The challenges of policy borrowing: Exploring education faculty professional agency and CAEP accreditation in Oman and Qatar

Abstract

Policy borrowing from other regions has presented significant obstacles for higher education faculty in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Specifically, accreditation for higher education institutions has become problematic. This study explored the perceptions of faculty in two colleges of education on the influence of the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) policies and procedures on their professional agency. As a form of policy borrowing, US-based CAEP accreditation has been adopted by several colleges of education in the GCC context. Using the framework of professional agency, findings from this qualitative comparative study revealed that seven participants from Oman and eight from Qatar enacted four forms of professional agency in response to accreditation, namely, (1) agency as advocacy, (2) agency as creative compliance, (3) agency as uncritical compliance, and (4) agency as upholding. These forms of agency were derived from analyzing participants’ actions, choices, and stances toward accreditation. They revealed the complex and dynamic interplay of participants’ professional identities and the structural and cultural conditions in each context. The study discusses the findings considering extant literature and offers insight into the judicious borrowing of accreditation in the GCC teacher education context.

Keywords

Professional agency policy borrowing CAEP accreditation teacher education Oman Qatar

Introduction

Under the guise of internationalization, many universities from the global South have engaged in policy borrowing processes, particularly from educational systems in the global North (Barrett et al., 2020). These processes have become a relatively common undertaking in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (Hammad et al., 2023; Mohamed and Morris, 2021). Since the beginning of the 21^st century, GCC countries have been avid borrowers of educational policies, services, and products from those leading the global education industry (i.e., Australia, the US, and the UK). The outcome has been an approach to educational reform that prioritizes so-called best practices and quality assurance processes traditionally undertaken by national organizations (Mohamed and Morris, 2021; Solbrekke and Sugrue, 2014). This increased interest in quality control and assurance has prompted many such universities to pursue US-based accreditation as the gold standard for their institutions (Barrett et al., 2020; Romanowski, 2021).

According to Phillips and Ochs (2003), the policy borrowing process includes “the whole range of issues relating to how policymakers use the foreign example at all stages of the processes of initiating and implementing educational change” (p. 451). They delineate these stages as cross-national attraction, decision, implementation, and internalization/indigenization (Phillips and Ochs, 2003). This final stage involves the integration of the borrowed policy into the existing system, such that it becomes a part of the local educational framework, ultimately influencing pre-existing practices and structures (Phillips and Ochs, 2003). This study is particularly interested in this later stage and uses insights from Albatch and Knight (2007) and Steiner-Khamsi (2016) on how policy borrowing unfolds in different contexts, particularly regarding how borrowed policies are adapted to suit local needs. Understanding how policy borrowing is translated in the local context and what local adaptations are made to the global education policy. The borrowed policy under scrutiny in this empirical study is the adoption of a US-based teacher education accreditation system, namely, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP¹) initial-level standards, which has been recruited by the colleges of education in Oman and Qatar to obtain accreditation for their teacher preparation programs. The actors providing insight into the internalization/indigenization stage are faculty from these two colleges of education.

Despite growing interest in policy borrowing (Steiner-Khamsi, 2016; Tan and Chua, 2015), most of the theorizing has emerged from the global North (Auld and Morris, 2014; Phillips and Ochs, 2003), while significant interest has been given to less affluent nations who are coerced into policy borrowing for political and economic purposes, such as to receive financial aid (Mohamed and Morris, 2021; Author). The current GCC countries, by contrast, are affluent and have not resorted to policy borrowing for financial aid, yet they have limited human capital to brew educational policies locally. Several conceptual papers have been written about policy borrowing in this context; that is to elucidate the central role of the global education industry in systemic education reform (Mohamed and Morris, 2021), explicate the process of US-based accreditation as a form of educational neocolonialism (Romanowski, 2021, 2022; Romanowski et al., 2024), and contemplate the significance of accreditation for quality teacher education in the GCC (Al-Harthi et al., 2022; Bailey, 2022). Between these conceptual criticisms and commendations, less attention has been given to the voices of local actors who must implement the borrowed policy and integrate its criteria into their academic work (Barrett et al., 2020). That is, few empirical studies have been conducted on education faculty and how they enact their professional agency to navigate the complexities of increased monitoring, external pressures, and individual missions (Bourke et al., 2018; Vähäsantanen et al., 2020).

Borrowing educational policies, practices, and reforms to improve education and societal and economic conditions is often viewed as a viable solution (Abi-Mershed 2010; Tan, 2015). However, the practice of transferring these strategies across different systems has garnered notable criticism. One of the concerns is that cultural differences may be overlooked during the borrowing process, assuming that the borrowed practices are universally applicable (Romanowski, 2021; Nguyen-Phuong-Mai et al., 2012). Additionally, adopting policies and practices from other cultures can impede the implementation of these practices in local contexts, eroding local knowledge and cultural traditions. Moreover, cultural and context differences can influence the fidelity of implementation. That is the extent to which an educational program is implemented in alignment with its initial design and intended goals (Fullan, 2001; Chaaban et al., 2023).

This study draws on a subject-centered socio-cultural approach (Eteläpelto et al., 2013) and aims to investigate faculty perceptions in two colleges of education concerning the issue of borrowing CEAP accreditation and the influences of its policies and procedures on their professional agency. The role of faculty in the accreditation process should not be underestimated, as they are expected to advance this process in alignment with their program mission and goals (Bourke et al., 2018). While it is argued that accreditation policies and structures may constrain faculty, nevertheless, several researchers have argued that their work is shaped by their professional identities, including goals, values, and commitments, as well as the affordances of structural conditions, alluding to the multidimensional and dynamic nature of professional agency enacted within particular socio-cultural contexts (Chaaban et al., 2021b; Eteläpelto et al., 2013; Vähäsantanen et al., 2020). By adopting a qualitative comparative approach, this study adds to current understandings of faculty professional agency in similar academic contexts, specifically those accredited by CAEP, and sheds light on the personal, relational, and contextual features connected to agency. The overarching research question for this study is: How do education faculty negotiate professional agency in response to accreditation policies within personal, relational and contextual spaces, in response to the internalization/indigenization of borrowed accreditation policies?

This study makes two main contributions to praxis. First, this study lays bare the range of ways education faculty enacted professional agency in response to the adoption of foreign accreditation standards, as a manifestation of policy borrowing in this context. In so doing, it adds an empirical dimension to the pervasive conceptual papers that have theorized how education faculty may respond to accreditation yet fall short of representing their voices in empirical research. Another contribution is that it situated professional agency within specific contexts, which were similar enough to be compared, yet different enough to support the emergence of discriminating factors that lead to variations in responses, experiences, and agency. Finally, this study acknowledges that education research and practice are amid an exciting shift from a focus on best practice to contextualized practice, from the fidelity of implementation to local adaptations, and from policy borrowing to policy learning and enactment. Situated within these competing discourses, this study calls for future research that delves into theorizing and examining how they unfold in the GCC context and internationally.

Accreditation in Oman and Qatar

Despite receiving significant criticism within its local context (Schwarz, 2015; Ziechner, 2010), CAEP accreditation has been embraced by a growing number of colleges of education in the GCC (Bailey, 2022; Michelli et al., 2017; Sadiq and Allen, 2017). The Omani and Qatari colleges have led the way, having secured CAEP accreditation since 2016. These two contexts were chosen for this study, motivated by the possibility of revealing similar actions and responses from education faculty and uncovering the subtleties of localized differences. Heeding the requirements of CAEP accreditation, both colleges were required to conduct an extensive self-study, align programs with specified standards, provide annual reports and reviews, and host on-site visits. They were further held accountable for developing systems that efficiently collect, manage and interpret reliable evidence that can be used for continuous improvement. In this respect, they varied in how CAEP accreditation was integrated and implemented within their programs, leading to differences in how their faculty may have experienced the process.

