Date of Award

Spring 2026

Language

English

Embargo Period

4-22-2026

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

College/School/Department

Department of Educational Policy and Leadership

Program

Educational Policy and Leadership

First Advisor

Susan Phillips

Second Advisor

Kathryn Schiller

Committee Members

Susan Phillips, Kathryn Schiller, Peter Ewell, Kristen Wilcox

Keywords

Accreditation, Higher Education Policy, Institutional Effectiveness, Quality Assurance, Continuous Improvement, Accountability

Subject Categories

Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research | Educational Leadership | Higher Education | Higher Education Administration | Public Policy

Abstract

This qualitative study examined how institutional quality is constructed, communicated, and negotiated through the accreditation process in U.S. higher education. Drawing on a multiple case study design, the research analyzed accreditation-related documents from eight institutions undergoing reaffirmation, including self-study reports, peer review team reports, Commission action letters, and institutional responses. The study was guided by three research questions: (a) What institutional signals of quality are evidenced in self-studies? (b) In what ways does the accreditation process represent a negotiation between accreditors and institutions? (c) What implied views of institutional quality emerge from accreditation discourse?

The study employed a multilayered analytical framework integrating discourse analysis, policy appropriation theory, and anthropological perspectives on ritual. Findings suggested that accreditation functions not merely as an evaluative mechanism, but as a dynamic, iterative negotiation process through which institutional quality is coconstructed. Across cases, quality was consistently signaled through six interconnected themes (i.e., relevance; community; focus; evidence; betterment; and diversity, equity, and inclusion [DEI]) with evidence serving as the foundational element supporting all quality claims. Institutions achieving optimal accreditation outcomes demonstrated strong integration across these dimensions, particularly through representativeness in stakeholder engagement and alignment between institutional mission, practices, and documentation.

The findings further suggested that accreditation operates as a ritualized process through which institutional status is reaffirmed and renewed. In this process, peer reviewers function as mediators, balancing institutional context with external standards while employing discursive strategies that sustain institutional legitimacy. Institutions with suboptimal outcomes were characterized by gaps in evidence, limited stakeholder engagement, and weaker alignment between stated priorities and demonstrated practices.

This study contributed to existing literature by advancing a conceptualization of accreditation as a policy-guided, ritualized negotiation and by refining existing frameworks of institutional quality to include DEI as a central dimension. The findings highlighted the importance of viewing accreditation as an ongoing, context-sensitive process that supports institutional learning and improvement rather than compliance alone. Implications are offered for institutional leaders, accreditors, and policymakers to strengthen quality assurance practices in an evolving higher education landscape.

License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Download

Share

COinS