University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

States of motivation: examining perceptions of accreditation through the framework of self-determination

(USC Thesis Other)

States of motivation: examining perceptions of accreditation through the framework of self-determination

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

STATES OF MOTIVATION: EXAMINING PERCEPTIONS OF ACCREDITATION
THROUGH THE FRAMEWORK OF SELF-DETERMINATION

by

Austin Foxxe

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2018

Copyright 2018 Austin Foxxe
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

2
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the members of my committee for supporting me through
this process. To Dr. Pat Tobey, my chair, thank you for your guidance, and thank you for bearing
with me and working with me in that final sprint toward the finish line. For all the after-hours
text messages and responding to my requests for feedback while you were on vacation, I am
extremely grateful.
To Dr. Brad Shipley, a source of motivation and a great support during my master’s
program, I am happy and grateful that you were able to be part of the next leg of my educational
journey. Your willingness to add the responsibility of being part of my dissertation committee to
your busy schedule is very much appreciated.
To Dr. Brandon Martinez, one of my first and favorite teachers in my doctoral program,
your support over the course of this journey is also much appreciated. Even though you could not
be my chair as I planned after taking your class during my first semester, we stayed connected
throughout the course of my studies, and I am glad that you could be a part of this final step.
Thank you all for helping me make it to this place. Words cannot adequately express my
appreciation.

3
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

4
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

ABSTRACT
Every year universities across the country take part in the accreditation process.
Accreditation is a system of academic assessment intended to ensure that institutions of higher
education are performing up to certain standards. These standards are established by accrediting
agencies in an effort to monitor institutional accountability. It is said that participation in
accreditation is voluntary, but universities must be accredited in order to receive financial
benefits administered by the federal government, such as grants for studies and federal student
aid. This calls into question whether accreditation truly is a voluntary process. It also is said that
the accreditation process is designed to protect institutional autonomy, but what about the faculty
members and academic administrators who are involved with their university’s accreditation
process? Do they feel autonomous? What is the state of their motivation in relation to
participating in the process of accreditation?
The purpose of this study was to examine the motivational states of faculty members and
academic administrators who had direct participation in the accreditation process at a large
private research university. A content analysis of meeting minutes and email correspondence
from a sample of faculty members and administrators (N = 23) revealed that, while external
regulation was present, the faculty members and administrators were able to maintain a sense of
autonomous orientation while participating in accreditation.
Keywords: self-determination, autonomy, intrinsic motivation, external regulation,
accreditation
5
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

6
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements 3
Abstract 5
Table of Contents 7
List of Tables 9
List of Figures 9
Chapter 1: Introduction 11
Background of the Problem 11
Statement of the Problem 12
Significance of the Problem 13
Purpose and Significance of the Study 14
Delineation of the Study 15
Research Question 15
Definition of Terms 15

Chapter 2: Literature Review 17
Definition of Accreditation 17
The Accreditation Process 17
Accreditation’s Intentions 18
Background of Accreditation 19
Accreditation’s Connection to Financial Aid 23
Increased External Regulation 25
Maintaining Accreditation 27
Accreditation Adversely Affecting Autonomy 28
Stages of Externally Motivated Behavior 29
Motivation, Autonomous Behavior, and Self-Determination 31
Motivation: A Brief Historical Overview 31
Autonomous Behavior 32
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation 32
Self-Determination 34
Conclusion: The Foundation for this Dissertation 40

Chapter 3: Methodology 42
Study Design 42
An Overview of Content Analysis 43
The Sample 45
The Content 46
The Coding Process 48
Initial Coding 48
Descriptive/In Vivo codes 48
7
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Secondary Coding 52
Tertiary Coding 54
Reliability 57
Validity 58

Chapter 4: Findings 62
Narrative Representation 62
External Regulation 62
Autonomous Orientation 63
Numerical Representation 68

Chapter 5: Discussion 74
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Work Situations 74
Autonomy and Tenure 75
Work Motivation and Organizational Justice 76
Description of the Situation 78
Implications for the Sample and for Practice 79
Limitations 80
Future Research 81
Conclusion 82

References 84

Appendix A: IRB Approval 100
Appendix B: Code Book arranged alphabetically by Code 1 102
Appendix C: Code Book arranged alphabetically by Code 2 104

8
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Regional accrediting agencies and the year each was founded page 21
Table 2: Increases in higher education enrollment corresponding to expanded page 24
access to financial aid in correlation to the passage of landmark legislation
regarding federal funding for higher education
Table 3: Overview of Content Analysis Findings page 69
Table 4: Faculty email recording units page 70
Table 5: Administrator email recording units page 71
Table 6: Meeting minutes recording units page 72

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Theorized effect of accreditation on motivational states page 27
as reflected by perceived source of regulation
Figure 2: Theorized effect of accreditation on perceived autonomy and page 29
corresponding motivational states
Figure 3: The types of motivation and regulation within self-determination page 30
theory, along with their placement along the continuum of relative
self-determination
Figure 4: The researcher in the content analysis process page 43
Figure 5: Flow of communication in email correspondence page 47
Figure 6: Codes in relation to Primary Categories page 54
Figure 7: Codes in relation to Secondary Categories page 56
Figure 8: Primary Categories in relation to Secondary Categories page 57

