"Finding a Common Voice for Accreditation Internationally"

Fred M. Hayward

Prepared for
The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) Conference:
"Improving Accreditation"
June 28-29, 2001, Chicago, Illinois

I. Introduction
I am delighted to be here in Chicago as part of CHEA’s fifth annual conference on Enhancing Usefulness. In focusing on improving accreditation over the last five years, you have been tackling what I believe will be one of the most important issues in higher education for this decade—both at home and abroad.

In the course of my presentation this morning, I want to focus on the following questions:

• What do our international colleagues expect of U.S. higher education in general?
  
• What would they like from us by way of accreditation and quality assurance?
  
• In what ways is quality assurance likely to become contentious internationally in coming years?
  
• How might this be affected by international organizations and agreements such as WTO, GATS, NAFTA, and the FTAA?
  
• How do the "proposed" CHEA principles relate to all this?
  

II. What do our international colleagues expect from U.S. higher education in general?
To set the context for that question, it is worth looking at how the rest of the world sees the United States, since that very much affects how people look at U.S. higher education. To the extent that anyone can generalize about such things, how does most of the world view the United States?

As you are all aware, within the international community, opinions about the United States are varied—close allies, like Great Britain (a loving critic), nervous trading partners like France (frequently hostile), those like China (who have not made up their minds about the U.S.). Then there are a handful of countries that see anything we do as a major source of the world’s pathologies—for example, places such as North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. I will omit this latter group from my discussion. For the rest, while perceptions are mixed—overall, there is a pattern of perceptions we can identify. Let me try to spell out some of the major themes.

A. On the positive side the United States is generally viewed as:

• A nation of great power and economic success—with resources which have often been used in ways that have benefited the rest of the world. As Josef Joffe, a German foreign policy expert notes, the U.S. continues to be willing to provide "public goods" to the global system—keeping the sea-lanes open, beating back the bad guys in Iraq when they attacked Kuwait, insuring global financial security.¹


• Our people are seen as highly productive and hard working. They are viewed as flexible, adaptive, and practical. In a recent survey of Chinese attitudes toward Americans, for 34 percent, the first thoughts that came to mind when they thought about the United States was "modernization," "affluence," or "hightech."²


• Our people, the corporate sector, and government, are viewed as hard driving, competitive, and driven. Success in one’s work is seen as a defining characteristic of Americans.


• Our higher education system is viewed as among the very best in the world—that does not hold true of our primary and secondary education.


• Our political system is generally admired for its effective democracy, though people are puzzled by low voter turnout and the general ignorance of most U.S. citizens about our own political system.


• The U.S. public is regarded as open, friendly, generous, and good-natured.

B. On the negative side the United States is seen as:

• Isolationist and uninterested in the rest of the world—except, perhaps, as a market—and largely ignorant about it. In a recent cartoon in The Sowetan, a South African newspaper, President Bush and Vice President Cheney are shown explaining U.S. foreign policy using a map of the World minus Africa. In a more troubling example in the last few weeks, the head of USAID argued that U.S. funds for the AIDS campaign in Africa should go to prevention rather than treatment.³ He told The Boston Globe that the reason for this decision was the fact that most Africans lack the concept of time. That statement is wrong and can best be described as "ignorant."
  
• We are seen as a nation primarily looking out for ourselves—as our European colleagues put it recently during the Bush visit, "polluting the skies, breaking treaties, and flirting with new arms races."⁴


• We are perceived as expecting our "values" to dominate the world—convinced that the rest of the world could prosper, if only it acted like we do. For example, the former Education Minister of France, Claude Allegre, warned in December 1999, that higher education in Europe was at risk of being dominated by American values as a result of American institutions setting up branches and degree programs in Europe. He suggested that Europe needed to prepare a "counterattack" including a battle over the right of U.S. institutions to offer distance education programs in Europe. Allegre feared an American global takeover of higher education. He went on to say that "If Americans install their universities all over the world, all on the same model, with the same curriculum, [the implication being that this is the case], it would be a catastrophe." He warned against "the privatization of education" calling on Europe to maintain its own "national specifics."⁵


• We are viewed as focusing on building (or maintaining) American hegemony in military, economic, and political terms—the McDonaldization of the world. In the survey of Chinese attitudes mentioned earlier, almost 30 percent of respondents saw the U.S. as "overbearing," "hegemonic," and "arrogant."⁶ Or as French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin put it the other day, "the EU is protecting Europe against the United States’ unilateralism, brutal capitalist instincts, and failure in human rights."⁷


• An increasingly frequent theme from abroad is the view that we are elitist and insensitive to the needs and aspirations of most of the rest of the world—especially developing areas in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.


