Abstract
This paper investigates the accreditation possibilities and prospects for the library and information science education programmes located in the six member nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council. This paper has been based on the findings of a study focused on the evaluation practices of these programmes and the perceptions of the leading academic managers in these schools. The respondents provided information about their choices of accrediting agencies. It was found that most programmes had conducted evaluation through self-assessment or external review, focusing on a range of important aspects related to programme design and administration. The respondents also provided information about the changes that had taken place, subsequent to evaluation exercises. All the respondents favoured accreditation. It is proposed that accreditation initiatives might be pursued under the authority of the Gulf Cooperation Council’s university forum and initial recommendations of how this might be undertaken are presented. The paper also discusses problems that the programmes in this region might face in introducing and implementing accreditation.
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
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:
ALA Standards for Accreditation of Masters Programs in Library and Information Studies (http://www.ala.org/ala/accreditedprograms/standards/standards_2008.pdf);
IFLA Guidelines for Professional Library/Information Educational Programs–2000 (http://www.ifla.org./en/publications/guidelines-for-professional-libraryinformation-educational-programs-2000);
ALIA Education Policy Statement (http://www.alia.org.au/policies/education/entry-level.courses.html);
ALIA The Library and Information Sector: Core Knowledge, Skills and Attributes (http://www.alia.org.au/policies/core.knowledge.html);
CILIP Accreditation Instrument: Procedures for the Accreditation of Courses (http://www.cilip.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AB7FB628-3922-4681-85AA-3E75593A0389/0/ACCREDITATIONWEB.pdf).
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 context of the programme, institutional support, and relationship with the parent institution;
mission, goals and objectives;
curriculum;
faculty and staff;
students;
administration and financial support;
instructional resources and facilities;
regular review of the programme, the curriculum, and the employment market;
documentation.
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:
professional ethics;
resource building;
knowledge organization;
technological knowledge;
knowledge dissemination: service;
knowledge accumulation: education and life-long learning;
knowledge inquiry: research;
institution management.
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 Information Environment, Information Policy and Ethics, the History of the Field;
Information Generation, Communication and Use;
Assessing Information Needs and Designing Responsive Services;
The Information Transfer Process;
Organization, Retrieval, Preservation and Conservation of Information;
Research, Analysis and Interpretation of Information;
Applications of Information and Communication Technologies;
Library and Information Products and Services;
Information Resource Management and Knowledge Management;
Management of Information Agencies;
Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Outcomes of Information and Library Use.
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:
non-availability of funds for conducting accreditation evaluation;
limited understanding and appreciation by the professional bodies and professionals at large;
lack of experts in developing and implementing accreditation;
procedural difficulties in conducting evaluation;
resistance from the LIS programmes;
fear of being exposed in the eyes of stakeholders;
government rules and regulations.
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:
What can we learn about prevalent evaluation practices and strategies from available data?
How can the perceptions of leading academics in the GCC nations about accreditation be translated into the development of a viable proposal for developing a programme of accreditation.
What are the options for developing a proposal of accreditation of LIS programmes in this region?
What challenges and obstacles might be faced in the implementation of accreditation in the region and how could these be addressed?
LIS education in the GCC nations
The GCC is composed of six nations: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Muscat, and Bahrain. This is one homogenous region in linguistic, cultural, and socio-economic terms and these are primarily petroleum-driven affluent societies. About half of the nations are more like city-states while others have vast stretches of deserts with immense natural reserves.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar have formal degree programmes for the education of LIS professionals. Saudi Arabia has six LIS schools located in four universities, namely King Saud University, Umm Alqura University, Imam Mohammad bin Saud University, and King Abdulaziz University. Three Saudi schools (King Abduaziz, King Saud, and Imam Mohammad bin Saud) have both undergraduate and graduate degree programmes. Kuwait University has a graduate degree programme in LIS and an undergraduate minor in Information Studies and another Higher Education Institution, the Public Authority of Applied Education and Training (PAEET), also produces undergraduates with LIS degrees. Qatar University has only undergraduate programme. Sultan Qaboos University has both undergraduate and graduate degree programmes. A typical undergraduate programme produces hundreds of graduates a year. An extensive review of the history, development and status of these LIS programmes is available in a review paper (Rehman, 2009)
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.
