University of Groningen
Impact of accreditation on quality assurance Dattey, Kwame
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2018
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Dattey, K. (2018). Impact of accreditation on quality assurance: A case study of public and private universities in Ghana. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Propositions
1. Ghanaian and many African accreditation systems double as quality assurance and enforcement mechanisms.
2. Accreditation is moving from the stress on minimum (threshold) standards to quality assurance and improvement.
3. Quality monitoring and evaluation may be regarded as one of many causes of quality improvement in higher education institutions.
4. The willingness of universities to implement evaluators’ recommendations indicates that the accreditation procedure is making an impact on the quality development of the universities.
5. Academics in Ghanaian universities view accreditation foremost as a means of improvement of higher education.
6. Implementation of evaluators’ recommendations necessarily leads to improvement in quality provided there are no adverse, intervening, factors.
7. Evaluators testify that they observe improvements wherever their suggestions to that effect were implemented.
8. Students’ perspectives indicate that public universities are more compliant with accreditation measures than private universities.
9. Isomorphic pressures that mainly compelled universities to seek accreditation were differentially applied and, or differentially felt by public, as against private, universities.
