Accreditation of Library and Information Science programmes in the Gulf Cooperation Council nations

Introduction

Accreditation of library and information science (LIS) education programmes by professional bodies is an accepted norm for the acceptance of graduates into professional membership in North America, Australia, and selected European nations. LIS education programmes in the six nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council(GCC)—Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates—have conducted self-assessment and evaluation by external experts. However, these schools do not have any accreditation mechanism in place. This study examines the perceptions of stakeholders about the need for accreditation in the region. The potential for accreditation has also been explored while identifying the issues that might hinder progress toward accreditation.

Background

Accreditation has played a critical role in evaluating LIS programmes on a periodic basis, bringing some sense of uniformity and standardization in LIS education, and cultivating professional knowledge, skills, capabilities, and values among professionals joining the workforce. The American Library Association (ALA, 1992) accreditation standards defined accreditation as follows:

Accreditation assures the educational community, the general public, and other agencies or organizations that an institution or programme (a) has clearly defined and educationally appropriate objectives, (b) maintains conditions under which their achievement can reasonably be expected, (c) is in fact accomplishing them substantially, and (d) can be expected to continue to do so. Accreditation serves as a mechanism for quality assessment and quality enhancement with quality defined as the effective utilization of resources to achieve appropriate educational objectives.

Majid et al. (2003: 58) had a more straightforward definition of the term as ’a process which assures that educational institutions and their programmes meet appropriate standards of quality and integrity. It is a collegial process based on self-evaluation and peer assessment for the improvement of academic quality and public accountability’. The ALA has been a pioneering agency in accrediting LIS programmes in North America. Its Committee on Accreditation has been responsible for assessing Masters degree programmes offered in the North American schools every seventh year. The ALA has been responsible for issuing standards, guidelines, and other instruments used in the accreditation process. The possession of an ALA-accredited degree has thus become a norm for employment of LIS professionals in North America.

Other national and international agencies have also made efforts in proposing accreditation standards and guidelines. Most noteworthy among them are the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). ALIA and CILIP have been responsible for assessing LIS education programmes in Australia and UK. ALIA’s process is labelled as course recognition. One distinctive feature of these accrediting agencies is that they have covered undergraduate and graduate degrees, consistent with the professional practices in the two countries. IFLA, an international forum, proposed its own accreditation guidelines. The websites containing accreditation documentation of these four agencies are as follows:

Khoo et al. (2003) examined the documentation of these agencies and made useful comparisons. Their most important finding was that these accreditation standards focus on the following areas in their assessment:

The associations have also tried to define the core competencies of professionals that the LIS programmes need to focus on in their curricula and educational thrust. The ALA’s first attempt to define core competencies began in 1999. The draft was presented to a number of committees and conferences for review. The exercise resulted in a document that outlined core competencies in 2005. McKinney (2006) used these statements for examining the curricula of schools that are accredited, accreditation candidates, and pre-candidates. The core competencies, yet to be formally adopted by the ALA, were defined as follows:

After examining the curricula and syllabi of 58 LIS programmes, McKinney (2006) found that knowledge organization, professional ethics, knowledge dissemination, technological knowledge, research and management competencies were covered in the required coursework of 53, 45, 41, 37, 37, and 36 programmes respectively. All the core competencies were, however, covered in the required and elective coursework. Results of this study indicated that the accredited schools had an adequate coverage and treatment of the core competencies. That in itself validates the relevance and values of these competencies. Core skills and competencies specified in CILIP and ALIA are much more detailed and provided as appendices in Khoo et al.’s paper (2003). ALIA recognizes degree awarding programmes by using the criteria of curriculum content, as staffing, resourcing, quality assurance mechanisms, and infrastructure. CILIP uses a structured accreditation programme for the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). An application for accreditation must include course documents, statement of support from parent institution, institution’s strategic plans, a statement of resources (human, financial, and instructional), formal feedback from students on existing and/or relevant courses, a summary of Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education’s (QAA) external audit documents, staff development policy, student statistics, evidence of engagement with CILIP, evidence of liaison with practitioners, and examiner reports.

