Managing Multiple Missions

The challenges that the Canadian accreditation process faces are somewhat different than those of either the United States or Europe. The number of graduate programs is relatively small and highly diverse with little consistent core content (Gow and Sutherland 2004; Geva-May and Maslove 2007). Consequently, the development of standards, at least initially, was seen as inappropriate, and a mission-based approach adopted. After only the first appraisal, however, the rigor of an individualistic mission-based approach has been questioned, and the desirability of establishing some minimal standards has been re-opened. A key issue for the Canadian context is whether standards are feasible in a small pool, and whether a mission-based model can gain credibility quickly enough to demonstrate value added of the process.
Although quality control, particularly of small emerging graduate programs was a concern behind the development of the Canadian accreditation system, another driver was raising the profile of the profession of public administration and promoting greater cohesion among the educational community – or more accurately, warding off increased fragmentation should some of the larger schools look south and seek accreditation from National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) when that becomes available. Creation of a home-grown accreditation system was thus deemed important. What will it take for the Canadian association responsible for accreditation to succeed in promoting the professionalism, visibility and cohesion of the field? How will internationalization of accreditation affect the field in Canada?
This paper describes the development of the Canadian system of accreditation in public policy and administration and critically assesses its ability to achieve the multiple missions that underpin its creation.