Strategists, Contrarians, Enthusiasts, and Advocates: A Q Methodology Study of Views on Institutional Accreditation

Abstract Despite the importance of accreditation in U.S. higher education, scholarship examining faculty and administrators’ perspectives on it is limited, anecdotal, or institution specific. This Q methodology study investigates the subjective views of 54 faculty and administrators engaged in institutional accreditation work across the United States. Q methodology enables researchers to blend quantitative and qualitative approaches to reveal distinct and empirically grounded perspectives on important phenomena. We identified four perspectives on accreditation. Standards Strategists assert accreditation is clear and fair but disconnected from academic quality. Cost-Conscious Contrarians view accreditation as accountability that sacrifices autonomy. Effectiveness Enthusiasts believe accreditation promotes improvement but question its requirements, processes, and external value. Accreditation Advocates see its potential for institutions that devote significant time and energy to engaging in the process. Interpreted through Schein's espoused and enacted values framework, each perspective reflects a different mismatch between accreditation's stated aims and its experienced reality. These findings carry practical implications for institutional leaders seeking to strengthen stakeholder engagement and for accreditors seeking to align espoused values with institutional experience; recommendations for both audiences are offered.