelines” as opposed to obligatory standards (Principles of Accreditation, 2004, page 8), and then most recently voted (Dec 2006) to remove them entirely, this despite the fact that these specific standards are required by HEA Sec. 496.

Note 4. “Not a single staff or board member felt that his own college failed to measure up to minimal standards. Consequently, they necessarily must have been thinking of the value of accreditation for other colleges. As a matter of fact, they often mentioned other colleges, and not their own, when they spoke of minimal standards. … Accreditation, then, is for the purpose of upgrading other colleges (J. J. Collins, 23)."

Note 5. Stereotypes often operate in a way to a priori categorize perceptions in this way, resulting in a kind of blanket denial. Just as we tend to think of ourselves as above-average drivers, and resist accepting a lower status assessment for our driving skills, and we can always think of someone that drives worse than we do, the internalized self-image of community college faculty and staff will not allow them to see themselves below the “minimum standard” in education. There is a natural resistance to this. In effect, they say: ‘If I’m above-average, then there must be someone worse off than me.’ That ‘worse off’ college, of course, would be below the minimum standard, then, and would not be “me or my college” by definition. The result is an evaluative bias, which thrives in an environment that lacks objective minimal standards, that is, an environment where flexibility and self-regulation are the predominant concerns.

See also, “Prejudice as Self-Image Maintenance: Affirming the Self Through Derogating Others,” Steven Fein and Steven J. Spencer, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (1) (1997): 31-44. The authors argue that self-image maintenance processes play an important role in stereotyping and prejudice; and that stereotyping and prejudice may be a common means to maintain one's self-image. They go on to discuss the role of self-image maintenance processes in the context of motivational, socio-cultural, and cognitive approaches to stereotyping and prejudice. http://www.williams.edu/go/sciencecenter/center/RS98html/RepSci98Web-FACULTY.html

Note 6. The kinds of cognitive distortions that occur in what sociologist Stephan Fuchs calls “aging [institutional] cores” can be applied to most, if not all, scholarly work on accreditation, including the sedimentation of accrediting guild dogma and isolation problems. Click here for an overview of Fuch’s analysis of social network epistemologies, and why guilds of all kinds are especially susceptible to rigidity and institutional dogmatism.

Note 7. The fox in charge of the hen-house analogy is especially relevant here, since when the members decide what standards they themselves will be held accountable to, these standards will inevitably be created for the maximum benefit of the members themselves.

Note 8. Cited by Van D. Miller, The Specific Criteria Cited Most Often by Visiting Committees to Level I. Institutions, Baylor University, Waco Texas, doctorate dissertation, December 2000, pages 21-23. In this section, Miller deals specifically with common "misconceptions" about accreditation.

Note 9. Regarding the almost universal misperception of accreditation as the ‘assurance that minimum educational standards are being met,’ I am reminded of Eric Savoy’s paraphrase of Eve Sedgwick, that “ignorance circulates institutionality as powerfully as knowledge; indeed, it is a form of knowledge, reducible to the automatic, ‘we-know-what-that-means’ ” “Yes, accreditation,” the universal response is, “We know what that means!” Cited by Joel Faflak, “In Marion Woodman’s Camp,” Spring 72 (2005), 113. See also Note 1.

Note 10. The research literature that documents Groupthink and other forms of cognitive organizational bias, including the inability to recognize one’s own failings, is enormous, and continues to grow in the wake of Enron and similar disasters in the corporate world, not to mention corresponding errors of judgment in American political life. See, for example, McGhee and O’Leary, War in Heaven/Heaven on Earth: Theories of the Apocalyptic (Equinox, 2005), pages xvii-xx, xxv-xxvi, 63-64, 226-231, as well as the chapters by Baumgarten, McGhee, and Downing.