Teacher education in both Qatar and Oman has undergone significant reform over the last two decades, driven by national visions to improve educational quality and align teacher preparation programs with global standards (Al-Harthi et al., 2022; Romanowski, 2021). Both countries pursue CAEP accreditation to address similar challenges in their teacher education systems, such as improving the quality of teacher preparation, ensuring consistent teacher competencies and aligning with international benchmarks (Romanowski, 2021, 2022). In Qatar, these goals align with Qatar National Vision 2030, which emphasizes the development of a world-class education system capable of preparing teachers to meet the demands of 21st-century classrooms (Al-Thani et al., 2021). Similarly, in Oman, the Ministry of Education viewed CAEP accreditation as essential for producing highly qualified teachers capable of raising educational standards and addressing the needs of a diversifying local workforce (Al Barwani and Bailey, 2016). Both colleges of education at X University and X University aligned their programs with CAEP standards, establishing partnerships with local schools to ensure sufficient clinical training for their student teachers. Despite these shared goals, faculty in both countries have had to navigate tensions between local educational traditions and the international demands of accreditation. While the rationale for pursuing CAEP accreditation is similar, the structural changes made in the Omani context in response to accreditation have been more extensive than those in the Qatari context, as detailed below.

Significant structural changes were made at the College of Education in the Omani context. Three administrative offices were established to meet the needs of accreditation, namely, the Field Experience and Student Teaching Unit (FESTU), the Quality Assurance and Academic Accreditation Unit (QAAAU), and the Assessment and Technical Support Unit (ATSU). The three units are mandated to manage and implement accreditation decisions by the College Board. Each unit had a specialized function within the accreditation process. FESTU is responsible for planning, implementing, and evaluating field experiences and student teaching. QAAAU is assigned to follow up with accreditation and quality assurance processes and communicate with CAEP and the college departments regarding accreditation. ATSU was mandated to collect and analyze accreditation data, but this unit recently merged with QAAAU. Besides the three units, a standing committee headed by the college dean and an Accreditation Steering Committee was established to plan and make decisions regarding accreditation. This committee meets once a month and handles all accreditation requirements and issues.

In the Qatari context, the College of Education maintained its original organizational structure, despite pursuing the same accreditation procedures. The college introduced two administrative positions responsible for liaising between faculty and CAEP officials, keeping track of the required evidence, and writing reviews and reports. Faculty from each of the four departments housed in the college rotate among accreditation committees by administrative appointment. Committee members could change yearly, while some remain appointed for several years. Serving on an accreditation committee for one of the standards means faculty are required to secure evidence from relevant sources to fulfill the requirements of this standard. Fulfilling committee requirements dramatically varies depending on the particular CAEP standard. For example, standard one demands evidence that candidates possess a deep understanding of content and pedagogical knowledge, such as planning for instruction and conducting adequate assessments. However, the standard two committee would center on gathering evidence demonstrating effective partnerships and high-quality clinical practice (see CCSSO (2011) for the list of standards adopted by CAEP).

Accreditation in teacher education

The internationalization of Higher Education (HE) has become a defining feature of higher education systems worldwide, driven by increased global interconnectedness, student mobility and the desire of institutions to align with international standards (Altbach and Knight, 2007). For many institutions, especially in non-Western contexts, internationalization is about gaining recognition as high-quality institutions capable of competing globally (Romanowski, 2021). One of the key mechanisms through which internationalization manifests is through the adoption of internationally recognized accreditation standards (Author). Standards set by accrediting bodies, such as CAEP, influence local educational systems by ensuring compliance with established benchmarks, supposedly fostering continuous improvement and enhancing public trust in educational outcomes. Additionally, these standards influence institutional planning and resource allocation, further embedding global standards into local practices (Ulker and Bakioglu, 2019).

Accreditation, as defined by Eaton (2012), is “a process of external quality review created and used by HE to scrutinize universities, colleges, and programs for quality assurance and quality improvement” (p. 1). Serving as the gatekeeper of quality control and assurance, accreditation plays six important roles, according to Germaine and Spencer (2016): (1) enhance the learning of students whom program graduates serve, (2) accomplish a shared vision, (3) build faculty capacity, (4) strengthen a culture of continuous improvement, (5) enhance faculty collaboration, and (6) meet the demand for accountability. The proclaimed mission of CAEP is to advance “equity and excellence in educator preparation through evidence-based accreditation that assures quality and supports continuous improvement to strengthen P-12 students learning” (CAEP, 2020). With a recent addition to its standards, CAEP includes six standards that define and assess quality in the performance of an organization and serve as the foundation for reviews and decisions (CAEP, 2020). For specialized standards, CAEP refers programs to external accrediting bodies and specialized professional associations representing so-called best practices for quality teaching (Author).

For enthusiasts, accreditation offers critical tools for self-assessment and continuous improvement in HE programs (Kinser and Philips, 2018), making them more attractive to students and faculty (Hail et al., 2019). Supporting the adoption of CAEP accreditation in the GGC, Eldridge and Dada (2016) point out that such programs distinguish themselves from the “fly by night” programs emerging within an unregulated context and obtain recognition for their quality where no national accreditation body exists. In Hail et al.’s (2019) study, findings show that faculty may see the benefits of accreditation manifested in enhancing the status and prestige of the program and guaranteeing consistency through the use of common standards. In Bell and Young’s (2011) study of five teacher preparation programs, faculty mainly had positive views about accreditation, articulating its contribution to developing a program-wide conceptual framework, assessment of teacher candidates, and data collection systems.

Criticisms of accreditation

Several researchers have expressed discontent regarding HE accreditation (Al-Harthi et al., 2022; Schwarz, 2015; Zeichner, 2010). For one, accreditation is criticized for imposing centralized control over programs (Bourke et al., 2018). Taken from an internationalization perspective, Zeichner (2010) contended that a common trend has been “the commodification of the work of preparing teachers and making teacher preparation subject to market forces, excessively prescriptive accountability requirements from government bodies and accreditation agencies that seek to control the substance of the teacher education curriculum” (p. 1544). Furthermore, pursuing and maintaining accreditation necessitates administrative tasks that take time away from teaching and research (Hail et al., 2019). To manage the accreditation requirements, faculty must follow a systematic process that collects and interprets reliable and valid evidence and document their efforts through extensive reporting mechanisms.

These arguments have been put forward in a context where accreditation is at home, not a foreign adoption (Bourke et al., 2018). In his critique of internationalization, Altbach (2003) argues that accreditation often functions as a tool of educational colonization, imposing Western norms and practices on non-Western institutions. He contends that accreditation, especially when adopted by countries in the Global South, frequently involves the importation of foreign educational models and standards, often at the expense of local knowledge systems and practices. This is particularly relevant in the case of the GCC teacher preparation programs that have adopted and applied CAEP requirements to demonstrate the quality of their programs (Eldridge and Dada, 2016). Adding a policy borrowing dimension to the accreditation process intensifies these complexities. Author (xx) argues that CAEP functions as an apparatus of neocolonialism that uses its power to propagate American understandings of teacher education and spreads a hegemony over what is considered legitimate knowledge. In this sense, accreditation restricts academic freedom, local modifications, and the development of a local knowledge base (Romanowski, 2021). In a similar vein, Samier (2020) discusses how such power dynamics in international education impose external values on local educational systems, restraining the autonomy of institutions to develop curricula and policies that reflect their unique needs. Noting the tension between global standards and local agency, Samier further emphasizes that the imposition of foreign accreditation systems can lead to the marginalization of indigenous knowledge and practices.

