The effect of accreditation on the university selection of undergraduate business majors: an empirical study.
Bennett, Paul J. ; Geringer, Susan D. ; Taylor, James 等
INTRODUCTION
The recent increase in demand for non-traditional university
programs has been responded to by a rise in the number of universities
offering alternatives to traditional four-year educational programs
(Blankston & Kyei-Blankston, 2008). A non-traditional student is
defined as one who may be slightly older, possibly a first generation
college student, or a single parent working full-time (Blankston &
Kyei-Blankston, 2008), and may require a non-traditional program.
According to Pauley, Cunningham, and Toth (1999), a non-traditional
university program is one that may not require on-campus attendance, may
have students that are spread out geographically throughout the state or
region, and does not follow any traditional time frame.
Several other factors may be playing a role in a non-traditional
student's requirement of a more flexible university program
including, but not limited to, constricting schedules, convenience of
location for a student who has a geographical change in location and
wishes to continue attending a specific institution, or for an
international student pursuing a degree from the United States without
ever relocating (Tesone, Alexakis, & Wayne, 2003). A student may
also have the desire to attend a reputable accredited institution, and
if no accredited institutions are available within their immediate
location, a non-traditional university program may be their only option
without relocating (Paden & Stell, 2006).
As the market for higher education evolves and many new programs
and options become available to prospective students, accreditations and
accrediting agencies are being discussed more by University officials as
they appear to be gaining recognition as a competitive advantage for
universities (Sohail & Shaikh, 2004). In the past couple of decades,
numerous accrediting agencies have surfaced as the demand for
specialized accreditation increases (Roller, Andrews, & Bovee,
2003). This increase in supplying institutions has been accompanied by a
surge of confusion over what specifically an accreditation is, what it
accomplishes for a university, and which accreditations are most
valuable, if at all (Henninger, 2000).
With the growing diversity of students, university programs, and
accreditations, it is important for prospective students to obtain a
clear understanding of accreditation, and the accrediting process, in
order to make informed decisions in regards to their choice of
university. This study will explore accreditations and their value as
perceived by undergraduate business students. After a perusal of the
previous literature, there appeared to be a lack of research that
investigated whether or not the presence of an accreditation bares any
implication on a student's choice of University.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A thorough understanding of accreditation and the accrediting
process was crucial to the design and presentation of this study. This
section will discuss the history of accreditations within University
Business Schools, which accrediting agencies are perceived as the most
prominent, the focus of individual accrediting agencies, and how
University Business Schools acquire specialized accreditations. Other
University attributes that were identified in previous literature will
also be discussed in order to provide a comparison of which University
Business School characteristics are important in a student's choice
of university.
Accreditation
"Accreditation is the process by which an academic program
holds itself out for review by an external organization to be measured
against a predetermined set of standards" Whittenburg, Toole,
Sciglimpaglia and Medlin. (2006, pg.9). Scrivens (1997) points out the
important fact that the University participation in this process is
voluntary and the external reviewers are independent of the organization
seeking the accreditation. The acquisition of accreditation may be used
to gain a competitive advantage in student recruitment, to increase
global recognition, strengthen an organization's image and
reputation, and to portray the firm's values and goals to both
internal and external stakeholders (Menassa, Safi, & Chaar, 2009;
Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). In addition to affirming the
institution's values, specialized accreditations are meant to
provide their stakeholders proof that their processes or services at
least meet, if not exceed, minimum industry standards (Pastore, 1989).
Accrediting agencies do not simply assess or rank the organization based
upon their overall quality; they simply assure that minimum standards
are being met according to the mission statement declared by the given
institution (Vaughn, 2002). According to Menassa, Safi, and Chaar
(2009), an organization that is accredited, or is seeking an
accreditation, is displaying a commitment to quality assurance and
continuous improvement.
Accreditation in University Business Schools
According to Eaton (2012), accreditation is the primary means by
which colleges, universities, and programs assure their quality to
students and the public. An accredited status is also a signal that the
institution or program meets at least threshold standards for its
faculty, curriculum, student services, and libraries. The goal of
accrediting agencies is to provide external advice and assistance to
universities and programs in designing policies that will increase their
quality, and to provide important information to their stakeholders
(Vaughn, 2002). Accreditations in business schools can aid in ensuring
that the education being provided by the institution meets an acceptable
level of quality by evaluating their program, curriculum, and faculty
against a predetermined set of standards through peer reviews (Office of
Postsecondary Education, 2013). Wergin (2005) states that accreditation
is the only organized means in which an organization can assure the
public of the quality of their services.
The past decade has witnessed a sharp increase in the number of
universities that are actively seeking specialized Business School
accreditations (Roller, Andrews, & Bovee, 2003). Eaton (2012) stated
that there are over 7,800 accredited business institutions in the United
States alone. This is partly due to the steadily increasing competition
amongst universities offering similar programs, which are providing
students with more options globally of accredited business schools to
attend, and has brought more attention to the public accountability of
these institutions (Sohail & Shaikh, 2004; & Palmer & Short,
2008; & Menassa, Safi, & Chaar 2009).