The school at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, founded in 1973, is the earliest and the Masters programme at Kuwait University, established in 1996, is the most recent. During 1984–8, three Saudi schools were established.
Three schools in the region were located in the College of Social Sciences and two others in the College of Arts. The other four schools were located in other faculties.
Eight of the nine programmes are predominantly undergraduate and it is only Kuwait University that does not have an undergraduate major although it has been offering an undergraduate minor in Information Studies. Two Saudi universities offer degree programmes at Bachelor, Masters and PhD levels.
The Masters programme at Kuwait University is based on the model of ALA-accredited programmes with a coursework structure of 36 credit hours. All undergraduate programmes use a semester system, requiring credit hours for major, minor, and other segments.
The undergraduate programmes have large enrolments: 3 with enrolments of 1800, 1150 and 700 students. The number of undergraduate students at one school was 400. Enrolment of undergraduates in three schools was in the range of 200–300.
The faculty student ratio in six schools was found to be 1:73, 1:57, 1:49, 1:44, 1:33, and 1:31. Two other schools had the ratio of 1:20 and 1:12, meaning that six of the nine undergraduate programmes had ratios exceeding 1:30 while two of the five even exceeded 1:50.
All nine schools had computing laboratories with varying levels of facilities. Six of them did not have electronic classrooms. The other three had projection facilities and Internet connections in these classrooms. None of them reported that these classrooms were connected to central media facilities of the university.
Two schools had subscriptions for 11 and 13 periodicals titles, out of which 5 and 3 were Arabic. Another subscribed to 9 Arabic and 27 English titles. One school subscribed to 8 Arabic titles and it had no subscriptions to any English titles. One school had 10 Arabic and 80 English titles. When it comes to monographs, the largest collection of 7000 and 8000 volumes for Arabic and English titles respectively was reported in one school.
Seven of the nine schools used a library automation package in the instruction of courses. Five of them accessed the automation package of Horizon while one used Unicorn.
All nine schools reported having access to LISA and ERIC. Seven of them reported that they had access to Academic Search and Dissertation Abstracts Online. Six had access to ABI/Inform and Library Literature. Five reportedly accessed Ulrich Plus and General Science Index. Four reported access to Emerald Fulltext, Encyclopedia Britannica and Readers Guide. Three had access to ISI Web of Knowledge and two used Web Dewey, Classification Web, and LISTA.
Evaluation practices
In order to propose any scheme of accreditation, it is pertinent that we examine what policies and strategies of evaluation are employed in these schools. Rehman (2008) analysed these practices over a 5-year period. Two modes of evaluation are self-assessment and evaluation by external reviewers. Below, we provide an outline of the findings, providing a framework for proposing an accreditation programme.
Self-assessment
Two Saudi universities had not conducted self-assessment. Six schools gave the dates of their last self-assessment exercise. Five schools conducted self-assessment during 2000–5. Kuwait University conducted self-assessment in 2007 and the external reviewer assessed the programme in November 2007.
The 11 criteria used to assess the extent of evaluation for accreditation included: purpose, students, curriculum, student evaluation, faculty, research output, academic management, computing facilities, library resources, market needs, and survey of graduates. Two schools reported that they had covered all the listed aspects. One Saudi university covered all variables except conducting a survey of graduates. Two universities did not cover the aspects of academic management and survey of graduates. One Saudi university covered all the nine aspects while another school reviewed curriculum and computing facilities only. It appears that a majority of the nine schools conducted self-assessment in a thorough and comprehensive manner.
External review
The same 11 criteria were used to examine if these schools had been assessed by external reviewers during the last five years. It was found that three Saudi schools had not conducted external evaluation. Five schools used external experts for review whereas an appointee of the Ministry of Education had assessed one Saudi school. External reviews of two LIS schools covered the curriculum only. Two schools reported that an external expert had evaluated them for all 11 variables. In another Saudi school all the aspects were examined except student perceptions. The Kuwait University programme was examined twice in 2002 and 2007 for all the aspects, except management and student perceptions.
