The institutionalisation of accreditations : an exploratory case study of Dutch business schools

The institutionalisation of

accreditations

An exploratory case study of Dutch business

schools

Master Thesis

Drs. Liesbeth Nederlof

Student number 10684557

29/06/2015

Executive Programme in Management Studies - Strategy Track

Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Liesbeth Nederlof who

declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this

document. I declare that the text and the work presented is

original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the

text and in its references have been used to creating it. The

Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the

supervision and completion of the work, not for the contents.

Signature

Logo´s cover page retrieved from:

http://www.nvao.net/, https://www.efmd.org/, http://www.aacsb.edu/ and http://www.mbaworld.com/ at 5-1- 2015

i

List of frequently used terms

and abbreviations

AACSB =

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, that accredits whole

universities.

ABS = Amsterdam Business School

Accreditation = a formal, published statement regarding quality of an institution or programme,

following a cyclical evaluation based on agreed standards.

AMBA =

Association of MBAs.

AMBA accredits MBA, DBA and MBM programmes.

Assurances of learning = cycle with objectives, programme, exams, results, improvements, objectives,

etc. It is a requirement of the AACSB accreditation.

Autonomy = self-government of institutions for higher education or self-managed positions of faculty

Autonomy in teaching = to decide itself who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught,

and who may be admitted to study.

EFMD = European Foundation for Management Development

EPAS = an international programme accreditation system operated by EFMD.

EQUIS = business school accreditation from EFMD

the European, Quality Improvement

Scheme. EQUIS is a voluntary accreditation for whole business schools.

e-learning = e-learning is electronic learning, this means using a computer to deliver part, or all of a

course whether it's in a school, part of your mandatory business training or a full distance learning

course.

Entrepreneurship = the activities of actors who have interest in particular institutional arrangements

and who leverage resources to create new institutions or transform existing ones.

FEM = Faculty of Economics and Management HU

HU = Hogeschool Utrecht, University of Applied Sciences

IBMS = International Business & Management Studies, a programme in the FEM, HU

Incremental innovation = step by step innovation, improving and transforming business schools

ISO 9001 = International Organization for Standardization, 9001 is an international hallmark for

quality of an organization.

MBA = Master of Business Administration, a programme in the ABS, UvA and in the SBE, MU

MU = Maastricht University

NVAO = Dutch – Flemish accreditation organization, Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie,

Radical innovation = disruptive innovation, creating new business schools

RSM = Rotterdam School of Management

SBE = School of Business and Economics, MU

UvA = University of Amsterdam

ii

Summary

To enhance the understanding on business schools’ compliance with accreditations, a multiple case

study approach has been followed to ground a research model in institutional theory. Emerging

finding give an answer to the following research questions: How have accreditations been

institutionalised in Dutch business schools over time? What is the influence of accreditations on the

autonomy of lecturers and on entrepreneurship in business schools?

Three exploratory case studies have been conducted at three business schools: Faculty of Economics

and Management (FEM), Hogeschool Utrecht (HU), University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam

Business School (ABS), University of Amsterdam (UvA), and School of Business and Economics

(SBE), Maastricht University (MU). In total, 17 interviews were held. In addition, a document

analysis was conducted to triangulate interview results.

On the antecedents part of the model, results indicate that all types of coercive, mimetic, and

normative pressures are present, but their influence depends on the type of accreditation involved,

either national or international

For national accreditations, coercive pressure exerted by the government Dutch/Flemish accreditation

organization is the strongest. External normative pressures, exerted from partner universities,

potential students, and potential staff, have the greatest impact on international accreditations.

Although mimetic pressures play a role with regard to reputation, distinctiveness, and the desire to

achieve international triple-crown accreditation, mimetic pressure do not influence national

accreditations. Moreover, internal normative pressures are present in the form of processes of

improvement and management’s intrinsic motivation to acquire accreditations.

On the consequences side of the newly developed research model, the relation between accreditations

and autonomy in teaching appears to be a complex one. Lecturers state that in the Dutch – Flemish

accreditation organization (NVAO), teachers are free to conduct their classes independently,

however, an indirect relationship exists, as NVAO standards are incorporated in the policy of the

iii

programme or business school. If a lecturer wants to deviate from norms in an appropriate manner,

this is accepted as long as the end qualifications are met. At the same time is argued that teacher

autonomy is slightly restricted, as the NVAO requirements are more rigorous with respect to

examinations and graduation standards.

Finally, this study illustrates an ambiguous relation between accreditations and type of

entrepreneurship.On the one hand, incremental innovations are possible, like adjusting the curriculum

or didactical methods. As such, accreditations act as a mirror, as the accreditation committee draws

attention to the weak aspects of a programme. This information can then be used to continuously

improve a programme. On the other hand, no radical innovations took place in two out of three

business schools after accreditations had been implemented. Radical innovations do occur, but

completely independent of accreditations, without guidelines and limitations. Accreditation is only

an internal quality check while innovations bring something entirely new to the institutions. In one

case, radical innovations were recognized in response to certain international accreditations.

Broader implications suggest that the institutionalization of accreditations in business schools

follows a process similar to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) norms. When the

first business school acquired international accreditations, other business schools strived to follow.

Although managers are aware that business schools may end up looking all the same,

not having

suitable accreditations would signal a questionable level of professionalism.

Key words: institutional pressures - accreditation - business schools - employees - autonomy -

entrepreneurship

iv

Preface

My interest and enthusiasm for this subject is deeply rooted in my experience of working in a business

school environment. I have spent a considerable amount of time organising internal audits at the

Faculty of Economics and Management at Hogeschool, Utrecht University of Applied Sciences. I

further participate in internal audits at the Hogeschool Utrecht, as a member of several audit teams,

and I give lectures in quality management. The area studied in this thesis is crucial to the continuous

development of knowledge institutions like business schools.

I would like to express my warmest thanks to my supervisor Dr. Marten Stienstra for his challenging

intellectual support. I would also like to thank all the managers and lectures interviewed for this study

for their time and efforts. It was very interesting to talk to so many intelligent people, who could

contribute so thoroughly to the puzzle. I enjoyed conducting the interviews, particularly with

experienced interviewees who have such an international perspective. I am further indebted to

Maurice Oudejans and Pascale Veenings, with whose help I was able to contact the lecturers and

managers of the business schools. Finally, I thank Carla Kalkhoven for peer-reviewing the data

analysis, and my children for their patience with their perpetually studying mother.

