NEASC Self-Study
Self-Study Guide

The Commission on Institutions of Higher Education

Purposes of Self-Study

Self-study is at the heart of the accreditation process. Effective self-study serves both internal and external purposes. It is concerned with quality assurance and encourages institutional improvement through rigorous self-analysis; it provides a basis for the Commission's evaluation in accordance with its Standards for Accreditation.

Self-study is more than a document that addresses in depth the various Standards for Accreditation. It is an intensive endeavor involving individuals throughout the institution of higher education in a process of self-examination aimed at institutional improvement. Recognizing that self-study is both a process and a product, this Guide provides direction for the periodic review of institutional effectiveness and for the preparation of a self-study report encompassing the results of such a review.

The Commission expects that self-study should not be viewed as an isolated phenomenon in which an institution periodically engages. Rather, if self-study is to be valuable, it should be an integral part of the institution's ongoing planning and evaluation efforts. Incorporating self-study into the planning process serves the institution in its continuing search for better ways of achieving its objectives. The self-study process necessitates thinking about the context in which the institution is operating and in what ways it is affected by its external environment.

The resulting report should present a clear, concise and accurate picture of the institution as a dynamic entity with a sense of its history, an understanding of its present, and a vision of its future. The self-study should demonstrate the institution's capacity for reflective self-examination as a means for improvement. Such a document best serves not only the Commission but the institution itself.

Commission's Expectations for Self-Study

In recognizing the unique characteristics of each institution of higher education and of its self-study experience, the Commission purposefully does not prescribe the details of an individual institution's self-study process. Nonetheless, the Commission does expect that a self-study effort exemplify the following general principles.

In essence, self-study:

• Focuses on the institution as a whole. The Commission accredits the entire institution rather than specific departments, programs, locations, or means of instruction. However, evaluating an institution in terms of the Commission's standards requires that all of the institution's component parts be examined and that all locations and modes of offering its academic program be included. Ultimately, the information gathered through evaluation of each part must be used to formulate an evaluation of the institution as a whole.
• Evolves from a plan of action. Self-study is a complex and significant enterprise that like all such enterprises involves planning. The nature of the process is critically important both within and beyond the campus. Foresight and thoughtful structuring of the self-study process enable institutions to gain maximum benefits from the time and energy expended.
• Epitomizes and is an integral part of ongoing self-evaluation efforts. The self-study for accreditation should be part of, and inextricably linked to, a continuous process of self-examination and institutional improvement.
• Appraises and assesses institutional effectiveness. While a self-study report provides a clear description of an institution's programs, resources, and operations, it also analyzes and determines how well the institution is functioning and the degree to which the institution is meeting its objectives, as well as setting forth the institution's commitments for improvement. By identifying its strengths and those areas in need of improvement along with its plans for the future, the institution demonstrates the capacity to continue to meet its objectives. Institutional improvement should always be a goal of the process.

Thus, through self-study, the institution demonstrates that it is using information gathered from its evaluative efforts to enhance its ability to meet its goals and fulfill its mission.

Ultimately, the self-study effort culminates in the production of a report demonstrating that the institution satisfies the Commission's appropriate criteria.

Self-Study Options

The Commission views the traditional self-study undertaken by most institutions whereby the eleven Standards for Accreditation are comprehensively applied and improvement is sought in each area to be highly beneficial to all types of colleges and universities. Nevertheless, the Commission recognizes that there may be circumstances when it would be advantageous for an institution to take a different approach. Among these might be:

• The self-study with special emphasis (which is described at length below).
• Adapting the self-study to a comprehensive strategic planning process.
• Using the self-study effort as an opportunity to audit the institution's quality assurance, assessment, improvement systems.
• Sequential self-study followed by coordinated site visits over a period of time.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive; institutions may wish to propose other possible experimental approaches and the Commission encourages institutions to do so when as a result of thoughtful deliberation they conclude that benefits of following an alternative model appear to outweigh those likely to result from a more traditional design. Regardless of the approach adopted, the self-study process and resulting report must be undertaken in a manner which fulfills the basic purposes of accreditation: quality assurance and institutional improvement. It is also important that the self-study address broad institutional issues and that it provide a basis for judgment regarding fulfillment of the Standards for Accreditation.

Submitting a Proposal for an Alternative Approach. Institutions wishing to consider an alternative self-study option should discuss the possibility with a member of the Commission's staff. If there is an agreement that taking an alternative approach is desirable, the institution is asked to submit a proposal to the Commission office indicating its rationale and objectives for its self-study design. Essentially, the proposal should answer the following questions: Why does the institution wish to undertake an alternative self-study? What does the institution wish to study? How are these areas related to the Commission's Standards for Accreditation? How does it plan to study these areas? What planning and evaluation mechanisms will be utilized to demonstrate it meets the Standards for Accreditation? Approval by the Commission's staff is required for an institution to pursue a self-study option. The Commission will be informed of such approvals.

Self-Study Option: Self-Study with Areas of Emphasis

The most commonly adopted alternative to the traditional self-study is the Self-Study with Areas of Emphasis. Here an institution identifies a limited number of salient and challenging issues currently affecting it and engages in rigorous self-examination with an eye toward enhancing performance in these areas, and thus having a positive impact on its overall effectiveness. However, because accreditation is about quality assurance, the institution is also expected to provide a self-evaluative overview with regard to all the Standards. Thus, a Self-Study with Areas of Emphasis is designed to encourage institutional improvement while providing a basis to make a judgment about overall institutional quality. The dual purposes of self-study are thereby met. The resulting report is a two-part document focusing on the areas of emphasis as well as addressing the Standards.