9
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

10
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Background of the Problem
Accreditation is a system of assessing colleges and universities to ensure that they are
maintaining acceptable quality levels when providing education. Ostensibly it is a voluntary
process, but accreditation serves as the gateway to institutions receiving a number of benefits.
Perhaps the most valuable and vital of these benefits is being eligible to receive federal funding
not only for conducting research and studies, but also in the form of student financial aid monies.
Tuition is a major revenue source for schools, which most schools could not afford to lose.
Because of this, not participating in accreditation is not a viable option, which begs the question
of whether participating in accreditation is truly voluntary (Boyd, 1973).
There is much discussion about the cost of accreditation in terms of resources such as
time, energy and funding (Pringle & Michel, 2007; Willis, 1994; Kennedy, Moore, &
Thibadoux, 1985); those are the most-referenced metrics when viewing the situation from an
operational perspective. When viewed through an organizational lens, however, there may be
other costs that are not as readily evident, yet are no less relevant. These costs may be levied
against organizational assets in a manner that may be considered to be “below the surface”, but
may interfere with said assets’ ability to help institutions of higher education succeed in
achieving their purposes, particularly providing supportive and enriching environments and
experiences for all constituents, faculty members and administrators as well as students.
Accreditation is overseen by various accrediting agencies. Agencies that oversee
professional educational institutions or programs are designated by industry, while agencies that
accredit general educational and research colleges and universities are designated by region.
Although the agencies assess the institutions according to standards set forth by the U.S.
11
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Department of Education, the assessments are made by teams of educators, not federal
regulators. It is posited that institutional autonomy is protected by this practice (Baker, 2002;
Brittingham, 2009; Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions [CRAC], 2003; Eaton, 2011),
but is that perception shared by faculty members and university administrators? How do they
perceive the accreditation process in terms of autonomy and self-determination? If their sense of
autonomy is inhibited it could lead to significant changes in faculty members’ and
administrators’ motivational states, which can have a direct effect on desirable outcomes such as
optimal performance via related important constructs such as engagement and well-being
perceptions (De Cooman, Stynen, Van den Broeck, Sels, & De Witte, 2013; Deci et al., 2001;
Vansteenkiste, Neyrinck, Niemiec, Soenens, De Witte, & Van den Broeck, 2007).
Statement of the Problem
As stated above, accreditation ostensibly is a voluntary process, but, for reasons also
stated above, whether participation in accreditation is truly voluntary is open to question.
Complying with standards mandated by accrediting agencies in order to maintain accreditation
falls under the umbrella of externally motivated behavior, which is behavior enacted in response
to some form of external regulation. External regulation can inhibit autonomous orientation
which can result in a reduction of desirable outcomes that are engendered by intrinsic motivation
such as enhanced performance, persistence, perceived well-being, and overall engagement (Deci
& Ryan, 1985; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2008a, 2008b; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Van
den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008; Slemp & Vella-Brodick, 2014). It therefore
may be reasonably deduced that external regulation imposed by accreditation may diminish
faculty members’ and faculty administrators’ autonomous orientation, thereby nullifying the
above-mentioned benefits associated with intrinsically motivated behavior.
12
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Significance of the Problem
Research indicates that teachers who exhibit higher levels of intrinsic motivation for
teaching can have a significant positive impact in engendering an enjoyment of learning and
generating an interest in learning among their students (Reeve, Bolt, & Cai, 1999; Wild, Enzle,
Nix, & Deci, 1997; Perlman, 2013). They also tend to adopt a mastery goal orientation which
translates into the incorporation of more adaptive teaching strategies and in turn leads to reported
better teaching performance and students showing indications of more self-determined learning
(Malmberg, 2006; Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007). When teachers’ intrinsic
motivation is diminished it reduces the incidence of these benefits.
Faculty members are vitally important agents in establishing and maintaining institutions’
relationships with students, who comprise one of their most important stakeholder populations.
The foundation of these relationships is the interaction that takes place between faculty and
students on a regular basis. Interaction with faculty figures significantly into student engagement
and persistence to graduation (Spady, 1970; Tinto, 1975, 2007; Kuh, 2001, 2003; Kuh & Hu,
2001; Pascarella, 2001; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005), which are key to the survival of
educational organizations. This particularly is the case with regard to metrics that are assessed in
connection with accreditation, such as “educational results in general, and student learning
outcomes in particular,” of which graduation rates are considered an important indication (Baker,
2002, p. 5). Maintaining effective and productive relationships with student populations can
require faculty members to invest significant amounts of time and high levels of energy and
personal commitment and dedication. The degree to which that investment and those efforts are
made and sustained can be influenced significantly by the state of faculty members’ motivation,
which may be affected by external regulation experienced in connection with accreditation.
13
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Faculty administrators may not have as much direct student interaction as other faculty,
but they play a significant role in shaping their institutions’ educational programs and practices,
which can and do have significant impact on students’ academic development. Faculty
administrators work closely with other faculty members to ensure that institutions are
accomplishing their declared missions. They need to feel empowered to make choices and
decisions that are important to guiding their institutions as they see fit. That sense of
empowerment may be hindered by accreditation-related pressures.
Purpose and Significance of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of faculty members and faculty
administrators associated with the process of accreditation and how those perceptions correspond
to motivational states as outlined by self-determination theory. This is important because
intrinsically motivated behavior and the corresponding autonomous orientation has been shown
to be positively correlated with important benefits such as optimal performance, persistence,
well-being, and engagement in various situations, including education and the workplace. This is
presented in research by Deci (1975) and Deci and Ryan (1985, 1987, 1991, 2000; Ryan & Deci,
2000b), and supported by others working in collaboration with Deci and/or Ryan (Baard, Deci,
& Ryan, 1998; Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989; Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; Ryan,
Deci, & Grolnik, 1995; Gagné & Deci, 2005; Gagné, Ryan, & Bargmann, 2003) and working
independently of them (Dysvik, Kuvaas, & Gagné, 2013; Jenkins-Guarnieri, Vaughan, &
Wright, 2015; Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004; Meyer & Gagné, 2008; Reeve, 2002).
Given the benefits and desirable outcomes associated with it, any situation that could have a
diminishing effect on faculty members’ and faculty administrators’ intrinsic motivation and
autonomous orientation is worth investigating.
14
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Delineation of the Study
This study was conducted among faculty members and administrators engaged in
undergraduate education at a large, private research institution. Data in the form of email
correspondence, meeting minutes, and supplemental documents generated during a three-year
period coinciding with the institution’s most recent accreditation review were examined. Access
to the data was provided by one of the university’s administrators who participated in the
accreditation process. The data were coded descriptively and organized into a priori categories
derived from theory. A frequency table created in Excel was utilized to determine which
category was most prevalent, identifying the motivational state most indicated and supported by
the data.
Research Question
This study sought to answer the following question:
1. “How do faculty members and university administrators perceive accreditation in
terms of self-determination: do they see it as completely externally regulated, or are
they able to maintain a sense of autonomous orientation?”
Definition of Terms
Accreditation is a process of external quality review created and used by higher education
to scrutinize colleges, universities and programs for quality assurance and quality improvement
(Eaton, 2012). Accreditation is required for colleges and universities to be eligible to receive
federal funding.
Autonomy is having a sense of choice and volition (the ability to make a conscious
decision) (Gagné & Deci, 2005) regarding one’s actions. Autonomy is present when an
individual experiences freedom from coercion or pressure to behave in a certain manner.
15
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Autonomous behavior is behavior enacted based on a sense of autonomy or self-
determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
External regulation refers to factors or circumstances external to an individual that
influence or control behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
Extrinsic motivation involves engaging in an activity or behavior for the sake of
obtaining a reward or avoiding an undesirable consequence (Ryan & Deci, 2000a).
Intrinsic motivation involves the engagement in an activity or the initiation of behavior
driven entirely by the interest in or satisfaction derived from engaging in the activity or behavior.
It does not involve the circumstance of external rewards or consequences being obtained or
avoided (Deci, 1975).
Motivation is the impetus to initiate and maintain action or behavior (Deci & Ryan,
1985).
Regulation, while not expressly defined in the literature, is defined in the American
Heritage Dictionary (4
th
edition, 2001) as “the act of regulating or the state of being regulated; a
principle, rule, or law for governing conduct” (p. 705). As such, regulation can be seen as a
restraint or restriction placed on behavior (a constriction), a guide for determining or influencing
behavior, or the act of moderating behavior. Regulation may be internal or external to an
individual.
Self-determination is the condition of experiencing “a sense of choice in initiating and
regulating one’s own actions” (Deci, Connell, and Ryan, 1989, p. 580). This term often is used in
conjunction with or at times may be used synonymously with the term autonomy.
Self-regulation is the regulation of one’s own behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