Generally, I really enjoyed conducting research and writing my thesis. At the Hogeschool Utrecht

University of Applied Sciences, I supervise students during their theses. Following this study, I am

certain that I have developed my skills enough to be a better supervisor for them – I did practice what

I preach. In the end, it turned out I was so absorbed by the amount of data I gathered from the

interviews that I wanted to disappear underground to analyse everything thoroughly.

Last of all, I enjoyed my master’s degree at the University of Amsterdam very much, and strategy was

a fascinating track to study. I have learned a lot about theories, structures, and strategies. Moreover,

the international perspectives of the lecturers from Germany, Finland, and Canada were a wonderful

addition to this study, in terms of their expertise regarding international companies. These speakers, as

well as the managers of Carré and of DeLaMar, constitute the apex of this study. These professionals

from recognised businesses told interesting stories about their companies and themselves.

v

Table of contents

Chapter 1 Introduction

1

1.1 Research topic

2

1.2 Research problem

2

1.3 Research questions and sub questions

4

1.4 Thesis overview

6

Chapter 2 Research methodology

7

2.1 Exploratory case study

7

2.2 Population and sample

8

2.3 Data collection methods

8

2.4 Data analysis methods

10

2.5 Reliability and validity

11

Chapter 3 Main constructs

13

3.1 Accreditations in business schools

13

3.2 Institutional pressures

15

3.3 Autonomy in business schools

17

3.4 Entrepreneurship in business schools

20

3.5 The preliminary research model

22

Chapter 4 Results

24

4.1 Research context of accreditations in European and American business schools

24

4.2 Accreditations in Dutch business schools

27

4.3 Results case analysis IBMS, Faculty of Economics and

Management, Hogeschool Utrecht, University of Applied Sciences

28

4.4 Results case analysis MBA, Amsterdam Business School,

University of Amsterdam

37

4.5 Results case analysis MBA, School of Business and Economics,

Maastricht University

44

4.6

Cross-case analysis

and propositions

5

0

Chapter 5 Discussion

53

vi

5.2 Theoretical and practical implications

55

5.3 Strengths and limitations

56

5.4 Suggestions for further research

56

Chapter 6 Conclusions

58

6.1 The institutionalisation of accreditations over time in Dutch business schools

58

6.2 The influence of accreditations on the autonomy of lecturers and on

59

entrepreneurship in business schools

References

61

Appendices

Appendix 1 Definitions for accreditation

65

Appendix 2 Definitions for autonomy

68

Appendix 3 Definitions for entrepreneurship

70

Appendix 4 The population: a list of public higher education business schools that have

business administration programmes

73

Appendix 5 Steps in searching literature and other sources for the literature review

74

Appendix 6 Interview questions linked to sub questions and preliminary propositions 76

Appendix 7 A list of interviewees

78

Appendix 8 Development of interview questions

79

Appendix 9 Interview questions for directors and for lecturers

81

Appendix 10 The development of codes during data analysis

86

Appendix 11 Summaries of interviews IBMS, Faculty for Economics & Management,

Hogeschool Utrecht

88

Appendix 12 Summaries of interviews MBA, Amsterdam Business School,

University of Amsterdam

96

Appendix 13 Summaries of interviews MBA, School of Business and Economics,

Maastricht University

105

Appendix 14 Results case IBMS, Faculty of Economics and Management, Hogeschool

Utrecht, University of Applied Sciences,

110

Appendix 15 Results case MBA, Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam

117

Appendix 16 Results case MBA, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht

124

University

Appendix 17 Results cross-case analysis

130

Appendix 18 Accreditations of business schools

135

Appendix 19 Preliminary propositions into propositions

141

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Research topic

Business schools presently acquire multiple accreditations. It appears that this has a probable impact

on the professionals working at these institutions. Obligatory and voluntary accreditations are

becoming more important, as they show that the business schools comply with high quality standards.

Business schools in the Netherlands have been accredited by different accrediting organisations: the

Dutch – Flemish accreditation organization (NVAO),

European, Quality Improvement Scheme

(EQUIS),

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business

(AACSB), and

Association

of MBAs

(AMBA). These accredit different levels of a university: NVAO and AMBA accredit

programmes, EQUIS accredits business schools, and AACSB accredits universities as a whole. Some

business schools have double or triple accreditations. Business schools are defined as Schools of

Business and Economics in this thesis.

1.2 Research problem

Institutional theory can be used as a starting point to explain different pressures on business schools to

obtain accreditations. Three potential external pressures can be exerted by the surrounding

environment: coercive pressure renders institutions subject to the law, punishment follows if the

institute does not comply; mimetic pressure is voluntary, however, it comes about when other

institutes obtain accreditations; and normative pressure, which is also voluntary, in the norms and

values of the institutes, in professionalisation, in the culture, in trainings (Dimaggio and Powell, 1983;

Scott, 2001; Özen and Küskü, 2009). These pressures are examined in this thesis.

When institutional theory is applied on accreditations of business schools in the Netherlands, it

reveals that coercive pressure comes from the NVAO, the national accreditation agency. Mimetic

pressure arises from the other competitive business schools, while normative pressure stems from

norms in the business administration profession. Responses to these

pressures can vary from reactive

to pro-active strategies; and from conforming to the regulations of the NVAO and the requirements of

2

rankings, to the voluntary acquisition of international accreditations, like EQUIS, AACSB, and

AMBA. It appears that accreditations have not been studied in the context of institutional pressures

thus far. How could institutional pressures lead to acquisition of accreditations, and how do

accreditations influence autonomy and entrepreneurship constitute the theoretical research gaps

.

Is

this similar to or different from other institutional practices or industries?

Moreover, compliance research depends on the institutional framework as a lens for understanding the

dynamics of compliance in national and international contexts (Edelman and Suchman, 1997, as cited

by Appari et al, 2009). The primary contribution of this study is the novel application of institutional

theory to explain the variability of institutional compliance with accreditations.