In this sense, accreditation, while promoting global standards, restricts the capacity for local modifications and hinders the development of a localized knowledge base. Following this line of argument, accreditation adds to the complexity of teacher education and influences the professional agency of education faculty, as discussed below.

Education faculty professional agency

This study is based on the premise that education faculty have the ability and potential to exercise control, take stances, make choices, and exert influence within and against the socio-cultural and material conditions in their workplaces (Hökkä et al., 2017). In accordance with Biesta et al. (2015), professional agency is not something individuals have, such as an innate ability or competence. Rather, it is considered something individuals do and enact at work, integrating elements of self-regulation, purposeful actions and choices, and self-reflections for continuous improvement (Bandura, 2006). Drawing on a subject-centered socio-cultural approach (Eteläpelto et al., 2013), professional agency constitutes maintaining a relational balance between socio-cultural features, power relations, and material resources on the one hand, and individuals’ beliefs, values, commitments, and professional identities on the other hand. In earlier literature, Archer (2000) stressed the situated nature of professional agency within contexts that may support or hinder individuals’ capacity to make decisions, take initiatives, and act proactively.

Recent changes in HE have placed specific requirements and restrictions on education faculty’s work, roles, and identities (Vähäsantanen et al., 2020). Besides teaching duties, research commitments, and service obligations (Gonzales, 2014; Hökkä and Eteläpelto, 2014), education faculty must keep pace with the requirements imposed by local or foreign accreditation bodies while maintaining high productivity and efficacy (Hail et al., 2019; Hökkä et al., 2017). Some have argued that accreditation policies have not only led to greater control over education faculty’s work but more detrimentally have led to challenging their autonomy, performance, and creativity by taking professional agency away from them and replacing it with increased bureaucracy and managerial regulations (Bourke et al., 2018; Hail et al., 2019; Romanowski, 2021).

Nevertheless, several researchers have begun to draw more attention to the way education faculty practice agency in response to external pressures (Hökkä and Eteläpelto, 2014; Vähäsantanen et al., 2020), noting their ability to influence and develop their work and express their professional identities within academic life (Vähäsantanen et al., 2020). In response to work pressures, education faculty have been found to practice active agency in multiple forms, including transformative, upholding, and resistant ways (Hökkä et al., 2017; Vähäsantanen and Eteläpelto, 2015), as well as coping, satisficing and resilient ways (Author). For example, in their study of professional agency in an academic setting, Vähäsantanen et al. (2020) noted faculty’s ability to direct and design working practices and cultures; engage in development activities individually and collectively; and advance their goals, values, and interests in their work. In this sense, faculty maintain specific measures of freedom, as policies and structures can provide a broad framework for their actions rather than absolute control (Vähäsantanen et al., 2020). This was documented in Solbrekke and Sugrue’s (2014) study, as teachers and educators navigated the accreditation process through multiple performance scripts of creative compliance, agency, and resistance.

CAEP accreditation and faculty agency in the GCC

In a GCC context, education faculty have been found to harbor diverse perceptions towards the influence of accreditation policies on their work (Romanowski, 2022). The study found faculty divided among four perspectives: The first viewpoint held a positive perspective of CAEP accreditation, firmly believed in its value, trusted the effectiveness of its procedures, and argued against possible hindrances to professional agency. By contrast, a second viewpoint held negative views towards accreditation, devalued its need, and experienced hindrances to their professional agency. A third perspective consisted of mixed reviews toward accreditation, considering it an essential quality assurance system while at the same time believing that it de-professionalizes teaching and marginalizes the professional judgment, experience, and skill of education faculty. A fourth perspective considered accreditation to replace existing indigenous educational systems, theories, and practices with Western systems, while strongly arguing against CAEP accreditation based on an educational neocolonialism perspective.

Based on these results, as well as other studies in the GCC context (Chaaban et al., 2021a; 2021b), this study is premised on the assumption that the extent to which education faculty manifest their agency may vary per individual and, over time, supported or hindered within personal, relational and contextual spaces. Their responses to contradictions and challenges in academic work may not follow a particular pattern, and multiple forms of agency may emerge, thus alluding to the complexity of individual responses to the same phenomenon (Solbrekke and Sugrue, 2014; Vähäsantanen et al., 2020). Individuals can achieve professional agency by participating actively, purposefully, and meaningfully in professional practices that “derive their signifying property from being problematic” (Ukkonen-Mikkola and Varpanen, 2020: p. 3). Hence, there is a need to explore professional agency in the problematic context of borrowed policy.

Methodology

Prior to commencing with the findings and discussion, it is imperative to provide a caveat pertaining to the positionality of the researchers. Holmes (2020) has defined the concept of positionality, which involves the identification of the researcher’s position concerning three key areas: “the subject under investigation, the research participants, and the research context and process” (p. 2). The researchers involved in this study possess extensive expertise and familiarity with the CAEP accreditation procedure and understand the concept and workings of professional agency. All members of the research team are affiliated with a college of education. Before conducting the study and gathering and analyzing data, they were well-versed in the scholarly literature surrounding CAEP accreditation. As scholars, they approached the study with a pre-existing stance on the benefits, difficulties, and drawbacks of CAEP accreditation. They were aware of their perspectives on CAEP accreditation and knew the individuals who participated in this study. Furthermore, each researcher has extensive experience in higher education in a GCC context where accreditation is a relatively new phenomenon for many faculty members.

Research design

The present research utilizes a qualitative research methodology, which facilitates the development of a comprehensive and accurate narrative that reflects the phenomenon under investigation. The study has produced a detailed and “thick description” of the subject matter. Thick descriptions differ from thin ones, as the latter relies on factual information without considering the contextual and intentional factors surrounding an action. In contrast, thick descriptions give a complete understanding by including details such as context, intentions, and development of the act (Denzin, 2001). Thick descriptions afford readers an authentic comprehension of the perspectives held by individuals implicated in a particular scenario. This study exemplifies the depiction of education faculty in Oman and Qatar as they engage in CAEP accreditation and how this impacts their agency.

Participants

This study obtained ethical approval from Qatar University’s Institutional Review Board before faculty from two colleges of education in Oman and Qatar were recruited for participation. Using a purposive sampling technique (Patton, 2002), these participants were selected according to their first-hand experiences with accreditation, extending a minimum of 2 years. In the Omani context, participants who were involved in any of the three administrative offices, which had been established in response to CAEP accreditation requirements, were particularly recruited for participation. In the Qatari context, participants were recruited based on their experiences with accreditation committees or administrative positions. An email invitation was sent to all current and previous faculty who worked for these offices or on these committees, and those who responded in the affirmative were recruited for participation. Accordingly, seven faculty from Oman (Male = 4; Female = 3) and eight from Qatar (Male = 3; Female = 5) took part in individual interviews during the Fall semester of 2022, at a time when both colleges were in the process of seeking accreditation renewal (i.e., 7 years after the initial approval was awarded in 2016). According to ethical considerations, specific demographic data will not be presented due to the possibility of identifying participants. Generally, all participants held PhDs in different educational fields (e.g., educational technology, leadership, assessment, etc.), and their experience as education faculty ranged from 4 to 25 years. All participants had experience working on accreditation committees or units, and five participants also held administrative positions related to accreditation.

