As accreditation systems around the world evolve, one question continues to challenge institutions and accrediting bodies alike: What does quality in higher education actually mean and how should it be measured?
Historically, accreditation models have focused heavily on inputs and infrastructure. These include faculty numbers, facilities, hours of instruction, and publication counts. Such metrics offer valuable indicators of institutional capacity—but they tell only part of the story.
Today, as higher education is being reshaped by globalization, technology, and the future of work, it's time to shift focus from inputs to impact.
Learners now demand more than degrees—they expect relevance, adaptability, and real-world readiness. Employers seek not only qualifications, but demonstrated capabilities. Societies look to educational institutions to produce ethical leaders, responsible innovators, and informed citizens.
In this evolving context, the question becomes not “What does the institution offer?” but rather “What difference is it making?”
Some of the most important yet often underexplored dimensions of quality include:
Learning outcomes: Are students acquiring the knowledge, skills, and mindsets they need to thrive in real-world environments?
Research influence: Is scholarship contributing to the advancement of practice, policy, or societal understanding?
Industry engagement: Are programs meaningfully connected to the world of work, and are graduates ready to contribute from day one?
Social impact: Is the institution contributing to local and global development through outreach, inclusion, or innovation?
These are complex, context-sensitive questions. But they are central to a more mature and mission-aligned understanding of quality.
In traditional accreditation models, the pressure to meet fixed benchmarks can unintentionally incentivize a compliance mindset. Institutions may prioritize what is easily measured over what truly matters.
This can lead to:
Selective reporting that emphasizes quantity over quality
Launching short-term initiatives to "tick a box"
Retroactively aligning outcomes to predefined templates
But when institutions are encouraged to measure and report on what they genuinely value—and when accrediting bodies reward clarity, honesty, and contextual insight—a more authentic picture of quality begins to emerge.
Progressive accreditation frameworks are already taking steps in this direction. Instead of applying one-size-fits-all indicators, they ask institutions to define what success looks like in their unique context and to demonstrate how their strategies are working in practice.
At DASCA, we support this shift. We believe that quality must be understood in relation to purpose. A business school focused on entrepreneurship in emerging markets should be evaluated differently than one embedded in a global corporate hub. Both can and should be excellent, but on their own terms.
This is why our accreditation models are built around mission clarity, impact demonstration, and continuous learning, not just infrastructure and volume.
Measuring what truly matters requires courage, collaboration, and commitment—from institutions, reviewers, and accrediting agencies alike. It also requires new tools, new thinking, and a willingness to engage with complexity.
But the payoff is worth it: a system of accreditation that reflects not just how much an institution is doing, but how deeply it is making a difference.
In the next part of this series, we’ll explore how accreditation frameworks can embrace institutional diversity, support innovation, and remain globally relevant in a rapidly changing world.