• We are often seen as unwilling to listen to other points of view—insensitive.


• A recent theme, especially in Europe, is that we are uncultured and, in many ways "barbaric" as exemplified by the death penalty (especially regarding the execution of a high proportion of minorities, as well as minors and the mentally incompetent). These actions are also seen as examples of our lack of concern for human rights. Add to that the high murder rate, refusal to endorse the land mine treaty, easy access to guns, and our limited human "safety-net." As such we do not score well on the human rights scale for people in many other nations.


• As a people, we are sometimes viewed as greedy, self-absorbed, and captivated by money. We are seen as a nation that is not willing to do our fair share in assisting with many of the major burdens of the world—AIDS, international conflicts, famine, and economic development.

Some of these observations are based on facts and experience. Others are wrong. Some reflect jealousy about U.S. successes and power. Some of it, in the European Union for example, is a convenient mechanism for uniting the often-fractious members around a common irritant—the United States—as seemed to be the case two weeks ago. Some of it reflects growing anti-Americanism—as in Hong Kong in recent months, growing out of fear about U.S. dominance of the news media and U.S. business takeovers.⁸

Some views are more nuanced. As the German foreign policy analyst Josef Joffe put it, "America is both menace and seducer, both monster and model." He goes on to say that, "While resentment of America is rife..., the attraction of America—its culture, universities, movies, food, clothing, and technologies—is just as strong, and today no power in the world can balance it."⁹ As Allister Sparks suggests "...much of the hostility, of course, stems from envy." He suggests that it is more accurate to speak of a love-hate relationship.¹⁰

But whatever the causes or the reality of the pictures painted of the United States, these perceptions create the environment in which we work in higher education and particularly in quality assurance. We would be wise to keep them in mind as we operate internationally. We also need to recognize that many of these perceptions are based on reality. We need to be sensitive to the things we can do to change those realities that do not show us as we would like to be seen.

Let me turn more directly to issues of quality assurance, and many of the opportunities and challenges that take us abroad—such as distance education, campuses abroad, accreditation, professionalization, privatization, study, and internships abroad.

III. What do our international colleagues want from the U.S. in higher education—in particular, regarding accreditation and quality assurance?

A. To be partners with us. They want partnership, not recolonization. I have been hearing a lot about "recolonization" lately from academics in West and Southern Africa—and there is no doubt that the United States is regarded as one of the actual or potential colonizers. They want partnership in search of quality—including a common or mutually intelligible language.

B. To be treated with respect as equals. Let me give an example that demonstrates the subtle nuances of what is perhaps a subconscious and unintended indication of disrespect—but a situation I have witnessed often. When you and I visit a senior U.S. official, we wear our dark suit and tie or a conservative business dress. Too often when an American educator visits a similarly important education official, for example in South Africa, the dress is a polo shirt, a sundress, or even a T-shirt. What does that suggest about respect?

C. Mutuality. To work out collaboration and links that reflect the mutual benefits of the relationship. Our potential partners believe that they too have much to offer us—it is not just a matter of our helping them out.

D. Our colleagues outside the United States would like us to develop a better understanding of their cultures, values, and goals. This should include respect for their right to choose their own values—values different from our own.

In the area of knowledge of other nations, we have a great deal of work to do.

• We have to overcome our history of ignorance. Recent research by ACE show that U.S. colleges and universities are not doing very well in providing our graduates with an understanding of other people, cultures, and languages. As a Gallup Poll showed a few years ago, the U.S. was the worst among a dozen countries in terms of ability to identify places on a map. Even those Americans with geography courses were next to last, only ahead of Mexico, in their ability to respond correctly.


• We have a very poor record in foreign languages. We are remarkably monolingual. We expect others to speak our language. Doesn’t the rest of the world speak English? That is a question I hear often—even from college presidents. The answer is "no." In language ability the U.S. record is very poor. In an ACE national public opinion survey in September 2000, 42 percent of the population reported that they had some ability to use a language other than English, with about one-third saying they speak "fairly well" to "fluently." In contrast, in Germany, 85 percent of graduates speak English.


• We need to learn to listen. We have a very poor record of listening to others and letting others speak. This is in striking contrast to South African group discussions in which a "democratic ethic" has developed in which each person has a chance to speak before someone can speak a second time.

E. Our overseas colleagues would like to learn from our successes in both higher education and quality assurance. They are eager to know more about us and what is new in quality assurance in the United States.