According to Vaughn (2002), accreditation serves this need for
public accountability. The growing demand for specialized accreditations
from business schools worldwide has been accompanied by an increase in
the supply of accrediting agencies offering the prestige of obtaining an
accreditation to a larger number of universities. As the supply of
accreditation continues to increase, the value of such may decrease if
its perception as a competitive advantage is reduced (Roller, Andrews,
& Bovee, 2003).
The quest for accreditation by Business Schools seems rational, not
only as a means of recruitment and accountability, but also as mentioned
by Eaton (2012), accreditation is required for a university to gain
access to federal funds that provide student aid and other federal grant
programs. This cannot be simply any accreditation, it has to be obtained
through a federally recognized accrediting institution in order to
receive federal subsidization. It is important to note that a University
needs only a general accreditation focused on the institution as a whole
to receive federal aid, not necessarily a specialized Business School
accreditation; hence the confusion that arises in the instance of a
University that is accredited, although their business program
specifically, may not be.
Accreditations are commonly misconceived by the public as a form of
government certification (Menassa, Safi, & Chaar, 2009) when in
reality higher education accreditations are provided by non-governmental
agencies that are completely independent of the universities (Vaughn,
2002). The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) provides a
resource to the public and to the government by validating specific
accrediting agencies and granting recognition based on specific preset
criteria (CHEA, 2013). The CHEA is also a nongovernmental agency, but is
utilized by the United States federal government as a means to decide
whether or not a university holds a validly recognized accreditation, or
is eligible to receive federal aid for its students (CHEA, 2013). Wergin
(2005) adds that accrediting agencies are actually the only thing
upholding university independence from government control. If
nongovernmental accrediting agencies did not exist in the United States,
the federal government may be much more involved in establishing a
uniform set of criteria for assessing institutions. It shall be left to
the reader to decide whether or not this is a good thing, but as
mentioned by Vaughn (2002), this has increased the pressure of
accountability on higher education institutions. If a uniform set of
standards were to be put in place by the United States government, it
could cause Universities and Business Schools to conform their education
to one generic curriculum that would be nearly identical amongst all
institutions (Vaughn, 2002). Such a curriculum could potentially
diminish an institution's creative edge, and ultimately have a
negative impact on the market for higher education, as less factors
would exist that distinguish one University from another.
Universities have many options of accrediting agencies to choose
from when considering the pursuit of a specialized accreditation for
their business schools or programs. Three of the most prominent business
school accreditations as identified by Roller, Andrews and Bovee (2003),
are the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB),
the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP), and
the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE).
Each of these three business school accrediting agencies will be further
discussed in the upcoming sections.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)
The AACSB is a specialized, international, non-profit accrediting
agency for business schools and accounting programs in higher education,
that was founded in 1916 (Whittenburg, et. al. 2006). AACSB adopted
their first set of standards and requirements for awarding their
accreditation in 1919 (Menassa, Safi & Char, 2009) and for their
first 70 years up until 1988, AACSB was the sole specialized business
school accreditation in existence (Henninger E. A., 1998; Roller,
Andrews, & Bovee, 2003). AACSB is viewed to be the most prestigious
of the current specialized Business School accreditations (Roller,
Andrews , & Bovee, 2003).
In a study investigating the market for Business School accrediting
agencies, Corcoran (2007, pg. 30) noted that AACSB is "the premier
business accreditation." AACSB holds a worldwide presence; they
have been in existence the longest, they are the largest based upon the
fact that more Business Schools hold this accreditation than any other
internationally (Roller, et al. 2003). As of March, 2014, there are 694
institutions in 45 countries or territories that hold an accreditation
from the AACSB (AACSB International, 2014).
The AACSB holds stringent requirements in order for business
schools to receive their accreditation. They focus heavily on the
Mission Statement of the organization in both receiving and renewing
their accreditation, and they require that the university obtains input
from their stakeholders in designing their unique mission (Palmer &
Short, 2008). A Mission Statement is defined by Goldstein, Nolan, and
Pfeiffer (1993, pg. 169) as "a brief, clear statement of the
reasons for an organization's existence, its purpose, primary
customer base, and the primary methods used to fulfill its
purpose". Falsey (1989, pg. 96) offers a simplified explanation in
that "a Mission Statement indicates two things about a company: who
it is and what it does." Palmer and Short (2008) further identify a
good Mission Statement as being one that can capture how an organization
wishes to be viewed by others, how it views themselves, outlines
organizational goals and strengths, communicates key information to both
internal and external stakeholders, and creates unification within
internal stakeholders on organizational goals.
According to AACSB International (2014), their accreditation
standards focus on the quality of education and supporting functions.