IFLA guidelines list 11 areas which should be covered by LIS programmes:

The LIS schools that are candidates for accreditation have to go through a self-assessment exercise. These also need to develop adequate documentation for the accreditation team. The process requires that the schools engage in an intensive exercise, which entails dialogue and collaboration with many stakeholders such as faculty members, parent institutions, professional bodies, potential employers, students and alumni, the accreditation body, and other schools and programmes in the region.

Majid et al. (2003) attempted to develop a model of accreditation for Southeast Asian nations. They gathered data from 14 LIS programmes in five countries—Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Majid et al. proposed CONSAL, a regional professional forum in the Southeast Asian region, as an appropriate agency for accreditation. The respondents from these programmes perceived that the following problems threatened the success of any accreditation scheme:

Accreditation adds value to the efforts of LIS programmes in keeping themselves current and relevant. Changes in the LIS profession have been swift and these need to be reflected in academic policies and curricula. Accreditation is a source of authentication that the accredited programmes are pursuing changes.

Kellogg-ALISE Information Professions and Education (KALIPER, 2000) had identified new trends in LIS education, based on an extensive examination of the factors related to demands of students, employers, graduates, and professional associations. They identified the following six trends: (1) addressing broad-based information environments and information problems in curricula; (2) emerging with a distinct core that is predominantly user-centred; (3) increasing the infusion of information technology into their curricula; (4) experimenting with specialization within the curriculum; (5) offering instruction in diverse formats; and (6) expanding curricula by offering related degrees at the undergraduate, Masters, and Doctoral levels. These trends are significant in examining the performance of LIS education programmes.

Tammaro (2005) conducted an international survey in order to examine quality assurance provisions in LIS programmes. Tammaro (2008) studied evaluation and quality assurance practices among LIS programmes in the European Union. She applied the four criteria of inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes in her studies. In India, the University Grants Commission plays a key role in evaluating the performance of education programmes. Sarkhel (2006) investigated the role of the Commission in accrediting LIS programmes and ensuring quality assurance. He developed a set of evaluation indicators that covered faculty, curriculum, resources, and graduates. These were consistent with the global developments in the activities and services of libraries and information centres, the national environment, and the outcome of the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC).

These studies have emphasized the need to conduct systematic reviews of the significant aspects of the performance of LIS programmes. Different agencies play an important role in these reviews. When these efforts become structured within an institutional framework, these can then be developed into systems of accreditation at national or regional levels.

Research problem

In an earlier study, Rehman (2008) examined the evaluation practices of nine LIS programmes in the six GCC nations. He also gathered the perceptions of the academic managers of these nine LIS programmes about the desirability of accreditation and certification. He had found that in general all these programmes had engaged in evaluation activities through self-assessment and review by external consultants. These review exercises covered all the significant elements of academic performance. Rehman’s (2008) results imply that there is a general consciousness about the need for instituting accreditation programmes to ensure quality in LIS education in this region. Since the six nations of the GCC have similarities in linguistic, socio-politico-economic, and cultural domains, it might be desirable to have one accreditation programme for LIS programmes in this region. It is pertinent to examine how the prevalent evaluation practices in this region can be applied to devising an accreditation system and programme. The perceptions of academic managers about accreditation in the GCC region also need to be applied in proposing an accreditation programme for LIS schools in the region. There is a need to explore distinct avenues of accreditation, how these options can be assessed, and how any obstacles can be identified and overcome. This paper addresses this and explores different possibilities and prospects for instituting a system of accreditation for LIS education programmes in the GCC nations.

Scope of the investigation

The following research questions have been addressed in this study:

Methodology

In order to assess LIS evaluation practices in nine LIS programmes in four GCC nations, Rehman (2008) conducted a survey. He gathered information about the nature of evaluation, areas covered in evaluation, and application of the results of evaluation. The study also gathered perceptions of the leading educators in the region about desirable policies and practices of accreditation. This paper takes the application of these findings one step further. We gathered pertinent information through interviews with key educators, examination of relevant documentation, review of relevant literature, and observations. In this way we have applied the findings of the earlier study in proposing a viable system of accreditation for this region. Such an initiative is inevitably subject to a number of obstacles that need to be understood, defined, and addressed. This paper serves this additional objective.

It would have been desirable if potential employers and senior professionals had also been included among interviewees. However, in order to have an adequate representation, we needed to cover a vast region with many diverse professional domains. It was found to be impractical, within the resources of the researcher. Hence, the study was limited to input gathered from senior academic managers.