Outcome of review exercise
The participants were asked to state whether the review exercises had resulted in any changes during the last five years. Such outcomes were identified through definition of a new strategic plan, changes in admission or graduation policies, changes in the provision of resources and facilities, changes in instructional approaches, and changes to the curriculum. It was found that no changes were reported in two schools during the last five areas. Two schools had a new strategic plan, they had introduced changes in graduation requirements, and they had revamped their curriculum and added new courses. One Saudi school had a new strategic plan and there had been changes in the admission and graduation policies. At Sultan Qaboos University, adjustments were made to coursework. In both the men’s and women’s wings of the Umm Alqura University, changes were introduced in policies for student admission—restricting admission to those who had majored in science subjects in their high school. Both wings had revamped their curriculum and it was now oriented to Information Science. The women’s wing also reported that it had a new strategic plan. At King Saud University, changes were made in admission and graduation policies. Also, they reported that the curriculum had also changed.
Perceptions about accreditation
It was pertinent to examine perceptions of leading educators about the desirability of accreditation and gather their views about the agency that should be the accrediting body. All the respondents responded affirmatively that they wished to have accreditation in place. Eight of them marked the option of a regional professional body such as Special Libraries Association/Arabian Gulf Chapter (SLA/AGC) or a new body in the region that should be the accrediting authority. Four respondents considered the national professional association as the appropriate forum while another four thought that the regional consortium of universities should conduct evaluation. Two opted for the Ministry of Education of the country concerned. Only one of them marked the choice of an international agency. It seems that the respondents have different views on the issue and they might be open to any choice that would be practical.
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.
Accrediting agency
If we look at the options that the respondents had marked, some of them can be ruled out. The ALA or other national or international professional bodies do not accredit programmes in other countries. The option most favoured was a regional professional body such as the SLA’s Arabian Gulf Chapter. The SLA does not have any track record of engaging in such an activity. Also, the Arabian Gulf Chapter of the SLA is a loosely structured forum that does not have any headquarters or permanent staff. SLA/AGC has had only one major activity of holding an annual conference. This forum has no other mandate and it may not have the authority or legitimacy to become an accrediting agency. SLA headquarters would not approve any such initiative, as it does not deal with the evaluation of academic programmes. Considering these factors, the option of accreditation by the SLA/AGC appears to be impractical. Likewise, ministries of education in the six GCC nations do not have the capability to conduct accreditation reviews. These have a bureaucratic structure that is inconsistent with academic norms and practices. Since national professional associations do not exist in many of these nations, this option is also ruled out. It would take a long time for any of these associations to mature enough for such an undertaking.
Four respondents mentioned that the regional consortium of universities may be entrusted with this task. Within the framework of the GCC, there is a permanent body of GCC universities and the executive heads of these universities meet regularly. Within that structure there is a permanent forum of deans of libraries in the region. If the GCC Universities Forum is approached to constitute an organ of the heads of academic departments of LIS for accreditation, this unit might be given this responsibility. It may function both in statutory and professional capacities. This forum may have the responsibility for policy formulation, development of guidelines and instruments, financial management, and constitution of the accreditation teams. An initiative on the part of academic departments is needed if any such proposal is to be tabled before the forum of the Chief Executives of the Gulf universities.
Accreditation team
The forum proposed in the preceding section might be responsible for the constitution of accreditation team. The appointment of a member could be for a certain period. It is proposed that the team should consist of eminent educationalists from the region and a similar number of members might be picked from the international market. This might be a sensitive issue for the academic departments, but the practices of the ALA, ALIA and CILIP might provide guidelines. One possibility could be to explore with IFLA if its Education and Training Section could have a stake in the process.
Standards and guidelines
Once the accrediting agency is in place, it should engage senior academics to draft standards, guidelines, instruments, and processes. There should be a representation of all the schools for this task force. Detailed documentation is available from the websites of the four professional associations noted earlier. Appropriate adjustments and customization would be desirable.
There appears to be a common core of the elements that are to be evaluated in the accreditation process. It has been found that all these elements have been covered in the self-assessment or external review exercises of the nine LIS departments surveyed. This framework could provide parameters for accreditation standards and guidelines for this region.
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.
Footnotes
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.