The AACSB places a high emphasis on the universities' mission
statement because they view them as a tool for strategic management
which will guide the institution in obtaining their specific goals and
toward continuous improvement. AACSB highly values institutions that are
heavily research-oriented (Roller, Andrews, & Bovee; 2003), which is
confirmed in specified AACSB standards that require the institution to
demonstrate that their faculty members are actively researching in their
field of study in order to provide a current and relevant curriculum to
their students (AACSB International, 2014). Jantzen (2000) points out
that after AACSB adopted their mission-based standards in the mid-1990s,
candidates for accreditation became more diverse and included smaller
schools, schools without doctoral programs, and schools which had
slightly less emphasis on research in their mission.
Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP)
The ACBSP is another international business school accrediting
agency. It was formed in 1988 with the intent to provide an alternative
option to AACSB, which was the sole specialized business school
accreditation at that time (ACBSP Global Business Accreditation, 2013).
The ACBSP also places high emphasis on the institution's Mission
Statement, but their goal was to allow organizations that had
teaching-based missions, placing less focus on research, a chance to
obtain a specialized accreditation (Henninger, 1998). The ACBSP
accreditation process is similar to AACSB, but they wanted to include
instructional development in addition to research in their definition of
scholarly activity in order to broaden the amount of qualifying
institutions (Roller, Andrews & Bovee 2003). The ACBSP is unique in
that they are the only one of the three business accreditations to
develop a process to accredit two-year business programs such as those
offered at Community Colleges and some non-traditional Universities such
as DeVry University and the University of Phoenix. Two-year programs
account for more than half of their member institutions (Roller,
Andrews, & Bovee 2003).
International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE)
The IACBE was formed in 1997 in response to the lack of flexibility
offered by the existing business accrediting institutions (Henninger,
2000; IACBE, 2014). According to the IACBE website ("A Brief
History of the IACBE," n.d.), their organization was formed based
upon the demand from academic professionals for a business school
accreditation that did not focus on prescriptive standards that were
related to inputs and resources, and one that did not focus on either a
Mission that was research-based nor teaching based, but instead, an
accreditation that allowed for a Mission based upon outcomes and
results.
Roller, Andrews, and Bovee (2003), also point out that of the three
business school accreditations mentioned, the IACBE is the most outcome
assessment-oriented accrediting association. This approach favors
institutions with non-traditional programs and allows schools that did
not qualify for other accreditations to obtain the benefits and
recognition of a specialized accreditation (Roller, Andres; & Bovee,
2003).
Each of these three business school accreditations are available to
universities throughout the world and each has a unique specialty in
regards to how they evaluate the business school seeking the
accreditation. AACSB uses research based measurements, ACBSP uses
teaching and learning based measurements, and the IACBE uses outcome
based measurements. The differentiation between these accrediting
agencies provides availability of accreditation to a wide array of
universities. While numerous perceived benefits of specialized
accreditation have been identified, the previous literature indicated
some concern and doubts with respect to the overall purpose and value of
accreditation.
Issues with Specialized Accreditations
The process of acquiring an accreditation can be expensive and
time-consuming to the seeking university, as they normally require
recurring fees, many man hours in reviewing and revising the
organization's policies and Mission Statement, and in preparing the
large amounts of information requested by the accrediting agency
(Vaughn, 2002). In a study conducted by Roller, Andrews and Bovee (2003)
of the perception and attitude of specialized accreditation as viewed by
Business School Deans, they found that some well-established
institutions felt they were not under pressure from their stakeholders
to obtain specialized accreditations, while others may avoid pursuing
accreditations for fear that they are unable to meet their required
standards. They also found that some Deans felt the process would be too
expensive, or simply did not have the necessary time available to go
through the accreditation process.
Various organizations that choose not to pursue accreditation
believe that many of the required steps are unnecessary in terms of
improving the quality of their institution and that taking such steps
may cause a demand to increase salaries and create a need for more
office space and additional resources (Vaughn, 2002). Another issue that
has been identified is that accreditations adhere to a uniform set of
standards and could force organizations into conformity, consequently
reducing creativity and innovation (Menassa, Safi, & Chaar, 2009;
McKee, Mills, & Weatherbee, 2005).
After identifying the various strengths and weaknesses of
specialized business school accreditations, it is reasonable to assume
that university administrators would be interested in exploring whether
or not students perceive these accreditations as value-adding entities
to their education, and if so, whether or not they consider the
existence of a specialized accreditation when choosing a particular
university to attend.
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF UNIVERSITY CHARACTERISTICS
In addition to accreditation, this study will explore and discuss
other university business school characteristics that have been
identified in previous literature as substantive in regards to
university selection, as a means for comparison.
Determining which university to attend requires extensive research
and personal involvement on behalf of the prospective student. According
to Stiber (2001, pg. 93), involvement in decision making may be defined
as the activation of extended problem solving when the consumption
process is seen as having high personal importance. Becoming highly
involved takes place when the product reflects one's self image, is
costly, and the risk of making a wrong decision is extremely high.
Respondents in a study by Davies and Williams (2001) identified the
availability of employment, possibility of failing, accruement of debt,
damaging personal relationships, and opportunity costs as being among
the risks an individual would assume by pursuing higher education.
