Affiliation:
1. ISLA Santarém, 2000-241 Santarém, Portugal
2. INEGI, Universidade do Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
Abstract
This study investigates the accreditation processes in higher education across various countries, focusing on the time and bureaucratic burden associated with accrediting new courses. The aim is to identify strategies to accelerate the accreditation process for new courses in higher education institutions. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to achieve this objective, examining the accreditation processes in Portugal, Spain, the United States, France, China, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom, India, and Germany. The study’s key findings revealed that the accreditation process is generally efficient in most countries, with courses receiving accreditation within a reasonable timeframe. However, the process can be more complex and time-consuming for institutions seeking accreditation for the first time or offering new or innovative courses. Institutions must meet all established criteria and promptly provide all required documentation to expedite the accreditation process. The implications of these findings suggest that higher education institutions should collaborate closely with relevant accrediting agencies to ensure a streamlined accreditation process. Institutions should also consider agency requirements and course specialization when developing new courses. Furthermore, governments play a crucial role in promoting transparency and competition among higher education institutions, which can lead to enhanced quality assurance and increased customer satisfaction in the education sector.
Subject
Public Administration,Developmental and Educational Psychology,Education,Computer Science Applications,Computer Science (miscellaneous),Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
Reference64 articles.
1. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines;Snyder;J. Bus. Res.,2019
2. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Altman, D., Antes, G., Atkins, D., Barbour, V., Barrowman, N., and Berlin, J.A. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med., 6.
3. A guide to systematic reviews;Needleman;J. Clin. Periodontol.,2002
4. Massy, W.F. (2010). Public Policy for Academic Quality, Springer.
5. Performance measurement tools: The Balanced Scorecard and the EFQM Excellence Model;Wongrassamee;Meas. Bus. Excell.,2003
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献