SHOULD GEOLOGY HAVE VOLUNTARY DISCIPLINARY ACCREDITATION?

Specialized (disciplinary) accreditation applies to a program or department or a specialty, e.g. chemistry or engineering, and is administered by a professional organization in the discipline. Geology has no disciplinary accreditation. Should we? Would it be welcomed? We asked 325 department chairs/heads to share their thoughts with us. Views of 142 responding Department Chairpersons/heads are divided, with 43 welcoming, 61 neutral or uncertain, and 38 opposing disciplinary accreditation The survey had five questions pertaining to current attitudes, answers to which were scaled. We encouraged free-form comments to compliment the scaled answers.

We analysed the responses in additional ways. First, detrended correspondence analysis reveals that attitudes toward accreditation are not related to department size, yet there are patterns in the answers of a given respondent. Second, chi square tests for heterogeneity or independence indicate that those opposing accreditation for his/her department tend to oppose having curricular standards by a committee largely external to academe. The same respondents also tend to think that not seeking or obtaining potential accreditation would have no negative ramifications on the department. Third, we categorized and tabulated free-form answers and found (in decreasing frequency) the following anticipated effects and beliefs: negative affect on curriculum; loss of control over curriculum; leverage for improved funding; improvement in credibility, visibility, and prestige; no need; unwanted bureaucracy; dislike for the Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology.