Shaping performance: do international accreditations and quality management really help?

Abstract

In recent years, international accreditations from private providers have gained importance among business schools all over the world. Higher education managers increasingly see these accreditations as a way of assuring and developing quality in order to comply with international standards, enhance performance, and increase reputation. However, given that an accreditation process requires a great deal of resources and that it might increase bureaucratization and control, international accreditations remain highly disputed in academia.This paper contributes to the discussion, providing quantitative empirical evidence regarding the effect of international accreditations on the research performance of business schools. On the basis of an international survey, we analyse how the acquisition of an AACSB and/or EQUIS accreditation affects the institutions' position in the Top 1000 Business School Ranking of the Social Science Research Network, as compared to other quality management approaches. We find that international accreditations are positively related to research performance, while other forms of quality management do not exhibit any significant relationship to ranking positions. These results point to the importance of professional coaching in quality management. Because of AACSB and EQUIS's high standards concerning a coherent strategy and the quality of faculty, applying for an international accreditation seems to be a useful way to improve a business school's research performance.

How Does Accreditation Fit Into the Picture?

“…Accreditation systems are complex (Elliott, ; Francisco et al., ; Julian & Ofori‐Dankwa, ; Heriot et al., ; Nigsch & Schenker‐Wicki, ) and, if instituted, schools might need to change programs, curricula, admissions standards, staffing, administration, or facilities. Beyond that, ongoing efforts will be needed to sustain momentum for periodic review and reaccreditation (Elliott, ).…”

“…Navarro () in his survey of MBA curricula in U.S. business schools suggested that there was “a lack of emphasis on required multidisciplinary integration and experiential components” (p. 108). Nigsch and Schenker‐Wicki () observed that business accreditation changes in the 1990s reflected the wave of New Public Management (NPM) concepts entering academia. Harvey () in his study of higher education in Britain, the United States, and Canada noted that accreditation processes “are not benign or apolitical but represent a power struggle that impinges on academic freedom, while imposing an extensive bureaucratic burden in some cases” (p. 207).…”

“…Another benefit is “the perception of quality conveyed by the coveted seal or stamp of approval” that can help students, faculty, and employers make educational, teaching, and hiring choices (Stepanovich, Mueller, & Benson, , p. 104) . Nigsch & Schenker‐Wicki (, pp. 671–672) list strategizing, effective management, data collection, faculty quality, openness, and reputation as advantages of accreditation.…”

“…The argument is that while accreditation has appeal and positive aspects, it should be approached with caution. Besides the time, resources, and consensus‐building needed to design, implement, maintain, and periodically renew an accreditation system (Elliott, ; Nigsch & Schenker‐Wicki, ; Zammuto, ), there are pitfalls.…”

“…Though there is little research on costs, benefits, and limitations of accreditation (Apostolou, Dorminey, Hassell, & Watson, ; Elliott, ; Nigsch & Schenker‐Wicki, ), there are relevant studies of business school accreditation (Elliott, ; Heriot, Franklin, & Austin, ; Roller et al., ) and a body of provocative critiques (Francisco, Nolan, & Sinclair, ; Julian & Ofori‐Dankwa, ; Kuchinke, ; Lowrie & Willmott, ; McKee, Mills, & Weatherbee, ; Pfeffer & Fong, ; Stepanovich et al., ; Yunker, ). Collectively, they can guide evaluation accreditation discussions.…”