The institutional perspective suggests that organisations seek accreditation due to mimetic pressure or,

in other words, the need to conform to institutional and market pressures within their business

environments. (Scott, 2001; DiMaggio & Powel, 1983). According to Clement and Stevens (1989),

one of the positive features of higher education teaching faculties is their autonomy in research and

education. As institutional diversity increases and as institutions become more flexible, innovative,

and autonomous, no single set of criteria can assess the performance of all institutions in a single

nation. (DeWit, 2006, as cited by Lewis et al., 2007). This leads to the question: What is the influence

of accreditations on the autonomy of employees? Nigsch and Schenker-Wicki (2013) argue that many

scholars view accreditations as a restriction of academic freedom , a bureaucratic process, and that

they obstruct innovation and adaptation. As such, the standards of accreditations can be considered to

conflict with the autonomy of the employees in education and research. According to Harvey (2007),

there is a tension between academic priorities and professional ones. Therefore, accrediting agencies

and academics struggle for power.

Furthermore, Bell and Taylor (2006) investigated how academics construct identities in relation to

quality processes. Barnett (2003) in Bell and Taylor (2006) states, “quality in higher education is

now seen and felt as external, as alien and as separate”. In lieu of this perspective, this thesis can be

seen as a contribution to the investigation of accreditations of business schools from the institutional

perspective.

3

Moreover, the head of postgraduate education, at the School of Business and Economics (SBE),

Maastricht University (MU), asked for a measurement of the impact of accreditations on the ability to

innovate or to adopt critical approaches, or to pursue unconventional avenues of thought. I thus

include the construct ‘entrepreneurship’ in my research questions., as institutional entrepreneurship

also fits well in institutional theory (Garud, Hardey, and Maguire, 2007). Institutional entrepreneurs

are individuals that must break with existing rules and practices associated with the dominant

rationales, and institutionalise the alternative rules, practices, or rationales they are championing

(Garud and Karnoe, 2001, Battilana, 2006, as cited by Garud, Hardey, and Maguire, 2007). Levy and

Scully (2007), in Garud, Hardey, and Maguire (2007) describe these institutional entrepreneurs as

modern princes or collective agents, who organise and strategise counter-hegemonic challenges.

The concept of entrepreneurship further raises several more questions: How do business schools find

new ways to innovate or to create entrepreneurship in response to accreditations? Does this increase

or decrease the autonomy of lecturers? Is it possible to create entrepreneurship while simultaneously

conforming to the three above mentioned forces, which possibly thwart autonomy? Is this a paradox?

Garud, Hardey, and Maguire (2007) articulated this problem as follows: if actors are embedded in an

institutional field and subject to regulative, normative, and cognitive processes that structure their

cognitions, define their interests and produce their identities (Friedland and Alford, 1991; Clemens

and Cook, 1999, as cited by Garud, Hardey, & Maguire (2007)), how are they able to envision new

practices and then convince others to adopt them too? This thesis strives to gain and offer greater

insight into this contentious issue.

1.3 Research questions and sub questions

This paper is centred on the following research questions:

1. How have accreditations been institutionalised in Dutch business schools over time?

2. What is the influence of accreditations on the autonomy of lecturers and on entrepreneurship

in business schools?

4

Three constructs in the research questions require further clarification, namely accreditation,

autonomy, and entrepreneurship.

Following Helmig et al. (2010), accreditation is defined as “a formal, published statement regarding

quality of an institution or programme, following a cyclical evaluation based on agreed standards”.

In appendix 1, several definitions of accreditation are given, while their differences are explained.

This study further defines autonomy as the self-governance of institutions of higher education

(Perkins, 1978, cited by Albornoz, 1991), or self-managed positions of faculty (McPherson &

Schapiro, 1999, as cited by Day and Peluchette, 2009). In appendix 2, more definitions of autonomy

are given and differences are explained. Pullin (2004) discusses the academic freedom of a university:

“The university should be free from governmental intervention in the intellectual life of the university.

Four freedoms are essential: to decide itself who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be

taught, and who may be admitted to study.” These all apply to teaching autonomy, which is a further

point of research of this thesis. Lambert (2003) concludes that meanings of autonomy and freedom in

the business school are multiple and disputed.

Moreover, Maguire, Hardy, and Lawrence (2004) define institutional entrepreneurship as “the

activities of actors who have interest in particular institutional arrangements and who leverage

resources to create new institutions or transform existing ones.” This study follows this definition of

institutional entrepreneurship, while more definitions of entrepreneurship can be found in appendix 3.

The research questions subsequently lead to the following sub-questions:

Q1.

What kind of coercive or regulative pressures to obtain accreditations does the government

exert on institutions?

Q2.

What kind of mimetic or cultural cognitive pressures to obtain accreditations are exerted by

other business schools?

Q3.

What kind of normative pressures (external and internal) exist to acquire accreditations?

Q4.

To what extent do business schools conform to accreditations?

Q5.

What is the influence of accreditations on the autonomy of employees and their teaching?

Q6.

What is the influence of accreditations on entrepreneurship in business schools?

5

1.4 Thesis overview

Following the introduction in chapter one, chapter two discusses the research methodology including

the multiple case study of selected Dutch business schools. Chapter three then offers an overview of

the existing literature regarding the main constructs: accreditations in business schools, institutional

pressures, autonomy, and entrepreneurship and provides the preliminary research model. Furthermore,

chapter four describes the results of the research context of accreditations in European and American

business schools, accreditations in Dutch business schools, and the three within case analyses and the

cross case analysis and propositions. A detailed discussion of the new research model, practical

implications, strengths and limitations, and suggestions for further research are then given in chapter

five. Finally, chapter six offers succinct conclusions, and specifically articulates a response to the

research and sub-questions guiding this study.

6

Chapter 2 Research methodology

2.1 Exploratory case study

This paper follows a qualitative methodology and is designed as an exploratory multiple case study.

The units of analysis are the employees, who teach in business schools, and the managers of the

programmes. I employ institutional theory to examine the institutional pressures regarding acquisition

of accreditations in business schools. To begin with, a preliminary research model was constructed,

including preliminary propositions. It demonstrates an interaction between data and theory. In the end,

the model was adjusted according to the text and document analysis and following the data analysis of

the interviews.