Data collection and analysis

Using a semi-structured interview protocol, participants were encouraged to express their perceptions of professional agency in relation to CAEP accreditation freely and without restrictions. Several guiding questions prompted participants’ subjective interpretations of their experiences and responses to the opportunities and challenges inherent in accreditation policies and procedures. These questions were structured along a conceptual framework adopted from (Chaaaban et al., 2021b) concerning personal, relational, and contextual dimensions.

Participants were informed of the purpose of the study and signed a consent form agreeing to the recording of the interview (except for one participant). During the interview, they responded to questions prompting them to discuss the following (1) the influence of accreditation on work, (2) compatibility/incompatibility of accreditation with personal goals and views, (3) the influence of accreditation on relationships/partnerships, (4) aspects of accreditation compatibility/incompatibility with teacher education and culture in the country, (5) benefits and challenges of an accredited program, and (6) recommendations for future policy implementation. Participants were further prompted to describe their actions and initiatives in response to accreditation policies and requirements for each question. Two research assistants conducted the interviews in Arabic or English, depending on individual preferences, each lasting 50–60 minutes. All interview data were audio-recorded (except one), transcribed, and translated to English if needed in preparation for analysis.

Codes and categories were derived from textual analysis using a bottom-up inductive method to represent participants’ experiences in their voices (Patton, 2002). The analysis proceeded by taking each country as a separate case. Authors 1 and 2 analyzed their respective contexts, noting impressions and searching for interpretive meanings based on their understandings of the context. To create codes, the researchers systematically read through each transcript, identifying key words, phrases, or actions that reflected participants’ experiences and responses to accreditation. This process involved open coding, where each relevant segment of the text was assigned a code, capturing specific aspects such as “challenges with accreditation,” “adaptation strategies,” “collaborative practices,” and “misalignment with personal goals.” These initial codes were then compared and contrasted in a within-case analysis by applying a constant comparative approach (Glasser and Strauss, 1967) to group the codes into categories. Following this step, the authors discussed, compared, and interpreted the emerging categories in a cross-case analysis to identify patterns and derive the overarching themes which would reveal the similarities yet retain the individual characteristics specific to each country. Throughout the analysis, care was taken to maintain the individuality of the participants’ experiences and reveal these differences within and across the two countries as separate cases.

As a final step, a deductive analytical process was conducted by referring to the literature on professional agency, particularly the subject-centered socio-cultural approach (Eteläpelto et al., 2013), and literature on IHE and policy borrowing, thus examining the emerging themes in reference to the framework of personal, relational, and contextual dimensions. This iterative process of combining inductive coding with a theory-driven deductive analysis helped ensure the findings were both grounded in participants’ experiences and connected to broader theoretical discussions.

Findings

In this section, the different forms of professional agency enacted by participants are revealed and discussed with reference to the extant literature. Cross-case analysis uncovered four forms of professional agency that alluded to the unpredictable, multiplicitous, and complex nature of responses to accreditation policies and procedures within personal, relational, and contextual spaces. The emergence of general trends from the two colleges of education in Oman and Qatar meant that participants’ responses were not merely idiosyncratic but also followed certain patterns influenced by an amalgam of factors embedded within these contexts (see Appendix for a succinct summary).

Agency as advocacy - Promoting accreditation within and beyond the college

Based on solid convictions of the importance of accreditation for the quality of their programs, four participants from Oman and one from Qatar were adamant in advocating for the “dissemination of a culture of accreditation” [P4-O]. According to these participants, accreditation was compatible with their professional identities, goals, and values and “had a great impact” on their roles as faculty and administrators. One participant from Oman explained that accreditation “alerted [him] that there are new and scientific ways of working and benefiting from each other’s experiences and transferring this experience to colleagues” [P1-O]. This experience transfer was one way they enacted professional agency as advocacy, thus promoting accreditation and its importance within and beyond their colleges.

For instance, motivated by “raising the level of the institution and improving its performance” [P4-O], participants from Oman were adamant to “spread this awareness among faculty until they look at accreditation in another committed way.” Such commitment, they claimed, was lacking among some faculty who “have negative attitudes toward accreditation, and believe that it is only monitoring them or not actually reflected in teaching practices” [P1-O]. In response, they consistently “talked to colleagues about the importance of accreditation and reminded them of the standards, and how these have led to improving teaching practices and introducing new methods of evaluation…” [P1-O]. Similarly in the Qatari context, P3-Q expressed the benefits of accreditation as it “keeps [her] updated with knowledge and up to the standard, and keeps the college ranked as one of the best in the world.” With such conviction, she described her role as ensuring that her colleagues are “on board.” Therefore, she guides them in “understand[ing] the standards and draw[ing] out the main tasks that are needed to submit the reports on time.”

Advocating for accreditation and transferring their experiences also occurred beyond the departments in the case of Oman. P1-O claimed that “without accreditation, there would have been no opportunities to provide training to faculty in other departments, especially on how to implement assessment methods…” Similarly, P6-O commended the experience of working on accreditation committees, enabling him to “give workshops to other colleges to help them get accredited.” In another instance, P2-O described accreditation as “encouraging [him] to form relationships with others,” through a cross-college collaboration on teaching “an interdisciplinary course” [P2-O]. P5-O also described establishing a “joint committee with the Ministry of Education for the field training component and a specialized institute, so there is a partnership and cooperation between teacher preparation and post-graduation service providers.”

This spillover effect was also noted in performing their administration roles. For P1-O accreditation “helped [him] to manage the unit and identify methods for a quality assurance system that examines the implementation of best practices and benefits to the educational process.” As presented in this section, some participants provide evidence that accreditation need not be seen as detrimental to education faculty’s professional agency, as they can be seen as autonomous professionals working toward common goals (Bourke et al., 2018). Despite the prevalence of a “language and performativity of accountability” (Solbrekke and Sugrue, 2014: p. 18), these participants created “multiple performance scripts,” in the form of advocacy, which enabled them to use their experiences beyond the immediate context of the department.

Agency as creative compliance - Thinking critically about the influence of accreditation

Several participants from Oman (N = 3) and Qatar (N = 4) enacted agency in the form of creative compliance. These participants practiced responsible and proactive behaviors, reflecting critically on accreditation compatibility within their contexts. Thus, they were able to detach themselves from the technicalities of accreditation and identify deficiencies in implementation.

In the Omani context, P2-O considered the accreditation process as “ambiguous and unclear, like an exploration of strengths and weaknesses, and finding ways to develop and improve,” especially in the initial stages. Still, he realized “that it is a huge amount of office work that is not at the heart of the educational process.” These notions corroborate with P5-O’s reflection on the “problem with accreditation,” which she believes can be attributed “to how the standards are applied,” and further raises the following question, “so do we adopt them from a developmental point of view or do we adopt them from the point of view only to end this requirement?” In her comment, P5-O captures a common dilemma in current literature that differentiates two schools of thought on how accreditation standards are viewed from a developmental or regulatory perspective (see Bourke et al., 2018).