F. Understand how our mysterious, decentralized, largely "autonomous," non-governmental accreditation system works. Their questions include:

• How is it possible to have an effective quality assurance system—as we are acknowledged to have—that is not controlled by the national government?


• Can peer review work without government control? Who "guards the guards?"


• How can U.S. higher education accreditors be so similar without centralized control at the national level—especially when it appears so "anarchic?"


• How have we managed to keep politics out of quality assurance? Or have we?


• What gives our system legitimacy with government and employers such that they insist on degrees from accredited institutions?

G. Some of our international colleagues would like the opportunity for U.S. accreditation for their institutions. Some foreign colleges and universities want U.S. accreditation because it is, at least at the moment, "the gold standard" in many areas of higher education. And in the professions it also is often a measure of quality recognized worldwide by employers, as is ABET accreditation.

This desire for accreditation by U.S. accreditors presents opportunities for U.S. accreditors and quality assurance agencies, but it also involve serious risks that need to be considered including:

• How it is perceived internationally.


• How it affects access to U.S. funding by these institutions once they are accredited.


• How it affects other eligibilities once they are accredited in fields such as medicine. For example, does it open up access for internships and residencies in the U.S.?

IV. How can we be responsive to the concerns of our potential international partners?
U.S. accreditors and quality assurance providers have a great deal to offer our international colleagues. We also have a lot we can learn from them. Taking the time to understand other systems and cultures, working in partnership with our accrediting and quality assurance colleagues abroad, establishing mechanisms for mutual cooperation on international issues—this is the best route to success for U.S. higher education and quality assurance.

We should:

A. Learn more about other parts of the world. There are many things we can do including:

• Make a concerted effort to learn about the countries in which we work or plan to work.


• Send people who know the language of our partners, or who at least have taken the first steps in understanding the cultures and the people. For example: Americans are sparse in their greetings in places of business and have the habit of starting a conversation abroad by stating what we want rather than saying "hello," or "bonjour," or "buenos dios." It does not take a great deal of effort to learn a few greetings such as "akuaba" for Ghana or "namistay" for parts of India. These efforts create good will and show respect for the language and culture of the host country.

B. Promote partnerships. It is useful to think in terms of partnerships in which both of us have things to learn from each other. That is an essential assumption for such collaboration. Mutuality is an essential part of that. In South Africa, the common complaint is that Americans come to South Africa to tell South Africans what to do. At the same time, far too many Americans do not think they have anything to learn from South Africans. My own experience in South Africa, over the last 10 years, is that South Africans have a lot to teach us—especially given their greater successes in dealing with racism, sexism—and providing forgiveness. Nelson Mandela is an excellent example of this forgiveness and lack of hostility after 26 years in prison.

C. We need to think about the nuggets or the great ideas we may find—genius is randomly distributed around the world. We do not have a monopoly on genius. Most of the great innovations and discoveries of the 21st century will grow out of cooperative, multicountry efforts. The competitive advantage of the United States internationally will not last. We need to open our eyes to the contributions of the rest of the world!

D. And together, we need to work hard to help extricate the United States from its isolation and parochialism. That is a long-term project in which all of us need to invest both time and effort.

V. Accreditation and quality assurance as major international issues: the impact of globalization.
Quality assurance is a major issue in many parts of the world—and some of the issues are quite different from those most of us experience.

A. Internationally, there is general recognition that high quality higher education is central to economic success—for both developed and less developed nations of the world:

• Information technology and quality higher education are keys to development.¹¹


• Those nations that do not have high quality higher education systems are destined to remain peripheral players in the new global economy.


• The issues for those countries that are not yet developed economically are: the ability to provide their citizens with the high quality higher education and information technology needed to compete in the new globalized economy; determining the most effective way to allocated limited national resources for education; and deciding both how and to what extent to obtain and utilize the higher education resources of other countries (including distance education), while protecting their autonomy and nationhood.

These are not questions I propose to answer here, but they should give some sense of the high stakes involved—especially for poor and developing nations.

B. The importance of quality higher education was emphasized in 1998 at the UNESCO Meetings in Paris. At the meetings it became clear that "quality" is also a contentious issue for some UNESCO members. The concerns expressed at the meeting speak to the special care and sensitivity we must use in dealing with quality assurance and its meaning internationally. We must understand some of the political and cultural sensitivities involved—and the underlying suspicions they generate.