Thus, it was designed inductively: creation of a new model, followed by the building of theory from

existing case studies (Eisenhardt, 1989). Eisenhardt (1989) articulates eight steps in his article, which

this study’s model is based on. To begin with, the research question had to be defined, and possibly

additional a priori constructs, yet this stage does not include either theory or hypotheses. Glaser and

Strauss (1967) further advise against applying a theory at this point in time, and propose using a pet

theory instead. Thus, institutional theory is applied as the initial pet theory. At the second stage, cases

are selected according to specified population and theoretical sampling. These are rigorously

determined and not selected at random. Third, instruments and protocols are crafted, involving

multiple data selection

methods and qualitative data. The fourth step encompasses entering the field

for data collection and analysis, including taking field notes, and flexible and opportunistic data

collection methods. The fifth step is the data analysis section and includes the within case analysis and

search for patterns in the cross case analysis. Sixth, propositions are established, which involves

iterative tabulation for each construct, replication (not sampling), logic across cases, and the search

for reasons behind the results of the analysed relationships. At the seventh stage, a discussion of

relevant literature is undertaken, including a comparison of the conflicting and similar literatures. At

last, closure is reached, while links to the selected theory were established wherever possible.

7

2.2 Population and sample

The population used in this study consists of all public business schools with a business

administration programme in the Netherlands. A list of higher education business schools in the

Netherlands that teach business administration is provided in appendix 4. From this population a

sample was taken including the following three business schools: the Faculty of Economics and

Management (FEM), Hogeschool Utrecht with a single accreditation, Amsterdam Business School

(ABS), University of Amsterdam (UvA) with double accreditations, and the School of Business and

Economics (SBE), Maastricht University with five accreditations. The sampling rationale was typical

(one or two accreditations) and extreme (five accreditations).

The first case study took place at the Faculty of Economics and Management, Hogeschool Utrecht.

The employees that were interviewed work in the International Business and Management Studies

programme (IBMS). This bachelor programme was chosen as it is one of the few international

programmes that can be compared with the Master of Business Administration (MBA) programmes at

the Amsterdam Business School (ABS), University of Amsterdam (UvA) and the School of Business

and Economics (SBE), Maastricht University (MU).

2.3 Data collection methods

In the case study, first, I explored the key constructs in the literature: accreditations in business

schools, isomorphism, autonomy, and entrepreneurship. Appendix 5 offers a detailed explanation of

the research process using digital libraries of the UvA and the Hogeschool Utrecht.

Second, as the primary data collection method, I conducted interviews with lecturers and managers in

three business schools. The interviews were in between open and semi-structured. The interview

questions were prepared, but there was room to ask further questions to explore the constructs

in-depth. The employees that were interviewed work in the IBMS or MBA programme. The latter is an

international programme, which has been accredited and which exists all over the world. IBMS at the

FEM, Hogeschool Utrecht (HU), is also an international programme. The professionals of these three

business schools were involved in the accreditations process, so they were well aware of the

8

whose jobs entail tasks in either teaching or management. The interviews included questions

regarding the effects of accreditations on autonomy and entrepreneurship, and about pressures to

obtain accreditations. Lecturers knew more about the effect of accreditations on autonomy, while

managers knew more about the institutional pressures to acquire accreditations. Appendix 6 shows

how the interview questions are linked to the sub questions and preliminary propositions.

Furthermore, I interviewed lecturers, a project leader and policy advisor for accreditations, and

managers from three business schools to gather enough qualitative data. A list of the interviewees is

given in appendix 7. These open and semi-structured interviews lasted between 18 and 61 minutes

each. Questions were prepared, but there was room for enquiring further to obtain in-depth

information. The interviews were conducted in March, April, May, and June 2015. One pilot

interview was conducted with one of my managers at my work. Following this, some questions were

altered, which is explained in appendix 8. All interviews were conducted in person and in Dutch,

except one, which was in English, and another, which was conducted over the telephone. In appendix

9, the interview questions for directors and lecturers are given.

The interviews were recorded with a voice recorder. All interviewees, except the dean and the

interviewee on the telephone, received a voucher to buy a book as compensation for their time.

A notebook and smartphone were used to make notes of ad hoc, yet interesting findings during the

interviews and during the data analysis. The interviews are available in a file on my computer.

Third, as a data collection method, text and document analysis was employed. Internal documents

and websites of the selected business schools and accreditation organisations were examined for data

triangulation. Appendix 5 explains how the digital libraries of the UvA and HU were employed in

this study. Besides for the case study I used text and document analysis also for the study of the field

of business schools in the Netherlands.

9

2.4 Data analysis methods

In the analysis, O’ Dwyer’s (2004) study was used as an example of transparency in the process of

data analysis. He gives a detailed and succinct description of how he analysed his data

I tried to do

the same by describing thoroughly the different steps of the data analysis.

The analytic strategy used relies on theoretical propositions. In the beginning, some preliminary

propositions were made, which reflected the research questions, and the literature review. The

objectives and design of the multiple case study were based on these propositions. The propositions

shaped the data collection plan and helped establish analytic priorities. The data analysis strategy used

in this study was a cycle involving the research questions, the data, the analysis and interpretation of

the data, and the conclusions.

Within this general strategy, analytical techniques were applied, such as pattern matching,

chronological sequences from time-series analysis, and cross-case synthesis (Yin, 2014).

This case study is an explanatory study, and the patterns revealed could be related to the constructs.)

were analysed. The first two case studies, IBMS (FEM, HU) with NVAO, and MBA (ABS, UvA)

with NVAO and EQUIS were expected to yield identical results, which could then be considered to

be literal replication. The third case study MBA (SBE, MU) with NVAO, EQUIS, AACSB, AMBA

and an accreditation in consortium was expected to yield a result that contrasts with the former two,

which could then be considered to be theoretical replication.

Moreover, the chronological sequence focused on the fact that a case study could allow you to trace

events over time. This procedure allowed for the investigation of presumed causal events. This

technique was then employed for the evaluation of the chronological order of pressures, and the

chronological order of obtaining initial international accreditations by business schools.

Finally, a cross-case analysis was applied to explore whether the cases could be replicated or

contrasted with each other.