Similar critical voices were heard in the Qatari context. P6-Q described “a negative image surrounding accreditation, as there is more concern about arranging papers than actually improving the quality of education.” Similar doubts were expressed by P4-Q, who did not “see the influence of accreditation on the quality of the education process” and considered it “just a culture of documentation and governance of the education process.” However, this was not simply attributed to accreditation per se but “to the practices of the institution that wants to achieve these standards, without evaluating if they are reflected in the real development of the education process.” In agreement, P5-Q believed that “accreditation is a good thing being abused” and added that “in principle, the standards should go hand-in-hand with [her] goals, but in practice, they are only additional tasks, so [she] does them because [she] has to, and not because there is any added value.” These voices corroborate with conclusions in Bourke et al.’s (2018) study in an Australian context, where the use of accreditation standards for some education faculty presented the “veneer of quality” (p. 90), rather than improving quality outcomes.

Regarding culture and society, two participants from Oman were skeptical about the compatibility of accreditation. For example, P5-O questioned “whether these standards fit and how they can be adapted according to the region in which they are applied,” further indicating that “the application in developed countries is different from the application in developing countries.” On a similar note, P2-O was able to identify a “lack of awareness among stakeholders in regards to the diversity standard that differs considerably from the Western concept” and then “find ways to measure the extent of what [they] have done to prepare teacher candidates for this standard.” In agreement, P5-O believed that the diversity standard was incompatible with Oman’s education and culture, and their efforts led to “adapting it to the characteristics of the society.” Despite raising concerns, they managed to address the diversity standard in a way that fits with Omani culture by particularly focusing on language diversity in the country.

Agency as uncritical compliance - Following procedures and making changes to practices

Implementing accreditation policies and accepting it as “ensuring the accuracy and quality of outputs” [P4-O] was a unanimous response among participants from Oman (N = 6), as well as a typical response among participants from Qatar (N = 5). Particularly for those who considered accreditation compatible with their professional goals, following procedures and making changes to their practices was a welcomed endeavor, a finding that corroborated with extant literature (Bell and Youngs, 2011; Bourke et al., 2018). To clarify, uncritical compliance should not be mistaken for a lack of agency. Rather, participants made a deliberate choice to align with accreditation requirements, viewing them as necessary and beneficial. The “uncritical” aspect refers to their acceptance of accreditation, not the absence of their agency.

Most participants from Oman were vocal about the changes they enacted to their programs, similar to the education faculty from Bell and Youngs’ (2011) study. They explained how they developed the college’s conceptual framework, enhanced evaluation methods of teacher candidates, and created data collection systems. Accordingly, they created new courses related to special education and educational technology and established new units and centers as fixed structures within the college as an interpretation of the requirements of accreditation. Other practices attributed directly to the influence of accreditation were “integrating ethical issues of the profession” [P2-O], “developing tools to measure the impact of the program for learners” [P5-0], and “enhancing research productivity on topics related to accreditation” [P4-O]. In total, these actions accumulated to the development of a data collection system similar to those developed by some US colleges to facilitate accreditation work (Bell and Youngs, 2011).

Similar compliance practices to accreditation procedures were further described in the Qatari context, without systemic changes to the structure of their programs, a response denoted as symbolic by Bell and Youngs (2011). Participants’ actions in this context were directed toward documentation and reporting. According to P8-Q, “committees are formed based on the standards, and their role is to work on preparing documents and making periodic reviews of the reports before submitting them to accreditation.” In this respect, participants from Qatar found difficulties in “keeping up with the requirements of accreditation and maintaining [their] commitment to community service and research,” yet, “whatever contributes to achieving accreditation standards, [they] do” [P4-Q]. Adopting this strategy, “[they] have not reached the stage where [they] refuse to make changes that are requested by accreditation” [P7-Q], as “[they] must do them even if [they] are not convinced” [P8-Q]. Such symbolic responses may raise questions about the depth of change engendered by accreditation (Bell and Youngs, 2011) and may reinforce the disempowerment and diminished authority that some may feel as part of the accreditation process (Bourke et al., 2018).

Further, participants from Oman found accreditation to influence the relational dimension of professional agency. Accordingly, heeding accreditation requirements, participants from Oman “created teams that set clear and fixed tasks and expected outcomes” [P4-O]. They further “strengthened the partnerships, cooperation, and communication with community partners” [P5-O], such as “teachers in schools…the ministry of education…and faculty from other colleges and universities” [P2-O]. They also perceived that accreditation “contributed to empowering faculty, whether in the aspects of teaching or other aspects,” by offering them the space “to meet and discuss the development of the teaching process” [P1-O]. Using the standards as a departure point, P2-O made explicit efforts to “explain the accreditation process to students, and how each learning outcome in the course is related to another standard so that they can be aware of the importance of accreditation and the rationale for its existence.” Such compliance in the Omani context was mainly fueled by “relatively positive attitudes,” [P2-O], and the belief that “accreditation raised the level of performance of students” [P6-O]. According to Schwarz (2015), education faculty seem unconcerned about their curricula being dictated by others and indifferent that their work is being reduced to rubrics and regulations. She attributes this finding to a “culture dominated by techne” (p. 106) or a false sense of assurance established by CAEP discourse.

These voices from Oman were matched with fewer voices from Qatar. Two participants [P1-Q and P7-Q] enacted similar practices in their relationships with colleagues, claiming that “accreditation strengthened [their] relationships, as [they] work in teams or committees, share experiences, and collaborate with different programs and departments to implement the standards” [P1-Q]. In the Qatari context, compliance with accreditation was not necessarily matched with positive attitudes, as some participants conformed to the process while holding mixed attitudes. In one instance, P4-Q asserted that “there is no doubt that accreditation helped to update and improve some aspects of teacher preparation…yet there are some negative measures that burden the faculty with too many tasks.” According to Bell and Youngs (2011), accreditation may receive mixed responses as it is sometimes perceived as an external requirement.

Furthermore, in the GCC, it is a borrowed policy from a foreign context, which Romanowski (2022) has argued acts as a mechanism of governance and control. Using common institutional practices, such as those enacted by participants in Oman and Qatar, accreditation may have successfully perpetuated a “culture of compliance” (p. 13). The downside is that accreditation does not use sovereignty but disciplinary power to establish compliance that faculty may not be aware of (Romanowski, 2022).

The majority of participants from both contexts also alluded to uncritical compliance in their response to the compatibility of accreditation with local culture. For instance, P7-O considered that “accreditation focuses on promoting local culture…and has made room for each country to define standards and values in light of the context in which it is applied.” In agreement, P5-Q believed that “speaking of quality is not culturally sensitive, the language of quality is a common language for all faculty who seek to do the best they can.” P7-Q also agreed with “the basics of high-quality teaching and learning, where the focus is on the student, on creativity and innovation…whatever the culture, global trends do not accommodate a traditional student or traditional teaching processes.” Another approving voice from P4-Q stated that, “accreditation can be adapted to the local culture or society…it has become a global requirement.” These discourses sound similar to those in Bourke et al.’s (2018) study, in that education faculty show signs of “yielding to …the quality assurance discourse” present in accreditation, speaking its language and “acting out docility as they are subtly coerced into conducting their conduct in particular ways” (p. 90). This discourse continues to dominate because of its political strength and the way it has been mobilized as the “regime of truth, a productive form of power in the Foucauldian sense” (Bourke et al., 2018: p. 90). In the GCC context, this regime of truth emanates from a Western perspective that privileges academic knowledge and ways of knowing that may not be culturally suitable to local needs and realities (Author). Yet most participants do not seem aware of conflicting discourses in this regard.