16
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Definition of Accreditation
Accreditation is an external review process created to assess the performance of
institutions of higher education according to established standards (Brittingham, 2009; Eaton,
2012). It is described as a means of quality assurance for the public regarding the decision to
invest in pursuing higher education. Accredited status indicates that a college or university has
met accepted standards of practice and any degrees conferred by the university or college will be
respected and well-regarded by society at large as well as other institutions a student may wish to
attend and potential employers. Accreditation also is the means by which institutions of higher
education become eligible to receive federally administrated funding (Brittingham, 2009; Eaton
2012).
The Accreditation Process
Pursuing or maintaining accreditation is a very involved process that often requires
significant amounts of time and resources. The accreditation process consists of five major steps:
Self-study – The institution conducts an internal review of its classes and programs to
determine the extent to which they are meeting the accreditation agency’s standards. A report is
prepared that is submitted to the accrediting agency and its representatives.
Peer review – The self-study report submitted by the university is reviewed by faculty
members and/or administrators at peer universities in preparation for a visit to the university that
is being assessed.
Site visit – A team comprised of faculty members and/or administrators from peer
universities visits the university that is undergoing assessment to conduct an onsite inspection.
The purpose of the visit is to determine whether conditions described in the self-study report are
17
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

consistent with what is actually happening at the university. Also, members of the visiting team
are able to assess for themselves, to an extent, whether accreditation standards are being met.
Judgment by accrediting organization – The visiting team submits a report to the
accrediting agency with their recommendations. After reviewing the report the accrediting
agency determines whether or not to grant or reaffirm the subject university’s accreditation
status. Their determination and any recommendations they think the university should make are
communicated to the senior leadership at the university. It is generally accepted that in order to
achieve or maintain accreditation, universities comply with recommendations made by the
accrediting agency.
Periodic external review – Institutions and universities are reviewed on an ongoing basis,
repeating the first four steps of the accreditation process periodically (Eaton, 2012).
Accreditation’s Intentions
While completing accreditation assessments requires major investments of time,
resources, and even financial support, the accreditation process reportedly is intended to provide
the following four major benefits (Eaton, 2012):
Assuring quality – Accreditation status indicates to students and the public that a school
and its programs meet established standards. These standards include benchmarks or criteria for
evaluating a college’s or university’s faculty, programs and courses of study, and resources such
as libraries and student services offered. Accreditation status also is an indication of an
institution’s level of fiscal stability.
Access to federal and state funds – Accreditation is an indication that an institution is
eligible to receive federal funding. Accredited status is a requirement for schools to have access
to federally administered funding, such as student financial aid and other federal programs.
18
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Students may only receive federal financial aid if the institution they are attending is accredited
by a recognized accrediting organization in good standing. This also is the case for students
receiving financial aid funding from state governments.
Engendering private sector confidence – Employers consider an institution’s
accreditation status when reviewing the qualifications of job applicants. Accreditation status of
institutions is also a consideration when determining which schools or programs of study are
eligible for tuition support programs for current employees who wish to further their education.
Individuals and foundations also consider accreditation status when making decisions about
private giving.
Easing transfer – A final intention of the accreditation process is to facilitate students
transferring from one university to another and being able to receive credit for classes taken at
the university where the student began their studies. Schools consider many factors when
deciding what course credits they are willing to accept for students transferring from other
universities, and the accreditation status of the university at which the classes were taken figures
significantly into the equation.
Background of Accreditation
Due to protections embedded in and enacted by the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and
Congress, the higher education system in the United States developed without significant
government oversight or regulation (Brittingham, 2009). Any powers or responsibilities that
were not expressly reserved for the federal government were conveyed to citizens and state
governments or agencies. This being the case, institutions dedicated to providing educational
services to the general population were established in accordance with America’s entrepreneurial
cultural orientation (Brittingham, 2009). Colleges, academies, and universities were opened
19
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

wherever individuals or organizations with means saw a need or an opportunity. As the number
and types of educational institutions grew and greater numbers of students began attending them,
the need arose for a system of determining which schools provided the best education in return
for the financial investment that students and their families were making. Some institutions
established reputations for providing their students excellent educations, but there were schools
that were more interested in collecting students’ tuition than providing a quality education. There
needed to be a way for the public to tell the difference. From this need arose the system of
accreditation (Brittingham, 2009). However, the practice of formally evaluating institutions of
higher education was initiated before a recognized need to do so existed.
Accreditation of higher education in America saw its beginnings in the middle of the 16
th

century. Harvard was the first institution of higher education in the United States to undergo the
process of accreditation when the school “initiated [an] external review of its programs” in 1642
(Davenport, 2000. p. 4), six years after its founding in 1636. They did so, presumably, to gain an
objective assessment of the academic rigor of their classes. The leadership of the school likely
was seeking an external stamp of approval.
As the number of colleges and universities increased over the course of the next 200
years the field saw a great deal of diversity. A number of institutions were established to focus
on particular areas of interest or to serve specific groups of individuals. Some examples of this
diversity were colleges established to serve African-American students, colleges established to
serve women exclusively, religiously oriented institutions, art schools, conservatories, research
universities, and military academies (Brittingham, 2009). This wide variety among providers of
higher education contributed to the need for a standardized means of assessing higher education
practices. In response to this need associations began to form and assume the task of assuring the
20
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

public that colleges and universities were performing according to expected, established norms.
Some of these associations were established according to individual industries and have
connections to professional organizations such as the American Medical Association and other
formal licensing agencies (Brittingham, 2009). For example, the Carnegie Foundation, the
American Association of University Women, and the Association of American Universities
conducted evaluations of various educational institutions of their choosing and created their
respective lists of schools that met their approval, effectively accrediting them. This was done in
response to concerns among the members of the demographics each organization served about
the quality of the various colleges and universities (Orlans, 1975, Shaw, 1993, as referenced in
Cayetano, 2014). Most colleges or schools that did not service a particular profession or focus on
developing proficiency in a specific trade (non-profit institutions as opposed to for-profit
schools, generally) came to be accredited by regional accrediting agencies. These agencies, listed
in the table below, began forming in the mid-1880s.