The effort to define "quality" higher education turned out to be especially difficult. For some, "quality" is relative and situational. Their definitions of quality are contextualized in ways that pose challenges for others who would like to see international quality "standards" or "benchmarks." Without going into the issues involved—which should be self-evident—let me mention several illustrative definitions of quality from several different regional declarations growing out of work prior to the UNESCO meetings. For example:

• "One basic assumption is that quality is linked to relevance (in other words, quality has no meaning without relevance),...quality is a multidimensional concept which depends to a large extent on the contextual setting of a given system, institutional mission, or conditions and standards within a given discipline."¹²


– or –


• "It is not possible to arrive at one set of quality standards applicable to all countries, and against which institutions can be assessed."¹³


– or –


• "The concept of accountability is closely allied with quality."¹⁴

C. Quality has other political meanings that are worth noting.

• Quality as an excuse for discrimination. For example, the assertion during apartheid that the black population was not of a quality to allow them to participate in higher education.


• Quality as synonymous with colonial power—for example: Education links to the metropole—e.g., defined by France, England, Portugal. Institutions were either French-run (as were several long after independence) or the degrees were from European institutions—e.g., Fourah Bay College in Sierra Leone, from Durham University degrees.


• Quality as what "we" do. We who have the power!


• Perceptions of "lack of quality" higher education used as an excuse to write off the importance of particular nations or regions of the world—e.g., most commonly Africa. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, the World Bank argued that higher education in Africa did not produce an adequate rate of return to warrant foreign aid. It was not of adequate quality. Send those needing it somewhere in Europe or the United States.


• But the major question is: who defines "quality?"


• Is it a "western" notion?


• Are there different standards for different people?


• Can there be a generalizable standard internationally?


• Would U.S. recognition of foreign institutions begin a move toward a situation that would, de facto, result in the U.S. setting international standards? What would be the consequences of that?


• Or, could there be some kind of international quality standards?

I have mentioned a great many issues to think about, and posed dozens of questions. Can we put these issues into a broad international context? Let me turn, briefly, to the WTO and issues about higher education as a traded "service."

VI. WTO and quality assurance—another aspect of the picture—the U.S. proposal to WTO suggesting that higher education services which cross national borders be put under the umbrella of the WTO.

A. Aims of USTR proposal to the WTO.

• Reduce or eliminate restrictions on trade in higher education services. Examples given include: visa problems for employees, trouble repatriating funds, limits on the number of foreign providers, minimum investment requirements, duties on educational material.


• The goal is to bring higher education, as a "service" under the GATS rules of the WTO.


• Encourage reduction in restrictions that affect the trade in educational services.


• Encourage other nations to sign on to the higher education aspects of GATS. The U.S. has not signed onto three of the five education areas—primary education, secondary education, higher education. It is the latter—higher education—that the U.S. is proposing to add as a signatory as part of GATS.

B. CHEA/ACE concerns about the December 2000 United States proposal regarding higher education as part of the service sector under GATS.

• The issue was complicated by the fact that the USTR proposal went to the WTO without being seen by the major representatives of the higher education community. Thus, we became involved in the discussion late in the day.


• We have very serious reservations about whether this is in the best interest of U.S. colleges and universities.


• CHEA and ACE have major doubts about whether GATS is the appropriate mechanism to foster international trade in higher education services, and have met with the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative to express our concerns.

Among the problems are:

• Confusion about the terms "public" and "private" higher education. This creates the possibility that, for example, UC Berkeley would be treated differently than Stanford. We are the only country in the world with such a high proportion of private institutions.


• Quality assurance is not a government function in the U.S. and that creates potential problems of understanding with other countries under a Ministry of Education.


• The USTR proposal is seen as threatening to developing countries in that (a) they do not yet have the infrastructure to protect themselves against poor quality providers and (b) fear that competition from external providers will increasingly make it more difficult to develop their systems and provide opportunities for access for the disadvantaged. For example, they are concerned about external providers cherrypicking the profitable courses, thus depriving the government of those funds, while ignoring the less-advantaged students.


• Fear of our colleagues in Europe, North America, Africa, Latin America, and Asia that we are trying to "McDonaldize," "Americanize," and "privatize" higher education throughout the world. We are seen as wanting to make the world safe for U.S. education.


• The possibility that higher education services could get caught up in a trade conflict—the recent "banana war" or the current "tax breaks battle" with the EU in which WTO ruled against the U.S. Given the almost total discretion of the winners about where to put punitive tariffs, higher education could be one of the affected trade items.

There are similar—and in some cases even more far reaching—concerns for NAFTA and FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas). In the latter two treaties, individual businesses have the right to sue, unlike the case of WTO. In addition, both of these treaties see the dropping of restrictions as a continuing and ongoing activity. Thus, if higher education is covered under the agreements, those protections we think essential to guarantee the quality, decentralization, and autonomy of our system, may become targets for elimination.

