SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT | MOST POPULAR |  RSS | | REPRINT
|
Training Soapbox: Accreditation Advantage
June 02, 2008
By William J. Rothwell and Greg G. Wang, Ph.D.
At last count, there were more than 300 undergraduate and graduate programs in the field that has variously been called training, training and development, human resource development, workplace learning and performance, and learning and performance. Academicians and practitioners in the field alike often express amazement, and sometimes consternation, at the sheer diversity of these programs. Unlike accounting programs, which are pretty much the same no matter where a student might enroll, undergraduate and graduate programs in the field of training and development vary greatly in the areas of concentration and specialization.
Depending on whom you ask, that can be a good thing or a bad thing. It can be a good thing if the field is to be kept porous, allowing virtually anyone who wishes to enter to do so. Indeed, many people—perhaps as many as three-fourths of all trainers—are promoted from within their companies to help meet training needs. But it can be a bad thing if the field is so easy to enter that it attracts fly-by-night charlatans who only pretend to bring the theory and practice of the field to bear on the problems organizations face.
In recent years, the two largest associations in the field—the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) and the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD)—have launched certification programs. One reason to do that is to ensure some quality control for people who purport to be professionals in a field that does not require State licensure.
But movement toward a profession requires more than the certification of individuals alone. First, it also requires some way to ensure that individuals adhere to a code of ethics based on thoroughly researched approaches to resolving the ethical dilemmas professionals in the field face. Second, it requires organizational leaders to accept responsibility for providing a work climate that supports transfer of learning from the training venue back to the job and ensures that everyone—managers and learners, as well as trainers—are held accountable for their respective roles in applying the learning gained from training. Finally, it requires a means to ensure that professionals who are building their competencies in academic degree programs related to the field participate in quality learning experiences. After all, should not trainers have the best formal education programs?
However, before that can happen, some questions must be answered:
What is accreditation?
Accreditation typically is understood to mean a process of reviewing an organization or academic institution to ensure it meets previously defined standards of quality.
According to the Council of Higher Education Accreditation (Profile of accreditation: Fact sheet, Report No. 1, Washington, D.C., August 2003), 6,421 educational institutions and 18,713 programs were accredited in the U.S. It should be understood that the 18,713 specialized accreditation programs exist for a single purpose, such as accrediting special occupational or educational programs. Also according to the Council of Higher Education Accreditation ("The fundamentals of accreditation: What do you need to know?" September 2002), "specialized accreditation organizations also operate throughout the country and review programs and some single-purpose institutions. There are more than 17,600 of these accredited programs and single-purpose operations.
What are some examples of accredited school-based programs?
Many occupations have sponsored their own academic accreditation efforts for school-based programs. They include:
• MBA programs through the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)
• Teacher education/certification programs
Why should employers and practitioners care about academic accreditation?
The field of training is becoming more professional as evidenced by the emergence of well-researched and solid certification programs sponsored by two industry associations. At this time, employers and practitioners should care about academic accreditation to ensure these programs are well-conceived, are current, have qualified faculty, present up-to-date content, and operate according to sound academic principles. Accreditation is additional assurance, a seal of quality to ensure adherence to standards of excellence. For individuals, investing time and money in an accredited program is well worth it because it indicates an investment in an academic program that has pursued excellence in readily identifiable ways. For employers hiring graduates from academic programs, accreditation is an additional symbol to indicate the quality of the candidates.
What are the advantages of academic accreditation?
A 2002 research study of 122 academic deans and chairs of business schools shows accreditation has clear advantages. According to R. Roller and B. Andrews in "Specialized accreditation of business schools: A comparison of alternative cost, benefits, and motivation," Journal of Education for Business, March and April 2003, respondents to the study said that accreditation of business schools leads to:
1. Accountability for program improvement
2. Opportunities to share techniques/success/ challenges with other institutions facing similar issues
3. Marketing advantages
4. Faculty recruitment advantages
5. Recognition as a superior (elite) institution
6. Increased bargaining leverage for university resources
7. Increased bargaining leverage for faculty compensation
These perceived advantages put programs in the field on an equal footing with MBA programs and teacher certification programs that demand attention from academic decision-makers.
What are the possible disadvantages?
1. Well-respected and well-run programs may not be able to qualify—due to lack of funding or academic politics—for accreditation.
2. The standards for excellence on which such programs are based may not be well-advised or correlate to quality instruction.
How would an accreditation program work?
An accreditation program starts with a statement of standards. An independent association, the Human Resource Development Accreditation Association (HRDAA) was founded to promote accreditation of academic programs in the field (see www.hrdaa.org). See sidebar below for the category of standards established by HRDAA. They are intended to establish standards of excellence for academic programs in the field.
The accreditation process begins with the selection of a team of trained reviewers from other academic programs in the field. The academic program under review completes a self-study review in advance, submitting it to the team selected to do the review. The team then visits the review site, meeting with faculty, staff, and students to verify and determine how well the academic program adheres to the standards and complies with its own mission and procedures based on the self-study.
Upon completion of the review, the team submits a report to the leaders of the academic program, as well as their department head(s), academic deans, and other appropriate decision-makers. When major departures from standards are found, the academic program under review has an opportunity to respond to any such findings. The accreditation team then issues a letter to indicate the academic program has been accredited; or must comply with specific requirements and then will be accredited; or to indicate the program presently is not suited for accreditation. The review process aims to build on strengths and provide a basis for improvement, not to find fault.
Who accredits the accreditors?
Organizations exist solely to ensure that accreditation processes by accrediting bodies are carried out in adherence with the highest standards for the accreditation process. Most academic programs exist to conduct research and teaching, and offer service to the community and the field. Accreditation can be an effective and powerful tool to cross-fertilize academic programs and open balanced, integrated dialogues on excellence in research, teaching, and service.
William J. Rothwell is Professor of Workforce Education and Development on the University Park campus of Penn State University. He heads up a graduate program in workforce education and development, as well as a graduate specialty within that program focused on the training and development field. He can be reached at wjr9@psu.edu or at 814.863.2581.
Greg G. Wang, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Human Resource Development at the School of Human Resource Development, College of Business and Technology, The University of Texas at Tyler. He can be reached at wanggreg@aol.com or 903.565.5910.
|
SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT | MOST POPULAR | RSS |
|
|
| Back to Marketing Index |
|
|