Stiber (2001) defines the student decision process (based on the
consumer choice model) as problem recognition, search for information,
alternative evaluation, applicant choice, enrollment, and outcomes. This
same study further explains each step in the process by stating that
problem recognition identifies an individual's motivational factors
to enroll in a university; search for information refers to the
resources the individual utilizes in choosing a university; alternative
evaluation allows the individual to evaluate and identify desirable
university characteristics; applicant choice is comparing desired
characteristics with the actual characteristics of the university in
question; enrollment is the time elapsed between obtaining information
and registering for classes; outcomes are a measure of the
student's satisfaction upon enrollment. The consumer choice model
Stiber is describing is illustrated in figure 1 (Stiber, 2001).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Vallerand, Pelletier, Blais, Briere, Caroline and Vallieres (1992)
stated that the most important motivational factors in the pursuit of
higher education are personal satisfaction and earning potential. In
addition to these variables, Stiber (2001) identified
self-actualization, job security, and job advancement as common
motivators amongst individuals who decide to pursue a higher education.
Once an individual becomes motivated to pursue higher education they may
begin identifying university characteristics that are important to them,
in order to choose which institution to attend. Some examples of
important university characteristics that appeared regularly in previous
literature are: 1) the cost of tuition, 2) quality of faculty, 3)
availability of financial aid, 4) convenience of location, 5) relevance
of curriculum or availability of a particular program, 6) university
reputation, and 7) campus atmosphere or appearance (Chapman, 1981;
Moogan, Baron, & Harris, 1999; Ordovensky, 1995; Soutar &
Turner, 2002; Stiber, 2001; Strauss & Volkwein, 2004). The order in
which these attributes are listed is random and is not intended to
depict any rank nor level of importance among them.
Some additional university characteristics did not appear quite as
frequently in the literature, but certainly hold a degree of influence.
Stiber (2001) identified accreditation and convenience of class
scheduling as other influential factors. Soutar and Turner (2002)
discussed the type of university, whether it is newer and modern, older
and more traditional, or technological, as being important to students.
They were also the only authors found in the perusal of literature to
mention the student's ability to transfer from a community college
as being an important, or potentially limiting, factor in a
student's decision process. A university's Mission Statement
may also be of importance to a student who is looking for an institution
that emphasizes similar values as the ones personally held by the
individual (Strauss & Volkwein, 2004).
Individual and Social Characteristics
In addition to university characteristics, there are individual and
social characteristics that influence a student's decision of which
university to attend (Ordovensky, 1995). Individual characteristics that
appeared most commonly in the previous literature were high school
performance, grade point average, socioeconomic factors (such as
household income), the educational level of the student's parents,
and the student's level of educational aspiration (Chapman, 1981;
Moogan, Baron, & Harris, 1999; Ordovensky, 1995).
Chapman (1981) described social influences as the values and
opinions that come from our family, friends, teachers, counselors, and
other students. Soutar and Turner (2002) state that the family's
opinion of the university may be of strong influence in the
student's decision and that student may be more likely to attend a
university that their parents attended, or that their friends are going
to attend (Soutar & Turner, 2002). The latter are factors that are
indicative of subjective norm. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) defined
subjective norm as considering the perceptions and opinions of people
who are important to us (friends, family, teachers, etc.) in regards to
the acceptability of a particular behavior (or product in the case of
University choice) when making a final decision. Subjective norm
describes normative beliefs, the social pressures that are felt from
people of influence, and how likely an individual is to comply with
these pressures and beliefs (de Vries, Dijkstra, & Kuhlman, 1988).
Accreditation and University Choice
Accreditation is one university attribute that did not appear in
the majority of literature regarding important characteristics to
students when selecting a University. Sohail and Shaikh (2004) performed
a study of university business school students in the Middle East which
measured students' perceptions of service quality while the school
was in the process of obtaining an accreditation from AACSB. They
surveyed students both before and after the business school became
accredited in order to determine if obtaining the accreditation changed
the students' perception of service quality they eived from the
business school. The study concluded that courteous and knowledgeable
staff, layout and lighting of classrooms, appearance and cleanliness of
school grounds, school reputation, up-to-date curriculum, and the
school's involvement in community service were all important
factors that caused the students to believe they were attending a
university of high quality. When the data was analyzed from before and
after the university received the AACSB accreditation, the scores of
perceived service quality after obtaining AACSB were actually lower than
the scores recorded before the school received the accreditation.
According to Sohail & Shaikh (2004) this may imply that students
have a limited amount of knowledge pertaining to specialized
accreditations and their effects on universities.
Hypothesis 1A: Students have limited knowledge and awareness of
specialized Business School accreditation.
Hypothesis 1B: Accreditation is not an important factor to students
when selecting a University to attend.
A similar study was conducted by Menassa, Safi, and Chaar (2009),
which focused in part on perceived benefits of specialized
accreditations within business schools from the perspective of both the
University's professors and students. The participants (both
professors and students) in the study did view specialized
accreditations as beneficial to themselves and the university and
identified several specific benefits, including increased school
reputation, greater job opportunities, quality assurance, continuous
improvement, and accountability.