Accrediting agency

Year it was founded

New England Association of Schools and Colleges 1885

Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools 1887

North Central Association of Schools and Colleges 1895

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools 1895

Northwest Association of Colleges and Universities 1917

Western Association of Schools and Colleges 1924

Table 1: Regional accrediting agencies and the year each was founded (Brittingham, 2009)
21
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

The original focus of regional accrediting agencies was to determine how well high
schools (institutions of secondary education) were preparing students to be successful at the
higher education level (Brittingham, 2009). At that time colleges were evaluated based on the
caliber of students they admitted; this still is a factor of consideration in the admissions practices
of many colleges and universities today. Eventually the regional accrediting associations began
to create entrance requirements and evaluation standards by which to measure the high school
graduates they were admitting. The Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools created
the College Entrance Examination Board in 1901 to standardize college entrance requirements.
Not long after, in 1909, the North Central Association of Schools and Colleges made their first
set of standards for the higher education members of the association available to the public
(Brittingham, 2009; Cayetano, 2014).
In addition to evaluating students’ college-readiness the regional accrediting agencies
also began identifying colleges that they considered to be more appropriate or desirable than
others. Institutions that made the list were considered to be accredited, while those that did not
make the list were not (Blauch, 1959; Davis, 1932; Ewell, 2008; Cayetano, 2014). Because of the
many different types of schools that were located in each region, accrediting agencies made the
decision to employ qualitative methods in their evaluations. They also began to emphasize
schools doing and being their best as opposed to simply meeting a set of minimum requirements
(Brittingham, 2009). They began to make accreditation decisions based on how well an
institution was doing in achieving its own stated mission. If a school could demonstrate that it
was accomplishing the goals it set for itself it could be granted accreditation (Brittingham, 2009;
Cayetano, 2014).
22
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

In 1938, the Joint Commission on Accrediting was formed for the purpose of regulating
the accrediting agencies. This was in response to concerns expressed regarding the legitimacy of
the agencies’ accrediting practices and decisions, along with concerns that some of the agencies
themselves were questionable. This joint commission evolved into the National Commission on
Accrediting (Blauch, 1959; Cayetano, 2014). Approximately seven years after this clearing of
the accreditation landscape, accrediting agencies became the gatekeepers and accreditation
became the means by which higher education institutions gain eligibility to receive federal
financial aid (Brittingham, 2009).
Accreditation’s Connection to Financial Aid
The connection between accreditation and student financial aid was established in the
mid-1940s (Brittingham, 2009). Following World War II, veterans were granted a substantial
amount of federal funding in the form of financial aid and the government needed a system of
determining which universities and colleges were qualified to receive federal funding. Instead of
developing their own system of evaluation, the government decided to utilize the system of
accreditation that institutions already had in place. Thus, schools’ accreditation status became a
deciding factor in their eligibility for receiving federal funding. When the Higher Education Act
was first passed in 1965, making billions of dollars in financial aid available to the general
population, accreditation became the gateway to—and gatekeeper for—access to an
exponentially larger funding source (Brittingham, 2009).
In the 15 years between 1930 and 1945, college enrollment increased from 1.1 million to
1.7 million, representing a growth of only .6 million students. In the first 20 years following the
passing of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, more popularly known as the G.I. Bill,
between 1945 and 1965, college enrollment rose from 1.7 million to 5.9 million, a growth of 4.2
23
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

million students. That is an increase from .04 million students per year in the preceding 15 years
to .21 million students per year; that is a difference of more than five times as many students
enrolled per year. It is reasonable to deduct that that growth in enrollment was largely
attributable to the provision of federal financial aid support to returning soldiers. In the ten years
following the first passing of the Higher Education Act, college enrollment rose from 5.9 million
in 1965 to 11.2 million in 1975, representing more than twice the growth in enrollment
experienced in the preceding two decades. This serves to underscore the importance of receiving
federal financial aid for the majority of the general population to be able to have access to the
benefits of higher education. It also underscores the need for institutions of higher education to
participate in the process of accreditation in order to be able to attract and sustain student
populations and, with them, the federal student aid that constitutes significant portions of the
institutions’ monetary mainstays.

Time frame
Enrollment

1930-1945
(15 years)

1945-1965
(20 years)

1965-1975
(10 years)
Beginning and ending
enrollment (millions)

1.1 – 1.7

1.7 – 5.9

5.9 – 11.2
Increase in total enrollment
(millions)

.6

4.2

5.3
Enrollment increase per year
(millions)

.04

.21

.53

G.I. Bill
passed
(1945)
Higher Education Act
first passed
(1965)
Table 2 Increases in higher education enrollment corresponding to expanded access to
financial aid in correlation to the passage of landmark legislation regarding federal
funding for higher education
Sources: Brock (2010); Cohen (1998) and Snyder (1993) as referenced in Brittingham
(2009, p. 13)

24
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Increased External Regulation
The reauthorization process for the HEA often involves the activation of new laws along
with the expansion of laws that already are in place. This process of activation and expansion
triggers an increase in the level of regulation necessary to ensure institutions’ compliance with
the provisions outlined in the HEA. Hannah (1996) stated that the 1992 reauthorization of the
HEA “paved the way for much greater federal regulation of academic ‘quality’” (p. 524).
Expressing a similar sentiment, Brittingham (2009) stated that the 1992 reauthorization “upped
the ante on student learning assessment” (p. 23). Brittingham (2009) goes on to report that the
reauthorized bill specified that accrediting agencies needed to include curriculum, academic
programs, and faculty in their standards and reviews.
The trend toward increasing external regulation continued in 2008. Eaton (2013) reported
that the reauthorization of the HEA that took place in 2008 had a particular focus on the area of
“academic judgment”, which includes learning objectives and outcomes along with academic
standards. Oversight for these areas traditionally has been within the jurisdiction of faculty
members and academic administrators. In their study of faculty satisfaction with instructional
autonomy, Kim, Twombly, and Wolf-Wendel (2008) noted that control over the substance and
delivery method of course content (categorized as “teaching support”) factors substantially into
faculty members’ autonomy perceptions. Though their study focused on faculty members at
community colleges they compared their findings for community college faculty members
against those for faculty members at 4-year, doctoral degree-granting research institutions and
found that perceptions of teaching support were significantly positively correlated with
perceptions of faculty autonomy in that demographic as well. This was in keeping with an earlier
study on teacher autonomy and stress which indicated a negative correlation between academic
25
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