The data were analysed according to the following steps: data condensation, data display, and results.

First, data condensation included that differences and common features between definitions of the

key constructs were identified in the literature review (these are further explained in appendices 1, 2,

10

and 3). The interviews were recorded, typed on the computer, and translated into transcripts. The

transcripts were then analysed and coded. For an overview of the codes, face appendix 10. From the

transcripts I made summaries to put in the appendices 11,12, and 13.

Secondly, for data display of the literature review, tables were constructed with findings from articles

about the accreditations, autonomy, and entrepreneurship in business schools. These can be found in

appendices 1,2, and 3. Furthermore, tables were constructed to display the information gathered in

the interviews. Firstly, the within case analyses of the three separate business schools were executed

in appendices 14, 15, and 16. Secondly, a cross case analysis was conducted between the different

business schools selected for this study. Tables in appendix 17 present this. Finally, for the text and

document analysis, I constructed tables for accreditations generally, and for the accreditations of

Dutch public business schools (in appendix 18), and the accreditations of the specific business schools

chosen for this study.

Thirdly, to show the results, for each preliminary proposition, a pattern was identified in the tables.

The results from the interviews were then linked to the results from the text and document analysis

for data triangulation. Following this evaluation, the preliminary research model was then scrutinised

and adjustments were made accordingly.

2.5 Reliability and validity

The reliability relates to the requirement of

repeatability

of the results. To enhance the reliability, the

research questions and the research methods were described in detail. All the steps taken in the

methods section were meticulously recorded in a logbook. Similarly, all interviews were voice

recorded to ensure the accuracy of the data collected. I kept the analysis in a separate file (case study

database), to do the analysis again, if necessary. I went through the analysis, and collected further

data. I kept in contact with my supervisor about design and implementation of the research.

Furthermore, peer evaluation helped augment the data collection and data analysis. I further applied

data triangulation (interviews and text and document analysis) to answer the research questions. I

registered the results systematically (methods of analysis,). The names of the organisations are also

11

mentioned in this study in order to enhance its reliability (Verhoeven, 2010; Gibbert and Ruigrok,

2010).

Different forms of validity are relevant to the methods and analysis of this study. First, it is questioned

whether this paper is

generally applicable

to all universities in the Netherlands. In other words, the

external validity or population validity must be scrutinised. For increasing external validity, a cross

case analysis, multiple case studies, a rationale for case study selection, and details on the case study

context have been provided.

Next, the conceptual or construct validity is evaluated. This questions whether the general context of

this case study is applicable. For increasing the construct validity, data triangulation is employed.

Hence, the original interviews were carried out by the author, while a third party conducted a peer

review of the transcripts and the draft. Also, a clear chain of evidence is demonstrated in order to

enhance construct validity. Thus, it is thoroughly explained how access to data had been achieved, the

circumstances of data collection versus actual procedure are evaluated, and how the data analysis

procedure is applied.

Finally, internal validity is scrutinised. This raises the following questions: does the analysis measure

what it is meant to measure, and how does one measure autonomy and the influence of accreditations

on autonomy. To enhance the internal validity of this study, a research framework is applied that is

explicitly derived from literature.

To diminish systematic faults, tested instruments and systematic analyses are employed, particularly

for note taking and for recording the interviews. Moreover, in the analysis, institutional theory is

applied as an initial lens through which to study accreditations. Following this, data triangulation

(interviews, and text and documents in the case studies) is employed to answer the research questions

(Verhoeven, 2010; Gibbert and Ruigrok, 2010).

12

Chapter 3 Main constructs

This chapter elaborates on the main constructs: accreditations in business schools, institutional

pressures, autonomy, and entrepreneurship. A description of several definitions of accreditation and

what their differences imply are given. In this literature review the research questions are viewed

through the theoretical lens of institutional theory. Furthermore, the influence of accreditations on

autonomy of employees is discussed, different types of autonomy are introduced and explained. At

last entrepreneurship is explained. In appendix 7,8, and 9, summaries of the articles about

accreditation in business schools, autonomy, and entrepreneurship are shown.

3.1

Accreditations in business schools

Trapnell (2007) argues that AACSB accreditation can be an influential factor in an increasingly

competitive, global market for business students and for an increasing number of business

programmes. It provides external validation and can be important for students, faculty, and employers.

Also, benefits result from exchange in the international community of business schools when all have

AACSB accreditation. This explanation supports the market power theory: with acquired

accreditations, universities demonstrate that they are able to maintain high quality standards

(Montgomery, 1994). Therefore they are able to compete with other universities for prospective

students and faculty. Thus, with accreditations, they aim to attract excellent students and employees.

Moreover, Scherer et al. (2005) state that European business schools need accreditation to increase

their strategic alliances and exchange programmes. Julian and Ofori-Dankwa (2006) support this with

their claim that accreditation provides legitimisation through external constituencies.

A disadvantage of having multiple accreditations are the additional costs of making self-evaluation

reports for each agency, different review teams coming to the school, different standards of each

accreditation, and different kinds of documentation (Trapnell, 2007). Apart from the efforts and time

of the business schools, AACSB and EQUIS accreditation agencies charge a significantly high sum

for accreditations. AACSB accreditation fees, from eligibility application through to the initial

13

accreditation visit, are €14.993, while fees for accredited institutions annually are priced at €4.048.

The total fee for the EQUIS process is €41.275 for a five-year accreditation and €34.925 for a

three-year accreditation. For re-accreditation, the costs are €9.525 for three three-years and €15.875 for five

years.

_{On the other hand, NVAO accreditations for a programme cost around €10.000 for a six-year}

accreditation.

_{AMBA accreditation fees consist of the following: initial application priced at €2.343,}

candidate registration and pre-assessment priced at €5.860, and assessment visit priced at €17.580.

Furthermore, Harvey (2007) supports the statement that accreditations are expensive and further

mentions that accrediting teams sometimes induce money shifts from unaccredited to accredited

programmes in their recommendations. Another disadvantage can be that the certification function

overwhelms improvement, as the process leads to a public relations document that exaggerates the

strengths and hides its weaknesses.