In this paper, the term school has been used to cover all those academic entities in the nine universities of this region that have the administrative status of a department within a college. The term programme denotes undergraduate and graduate offerings in the nine schools that have been identified in this section.

Results

It is significant to have an overview of the nine LIS education programmes for which this accreditation proposal has been formulated. Rehman (2008) provided detailed description of these nine programmes in GCC nations and the highlights of these features are given below.

Accreditation proposal for the region

One objective of the study was to explore the possibilities of developing a proposal for accrediting LIS programmes in the region. This discussion has been organized around accrediting agency, accreditation team, and accreditation standards and procedures.

Obstacles to the accreditation process

The last research question dealt with the challenges and obstacles for instituting an accreditation programme in the region. Establishing an accreditation process will not be easy. There are a number of challenges and obstacles that need to be overcome if any serious initiative is to be taken. In this region, LIS education is primarily conducted at the undergraduate level. There is only one structured Masters programme in the region. The ALA accredits only Masters programmes. CILIP and ALIA programmes are, however, oriented to both levels of education. Another issue is that two undergraduate majors and one undergraduate minor have little to do with librarianship.

At Kuwait University, undergraduate programmes are being evaluated by international accrediting agencies. The schools may not like being subjected to a double accreditation sword. So it is pertinent to ascertain what degrees would be accredited and if both undergraduate and graduate programmes have to be assessed; this would require developing guidelines and criteria separately. In the model proposed by Majid et al. (2003), they targeted only Masters programmes for accreditation in the Southeast Asian region.

It would not be easy to take any proposal through the administrative hierarchies of all nine universities. It will require funding and commitment of time and effort. Academic decision making is always bureaucratic and tedious. It may not be as easy to achieve consensus. One possibility is that if the proposal of steering through the GCC is pursued, the directive for participation may come from the Ministries of Higher Education. It would then be easier for the schools to adhere to these directives.

An accreditation initiative requires wholehearted support from the professional community. As there is no history of active professional associations in the region, the culture of professional participation is weak. There is a need for the annual conferences of the SLA/AGC to be used as a forum for creating wider awareness on the issue. The LIS schools also need to develop a forum along these lines. Kuwait University and Umm Alqura Universities conducted symposia and conferences on LIS education in 2006. These events brought a large number of academics together. These forums also presented proposals for their review and consideration by universities and Ministries of Higher Education. Some of these proposals were directed toward creating a forum of educators in the region. This might be the time for giving this proposal serious thought. Without having this forum, an accreditation proposal may not find substantial support.

Conclusions

This study has established that the policies and practices of evaluation greatly vary in the LIS programmes of the GCC region. These schools are using evaluation outcomes for improving their academic programmes and curricula in different ways. It was found that almost all the programmes had used either of the two strategies of self-assessment or external evaluation during the last 5–7 years. One school had a policy of a 5-year evaluation cycle. Five programmes reported that they had used the results of this exercise for overall curriculum revamping and other adjustments. However, none of them had used these evaluation exercises for improving their computing facilities and instructional resources. It is also noted that most programmes have a comprehensive coverage of different academic aspects in their evaluation exercises. It is recognized that these efforts have been valuable, yet these do not provide a common ground for standardized practice. There are large variations in how different programmes conduct evaluation exercises in terms of objectives, strategies, instruments, outcomes, and application. It would be desirable for there to be some degree of uniformity and rigour, which could be practical if the LIS programmes in the region agree to an accreditation programme.

It is significant to note that all the nine schools favoured the establishment of an accreditation system. There remains, however, a great deal of confusion about the agency that should be accrediting these programmes. This paper has made a specific proposal and has drawn up a basic blueprint that might serve as a guideline for instituting an accreditation programme. Indeed this proposal is in its rudimentary stage and academics and other stakeholders need to discuss it critically. If the LIS programmes agree to consider this proposal seriously, or an alternative to it, there is a likelihood that these ideas might be further crystallized, leading to the introduction of an accreditation system. It might take a long time to get there, but there is always a beginning for any major initiative. It is quite a challenging task, but it will surely bring prestige, status, and respectability to the LIS programmes in the region.