In ascertaining whether a Self-Study with Areas of Emphasis is appropriate, it is important that the institution seriously consider the following factors: (1) Are there salient and challenging issues that warrant this kind of intensive examination? (2) Do conditions and circumstances prevail in the life cycle of the institution that make the timing "right" to engage in self-examination with respect to primarily these selected issues? and (3) Does the institution have in place effective and ongoing mechanisms for planning and evaluation that can be used to demonstrate that it meets the Standards for Accreditation without utilizing the standard comprehensive self-study format?

If these conditions obtain, it is important that the institution be cognizant of the Commission's expectations with respect to the Areas of Emphasis portion of this type of self-study. It should embody the following characteristics:

• A concentration on broad, current, substantive institutional issues which reflects a commitment on the institution's part to meaningfully address them.
• An analytical framework for addressing those issues that is informed by the Standards.
• Rigorous analysis and self-evaluation which focuses on institutional improvement.
• Plans to provide for implementation of any steps determined to be necessary.

Self-Study with Areas of Emphasis: Process/Product

While components of the process employed in undertaking the conventional self-study and aspects of the self-study report are somewhat similar, the processes and product do differ substantially as indicated below.

Process

Given the unique character and objectives of each institution and of the ways in which the areas of emphasis bear upon it, the Commission does not wish to prescribe an approach that all institutions should follow in undertaking the self-study process. It could be organized in several ways. Experience has shown that the following approach is helpful; nonetheless, institutions should not hesitate to adopt processes to meet their own needs and circumstances.

In general, the process employed in undertaking the self-study option may involve three distinct components.

• First, a steering committee may be formed with the dual responsibility of ensuring that the self-study adequately addresses all the Standards for Accreditation, and giving direction in the areas chosen for special emphasis.
• Second, there should be a mechanism devised for doing the first part of the self-study which involves a descriptive and analytical review of the institution against all eleven standards. The following points should be helpful in determining how to proceed:
• This mechanism could take several forms ranging from having one knowledgeable person working on a specific standard or standards to a committee composed of several individuals.
• It is not necessary to establish a committee for each of the eleven standards. It is important, however, that each individual or group of individuals be familiar with their assigned standard and its relationship to the institution. Existing committees may be utilized.
• The self-evaluative process involves gathering the information necessary to accurately describe the current status of the institution in the area(s) encompassed by the standard. This is followed by an appraisal of the extent to which the institution meets the standard. The institution then indicates plans contemplated or developed to address the standard.
• Whatever mechanism is employed, the institution should take advantage of and wherever possible build upon its existing planning and evaluation mechanisms. However the institution chooses to proceed with this part of the self-study, the draft should be validated by a larger group.
• Third, institutions exercising this option will most likely wish to establish committees to address each of the areas of emphasis that together will constitute the second half of the self-study. As with the other committee structures, the institution should ascertain the size and makeup of these entities in view of relevant institutional factors. Here again the institution can use existing committees to facilitate the process. While these committees will be expected to afford these topics much effort and deliberation, it is important to keep in mind that their work is informed by and their report related to the Standards. The efforts and results of undertaking a reflective examination of these areas should inform both the institution's short- and long-term planning initiatives and its various decision making and evaluative processes. Means for systematically and periodically assessing the institution's progress in effectively meeting the challenges posed by these areas should be established.

Product

As noted, the Self-Study with Areas of Emphasis report involves two major parts. The first component is a broad overview of the institution against the full array of standards. Given the new emphases and rigor of the Standards particularly as they relate to the quality of the academic program, institutional effectiveness, and institutional integrity, the Commission maintains that it is especially important that during this decade every institution engage in self-examination in terms of all of them. Therefore, the first part of the self-study report should address all eleven standards. Although this type of self-study provides an explanation and analysis of how the institution meets the Standards, it is not meant to be a comprehensive improvement mechanism like the conventional self-study. Substantively, this section of the self-study provides the reader factual information as to how the institution meets each Standard, an assessment of the extent to which each Standard is met and an indication of any future commitments the institution plans to take in addressing the Standard.

The remainder of the self-study report is devoted to the areas of emphasis which involves utilizing the triad of description, appraisal, and projection. This triad essentially raises three questions: What is? What should be? and How does the institution get there? Following this format allows the institution to highlight its capacity to engage in continuous improvement and explicate its efforts to increase its effectiveness in the areas of emphasis. This triad is applicable to each of the areas of emphasis.

Description. This section should provide a realistic and objective presentation of the present status of the institution with respect to each area of emphasis. It is as stated descriptive in nature.

Appraisal. The second section involves analysis. It requires the institution to make a thorough assessment of the effectiveness in the areas of emphasis, recognizing both the institution's achievements and its challenges. This self judgment is a crucial component of the entire self-study process. It requires deliberation and critical thinking.

Projection. After the institution has described and appraised each of the areas of emphasis, the institution is asked to indicate plans to maintain and enhance strengths and to address areas of concern. These projections should be realistic and specific, rather than vague and discursive. In accordance with the Commission's view that self-study is inextricably linked to planning, these projections should be explored as part of the institution's planning process, representing a definite commitment to development in the areas of emphasis over the next few years. It is at this point that the results of self-evaluation are translated into practice.