Agency as upholding - Maintaining professional identity

In juggling competing commitments, some participants from Oman (N = 2) and Qatar (N = 3) enacted an upholding form of agency, as they took action and made choices that met the accreditation requirements without compromising their professional identities. That is, their professional goals, values, and commitments came first and were not influenced by accreditation.

Participants from Oman “completed [their] duties constantly and to the fullest” and “responded to any requirements from accreditation only to avoid disrupting the process” [P3-O]. Further, they believed accreditation “did not have a significant influence on [their] teaching because faculty already take these aspects into account when planning” [P5-O].

In the Qatari context, an upholding form of professional agency was apparent in P5-Q’s conviction that “[she] brings [her] own value system…and makes changes to [her] work based on what [she] believes works for students.” P2-Q was also resolute about maintaining her values and commitments based on “[her] own philosophy that came from experience, readings and professional development…it was not something [she] acquired by virtue of accreditation.” Similar to education faculty in Bourke et al.’s (2018) study, these statements reveal participants’ agency in circumventing the dominant accreditation discourse of compliance.

These actions and choices developed into a form of resistance to accreditation by challenging its fundamental idea. In one case, P2-Q explicitly stated that she does not “believe in the idea of accreditation” and rejects “this principle of accountability in education,” accordingly, she does not “take any action or initiative for the sake of accreditation.” In agreement, P5-Q had accumulated a “negative attitude toward accreditation because [she] could not make improvements in course syllabi and assignments without referring to accreditation requirements.” Hence, she tries “to stay away from it all.”

Such resistance was attributed to ambiguity in the initial and subsequent implementation of the process, as “the purpose behind pursuing accreditation was not communicated to [them],” nor did they “have any ownership over adopting these standards” [P2-Q]. This perception corroborates with P5-O’s rhetorical question above on using standards in a developmental or regulatory way. Similar to P2-Q, education faculty have been found to resist the imposition of standards unless involved in their development (see Bourke et al., 2018). Accordingly, the ability to influence policy and normalize perceptions of legitimate knowledge may generate this sense of ownership. In the absence of a developmental approach, P2-Q’s upholding agency is a common response documented in extant literature (Bourke et al., 2018).

Furthermore, P5-Q noted that “there is a lack of understanding about accreditation and a lack of culture and common language…so in the absence of a positive culture conducive to development and improvement, no benefit can come from accreditation.” Despite these strong sentiments, P5-Q still enacted uncritical compliance, as outlined in the previous section. This finding features similar contradictions in the responses of education faculty in Solbrekke and Sugrue’s (2014) study in that the juxtaposition of contradictory responses is another manifestation of deploying “multiple performance scripts” (p. 18) noted above. However, rather than commending these actions as “legitimate compromises between competing logics” (p. 18), it may be more beneficial for stakeholders at the colleges of education to encourage upholding forms of agency and for education faculty to remain aware of their ability to respond creatively to issues that impinge on their responsibility, particularly in a context where accreditation legitimizes Western notions of accountability (Author).

Discussion and implications

The purpose of this research was to investigate the views held by faculty members in two colleges of education regarding the impact of the policies and procedures of the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) on their professional agency. The analysis of interview data collected from two colleges of education in Qatar and Oman revealed four forms of professional agency: agency as advocacy, agency as creative compliance, agency as uncritical compliance, and agency as upholding. Advocacy, for instance, reflected the findings of Bell and Youngs (2011) and Bourke et al. (2018) in the way that accreditation can enhance professional collaboration and shared goals. Participants who engaged in advocacy actively promoted accreditation efforts by sharing their experiences to improve educational quality. In contrast, uncritical compliance involved participants aligning with accreditation without critically reflecting on its broader impact, a form of agency also noted by Hökkä et al. (2017), where faculty adhere to institutional demands despite reservations. Meanwhile, upholding professional identity allowed participants to preserve their core values and practices, ensuring that accreditation did not fundamentally alter their teaching philosophies. This finding supports Solbrekke and Sugrue’s (2014) discussion of how educators maintain their integrity and professional responsibility, even within systems of accountability. Unlike those who upheld their professional identity as largely unaffected by accreditation, participants engaging in creative compliance reflected a more critical engagement, questioning and adapting accreditation standards to better suit local contexts. This echoes the findings of Vähäsantanen and Eteläpelto (2015), who noted that professional agency is often enacted through reflective and adaptive practices in response to external pressures.

While the participants from Oman and Qatar enacted all four forms of professional agency, their actions, choices, and initiatives differed idiosyncratically and contextually. Despite adopting the same borrowed policy, certain structural and cultural differences between Omani and Qatari teacher education were significant in determining the influence of accreditation on the education faculty’s professional agency. Generally speaking, introducing fixed structures within the College of Education in Oman supported the distribution of responsibilities among several administrative positions. In contrast, the Qatari context lacked supportive structures, with only two administrative positions allocated to accreditation. Hence, tasks were distributed among education faculty through temporary assignments to committees. Previous studies (Bell and Youngs, 2011) have also found certain structures within HE institutions to influence the way faculty experience and respond to accreditation, as specific structures can provide the needed support for distributing tasks, facilitating communication, and encouraging collaboration (Hökkä and Eteläpelto, 2014); all of which are elements of a culture conducive to creative compliance and upholding forms of agency.

The discourse of culture was also used in both contexts to denote the general ambiance of acceptance or resistance to accreditation within the context of the program or department. Quoting P1-O, spreading “a culture of accreditation” was deemed necessary for efficient responses to accreditation, while P4-Q identified “a culture of documentation and governance of the education process” in the Qatari context. Juxtaposed against the dominant discourse of uncritical compliance, the prevalence of a culture of control has been the topic of criticism among several researchers, who call on education faculty to rethink critically knowledge construction, reconstruction, and ownership and reconsider their professional values, goals, and commitments within collaborative communities of “joint inquiry” (Bourke et al., 2018: p. 91). These are, according to Solbrekke and Sugrue (2014), the “ingredients necessary to craft multiple performance scripts” (p. 19), which cultivate professional responsibility over accountability. To show signs of this happening, P5-Q described her solution for the “problem with accreditation” as the following: “If accreditation were implemented correctly, it would look like a professional learning community whereby you will find members of the education community collaborating and thinking together collectively on problems of common interest.” This study reiterates this suggestion and makes similar calls to education faculty and college leadership to initiate such discourses of criticality in a continuous bottom-up and top-down manner.

While several researchers have argued against borrowed policies, revealing their insensitivity to contextual features and localized systems (Altbach and Knight, 2007; Romanowski et al., 2024; Samier, 2020; Tan and Chua, 2015), the findings in this study may have diluted the strength of these claims or alternatively may be considered warning signs that require further scrutiny. Previous literature highlights some concerns that accreditation can function as a tool of educational colonization, imposing Western norms and practices on non-Western institutions (Altbach, 2003; Samier, 2020). The adoption of CAEP accreditation by institutions in Oman and Qatar reflects this trend, as faculty are often required to align with standards that may not fully account for local knowledge systems and cultural contexts (Al-Harthi et al., 2022). However, the majority of education faculty in both contexts seem unaware of a societal and cultural mismatch with accreditation standards and have not considered yet considered the consequence of understating local culture. This finding is consistent with arguments by Ziechner (2010) and Bourke et al. (2018), who assert that accreditation often leads to centralized control over education programs and can commodify teacher education, steering attention away from local educational traditions. It follows that if college leadership does not guard against simplistic policy borrowing, then education faculty may not consider and incorporate indigenous “socio-cultural (counter-)factors” (Tan and Chua, 2015: p. 688). To do so, according to Tan and Chua (2015), they must first consider the local context, its histories, politics, and cultures, and engage in “judiciously integrating foreign and indigenous sources of knowledge, teaching and learning” involving diverse stakeholders (Tan and Chua, 2015: p. 697).

