Search

The study was conducted in a private off-shore University, based in the Caribbean. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of academics', to highlight the catalysts and impediments encountered in meeting accreditation-related research requirements. The purpose of doing so is to use the findings to instigate reflection, review and action to improve the process of meeting these requirements. Typically, higher education institutions (HEIs) are categorized as teaching-intensive or research-intensive, public, or private, for-profit or not-for-profit. Regardless, a strong pressure is for HEIs to be both producers of researchers and places of learning. For HEIs to enjoy the recognition and benefits of offering accredited programs, they must comply with standards set by eternal accreditation bodies. This can add to the teaching-research tension that is widely reported in HEIs. For teaching-intensive HEIs, accreditation can intensify this tension, as there are often research requirements which are not part of existing practice. But, although literature on the research-teaching tension is widespread, literature on its relationship to accreditation is sparse. This study explored academics' experiences in meeting accreditation-related research requirements, within their practice as part of an externally accredited program. The research questions were: (1) How do academics understand their role as researchers in externally accredited programs? (2) How do accreditation-related research requirements affect academics' work? (3) How do academics strategically maintain research outputs to meet accreditation-related research requirements? This study employed a qualitative case study design. Using purposive sampling, the sample consisted of 10 academics (3 academic heads and 7 faculty members), representing the 3 externally accredited programs within a single institution. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews. Data analysis conformed to Creswell's (2009) steps for data analysis. Four common themes were found. Those were: theme 1- academics' understanding of their research role, theme 2 - dynamics between academic roles, theme 3 - institutional research culture and academics' agency and theme 4 - strategizing for research productivity. More specifically, the findings show research is deemed secondary due to a dominance of other academic roles, low research productivity and the practice of research for promotion. Furthermore, being a researcher is challenging as a result of low institutional research culture, poor internal research structure, time constraints, faculty-related matters and collaboration issues. Additionally, although the accreditation-related research requirements had mixed impact on the academics' work, the most prominent was on their teaching activities. Moreover, despite the use of varied strategies for the maintenance of research outputs, the most frequent were research committees, special initiatives, and projects.