Additionally, Julian and Ofori-Dankwa (2006) argue that accreditation standards increase the chance

of poor strategic decision making in turbulent environments, as they rely on four key process

characteristics: formalisation, documentation, hard data use, and continuous improvement. Thus, they

advocate scenario development, seeking latent needs of customers, real-time and soft data analysis,

and double-loop learning. They plead for a need to analyse accreditation and its implication for

business schools.

Van Berkel (2000, as cited by Scheele, 2004) observes that by using checklists in accreditations,

fundamental relationships between the elements within education are not examined. He advocates a

more holistic approach.

Furthermore, Leeuw (2003, as cited by Scheele, 2004) states that evaluation performance can lead to

organisational paralysis and can inhibit innovation. He promotes triangulation of data, for example, in

combination with mystery guests and unobtrusive measures.

1 _{http://www.aacsb.edu/en/accreditation/fees/, retrieved 5-1- 2015, Dollars converted to Euros with} onlineconversions.org

2 _{http://www.efmd.org/accreditation-main/equis/equis-fee-structure, retrieved 5-1-2015}

3 _{Interview with Albert Jansen-Schoonhoven (director task force kwaliteit, FEM, Hogeschool Utrecht) at 8-12-} 2014

4 _{http://www.mbaworld.com/en/Accreditation.aspx, retrieved at 17-1-2015, Pounds converted to Euros with} onlineconversions.org

14

3.2

Institutional pressures

The institutional pressures explain the increase in similarities between business schools. In this

isomorphic adaptation, normative pressures are significant. “Professionalization means that

employees define conditions and methods of their work to establish a cognitive base and legitimation

for their occupational autonomy” (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983). Thus, institutional theory predicts that

business schools react the same way due to outside market mechanisms.

Organisations are gradually built through interactions between groups of actors who comprise the

organisation’s field. Organisational choices cannot be regarded as isolated from the institutional

context (Powel, 1991, as cited by Özen and Küskü, 2009).

Institutional pressures are applied to a range of situations, for example, to compliance with the health

insurance portability and accountability act in home healthcare, corruption in private firms, and to the

implementation of corporate environmental social responsibilities or citizenship behaviour (Appari et

al, 2009; Venard, 2009; Özen and Küskü, 2009).

When a new regulation, for instance, an accreditation, is introduced, organisations respond by

changing their business practices and processes to comply with the standards of the regulation. The

speed of adoption varies, as competitive and institutional environments affect organisational

responses (Dacin, 1997; Haveman and Rao, 1997, as cited by Appari et al, 2009). This means that

organisations can comply with different extents.

Furthermore, the tendency of a firm to imitate other organisations is called organisational

isomorphism. DiMaggio and Powel (1983) identified two types of isomorphism: competitive and

institutional. Competitive isomorphism is brought about by pressure on organisations to copy

successful organisations because of market competition. This form of isomorphism is not researched

further in this thesis. On the other hand, institutional isomorphism occurs due to the confluence of

three forces: coercive pressure, mimetic pressure, and normative pressure. Coercive or regulative

pressure stems from the political power of the state and its regulations, which can constrain firms.

Mimetic or cognitive pressure arises in understanding situations to which companies respond by

coping with leading competitors within their fields. Thus, companies may decide to follow the path of

15

their successful peers. Lastly, normative pressure stems from the norms embedded in a particular

profession or industry (Scott, 2001; DiMaggio and Powel, 1983; Özen and Küskü, 2009). This thesis

examines institutional isomorphism.

In response to these strong pressures, organisational responses may vary from reactive to proactive

strategies. Also, responses may vary from conforming to regulations to voluntary actions. All

organisations functioning in the same national context are expected to be isomorphic to conform to

the stipulated regulations. Therefore, variation emerges as a product of the mimetic and normative

aspects. Organisations vary in the extent to which they go beyond what is legally expected of them.

Consequently, the three types of pressures correspond to three categories of adoption patterns:

regulative adoption is implemented to avoid punishment by the government, normative adoption is

pursued to obtain approval from important players in the field, and cognitive adoption is applied to

reduce uncertainty by imitating successful practices (Özen and Küskü, 2009).

When institutional theory is applied to assess accreditations of business schools in the Netherlands, it

becomes evident that coercive pressure comes from the NVAO, the obligatory national accreditation.

Moreover, mimetic pressure arises from the other competitive business schools, while normative

pressure stems from norms in the business administration profession. Responses to these pressures

can vary from reactive to pro-active strategies, and from conforming to the regulations of the NVAO

to voluntary actions for acquiring international accreditations, like EQUIS, AACSB, or AMBA. How

could institutional pressures lead to acquisition of accreditations constitutes the first theoretical

16

3.3

Autonomy in business schools

Autonomy and academic freedom are explained first (detailed definitions of autonomy are given in

appendix 8).

Albornoz (1991) mentions the relationship between autonomy and accountability. As a country

develops, interest in the autonomy of business schools diminishes and interest in accountability

increases. Thus, academic freedom is crucially linked to autonomy. University autonomy depends on

the political system, while democracy specifically guarantees their autonomy. With regard to

business schools, the concept of academic autonomy is used for no interference with the affairs of the

schools by outside parties, for example, accountability. Autonomy further includes a balance between

the requirements of society and the needs of the business school itself, such as academic freedom.

Business schools control their own affairs, which renders them autonomous. However, they are

accountable and have a moral responsibility towards society and their stakeholders. The university

wants to enhance and maintain its autonomy, however, society has the right to control and diminish

this autonomy if conflicts arise between university and society. Thus, autonomy can be regarded as an

unstable equilibrium, while relative, and academic freedom can be considered absolute.

Consequently, Albornoz (1991) concludes that the relationship between autonomy and accountability

is complex, because the way they are defined and applied varies according to place and time. Harvey

(2007) further concludes that accreditation demands accountability and compliance, as managerialism

continues to hamper academic autonomy and undermine the skills and experience of educators.

Moreover, Berdahl (1971, cited by Alboroz, 1991) recognised two dimensions of autonomy:

procedural and substantive. In the procedural dimension, control is from administrative decisions, and

in the substantive dimension, the control of fundamental academic matters influences the university.

In addition, there are three levels of pressure on university autonomy: from the national society, from

the institution itself, and international pressure.

