Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. LFC's avatar

    You’re right, that’s my mistake. Because the two incidents occurred a couple of months apart, I guess they often get…

  2. EAS's avatar

    This is incorrect. The incident involving Petrov occured on September 26, 1983. Petrov judged that the Oko early warning system’s…

  3. Gwen Bradford's avatar
  4. Anon's avatar
  5. Nathaniel Jezzi's avatar

    Although I didn’t know Dale well, I had the good fortune to meet and interact with him during graduate school…

  6. Abdul Ansari's avatar

    I am shell shocked. Dale was an exemplary and creative moral philosophy, rigorously engaged with the most foundational issues across…

  7. David Wallace's avatar

    This is sharply at variance with my understanding of the situation. The general consensus for some while has been that…

Philosophy Accreditation Redux

Last October, I wrote about accreditation as a way to create support for philosophy at colleges and universities. It generated some good comments, but I wanted to reiterate my support for philosophy accreditation. After the post, I received a supportive email from a philosopher who had recently entered into an academic leadership position. With permission, here is part of what this concerned philosopher wrote:

“I am part of a public university undergrad-only department that likely faces similar issues to yours. I am writing to you specifically to ask if you know anything about efforts to institute an accreditation program for Philosophy programs, since this came up as part of the discussion related to your previous posts.

I fully sympathize with philosophy faculty who argue that the widespread push for data-driven analysis, detailed top-down assessment procedures, and things like curriculum mapping have not caught on in Philosophy for good reason. Our subject matter resists this sort of thing and could even be badly distorted and misrepresented by it, unfortunately.


On the other hand, I don't think Philosophy can continue to resist these broader trends in the university, as they are both growing in popularity and driven by factors external to the university over which we have almost no control or influence. I doubt that any push-back generated, however important in content, will be sufficient to overcome the push from the other direction.

I believe that in response to the current state of affairs in higher ed, philosophy departments need to take ownership of accreditation, program review, and assessment processes for themselves. This seems an impossible task: philosophers can hardly agree on anything and right now our discipline seems as divided as ever, especially on matters related to how programs are administered. However, I suspect philosophers would have widespread agreement on certain fundamental propositions: that there is no single best way to organize a philosophy curriculum, no common set of SLOs that could define its curriculum for all programs, and no particular practice of assessment that can capture what we set out to do in teaching. Or if any of us does believe there is only one best way, perhaps at least we are not willing to see that way imposed on all the departments at HLC-accredited universities!

I take it one of your important points in those past Leiter blog posts was that in order to make successful arguments for resources, philosophy programs need to be able to respond to demands related to these current trends in administration. I propose that to do this, we focus on identifying some common processes and procedures that leave content almost entirely open, as a means of evaluating whether Philosophy programs are functioning successfully. I would further propose that we create some discipline-wide means for Philosophy programs to be approved as functioning successfully according to these procedural requirements. Individual departments could then appeal to philosophy-specific standards – hopefully, seeking formal accreditation eventually – as a means of legitimizing their responses to the typical forms of intra-university evaluation.

I thought you might be in a good position to know if anyone at the APA or in the discipline generally is presently working on this or shares this approach. If we do nothing, I predict that others will impose standards upon us from on high, assuming this hasn't happened already. If you want an example, see the Lumina Foundation's Degree Qualifications Profile, which is being discussed or even implemented as a foundation for standards now, especially for disciplines like ours that have no other formal means of accreditation. I really would rather that philosophers, however difficult and messy the process might be, start coming up with their own versions (and hopefully, far less restrictive versions) of what standards in our degree programs might look like, rather than letting others do the job.”

I do not know of any concerted effort by the APA to create accreditation standards for philosophy, but I wish we could start that conversation. I do know that the former VP of the Lumina Foundation, James Applegate, is the Executive Director of the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE). So a private foundation has given rise to public policy in a straightforward way.

I suggest we continue the conversation about accrediting undergraduate philosophy programs. Comments are open.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 responses to “Philosophy Accreditation Redux”

  1. A premise of the quoted email is that these changes are probably inevitable and therefore best made by philosophers than come from outside the profession. Even if the changes are inevitable the latter point is almost certainly false. Please read "Coercive accountability: the rise of audit culture in higher education" in the collection "Audit Cultures". When a professional organization agrees to make accrediting standards the same forces that push for instituting those standards will require that they also serve the purpose of ranking*. Potential standards will be "sent back" until they mark a significant portion of current programs as under-performing. This won't be a temporary phenomenon until some programs improve; it's part of the logic of the system to rank and to pick out some programs as bad.

    You might think "well good, overall things will get better." That presumes the org can come up with measurable criteria that help. The outside forces know they can't judge and therefore don't care. Do you really trust some committee at the APA to decide who is going to be picked out as crappy this decade and why? And why assume content can be "left open"? What happens when the APA makes a proposal without content and is told "no, add content in there"?

    Outside forces, whatever they are, aren't in a position to make such distinctions. They need the help of insiders. Giving them that help before anyone's hand is truly forced is a stupid mistake. Stop pushing for this. It will result in no improvement and needless suffering.

    * The mechanism of coercion is usually some accreditation meta-body the orgs have to join that "audits" the standards. There have to be standards for standards, after all. You think these folks are just going to smile and say "Oh, no content requirements — that's fine!"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recognized_higher_education_accreditation_organizations#United_States

  2. It really shouldn't that hard to come up with standards a that philosophy program needs to satisfy in order to deserve accreditation. Yes, we can all imagine a very diverse set of satisfactory programs, but we philosophers also know how to use disjunctions and conditionals in stating the standards. Why not at least produce a draft to use as a starting point for further debate? If we leave this task to administrators, I doubt they will have the motivation and patience to act with all the necessary subtlety.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

Designed with WordPress