Based on these findings, a number of suggestions can be put forth. Initially, faculty members need to be educated about the intricacies of CAEP accreditation. This entails more than just understanding the technical aspects or practical steps involved in the accreditation process, following procedures, and making changes to practices. However, it is crucial to remember that obtaining knowledge and actively participating in the accreditation procedure impact faculty thinking and agency. Alsharari (2018) points out that programs that achieve success at the local level are often adapted to meet the requirements for international accreditation. While there is room for exploration of how these standards are implemented, professional standards manipulate and regulate educators’ thinking processes to optimize their abilities (O'Brien, 2018). Nevertheless, the autonomy and freedom of educators are constrained by the framework established by these standards. Educators need to undertake a comprehensive exploration of the accreditation procedure. In the realm of educational accreditation, it is imperative for faculty members to critically analyze the cultural ramifications of CAEP accreditation and the potential propagation of educational neocolonialism, which perpetuates specific value systems, ideologies, and cognitive frameworks rooted in the American higher education context (Romanowski, 2022; Hammad et al., 2023).

Finally, CAEP accreditation poses multiple assaults on professional agency. Therefore, education faculty must uphold their professional identity while participating in the accreditation procedure. The first step is to develop a consciousness about their professional identity and to interrogate how compliance with CAEP accreditation influences this identity. Faced with counterintuitive mandates and limited autonomy, education faculty must cultivate an awareness of their professional identity, examine the impact of adherence to CAEP accreditation on this identity, and work to regain and maintain professional identity.

Conclusion

This study provides evidence for the complex interplay between cultural and structural conditions and individuals’ beliefs, values, and commitments in influencing the form that professional agency may take in navigating accreditation policies and procedures. Accreditation is a complex system in itself, so when it is introduced into teacher education, which is also a complex web of systems, the responses of education faculty can take multiple forms. Together, these forms of professional agency may act as a defense mechanism against a foreign body or a filter through which policy requirements, technicalities, and processes are translated, though never intact. Thus, in response to the overarching research question, education faculty may enact multiple forms of professional agency and respond to competing logics and discourses emerging from this interplay throughout the internalization/indigenization stage.

The six broad areas explored in this study—(1) the influence of accreditation on work, (2) its compatibility or incompatibility with personal goals and views, (3) its impact on relationships and partnerships, (4) its alignment or misalignment with teacher education and cultural norms, (5) the benefits and challenges associated with accreditation, and (6) recommendations for future policy implementation—demonstrate the complexity of the accreditation process. Each of these areas reflects key aspects that shape the way faculty experience and respond to accreditation leading to the four forms of professional agency. By investigating these dimensions, the study provides a critical understanding of how accreditation policies are negotiated and enacted within different contexts.

Despite emerging patterns and themes from the two contexts, caution must be taken in interpreting the findings. This study needed to verify how widespread these perceptions were among other education faculty in the two contexts. Those responding to the interview invitation may have harbored the most extreme positive or negative viewpoints. Further, caution should be exercised due to the small sample size, making it difficult to generalize the findings. As an exploratory study, this research warrants further investigation to confirm and extend the patterns identified. However, this study makes two main contributions. First, it highlights the diverse ways in which education faculty exercised professional agency in response to accreditation demands, filling a gap in the literature by providing empirical evidence where previous research has largely relied on theoretical discussions. By giving voice to the faculty’s experiences, this research moves beyond conceptual frameworks and grounds its findings in real-world practice.

Additionally, the study explores professional agency within distinct contexts, revealing both similarities and unique factors that influenced variations in how faculty responded to accreditation. These contextual differences allowed for a deeper understanding of how local dynamics shape faculty agency and experiences. Furthermore, this study is situated within a broader shift in education research and practice, moving away from rigid adherence to “best practices” toward a more nuanced approach that values contextualized practices. It highlights the transition from focusing solely on policy borrowing to a more dynamic process of policy learning and enactment. While policy borrowing typically involves the transfer of policies from one context to another, often assuming they will work similarly across settings, policy learning and enactment emphasize the active role of faculty and institutions in interpreting, adapting, and shaping policies to fit their unique local contexts. This approach recognizes the complexity and diversity of educational environments, encouraging more critical and responsive implementation strategies. Situated within these competing discourses, this study calls for future research that delves into theorizing and examining how these processes unfold in various educational systems, examining the interplay between global policy trends and local adaptations, particularly in the GCC context and internationally.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Youmen Chaaban

Michael Romanowski

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.*

Note

Appendix

Summary of key findings

Form of professional agency	Participants	Illustrative quotation
Agency as advocacy	Oman: P1, P2, P4, P6 Qatar: P3	I Try my best to spread the culture of accreditation in many initiatives to remind people of accreditation standards and procedures, and the necessity and importance of accreditation [P2-O]
Agency as creative compliance	Oman: P2, P5, P6 Qatar: P4, P5, P6, P7	Accreditation standards are imported from another culture and they must be achieved in proportion to society…so we adapted them to our context [P5-O]
Agency as uncritical compliance	Oman: P1, P2, P4, P5, P6, P7 Qatar: P1, P3, P4, P7, P8	All aspects of accreditation are compatible with my goals, which emanate from the goals of the institution in which I work [P7-O]
Agency as upholding	Oman: P3, P5 Qatar: P2, P5, P6	If I make any development or improvement, it is because I believe in the importance of this improvement, not because it is obligatory for the sake of accreditation [P2-Q]

References

Abi-Mershed

(2010) The politics of Arab educational reform. In: Trajectories of Education in the Arab World: Legacies and Challenges. London: Routledge, 1–12.

Al Barwani

Bailey

(2016) Local challenges, global solutions: Oman’s experience with accreditation; the case of sultan Qaboos university Teacher Quality and Teacher Education Quality. London: Routledge, 151–166.

Al-Harthi

Hammad

Al-Seyabi

, et al. (2022) Evaluating the effectiveness of teacher education in Oman: a multiple case study of multiple stakeholders. Quality Assurance in Education 30(4): 477–494. DOI: 10.1108/QAE-11-2021-0180.

Al-Thani

Ari

Koç

(2021) Education as a critical factor of sustainability: case study in Qatar from the teachers’ development perspective. Sustainability 13(20): 11525. DOI: 10.3390/su132011525.

Alsharari

(2018) Internationalization of the higher education system: an interpretive analysis. International Journal of Educational Management 32(3): 359–381. DOI: 10.1108/IJEM-04-2017-0082.

Altbach

(2003) American accreditation of foreign universities: colonialism in action. International Higher Education 32: 5–7.

Altbach

Knight

(2007) The internationalization of higher education: motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3-4): 290–305. DOI: 10.1177/1028315307303542.

Archer

(2000) Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Auld

Morris

(2014) Comparative education, the ‘New Paradigm’and policy borrowing: constructing knowledge for educational reform. Comparative Education 50(2): 129–155. DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2013.826497.

10.