This is by way of information for you. We are working on these questions. The FTAA, in particular, is only now in the early states of negotiation and in draft form. The U.S. proposal to WTO is scheduled to be heard in July, or perhaps later in the fall.

Lets' turn to CHEA’s effort to respond to some of the issues I have mentioned.

VII. How do the proposed CHEA Principles fit into all this?
The CHEA Principles grow out of the international seminars organized by CHEA in 2000 and 2001. They reflect input from our international colleagues and from many of you here. The draft International Principles were sent out to accreditors for their comment earlier this year. They are designed to deal with some of the issues raised here, reduce concerns about our intentions, encourage cooperation, promote greater understanding of the countries in which we work, and assure transparency when we work abroad. They focus on areas in which we believe special considerations, preparation, and diplomacy are vital to ensure good relationships with our international colleagues. They are also designed to help increase awareness of potential problems for those new to international activities.

The four principles:

• Considerations and Actions for U.S. Accreditors When Determining to Undertake Accreditation in Another Country. This section focuses on things you ought to think about before you undertake such actions.


• Expectations for Conduct of U.S. Accreditation Reviews Abroad. Here we build on suggestions of our overseas colleagues in terms of their experience with U.S. accreditors.


• Accreditation of Online and Web-based Instruction and Programs. Among other things, based on input from our colleagues abroad, we have placed emphasis on the importance of thinking about the special requirements of the different audiences abroad—language, study skills, access to libraries, and other information.


• Responsibilities of Accreditors to Students and Colleagues. These focus on our need to inform consumers about why accreditation is important, how to recognize fraudulent providers, and where to get the information you need about accredited providers. In short, how do we help the consumers of quality higher education protect themselves from fraud and poor quality?

All this is an attempt, in the context of accreditation, to deal with the types of problems I have been discussing throughout this presentation.

VIII. In Conclusion: Some Thoughts About Enhancing Our International Activities and Cooperation

A. There are tremendous new opportunities for U.S. accreditors which have been brought about by globalization, information technology, and our ability to work with colleagues and institutions abroad.

• These efforts are unhindered, for the most part, by the ideological baggage of the cold war or other divisions.


• They create the potential for enhancing knowledge creation broadly for the collective benefit of higher education generally.


• We have seen, however, that our international activities are often seen as threatening by other countries—including some of our traditional allies—and we thus need to work to allay the sense of threat and become understanding partners. While, as individuals, we can not change the way in which the United States is generally perceived—at least in the short run—we can have a profound effect on how we are perceived as individuals and as organizations. Indeed, a very little effort on our parts can make a great deal of difference.


• If U.S. institutions are to succeed in taking advantage of the new opportunities in higher education in the international arena, we need to overcome some of our most serious deficiencies and think carefully about how we want to proceed.

B. I want to suggest that we will be most successful in enhancing international activities and cooperation if we can:

• develop close working relationships with our colleagues abroad based on equality and mutuality;


• do so as informed partners, aware of the history, culture, and higher education traditions of the nations with which we work;


• foster language and international education at home, overcoming our current legacy of ignorance and monolingualism.

If we can do these things, I think we will find that the rewards, opportunities, and satisfaction gained from greater participation in the international arena, will be both long lasting and substantial indeed.

¹ Thomas L. Friedman, "They Hate Us! They Need Us!," New York Times, June 15, 2001, p. A39.
² Wang Jisi, "Beauty—and Beast," The Wilson Quarterly, Spring 2001.
³ Andrew Natsios, head of USAID, as reported in an editorial, "The U.S. Looks at Aids," New York Times, June 24, 2001, p. 12. It should be noted that he also seemed unaware that new AIDS drugs need only be taken in the morning and in the evening.
⁴ Suzanne Daley, "A Skeptical Europe," New York Times, June 11, 2001.
⁵ Chronicle of Higher Education, "French Education Minister Warns Against Spread of American Programs to Europe," December 10, 1999.
⁶ Wang Jisi, Ibid, p. 2.
⁷ "Jospin Envision An Alternative EU," Herald Tribune, 5/29/01, p. 1.
⁸ Philip Bowring, Herald Tribune, May 31, 2001, p. 8.
⁹ Friedman, Ibid.
¹⁰ Allister Sparks, "A View of Rome from the Provinces," The Wilson Quarterly, Spring 2001.
¹¹ Most cogently stated by Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, London: T.J. Press, 1996.
¹² UNESCO, Retained Lessons, October 5-9, 1998, p. 8.
¹³ Ibid. p. 8.
¹⁴ Ibid. p. 9.