autonomy as a component of teaching autonomy in general and job-related stress (Pearson &
Moomaw, 2005) and an earlier study by Friedman (1999) which indicated development of
academic content as one of four key “areas of functioning [that] were pertinent to teachers’ sense
of autonomy at work” (p. 58). Wilson (1993) conducted research to construct the Self-
Empowerment Index (SEI) in recognition of the importance of teachers having opportunities for
autonomous expression, and their study on teachers’ perceived control and well-being led
Grenville-Cleave and Boniwell (2012) to conclude, in keeping with Ryan and Deci (2000a,
2000b) that a sense of autonomy is indeed a basic psychological need. In her review of the
literature concerning teachers’ autonomy, Parker (2015) cited dissertations by Khmelkov (2000)
and Losos (2000) as support for concluding that “autonomy plays a central role within teacher
motivation” (p. 25). As autonomy is a crucial factor for motivation in many work situations
(Gagné & Deci, 2005), it is reasonable to assume that the same can be said for academic
administrators, many of whom are also faculty members.
Control over development and assessment of academic programs is key to faculty
members’ and administrators’ perceived autonomy and sense of self-determination, and is now
being incorporated into the accreditation process (Harvey, 2004). The installation of the above-
referenced legislation is evidence of the reduction of institutional self-regulation and, by
extension, the self-regulation and self-determination of faculty members and administrators,
which, in turn, could have a negative impact on faculty members’ and administrators’ intrinsic
motivation and autonomous orientation.
26
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Maintaining Accreditation
Becoming accredited is not a one-time endeavor. Gaining and maintaining accreditation
involves an ongoing cycle of evaluation (Eaton, 2012). The first step in the process is for an
institution to complete a self-study in which faculty and staff perform an assessment of how well
the institution has met and is meeting its objectives in accordance with its mission statement
(Brittingham, 2009). This requires the collection and analysis of huge amounts of data and
documentation reflecting—among other things—student achievement and learning outcomes,
including reviews of both academic and student support-related programs (Eaton, 2013). A
report is compiled and submitted to the institution’s accrediting agency and reviewed by a team
of assessors (Eaton, 2012). After the team reviews the self-study report a site visit is arranged for
the team to visit the university and conduct its own review in person to determine the degree to
which the self-study report reflects an accurate institutional assessment (Eaton, 2012). After the
site visit the visiting team submits its own report to the accrediting agency indicating the extent
to which the team agrees with the institution’s self-assessment and outlining recommendations
for changes to be made (Eaton, 2012). These recommendations must be accommodated in order
Accreditation-related influence on academic
focus and evaluation of outcomes
Control over academic focus
and evaluation of outcomes
Faculty and
Administrators
Autonomous
Orientation
Faculty and
Administrators
External
Regulation
Figure 1 Theorized effect of accreditation on motivational states as
reflected by perceived source of regulation
27
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

for the institution to gain or maintain accreditation. Because of the authority and leverage that
accreditors have as a result of their role as gatekeepers for the distribution of federal funding
including student financial aid monies, higher education institutions “all too often have a ‘gun to
the head’ and must acquiesce to accreditors’ demands to retain their accredited statuses” (Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions [HELP], 2015, p. 14). This adds credence to
the question of whether participation in accreditation is truly voluntary.
Accreditation Adversely Affecting Autonomy
One of the stated objectives of accreditation is to protect the autonomy of educational
institutions (and presumably, by extension, academic administrators and faculty members), but
reports indicate that that may not be the case. A 2012 report to the U.S. Secretary of Education
by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) included
testimony stating that accreditation “seriously undermines institutional autonomy” (p. 14). The
report also included statements from a number of accredited institutions attesting that
“accrediting staffs have started to substitute their own regulatory agendas for those of colleges
and universities” (p. 14). NACIQI (2012) also references written testimony from then-president
of Dartmouth College Jim Yong Kim which “raised concerns that accreditation staff often
substitute their own judgment for that of an institution’s trustees and administrators” (p. 14). This
behavior is attributed to or deemed to be a consequence or outcome of accreditors’ role as
arbiters of financial aid distribution. NACIQI (2012) states that “the ability to permit or withhold
federal funds [is] a matter of life and death for institutions” (p. 12). This situation creates
opportunities for accreditors or accreditation teams to be “overly prescriptive, intrusive, and
sometimes usurp institutional autonomy” (HELP, 2015, p. 14) Included in decisions made by
accreditors that may be deemed intrusive or overly prescriptive are those made regarding
28
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

institutions’ learning objectives for students and academic programs (HELP, 2015). Determining
educational objectives and deciding how best to achieve them is the purview of an institution’s
administration and faculty, traditionally. Academic changes made in connection with
accreditation reasonably could be viewed as impinging on faculty and administrators’ sense of
autonomy. It is possible that accreditation-related prescriptions on academic content
development and learning objectives are, at least partly, an outcome of the emphasis on insuring
“academic quality” emphasized by the most recent reauthorizations of the HEA mentioned
earlier. Whatever the impetus, again, it reasonably can be seen how these prescriptions could be
perceived as impinging on faculty members’ and administrators’ autonomous orientation.

Stages of Externally Motivated Behavior

Stages of Externally Motivated Behavior
Autonomy is not an all-or-nothing proposition; there are levels or degrees of autonomy
that may be incorporated even within extrinsically motivated behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Deci
& Ryan, 2008a). Ryan and Deci (2000) identify these stages as external regulation, introjected
regulation (or introjection), identified regulation (or identification), and integrated regulation (or
integration). Beyond integration is intrinsic regulation; intrinsic regulation is considered to be
indicative of intrinsic motivation, which instigates autonomous behavior (Deci, 1975).
PA PA
Perceived Autonomy
[PA]
Faculty and
Administrators
Academic
Focus and
Evaluation
Faculty and
Administrators
Accreditation
Recommendations
Academic
Focus and
Evaluation
Autonomous
Orientation
External
Regulation
Figure 2 Theorized effect of accreditation on perceived autonomy and
corresponding motivational states
29
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

External regulation is considered to incorporate a degree of autonomy because behavior
is enacted based on a choice to act in compliance with a directive, generally to receive a reward
or avoid a punishment. So while a subject has chosen to perform a particular behavior, doing so
may not be in congruence with the subject’s core values and sense of self or provide a sense of
innate satisfaction, so it does not benefit the individual on an internal level. For this reason,
external regulation does not contribute to a sense of general well-being and is not conducive to
fostering a sense of autonomy.
Introjected regulation is slightly higher rated on the autonomy scale than external
regulation because compliance also is chosen based on gaining positive or avoiding negative
outcomes or consequences. In the case of introjection those outcomes or consequences are
internal in nature, in the form of feelings of guilt or anxiety, for example, for not complying, or,
on the “positive” side, pride in having complied. Individuals perform introjectedly regulated
behaviors based on externally influenced perceptions of what should or should not be done,
which generally is a function of ego (Ryan, 1982), not congruence with the individual’s
underlying values and beliefs. For this reason, introjected regulation is not considered to be a
contributor to increasing a sense of autonomy and general well-being.
Figure 3 The types of motivation and regulation within self-determination
theory, along with their placement along the continuum of relative self-
determination Source: Deci & Ryan (2008a)
30
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