The same study by Menassa, Safi, and Chaar (2009) found that
business school professors and administrators from the universities that
held one of the aforementioned specialized accreditations were more
likely to believe that accreditation was beneficial than were professors
and deans from non-accredited business schools.
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between
students' perceived value of accreditation and accreditation
awareness.
Hypothesis 3: Students from accredited Business Programs will have
a higher perception of value of specialized business school
accreditation than students from non-accredited business schools.
METHODOLOGY
Questionnaire
The majority of the questions used to collect data for this study
were obtained from a study conducted by Menassa, Safi, and Chaar, (2009)
that measured both students' and professors' perception of
university Business school accreditation in Lebanon. The questions used
from this study focus on accreditation of business schools and were used
directly to measure students' perceived value of accreditation in
the United States. Additional questions were added from Stiber's
2001 study that focused on important factors and university
characteristics that lead to student enrollment. The questions used from
this study focused on university characteristics and were intended to
provide a comparison against accreditation in regards to their impact on
university selection. Several questions from each previous study were
excluded as they went beyond the scope of this research. A copy of the
questionnaire used is located in the appendix.
Sample and Data Collection
Questionnaires were distributed in pen and paper form to
undergraduate Business majors at eight large universities throughout the
United States. This sample represented students from the following
states: Alabama, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, and Vermont. The questionnaire was distributed during class,
participation was optional, and no incentive was offered to persuade
completion of the survey. An attempt was made to balance the sample by
collecting data from Business schools that held different accreditations
as well as non-accredited business schools. Unfortunately, although an
effort was set forth to collect data from several IACBE accredited
Business schools, either attempts to contact were without response, or
university representatives denied any access to their students. A total
of 677 surveys were completed, of which 565 were considered to be viable
and were used in the final data analysis. Surveys that were rejected may
have been incomplete, displayed patterned answers, or did not meet the
qualifications of a desirable subject. Table 1 below shows a detailed
breakdown of the participants.
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 21 software package.
Composite factor analysis was conducted using oblique rotation, with
iteration, and permutations for dimension reduction. According to Hair,
Babin, Money, & Samouel (2003), factor analysis is useful in
summarizing a large number of variables in to a smaller set of factors
by investigating commonalities and correlations. Cronbach's alpha
was used to further validate the reliability of each factor as
recommended by Bosscher & Smit (1997). The first set of hypotheses,
hypothesis 1A and 1B were tested using descriptive statistics as
frequency distributions were sufficient in formulating conclusions.
Hypotheses 2 and 3 were tested using Chi-square analysis which is an
appropriate method in measuring statistical significance between groups
(Hair, Babin, Money, & Samouel, 2003).
FINDINGS
Factor analysis
Factor analysis resulted in a dimension reduction from 45 variables
to 7 factors. A Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy of .834,
which falls within the meritorious range, was indicative that the data
was adequate to conduct factor analysis (Dziuban & Shirkey, 1974).
Although the test resulted in seven factors, only one proved to be
useful in testing the hypotheses. Other factors either did not have a
grouping that could be logically explained, or will be used in future
studies. The factor of interest was renamed "students perceived
value of accreditation." The reliability of this factor was further
validated with a Cronbach's alpha of .861, which falls within the
very good range (Hair, Babin, Money, & Samouel, 2003). The survey
questions and correlations for this factor are listed in Table 2 below.
HYPOTHESES
Hypothesis 1A: Students have limited knowledge and awareness of
specialized Business
School accreditation.
To test this hypothesis, subjects were asked to identify which
accreditation from a list of the prominent business school
accreditations, if any, was held by their respective university. The
findings support Sohail & Shaikh's premonition that students
have a limited knowledge of specialized business school accreditation in
that only 32% of respondents (see Figure 2 below) were able to
accurately identify which, if any, accreditation was held by their
respective business school. Hypothesis 1A is therefore accepted.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Hypothesis 1B: Accreditation is not an important factor to students
when selecting a University to attend.
Although this hypothesis is not derived from previous literature
due to the possibility that this is the seminal article that has asked
this question, based on hypothesis 1A, it was expected that if students
had limited knowledge of specialized business school accreditation that
accreditation would not be an important factor in students'
university selection. Unexpectedly, 56% of respondents (see Figure 3
below) expressed that accreditation was an important factor in their
decision of which university to attend. Since this hypothesis was of an
exploratory nature, significance was also measured to see if any
variation was found between students attending business schools
accredited by AACSB, ACBSP, or that were non-accredited. Although there
was slight variation in the importance of accreditation on University
choice between these groups, results from the analysis of variance
concluded that this variation was not significant with [alpha] = .05 and
[rho] = .126. Therefore, hypothesis 1B has been rejected with 95%
confidence.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between
students' perceived value of accreditation and accreditation
awareness.
