The role of accreditation in establishing academic legitimacy in graduate level non-profit management education

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education Pub Date : 2019-07-29 DOI:10.1108/SGPE-04-2019-0044
Emiko Blalock
{"title":"The role of accreditation in establishing academic legitimacy in graduate level non-profit management education","authors":"Emiko Blalock","doi":"10.1108/SGPE-04-2019-0044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this study is to examine the tension that a graduate education field called non-profit management education (NME) faces as it decides whether or not to adopt accreditation. The tension at hand is the politically wrought process of accreditation and the challenge many professional graduate education programs face in maintaining distinctive characteristics of their programs while conforming to the perceived legitimate norms within the larger field of higher education.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis case study is focused on a multi-day Summit, collecting data from participant presentations and discussions, observations and field notes and documents. Inductive coding and deductive coding are used to analyze data, framed under the theoretical framework of organizational legitimacy, strategy and homogeneity.\n\n\nFindings\nThree major themes are identified that illuminate the inherent tension between the ambiguous nature of legitimacy and the structured character of accreditation: arguing the field is unique, establishing threats to innovation and drawing boundaries.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study offers unique insights into the political nature of accreditation and its ties to legitimacy for professional graduate education programs. With the expansion of graduate education into more applied fields and the increased pressure to provide programs that are directly related to professional and career advancement, many programs may benefit from accreditation standards while garnering legitimacy. However, it is imperative that those seeking accreditation understand they may risk losing the very elements that make their programs distinct.\n","PeriodicalId":42038,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/SGPE-04-2019-0044","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-04-2019-0044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the tension that a graduate education field called non-profit management education (NME) faces as it decides whether or not to adopt accreditation. The tension at hand is the politically wrought process of accreditation and the challenge many professional graduate education programs face in maintaining distinctive characteristics of their programs while conforming to the perceived legitimate norms within the larger field of higher education. Design/methodology/approach This case study is focused on a multi-day Summit, collecting data from participant presentations and discussions, observations and field notes and documents. Inductive coding and deductive coding are used to analyze data, framed under the theoretical framework of organizational legitimacy, strategy and homogeneity. Findings Three major themes are identified that illuminate the inherent tension between the ambiguous nature of legitimacy and the structured character of accreditation: arguing the field is unique, establishing threats to innovation and drawing boundaries. Originality/value This study offers unique insights into the political nature of accreditation and its ties to legitimacy for professional graduate education programs. With the expansion of graduate education into more applied fields and the increased pressure to provide programs that are directly related to professional and career advancement, many programs may benefit from accreditation standards while garnering legitimacy. However, it is imperative that those seeking accreditation understand they may risk losing the very elements that make their programs distinct.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认证在研究生非营利性管理教育中建立学术合法性的作用
目的本研究的目的是考察研究生教育领域称为非营利管理教育(NME)面临的紧张局势,因为它决定是否采用认证。目前的紧张局势是政治上造成的认证过程,以及许多专业研究生教育项目在保持其项目特色的同时符合高等教育更大领域内公认的合法规范所面临的挑战。设计/方法/方法本案例研究的重点是一个为期数天的峰会,从参与者的演讲和讨论、观察和实地笔记和文件中收集数据。在组织合法性、策略和同质性的理论框架下,采用归纳编码和演绎编码对数据进行分析。本研究确定了三个主要主题,阐明了合法性的模糊性与认证的结构化特征之间的内在紧张关系:论证该领域是独一无二的,建立对创新的威胁,并划定界限。原创性/价值本研究对认证的政治性质及其与专业研究生教育项目合法性的关系提供了独特的见解。随着研究生教育扩展到更多的应用领域,以及提供与专业和职业发展直接相关的课程的压力越来越大,许多课程可能受益于认证标准,同时获得合法性。然而,那些寻求认证的人必须明白,他们可能会失去使他们的项目与众不同的元素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
How do Danish humanities PhD school leaders constitute their roles? Interactions of biography, place and time Advancing doctoral student professional development through a strengths-based cohort program Understanding how socio-historical contexts inform approaches to improving racial climate in stem graduate education within the United States Developing writing productivity in a graduate support community “We can work on this”: exploring supervisor approaches to feedback in the context of writing for a professional doctorate
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1