The next step on the spectrum from externally regulated extrinsic motivation to intrinsic
motivation is identified regulation, or identification, which is what the name suggests: a subject
engages in a behavior because she or he is able to identify with its underlying regulation. While
the regulation may not be completely congruent with the subject’s core beliefs and values, it does
align with them significantly. The individual sees value in accepting the regulation and enacting
the related behavior. Because of this alignment with the subject’s core beliefs, identified
regulation is considered to be a contributor to a sense of general well-being and within the realm
of autonomy and intrinsic motivation.
The form of extrinsic motivation that incorporates autonomy to the greatest degree is
identified as integrated regulation, or integration. At this stage of extrinsic motivation,
individuals develop deeper appreciation for regulations that initially were accepted via
identification to the point where the regulations become assimilated into their self-concept. As
stated by Ryan and Deci (2000), it comes “into congruence with [the individual’s] other values
and needs” (p. 73). Because of this alignment with the subject’s core beliefs, integrated
regulation also is considered to be a contributor to a sense of autonomy and general well-being.
Motivation, Autonomous Behavior, and Self-Determination
Motivation: A Brief Historical Overview
The study of motivation dates back to the early 20
th
century. In the interest of discovering
and understanding determinants of behavior, early studies used animal subjects for
experimentation (Graham & Weiner, 1996). The predominant thinking was that motivation was
what caused organisms to take action in order to fulfill basic needs (Maslow, 1943), and
biological needs are among the easiest needs to manipulate, such as the needs to eat, drink, and
sleep. In order to activate these innate needs, subjects needed to be placed in a state of
31
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

deprivation, which was an unacceptable practice for studies involving human subjects; hence, the
early reliance on animal experimentation (Graham & Weiner, 1996). It is through observations
of animal behavior during this experimentation that the concept of cognition came into play.
Based on observations by Montgomery (1954) and Butler and Harlow (1957), respectively, that
both monkeys and rats appeared to engage in exploratory activities simply for the sake of
exploration, White (1959) theorized that these findings may have implications for the existence
of a cognitive element to motivation.
Autonomous Behavior
deCharms (1968) contributed to the literature about motivation with his writings on
personal causation, lending theoretical support to the idea of there being a cognitive element to
motivation with his proposition of the way in which ordinary people—meaning non-
psychologists—tend to explain human behavior. He states, “The layman assumes that a human
being, under normal circumstances and with limits, chooses to act in the way he does. If you
want to know why a man did something, you look for an explanation that is uniquely associated
with him as a person. … In terms of causes, the layman takes it for granted that a
person causes his own behavior,…” (p.3). Following this line of thinking, personal causation
also lends theoretical support to the concept of autonomous behavior, which is a key component
in the concept of self-determination and autonomous orientation.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
It is difficult to determine exactly when the terms intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
motivation were first officially stated, but they were utilized extensively in the 1970s and 1980s
and have become fixtures in the psychological nomenclature. This largely is due to the work of
researchers Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci, who have written extensively on the topics of
32
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation together, with others, and individually. They credit White
(1959) as having been the first to acknowledge “the phenomenon of intrinsic motivation” (Ryan
& Deci, 2000a, p. 56). Intrinsic motivation is the impetus for engaging in an activity or enacting
a behavior simply for the inherent enjoyment or satisfaction of doing so (Deci, 1975). The
opposite of extrinsic motivation, in cases of which behavior is dictated or significantly
influenced by factors or circumstances external to the individual and largely outside their control,
intrinsic motivation is free of any external pressures such as punishments or rewards. Numerous
studies have documented the connection between intrinsic motivation and self-determination and
optimal performance and well-being across many domains, including athletics (Gagné, Ryan, &
Bargmann, 2003), education (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; Vallerand et al., 1993),
politics (Koestner, Losier, Vallerand, & Carducci, 1996), and volunteerism (Bidee et al., 2013),
as well as across cultures (Deci et al., 2001; Ryan et al., 1999; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste,
De Witte, & Lens, 2008; Wichmann, 2011). Optimal performance involves such outcomes and
benefits as increased and enhanced persistence, performance, well-being, and engagement
(Sheldon & Elliot, 1998; Macey & Schneider, 2008). When exposed to autonomy-supportive
coaching methods, athletes demonstrated greater engagement and persistence in practice, which
led to improved performance. Similarly, when students experience a sense of competence and
volition with regard to their education they also exhibit greater persistence and engagement
leading to greater conceptual understanding as well as personal development. When given more
choice over how they choose to be of service volunteers demonstrated an increase in hours spent
volunteering, and individuals who develop a sense of identification with a political issue (see
Stages of Externally Motivated Behavior, discussed previously herein) not only are more likely
to vote, but do so more autonomously and with more authenticity. Such demonstrations of
33
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

enhanced performance and increased engagement lend support to the reports of the benefits of
intrinsic motivation and self-determination (Moller, Deci, & Ryan, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2008a,
2008b.)
Self-Determination
In 1985, Deci and Ryan presented self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985)
as a framework for assessing the state of intrinsic motivation. Under the precepts of SDT, in
order for intrinsic motivation to be activated or present, three inherent psychological needs must
be met: the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Research has shown that of these
three needs, the most important or pressing need is the need for autonomy (Fisher, 1978; Ryan,
1982; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Without a sense of autonomy it is not possible to reach a state of
intrinsic motivation (deCharms, 1968; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2008b). Also, if autonomy is taken
away, existing intrinsic motivation fades. Research has shown this to be the case (Deci, 1971). It
reasonably follows that the inhibition of autonomous behavior due to the presence of significant
external regulation could have a significant negative impact on intrinsic motivation. Faculty
members and administrators forced to comply with standards set by accrediting agencies in order
to attain or maintain accreditation could face just such a situation.
SDT has been tested and utilized extensively in studies of work motivation as individuals
in work situations frequently are engaged in externally motivated behavior. Deci, Connell, and
Ryan (1989) conducted a study of self-determination in a work organization spanning 18 months
in which they reviewed data from nearly 1,000 employees, technicians and managers, working at
a company that sells and services office equipment. Interactions between managers and the
employees who reported to them were assessed using three instruments: the Problems at Work
Questionnaire (PAW) which the authors adapted for this study from the Problems at School
34
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