In the Chi-square analysis, the column variable asked students to
identify whether or not they felt accreditation increases a business
program's value. The responses were categorized as follows:
Strongly agree, Somewhat agree, Neutral, Somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree. The row variable asked students taking the survey to check all
forms of accreditation held by your University's Business program:
(check all that apply). The responses were categorized as follows: ACBSP
(Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs), AACSB
(Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business), WASC (Western
Association of Schools and Colleges), IACBE (International Assembly for
Collegiate Business Education), and My Business program is not
accredited.
The findings support Menassa, Safi, and Chaar's findings from
2009 in that students were found to perceive accreditation as a valuable
asset to the university and to their education with [bar.X] = 4.09 and S
= .79. Although students believe that accreditation is of considerable
value, there was not a positive correlation found between students'
perception of value and their accreditation awareness. With 16 degrees
of freedom for the Chi-square, [rho] = .447. Hence, we can reject
hypothesis 2 with 95% confidence.
These may be, perhaps, the most interesting findings of this study.
Even though students believe that accreditation is a valuable asset to
the university and to their education, they demonstrated little
understanding and awareness of accreditation. While this may seem
unusual, this phenomenon may be found elsewhere quite commonly. Khuong
& Giau (2013) found that consumers will select a product in which
they have high brand recognition and brand recall (ability to remember a
brand with only a minute clue) over a product they are less familiar
with, although they are unaware of any actual differences in value among
the similar products. This demonstrates the same phenomenon as was found
in hypothesis 2; although an individual perceives a product or brand as
valuable, they may not be able to provide any justification as to why.
The inverse is also true. In a study of the perception of hospice care,
Chandra, Bush & Frank (2003) found that consumers have a generally
negative perception of hospice care even though they have a limited
knowledge of what hospice care is and how it is applied.
Hypothesis 3: Students from accredited Business Programs will have
a higher perception of value of specialized business school
accreditation than students from non-accredited business schools.
The findings did not support the findings of Menassa, Safi, and
Chaar (2009). Unlike the Business school professors and administrators,
students' perceived value of accreditation displayed little
variation between students attending accredited Business schools and
students attending non-accredited Business schools. The Chi-square
analysis with 16 degrees of freedom gave a p value of 0.686. Hence, we
can reject hypothesis 3 with 95% confidence.
The column variable asked if accreditation improves students'
perception concerning the quality and value of their educational
experience within a Business program. The responses were categorized as
follows: Strongly agree, Somewhat agree, Neutral, Somewhat disagree,
strongly disagree. The row variable asked students taking the survey to
check all forms of accreditation held by your University's Business
program: (check all that apply). The responses were categorized as
follows: ACBSP (Accreditation Council for Business Schools and
Programs), AACSB (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business), WASC (Western Association of Schools and Colleges), IACBE
(International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education), and My
Business program is not accredited.
CONCLUSIONS
Accreditation is perceived by students as being a valuable asset to
both the university and to their education. Participants in this study
expressed that accreditation was an important factor in their university
selection, but 68% of respondents were unable to identify which
accreditation, if any, was held by their respective business school.
Both the perception of value and the inability to identify their
Business school's accreditation appears to be consistent amongst
undergraduate business majors attending universities accredited by
AACSB, ACBSP, and students attending non-accredited universities.
Several university characteristics perceived to be important to
prospective students appeared regularly in previous literature such as
cost of tuition, location, reputation, degree or option availability,
and subjective norm. When students were asked what the most influential
factor in their university selection, cost and location were the most
frequently selected attributes, while accreditation was the least
selected (Figure 4). The following graph provides a visual depiction of
frequently selected university attributes as being the most important in
regards to university selection.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
Although a conscious effort was made, no data was collected from
students attending IACBE accredited universities, nor from any of the
currently prevalent non-traditional universities or programs such as the
University of Phoenix, DeVry University, and National University.
Several attempts were made to collect data from these institutions to
represent the non-traditional student demographic, but unfortunately,
these attempts were unsuccessful.
In addition to not representing IACBE accredited university
students, the sample used for this study disproportionally represented
students attending accredited business schools over students attending
non-accredited business schools. A convenience sample was selected from
faculty across the United States through personal contacts.
IMPLICATIONS
This study provides insight that includes several managerial
implications as well as serving the basis for, or identifying needs, for
future research.
Managerial Findings
The findings of this study are indisputable in concluding that
undergraduate business majors attending both accredited and
non-accredited universities throughout the United States perceive
accreditation to be a valuable asset even though they have limited
knowledge of the matter. This information may provide an incentive to
university administrators and marketers to ensure that if they hold a
specialized accreditation that was expensive and time consuming to
acquire, that they use this to their advantage in attracting prospective
students. Additionally, promoting their accreditation level to current
students may create brand equity and enhanced perception of quality that
encourages students to speak highly of their business school and
recommend their university to future prospective students.
Understanding students' preferred characteristics of an
institution, as well as their enrollment behavior, may provide
university marketing departments important implications on whether they
are properly targeting the correct market and if they are emphasizing
the evaluative criteria most attractive to potential students (Stiber,
2001). Certainly, some characteristics such as location are fixed and
out of the university's control, but others such as accreditation
should be promoted aggressively and used to the institution's
advantage.