Furthermore, Durham (1989, cited by Albornoz 1991) presents four categories of university

autonomy: research or scientific, teaching, administrative, and financial autonomy. Scientific

autonomy means that employees can set their own agenda and are evaluated by their peers without

17

external interference. Teaching autonomy includes independently establishing a body of knowledge

and techniques for the students. Additionally, administrative autonomy yields that the business school

can control the admission of students, teaching, and research staff, designs its curricula, confers

academic degrees, and establishes partnerships as it sees fit. Finally, autonomy of financial

expenditure means that a business school can manage its own budget. This study focuses on teaching

autonomy. To establish a more succinct understanding of teacher autonomy, Pearson and Hall (1993)

developed a Teacher Autonomy Scale. They found that teaching autonomy is composed of two

dimensions: general teaching autonomy and curricular autonomy. General teaching autonomy relates

to the need for teachers to be independent in order to ensure their own critical thinking and creativity

in their professions. On the other hand, curricular autonomy has to do with the need for teachers to

have autonomy in decisions of teaching and learning. Moomaw (2005) replicated and verified the

study of Pearson and Hall (1993). The Teacher Autonomy scale was the starting point for some

interview questions developed for this study (see appendix 6).

Furthermore, Day and Peluchette (2009) described that a faculty is very important for establishing the

curricula and involving the students. The focus of accreditations standards in business schools is on

faculty qualifications and student output, and not on management of faculty or whether they feel

empowered. McPherson and Schapiro (1999, as cited by Day & Peluchette, 2009) further mentioned

that faculty positions are generally among the most “self-managed”. This implies that they can choose

their own research and teaching areas, scholarly collaborators, and service commitments. Thus, they

work mainly unsupervised. Along with autonomy, faculty positions have other positive job design

aspects: skill variety, task identity, and task significance. Due to this, faculty rated their level of

empowerment high. Scherer et al. (2005) supported this view and argued that business school deans in

European countries manage faculty employees minimally, allowing the teaching faculty to have

considerable independence and autonomy.

According to Katz (1968, as cited by Moomaw, 2005), “The greater the degree of specialized

knowledge and skills required of the occupant of a position, the greater the degree of autonomy that

accrues to the position”. This means that a teaching professional gains autonomy due to their

18

profession of higher education teaching is characterised by worker authority or autonomy.

Pullin (2004) further outlines the academic freedom of a university, what this requires to flourish and

what it looks like in practice. The university should be free from governmental intervention in the its

intellectual life. Four freedoms are essential: to decide who may teach, what may be taught, how it

shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. These all apply to teaching autonomy. The

government can regulate higher education institutions if there is a legitimate reason to do so. This

definition for autonomy in teaching is applied in this study.

Bridgman (2007) regarded the university as a knowledge-intensive firm. In the past, the employees in

Western democracies had high levels of autonomy, embodied in the notion of academic freedom, and

they still expect this today. However, the values of freedom and autonomy can conflict with the

movement that governments want to change universities into enterprises, where academics

commercialise research. Consequently, government agencies sometimes perceive academic freedom

as a means to evade accountability and regard it as resistance against managerialism.

This creates a tension between the knowledge work and the desired entrepreneurial culture in business

schools. Academic freedom is regarded as the freedom to be entrepreneurial, to seek new ways to

create revenue. This applies to the organisational level of the university, where ways must be found to

develop strategies for academic entrepreneurs and handle the risks associated with them. This also

applies to the employees’ collective identity as academic entrepreneurs. The employees are

considered entrepreneurial due to consultancy activities or by establishing spinout companies

(Lambert, 2003, cited by Bridgman, 2007). Lambert (2003) extends the meaning of scientific

autonomy to include the freedom to be entrepreneurial. Academic freedom can be thwarted by

partnerships with industry and government sponsors, as they can lose their independence and their

critical voice. Thus it is clear that the meanings of autonomy and freedom, with regard to business

schools, are multiple and disputed. This can be one of the reasons why the relation (process or

mechanisms) between the two constructs, accreditation and autonomy, has not been researched yet.

How do accreditations influence autonomy of lecturers constitutes the second theoretical research

19

3.4

Entrepreneurship in business schools

A variety of entrepreneurships have been identified in existing literature. However, most articles

about entrepreneurship and business schools are about teaching entrepreneurship and about

entrepreneurship from research activities. Thus, only a few articles are applicable to entrepreneurship

in teaching in business schools (appendix 9 provides a summary of the articles used).

Maguire, Hardy, and Lawrence (2004) defined institutional entrepreneurship as “the activities of

actors who have interest in particular institutional arrangements and who leverage resources to

create new institutions or transform existing ones”. This definition for entrepreneurship is applied in

this study, as it is sufficiently specific and it pays attention to actors, resources, and change. Other

definitions are discussed in appendix 9. Furthermore, this definition implies certain consequences of

entrepreneurship: improving business schools through incremental innovations, and creating new

business schools through radical innovations.

Moreover, Hazeldine and Miles (2007) identified four generic forms of entrepreneurial activity:

innovation of a product, an organisation and its processes, a business concept and strategy, and the

product, marketing, and technology domain of an organisation. This can be transferred to the concepts

of entrepreneurship in teaching, which include new curricula, new programmes, new business

universities, as well as new concepts and innovation in the domain of the business schools. Delivering

high-quality programmes is one way to remain competitive, increase enrolments, and maintain student

retention. Moreover, the authors created an instrument to measure the dimensions of entrepreneurship

in business schools. The results of using this instrument were: the AACSB deans must reassess the

school’s mission, support and reward entrepreneurship as well as opportunity creation and discovery,

and link entrepreneurship with the school’s overall strategy.

Furthermore, Prince (2007) established that two paths for developing third stream activity in new

university business schools exist: one focused on execution of funded activity, for example, projects

funded by the European Union (EU), regional development activities, learning and skills councils, and

supplies service partnerships; while the other is focused on more commercially based activities like

in-company programmes, contract research, and accreditation. Prince (2007) further contends that

20

business schools funded by the government can learn from these new universities business schools to

raise money for entrepreneurship in teaching.