questionnaire (PAS; Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981); the Work Climate Survey
(WCS) also developed for this study by the authors, adapted from the Job Diagnostic Survey
(Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1976); and an Employee Attitude Survey designed and administered
by the company’s personnel department. The researchers concluded that, when potentially more
salient issues such as inadequate pay or lack of job security were not factors, “the experience of
self-determination…promoted by [managers’] autonomy-supportive [behavior] has positive
ramifications” (p. 589) for people’s experiences in the workplace. These findings were supported
by a similar study involving 184 French Canadian full-time workers (Blais & Briére, 1992) in
which managers’ controlling behaviors were found to decrease the experience of self-
determination, general work satisfaction, and the quality of work life.
In a study of intrinsic need satisfaction in work settings, Baard, Deci, and Ryan (2004)
reported that satisfaction of the intrinsic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (e.g.,
the experience of a sense of self-determination) exhibited a positive correlation with employees’
personal development and performance evaluations. The study was conducted with data received
from 528 employees at a major investment banking firm who completed the General Causality
Orientations Scale (GCOS) devised by Ryan and Deci (1985) to measure autonomy orientation;
the Problems at Work (PAW) questionnaire devised by Deci, Connell, and Ryan (1989) to assess
perceived managerial support for autonomy; the Intrinsic Need Satisfaction (INS) scale
presented by Leone (1995) to assess the level of satisfaction of intrinsic needs; and the General
Health Questionnaire (GHQ) devised by Goldberg and Hillier (1979) to measure levels of
anxiety and depression. Within the study population it was determined that when managers
exhibited autonomy-supportive behaviors their employees’ psychological well-being and
performance improved.
35
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Gagné, Senecal, and Koestner (1997) performed an assessment of 199 employees
(technicians, sales reps, clerks, and managers) at a telemarketing company utilizing the Job
Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1975), Spreitzer’s (1992) Empowerment Scale, and the
Work Motivation Scale developed by Blais, Lachance, Briere, Riddle, and Vallerand (1993) and
also found that feelings of autonomy were positively associated with intrinsic motivation to a
significant degree.
De Cooman et al. (2013) incorporated the SDT framework in their study of the
relationship between need satisfaction and autonomous motivation at work and work effort. The
sample consisted of 689 employees of varying age and gender in Northern Belgium working in
service-related industries including education, culture, business support, healthcare, and
development. Participants completed measures including the Work-Related Basic Needs
Satisfaction Scale developed by Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, Soenens, and Lens
(2010) to assess need satisfaction, and the Motivation at Work Scale developed by Gagné,
Forest, Gilbert, Aubé, Morin and Malorni (2010) to assess autonomous motivation. To
summarize the authors’ findings, job characteristics that provided support as opposed to demands
contributed to satisfaction of the basic needs outlined by SDT (autonomy, competence, and
relatedness), which led to the generation of autonomous motivation, both of which were
positively related to desired outcomes including work effort, which is a factor of engagement.
Allan, Autin, and Duffy (2016) incorporated SDT into their study of meaningful work.
The population for the study consisted of 339 adults who lived in the United States and worked
at least part time. Study participants completed four assessment instruments online, including the
Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS; Tremblay, Blanchard, Taylor, Pelletier,
& Villeneuve, 2009) which measures work-related motivation according to the spectrum
36
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

identified in SDT (amotivation, external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation,
integrated regulation, and intrinsic motivation). In the study, SDT was utilized in conjunction
with the Psychology of Working Framework to test a model of meaningful work examining
social class and work volition. As self-determination is a key contributor to giving work meaning
(Allan, Autin, & Duffy, 2016) the authors chose to measure self-determination as indicated by
work motivation. In this study the authors reported a high correlation between meaningful work
and internal regulation, stating that the perception of autonomy is a key aspect of motivation,
which is consistent with other research on or incorporating SDT. (In their analysis the authors
included intrinsic motivation, integrated motivation, identified motivation, and introjected
motivation in a single factor of “internal regulation”.)
Shu (2015) also incorporated SDT and the WEIMS in an examination of employee
engagement. The purpose of Shu’s (2015) study was to investigate the mitigating effect of
intrinsic motivation on employee engagement in relation to contrasting styles of leadership:
authentic vs. authoritarian. Utilizing a snowball sampling method, 700 workers in Taiwan (350
pairs of supervisors and subordinates) were selected and completed questionnaires. Supervisors
rated their subordinate’s work engagement using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9;
Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006), and subordinates were given questions relating to their
supervisor’s leadership style and their own work motivation. Leadership styles were assessed
using the Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI; Neider & Schriesheim, 2011) and an
Authoritarian Leadership instrument developed by Cheng, Chou, and Farh (2000). The WEIMS
was used to assess the subordinates’ work motivation. While it was not the study’s main focus,
findings were consistent with other research indicating that intrinsic motivation as outlined and
measured by SDT is positively correlated with desirable work-related outcomes such as
37
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

enhanced engagement. In addition, Duffy, Blustein, Diemer, and Autin (2016), in presenting
their Psychology of Working Theory (PWT), recognized the connection between rewarding work
experiences and satisfaction of the need for self-determination and autonomy.
Some research on motivation in work situations has focused on motivational profiles
based on the stages of motivation presented by self-determination theory. Profiles reflect the
continuum of motivation from autonomous motivation to controlled motivation. This person-
centered approach grew out of the realization that more than one form of motivation may be
active in individuals, especially in work situations (Moran, Diefendorff, Kim, & Liu, 2012).
Research on motivational profiles supports the findings of other research based on self-
determination theory indicating the importance of autonomy and self-determination in
engendering the most beneficial motivational states. Workers in motivational profile studies who
reported the highest levels of perceived autonomy exhibited or reported higher levels of well-
being, noticeably improved performance of work-related behaviors, greater need satisfaction,
more favorable perceptions of the work environment, more job satisfaction, increased
engagement and enthusiasm for work, and less strain and indications of burnout (Moran et al.,
2012; Van den Broeck, Lens, De Witte, & Van Coillie, 2013; Howard, Gagné, Morin, & Van
den Broeck, 2016).
Olafsen (2017) discovered a correlation between self-determination and the concept of
mindfulness. Mindfulness involves being aware and attentive throughout the course of an
experience. This results in being conscious of what is happening in each moment of time as it is
happening. For this reason, it also is referred to as being present (Brown & Ryan, 2003).
Research has shown that mindfulness can have positive effects on well-being and even health
(Brown, Ryan & Creswell, 2007). There also are indications that mindfulness can positively
38
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

affect work situations (Glomb et al., 2011). Studies have shown that mindfulness can improve
performance by supporting better judgment and problem-solving strategies (Kiken & Shook,
2011; Ostafin & Kassman, 2012). It also supports job satisfaction and work engagement
(Hulsheger et al., 2013; Leroy et al., 2013). Brown and Ryan’s (2003) research indicates a
relation between mindfulness and autonomous regulation; their findings are supported by
Olafsen’s (2017) research. In a longitudinal analysis in which data was collected four times over
a period of 15 months Olafsen (2017) determined that work climates in which the basic needs
posited by self-determination theory are met also support state mindfulness, which affords the
benefits shown above. When individuals feel a sense of autonomy in their work they are better
able to be present in the moment and focus on reaching work-related goals.
In addition to showing how the presence of self-determination supports the activation of
mindfulness and its inherent benefits, Olafsen teamed with four other researchers to explore “the
dark side of work” using self-determination theory as a framework. Olafsen, Niemiec, Halvari,
Deci, and Williams (2017) examined the occurrence of stress in work situations in which the
psychological needs posited by self-determination theory were not simply unmet, but were
actually thwarted. The authors define this as need frustration, which “follows from an active
thwarting of the basic psychological needs” (p. 276). Olafsen et al. (2017) state that when faced
with “psychological demands represented by higher performance standards…employees may
perceive the workplace as need thwarting rather than need supportive, and as a result may
experience stress at work” (p. 275). The results of a longitudinal analysis indicated that the
experience of need frustration in work situations leads to individuals experiencing stress in the
workplace. Research has shown that stress in the workplace is associated with poor health and
ill-being, which in turn have been associated with reduced productivity, utilization of less
39
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