Business school administrators that currently do not hold a
specialized accreditation, but may be considering the option of pursuing
one, should take notice of the amount of students who positively view
accreditation and who expressed the presence of accreditation as being
an important factor on their university selection. This information may
or may not justify committing the time and resources necessary in order
to pursue a specialized business school accreditation, but surely may
hold some precedent on the issue.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Based upon the limitations identified in regards to this study,
additional research is necessary that includes a portion of the sample
from students attending non-traditional university business schools and
programs. Curiosity as to how these students select their university was
served as a partial motivator to conduct this study and it would be
interesting to see if these students had a similar positive connotation
of accreditation as did the participants of this study. Additionally,
this study can be duplicated within a different geographical location
for comparison.
University marketers may be interested in learning specifically how
business school administrators raise awareness and promote their level
of accreditation to prospective and current students, which methods are
more effective, and what results have been derived from such efforts.
Administrators and marketers of the various accrediting agencies may be
interested in a study conducted that investigates how university
administrators decide to pursue a specialized accreditation and further,
how they choose between the available options.
A compliment to this study that may be of great interest to both
current and prospective students would be to investigate employers'
perception of accreditation and whether or not this has any implication
on their candidate choice. Students face a significant decision when
confronted by the vast array of universities available in making their
selection. The end goal for most students is to obtain employment and
start a career. Choosing a university may contribute to reaching this
goal and knowing whether or not employers value accreditation may hold
important implications on how a student views accreditation and its
importance on their university selection.
REFERENCES
AACSB International. (March 2014). Accredited Institutions.
Retrieved April 20, 2013, from Association to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business: http://www.aacsb.edu/ accreditati on/ AccreditedMemb
ers.asp.
ACBSP Global Business Accreditation. (2013). Retrieved April 20,
2013, from Accreditation Council for Business Schools & Programs:
http://www.acbsp.org.
Blankston, J., & Kyei-Blankston, L. (2008). Nontraditional
students' perception of a blended course: Integrating synchronous
online discussion and face-to-face instruction. Journal of Interactive
Learning Research, 19(3), 421-438.
Bosscher, R. J., & Smit, J. H. (1998). Confirmatory factor
analysis of the general self-efiicacy scale. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 36(3), 339-343.
Chandra, A., Bush, M., & Frank, Z. (2003). Consumer perceptions
and knowledge of hospice care. Advances in Marketing. Houston:
Association of Collegiate Marketing Educators, 75-88.
Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student college choice. The
Journal of Higher Education, 52(5), 490-505.
CHEA. (2013). Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Retrieved
April 21, 2013, from: http://www.chea.org/
Corcoran, C. P. (2007). Distinctions among accreditation agencies
for business programs. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 4(9),
27-30.
Davies, P., & Williams, J. (2001). For me or not for me?
Fragility and risk in mature students' decision-making. Higher
Education Quarterly, 55(2), 185-203.
de Vries, H., Dijkstra, M., & Kuhlman, P. (1988).
Self-efficacy: the third factor besides attitude and subjective norm as
a predictor of behavioural intentions. Health Education Research, 3(3),
273-282.
Dziuban, C., & Shirkey, E. (1974). When is a correlation matrix
appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychological
Bulletin, 81(6), 358-361.
Eaton, J. S. (January 10, 2012). Accreditation and Recognition in
the United States. Retrieved April 20, 2013, from CHSE:
http://www.chea.org/pdf/AccredRecogUS_2012.pdf
Falsey, T. A. (1989). Corporate philosophies and mission
statements: A survey and guide for corporate communicators and
management. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention
and behavior. An introduction to theory and research. Reading,
Massachussetts: Addison-Wesley.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in an name?
Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management
Journal, 33(2), 233-258.
Goldstein, L., Nolan, T., & Pfeiffer, J. (1993). Applied
strategic planning: How to develop a plan that really works. San
Francisco, California: McGraw Hill.
Hair, J. J., Babin, B., Money, A. H., & Samouel, P. (2003).
Essentials of business research methods. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Henninger, E. (2000). Expanding American collegiate business school
and program accreditation: Adding value of confusion. Business and
Behavioral Sciences Track Section of Deans & Accreditation,
Interdiscipiplinary, and Legal Studies, 7(8), 102-107.
Henninger, E. A. (1998). The American Assembly of Collegiate
Schools of Business under the new standards: Implications for changing
faculty work. Journal of Education for Business, 73(3), 133-137.
IACBE. (n.d.). A Brief History of the IACBE. Retrieved April 20,
2013, from International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education:
http://www.iacbe.org/about-iacbe.asp.
Jantzen, R. H. (2000). AACSB mission-linked standards: Effects on
the accreditation process. Journal of Education for Business, 75(6),
343-348.
