Abstract
Too many California community colleges struggle with accreditation. From 2003-2012, 62 of the 112 colleges have been placed on some form of sanction and 40 of them more than once. Unfortunately, there is little research into what institutions can do to improve accreditation results. This study begins to address this gap. It is a qualitative comparative case study of four California community colleges, two that have been place on sanction five or more times (A schools) and two that not been placed on sanction (B schools). Data was collected via interviews with fourteen participants who spanned a range of positions, tenure, and degree of involvement with accreditation. Data was analyzed using activity and grounded theories. Differences between the A and B schools emerged under the themes of division of labor, motivation, and integration. Under division of labor, participants at the A schools reported more often that institutional roles were not universally agreed upon and abided by, that there were higher level of conflict around the division of labor, and that progress was made in spite of conflicts. Participants at the B schools reported more often that roles were clearly defined and abided by, that there were low levels of conflict, and on tools for resolving conflict. Interestingly, both A and B schools reported little difficulty with the division of labor with regards to accreditation-specific activities. Under motivation, participants at the A colleges reported more often that accreditation had not been universally interpreted as important, motivation was externally sourced, and accreditation processes had not been consistently enforced. Participants at the B colleges reported more often that accreditation was widely seen as important, motivation was internally sourced, and accreditation processes were consistently enforced. Both A and B college participants reported that the notion of a critical mass was important to sustaining motivation. Under integration, participants at the A college reported that contact with accreditation processes was variable, that accreditation processes had not historically had integrity, less on interconnecting activities, and that there were fewer resources available. Participants at the B colleges reported more on constant contact with accreditation processes, that processes were considered to have high level of integrity, that individuals and groups were interconnected with regards to accreditation, and that substantial resources were available for accreditation. Based on an analysis of these findings using activity theory, the following recommendations are made to college leaders: 1) define institutional roles and responsibilities abide by them, 2) resolve conflict when roles and responsibilities are not clear, 3) establish accreditation as important, 4) account for different perceptions of accreditation among groups, 5) reframe accreditation as internally motivated, 6) enforce accreditation activities, 7) maintain a critical mass of motivated individuals and groups, 8) maintain ongoing contact with accreditation processes, 9) develop accreditation tools that align with existing campus rules/norms/customs, 10) maintain the integrity of accreditation processes, 11) interconnect parties across the institution with formal and informal accreditation processes, and 12) prioritize resources for accreditation.