Similarly, Woods, Woods, and Gunter (2007) distinguish four types of entrepreneurship for

academies: business, social, public, and cultural entrepreneurship. Business entrepreneurship refers to

entrepreneurship in the private business sector, social entrepreneurship originates outside the

traditional public sector, public or civic entrepreneurship takes place in the public sector, and cultural

entrepreneurship is concerned with personal and social development. The academies are hybrid

organisations: they combine features of private institutions with public characteristics. In this thesis,

the presence of public entrepreneurship in public business schools is examined.

How do accreditations influence entrepreneurship constitute the third theoretical research gap.

21

3.5 The preliminary research model

In figure 1, the preliminary research model is shown and the link to the research questions is

clarified.

Figure 1 The preliminary research model

Following the preliminary research model, three external pressures on business schools are identified:

first, coercive pressure, which is exerted by the law – punishment follows if the institute does not

comply (e.g. to NVAO-accreditation); secondly, mimetic pressure – other institutes also have

accreditations and push business schools into acquiring accreditations; thirdly, normative pressure,

which is located in the norms and values of the institutes, in professionalisation, the institutional

culture, and in training (e.g. for AACSB, EQUIS, and AMBA accreditations).

22

Preliminary propositions:

According to institutional theory, institutional isomorphism occurs via three forces. Institutional

forces are classified into three types that lead organisations to isomorphism: coercive pressure,

mimetic pressure, and normative pressure (DiMaggio and Powel, 1983). Application of this theory to

pressures to acquire accreditations leads to the following propositions:

P1 Coercive pressures force business schools to acquire accreditations.

P2 Mimetic pressures force business schools to acquire accreditations.

P3 Normative pressures force business schools to acquire accreditations.

The order of pressures is unknown. It is known that coercive pressure is important for NVAO

accreditation, however, which pressure follows and which pressures are important for international

accreditations must still be researched.

P4 The order of pressures for getting accreditations is: coercive – mimetic – normative.

Nigsch and Schenker-Wicki (2013) state that many scholars see accreditations as a restriction on

academic freedom. This is supported by Harvey (2004), who concludes that accreditation is a

struggle for power between accrediting bodies and academics. Julian and Ofori-Dankwa (2006) state

that accreditation agencies play a prominent role in the policies and programmes of business schools,

and accreditation and their implications for business schools need to be analysed. This leads to the

next proposition:

P5 A negative relation exists between accreditations and the autonomy of employees.

According to Hazeldine and Miles (2007), AACSB and EQUIS accreditations pay more attention to

the value of entrepreneurship in business schools. This could create superior value for the schools’

stakeholders. This statement leads to the proposition:

23

Chapter 4 Results

Founded on an international quality assurance perspective, this chapter begins with an overview of

European and American field of business schools and how their programmes differ. Information

about the types of accreditations and summaries of the articles about accreditation in the field of

business schools are shown in appendix 18 on page 135. An overview of acquired accreditations of

Dutch public business schools is presented. The competitive field of public business schools and

initial international accreditations in the Netherlands is examined. This is based on text and document

analysis. Tables are provided in appendix 18 on page 140. This partly answers the first research

question: How have accreditations been institutionalised in Dutch business schools over time? Next,

the results of the within case analyses of the three Dutch business schools are presented, followed by

the cross case analysis. These results from the cross case analysis are combined with the results of the

text and document analysis to answer the first research question. Then the results of the cross case

analysis give an answer on the second research question: What is the influence of accreditations on

the autonomy of lecturers and on entrepreneurship in business schools?

4.1 Research context of accreditations in European and American business

schools

The level of playing field of accreditations in European and American business schools is described.

In a review article by Harvey and Williams (2010), they explore the 15 years of history of the journal

‘Quality in Higher Education’. They concluded that “there has been a tension between assurance as a

bureaucratic task and the improvement of the quality of academic endeavours. This has led to

problems of engaging academics”. Also, they conclude that conceptions of quality assurances

originating in North-West Europe and the Unites States of America (USA) dominate the world over.

The accreditation agencies show little variation in their methods, which are used by accreditation

organisations. Leicht and Fennell (1997) support this finding and discovered a divergence in

arrangements of professional services and a convergence of professional control of accountability.

The professional control shifted from informal control between colleagues to formal control.

The convergence in professional control is explained by institutional theory as the expected result of

24

isomorphic adaptation over time (Dimaggio and Powell, 1983). Institutional isomorphism is a process

by which organisations within an industry adopt similar organisational forms and practices over time

as they compete for political power and institutional legitimacy. Three mechanisms can cause

isomorphic change: coercive pressure from government or state, mimetic pressure on organisations to

copy successful forms in uncertain conditions, and the normative expectations of powerful groups

within organisations. With regard to the professional control of universities by accreditation

organisations, the mechanism of coercive pressure is important, as the governments influence national

accreditation agencies to keep the standards high.

Antunes and Thomas (2007) studied the strengths and advantages of European business schools as

opposed to American business schools. European schools are relatively small and can adapt faster to

market needs, so they are more flexible than the large business schools in the USA. The former also

have strong Customer Relations Management (CRM) capabilities and nurture close connections to

corporations. Moreover, they have close links to the public sector, as this sector funds a great part of

European economic activity. In addition, European schools are innovative in teaching – this is

reflexive, based on dialogue, and individualised instruction. Additionally, they have an international

mind-set, as they have an internationally mixed faculty and student population. This aspect is

similarly enforced by the European Union (EU), as a trading agency, and the numerous historical

colonial regimes that offer the European Business schools competitive strength.

Delgado- Marquez et al. (2013) studied the relationship between internationalisation and reputation in

top higher education institutions. They found out that internationalisation positively influences a

university’s reputation. Internationalisation also moderates the relationship between a university’s

reputation and its performance regarding quality of research, teaching, and graduate employability.

Moreover, Scherer et al. (2005) identified that the stress that European business schools put on

practical experience in their programmes is highly advantageous for their students. He further argues

that European programmes provide better value for money, as they are cheaper and shorter (MBA in

one year) compared to their American counterparts. Also, the integration of Information, and

Communication Technology ( ICT) into academic programmes is increased.

On the other hand, Antunes and Thomas (2007) found that the strengths of American business schools