Khuong, M. N., & Giau, B. T. (2013). The direct and indirect
effects of advertising and public relations on repurchase intention
through brand awareness and consumers' perception--A case study of
Vinamilk, Vietnam. 4th International Conference on Business and Economic
Research Proceeding. Bandung, Indonesia, 530-548.
McKee, M., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. (2005). Institutional
field of dreams: Exploring the AACSB and the new legitimacy of Canadian
business schools. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 22(4),
288-301.
Menassa, E., Safi, M., & Chaar, B. (March 1, 2009). A pilot
study of university professors and students' perception regarding
accreditation of business schools in Lebanon. International Journal of
Business Research, 9(2), 129-143.
Moogan, Y. J., Baron, S., & Harris, K. (1999). Decision-making
behaviour of potential higher education students. Higher Education
Quarterly, 53(3), 211-228.
Office of Postsecondary Education. (2013). The Database of
Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs. Retrieved April 19,
2013, from United States Department of Education:
http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/
Ordovensky, J. F. (1995). Effects of institutional attributes on
enrollment choice: Implications for postsecondary vocational education.
Economics of Education Review, 14(4), 335-350.
Paden, N., & Stell, R. (2006). Branding options for distance
learning programs: Managing the effect on university image.
International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning,
5(8), 45-54.
Palmer, T. B., & Short, J. C. (December 1, 2008). Mission
statements in U.S. colleges of business: An empirical examination of
their content with linkages to configurations and performance. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 7(4), 454-470.
Pastore, J. M. (1989). Developing an academic accreditation process
relevant to the accounting profession. The CPA Journal, 159(5), 18-26.
Pauley, R., Cunningham, M., & Toth, P. (1999). Doctoral student
attrition and retention: A study of a non-traditioanal Ed.D. program.
Journal of College Student Retention, 1(3), 225-238.
Roller, R. H., Andrews, B. K., & Bovee, S. L. (2003).
Specialized accreditation of business schools: A comparison of
alternative costs, benefits, and motivations. Journal of Education for
Business, 78(4), 197-204.
Scrivens, E. (1997). Assessing the value of accreditation systems.
European Journal of Public Health, 7(1), 4-8.
Sohail, M. S., & Shaikh, N. M. (2004). Quest for excellence in
business education: a study of student impressions of service quality.
The International Journal of Educational Management, 18(1), 58-65.
Soutar, G., & Turner, J. P. (2002). Students' preferences
for university: A conjoint dnalysis. The International Journal of
Educational Management, 16(1), 40-45.
Stiber, G. (2001). Characterizing the decision process leading to
enrollment in Master's programs: Further application of the
enrollment process model. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,
11(2), 91-107.
Strauss, L., & Volkwein, J. F. (2004). Predictors of student
commitment at two-year and four-year institutions. The Journal of Higher
Education, 75(2), 203-227.
Tesone, D., Alexakis, G., & Wayne, A. P. (2003). Distance
learning programs for non-raditional Whiand traditional students in the
business disciplines. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 6(4).
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M.,
Caroline, S., & Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The Academic Motivation
Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 10031017.
Vaughn, J. (2002). Accreditation, commercial rankings, and new
approaches to assessing the quality of university research and education
programmes in the United States. Higher Education in Europe, 17(4),
433-441.
Wergin, J. F. (2005). Higher education: Waking up to the importance
of accreditation. Change, 37(3), 33-41.
Whittenburg, G. E., Toole, H., Sciglimpaglia, D., & Medlin, C.
(2006). AACSB international accreditation: An Australian perspective.
Journal of Academic Administration In Higher Education, 2(1-2), 9-13.
Paul J. Bennett
Susan D. Geringer
James Taylor
California State University, Fresno
Paul Bennett is a recent graduate from the Craig School of Business
at California State University, Fresno; his major option was in
Accountancy. He is currently employed in public accounting as a
financial statement and internal control auditor.
Susan D. Geringer is an associate professor and the chairperson of
the Department of Marketing and Logistics in the Craig School of
Business at California State University, Fresno. She enjoys researching
in numerous areas of Marketing, particularly in the field of Consumer
Behavior.
James Taylor is a lecturer in the department of Information Systems
and Decision Sciences at California State University, Fresno. He has
previously conducted research in the pharmaceutical development
industry. His interests include statistics education and the history of
probability and statistics.
Table 1
Questionnaire Participants
Respondents
Frequency Percent
AACSB 347 61.4
ACBSP 122 21.6
Non-Accredited 96 17.0
Total 565 100.0
Table 2
Students perceived value of accreditation
Pattern Matrix
Factor 1
Q35 Accreditation drives continuous improvement -.773
034 Accredited program provide better opportunity -.743
upon graduation
036 Accreditation achieves differentiation -.697
033 Superiority may be achieved through accreditation -.611
Q31 Accreditaiton improves perceived value/quality -.583
of education
032 Accreditation affects university ranking -.580
037 Accreditation enhances faculty skills/qualifications -.543
030 Accreditation enhances reputation -.523
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood.
Rotation Method: Obliminwith Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 22 iterations.