Bailey

(2022) Not another Singapore: processes and principles for revising pre-service teaching education in Bahrain Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: Pedagogical Innovations and Practices in the Middle East. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 445–457.

11.

Bandura

(2006) Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science 1(2): 164–180. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x.

12.

Barrett

Fernandez

Gonzalez

(2020) Why universities voluntarily pursue US accreditation: the case of Mexico. Higher Education 79(4): 619–635. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-019-00427-y.

13.

Bell

Youngs

(2011) Substance and show: understanding responses to teacher education programme accreditation processes. Teaching and Teacher Education 27(2): 298–307. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.012.

14.

Biesta

Priestley

Robinson

(2015) The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and teaching 21(6): 624–640. DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325.

15.

Bourke

Ryan

Ould

(2018) How do teacher educators use professional standards in their practice? Teaching and Teacher Education 75: 83–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.005.

16.

Chaaban

Al-Thani

(2021b) A narrative inquiry of teacher educators’ professional agency amid educational distruption. Teaching and Teaching Education 108: 103522.

17.

Chaaban

Al-Thani

(2023) University teachers’ professional agency for learning and leading sustainable change. Professional Development in Education 49(6): 978–993.

18.

Chaaban

Arar

Sawalhi

, et al. (2021a) Exploring teachers’ professional agency within shifting educational contexts: A comparative study of MENA countries. Teaching and Teacher Education 106: 103451.

19.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) (2020) CAEP Consolidated Handbook. Washington, DC: CAEP. Available at: https://caepnet.org/accreditation/caep-accreditation/∼/media/Files/caep/accreditation-resources/caep-handbook-final.pdf?la=en.

20.

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) (2011) InTASC model core teaching standards: a resource for state dialogue. Available at: https://caepnet.org/∼/media/Files/caep/accreditation-resources/intasc-teacher-standards.pdf.

21.

Denzin

(2001) Interpretive interactionism. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage, Vol. 16.

22.

Eaton

(2012) An Overview of US Accreditation. Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544355.pdf (Accessed December 2022).

23.

Eldridge

Dada

(2016) Teacher education accreditation across international borders: can the local go global? Teacher Quality and Teacher Education Quality. London: Routledge, 29–49.

24.

Eteläpelto

Vähäsantanen

Hökkä

, et al. (2013) What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review 10: 45–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.001.

25.

Fullan

(2001) The Meaning of Educational Change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

26.

Germaine

Spencer

(2016) Faculty perceptions of a seven-year accreditation process. Journal of Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness 6(1): 67–98. DOI: 10.5325/jasseinsteffe.6.1.0067.

27.

Glasser

Strauss

(1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Adeline de Gruyter.

28.

Gonzales

(2014) Framing faculty agency inside striving universities: an application of bourdieu's theory of practice. The Journal of Higher Education 85(2): 193–218. DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2014.11777324.

29.

Hail

Hurst

Change

, et al. (2019) Accreditation in education: one institutions examination of faculty perceptions. Critical Questions in Education 10(1): 17–28. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1203425.pdf

30.

Hammad

El Zaatari

Al’Abri

(2023) Researching higher education leadership and management in Arab countries: a systematic review. Management in Education 1–11. doi: 10.1177/08920206231156289

31.

Hökkä

Etelapelto

(2014) Seeking new perspectives on the development of teacher education: a study of the Finnish context. Journal of Teacher Education 65(1): 39–52. DOI: 10.1177/0022487113504220.

32.

Hökkä

Vähäsantanen

Mahlakaarto

(2017) Teacher educators' collective professional agency and identity: transforming marginality to strength. Teaching and Teacher Education 63: 36–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.001.

33.

Holmes

AGD

(2020) Researcher positionality: A consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research - A new researcher guide. Shanlax International Journal of Education 8(4): 1–10.

34.

Kinser

Phillips

(2018) Accreditation: critical issues for the path forward. In: Accreditation on the Edge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 251–270.

35.

Michelli

Dada

Eldridge

, et al. (2017) Teacher Quality and Teacher Education Quality: Accreditation from a Global Perspective. New York: Routledge.

36.

Mohamed

Morris

(2021) Buying, selling and outsourcing educational reform: the Global Education Industry and ‘policy borrowing’ in the Gulf. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 51(2): 181–201. DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2019.1607255.

37.

Nguyen-Phuong-Mai

Terlouw

Pilot

(2012) Cooperative learning in vietnam and the west–east educational transfer. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 32(2): 137–152. DOI: 10.1080/02188791.2012.685233.

38.

O’Brien

(2018) Calculating the Professional: Standards and the Government of Professional Practice Doctoral Dissertation. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

39.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

40.

Phillips

Ochs

(2003) Processes of policy borrowing in education: some explanatory and analytical devices. Comparative Education 39(4): 451–461. DOI: 10.1080/0305006032000162020.

41.

Romanowski

(2021) Internationalization and CAEP accreditation: Replicating US teacher education programs abroad. Teaching Education 33(4): 404–418.

42.

Romanowski

(2022) Controlling Higher Education from a distance: Using Foucault’s Governmentality to better understand accreditation. Cogent Education 9(1): 2073631.

43.

Romanowski

Alkhateeb

Chaaban

(2024) Problematizing constructive alignment in Higher Education in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Teaching in Higher Education 29(8): 2042–2060.

44.

Sadiq

Allen

(2017) Accreditation for the college of education, Qatar University: a journey towards excellence. In: Michelli

Dada

Eldridge

, et al. (eds) Teacher Quality and Teacher Education Quality: Accreditation from a Global Perspective. London: Routledge, 129–140.

45.

Samier

(2020) Toward a postcolonial securities critique of higher education leadership: globalization as a recolonization in developing countries like the UAE. International Journal of Leadership in Education 23(6): 635–654. DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2019.1591514.

46.

Schwarz

(2015) CAEP advanced standards and the future of graduate programs: the false sense of techne. Teacher Education Quarterly 42(2): 105–117.

47.

Solbrekke

Sugrue

(2014) Professional accreditation of initial teacher education programmes: teacher educators' strategies—between ‘accountability’ and ‘professional responsibility’? Teaching and Teacher Education 37: 11–20. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.015.

48.

Steiner-Khamsi

(2016) New directions in policy borrowing research. Asia Pacific Education Review 17(3): 381–390. DOI: 10.1007/s12564-016-9442-9.

49.

Tan

(2015) Education policy borrowing and cultural scripts for teaching in China. Comparative Education 51(1): 196–211.

50.

Tan

Chua

CSK

(2015) Education policy borrowing in China: has the West wind overpowered the East wind? Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 45(5): 686–704. DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2013.871397.

51.

Ukkonen-Mikkola

Varpanen

(2020) Integrated initial and continuing training as a way of developing the professional agency of teachers and student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 96: 103189. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103189.

52.

Ulker

Bakioglu

(2019) An international research on the influence of accreditation on academic quality. Studies in Higher Education 44(9): 1507–1518. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1445986.

53.

Vähäsantanen

Eteläpelto

(2015) Professional agency, identity, and emo- tions while leaving one's work organization. Professions and Professionals 5(3): 1–16. DOI: 10.7577/pp.1394.

54.

Vähäsantanen

Paloniemia

Raikkonen

, et al. (2020) Professional agency in a university context: academic freedom and fetters. Teaching and Teacher Education 89: 103000. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2019.103000.

55.

Ziechner

(2010) Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 61(1–2): 89–99.