effective decision-making strategies, and increased absenteeism, all of which have undesirable
consequences for organizations (Ganster & Rosen, 2013). The external regulation of complying
with standards set by accrediting agencies could result in faculty members and administrators
experiencing need frustration.
Research has demonstrated the inverse relationship between self-determination and
intrinsic motivation, and external regulation. In the realm of higher education one of the most
significant sources of external regulation is the process of accreditation.
Conclusion: The Foundation for this Dissertation
Harvard University may have initiated the first external review of higher education in
America voluntarily, but there is a question as to whether the system of accreditation that grew
out of that initial assessment still is voluntary. Accreditation status has become a prerequisite for
colleges and universities being eligible to receive substantial federally based financial benefits
such as grants to conduct research and federal student aid to pay tuition.
Research and institutional reports have indicated that institutions of higher education
have no choice but to participate in the process of accreditation if they want to become and
remain eligible to receive necessary resources in the form of federal funding and student
financial aid. Although institutional autonomy is ostensibly protected by the process of
accreditation, in order to maintain accredited status institutions are required to comply with
standards set by accrediting agencies. Perhaps in response to increasing responsibility placed on
these agencies to hold colleges and universities accountable for student outcomes, accrediting
agencies sometimes set standards that may affect institutions’ academic practices. As academic
oversight traditionally is handled by faculty and academic administrators, and has been indicated
to be an important component of faculty autonomy, which is in turn a key contributor to
40
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

maintaining a healthy state of motivation, it reasonably may be theorized that complying with
standards of this nature set by accrediting agencies in order to attain or maintain accreditation
may have adverse effects on faculty members’ and administrators’ motivational states. The state
of motivation is important because research has shown motivation to be a reliable indicator of
desirable outcomes such as increased well-being, persistence, and engagement across a number
of life domains, including education and the workplace. This review of the literature provides the
foundation for the study presented in this dissertation.

41
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Study Design
This study was designed to examine faculty members’ and administrators’ perceived
autonomy and motivational states in regard to participating in the process of accreditation.
Efforts to understand others’ perceptions are well-suited to the use of qualitative research
methods (Creswell, 2014; Patton, 1990). In qualitative methods the researcher analyzes the
subject’s own words and/or behavior to make inferences in the effort to perhaps document and
present to others the subject’s frame of reference, or to answer a research question. Words
spoken may be recorded and transcribed, or the words may be written by study participants or
subjects, as in the case of diary studies. Either way the words become data that can be examined.
This study was conducted utilizing the technique of content analysis to review such data. The
data consisted of written communication in the form of audio/visual data and relevant
documents.
The design of this study could best be described as a phenomenological content analysis.
Phenomenological research seeks to interpret or understand the perceptions of individuals who
have experienced particular phenomena through “the analysis of significant statements”
(Creswell, 2014, p. 196). These phenomena can include circumstances such as participation in
processes or events. Content analysis also involves analyzing statements, often in the form of
typed or written text (Stemler, 2001). Content analysis is the method of analysis that was most
appropriate for this study in light of the type of data that was most abundant and most readily
accessible, specifically, audio/visual materials in the form of email correspondence, along with
documents pertaining to the context. Also, content analysis has been recognized as being very
useful in organizational settings for assessing cognition at several organizational levels (Duriau,
42
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Reger, & Pfarrer, 2007). While this study was conducted at an institute of higher education, its
intent was to examine the effects of an institutional practice on members of an organization.
An Overview of Content Analysis
Holsti (1968) described content analysis as any technique that makes inferences about
communication content by identifying characteristics of messages in a systematic and objective
manner. Weber (1990) said that content analysis is a methodology by which a researcher
examines and interprets text to make valid inferences about messages themselves, the audiences
for messages, or about messages’ senders. In their paper on applying linguistics to social science
research Cheng, Fleischmann, Wang, and Oard (2008) reference McKee (2003) when stating,
“The use of content analysis as a research methodology is an example of the use of language to
study human cognition and communication. The methodology is based on the assumption that
the analysis of text is a way for researchers to understand how people make sense of the world
around them” (p. 3). All of these definitions lend credence to the practice of seeking to
understand individuals’ perceptions of an experience through the analysis of text.

The earliest accounts of the systematic practice of deciphering the implicit meanings of
written communication date back to the late 1600s when the Church began examining
nonreligious printed materials to determine whether they posed a threat to the Church’s authority
43
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

(Krippendorff, 2004). During the late 1800s and early 1900s researchers such as Speed (1893),
Wilcox (1900), Street (1909), and Fenton (1910) employed content analysis in their studies of
journalism and newspapers (Krippendorff, 2004). The practice of content analysis also was
utilized during World War II when the U.S. government funded an endeavor to examine
propaganda produced by the country’s adversaries. Prasad (2008) states, this is when “[t]he
development of content analysis as a full-fledged scientific method took place” (p. 173). With
the publication of Bereleson’s (1952) work, Content analysis in Communication Research,
content analysis received recognition as a useful technique for research in the social sciences as
well as media (Prasad, 2008). Content analysis became more popular for the study of
communication by social scientists following the publication of work done by Wimmer and
Dominick (1994).
In their review of content analysis in organizational studies, Duriau, Reger, and Pfarrer
(2007) reference the works of Carley (1997), Huff (1990), and Kabanoff (1996) when stating that
the use of content analysis allows researchers to “access deep individual or collective structures
such as values, intentions, attitudes, and cognitions” (p. 6). This supports the use of this
methodology to assess motivational states of individuals within an organization.
While much of the research utilizing content analysis was conducted using newspapers,
annual reports and other types of “formal” or published documents, email exchanges also have
been examined using content analysis. Sittig (2003) and White, Moyer, Stern, & Katz (2004)
used content analysis in their respective studies of email exchanges between patients and their
doctors and between patients and their health care providers. Svartvatten, Segerlund, Dennhag,
Andersson, & Carlbring (2015) also used content analysis to analyze emails exchanged between
behavior therapy counselors and their clients. White et al. (2004) were examining message
44
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

clarity and the extent to which messages sent were received with the senders’ intent. Svartvatten
et al. (2015) were examining the effectiveness of therapy delivered completely via the internet.
The Sittig (2003) study examined the content of email messages sent to physicians by their
patients to gauge the types of requests that were made and the types of information physicians
shared via email, as well as response time and the lengths of both inquiry messages and
responses. The 2004 and 2015 studies were completed with samples of thousands, while the
2003 study was significantly smaller (15 messages each from five physicians) and not
generalizable, but no less valid.
Using email exchanges as study data capitalizes on one of the major benefits of content
analysis, which is its unobtrusiveness (Krippendorff, 2004; Prior, 2014). The messages were
exchanged between the subjects or individuals relevant to the study without the potential
interference of concerns of having their words judged by an outside party. It also alleviates the
concern that annual reports, publications, and similar documents are produced with a bias toward
a particular audience (Duriau, Regger, & Pfarrer, 2007). Utilizing content analysis of email
exchanges between relevant parties in concert with review of both internally and externally
generated pertinent documents proved sufficient to support an assessment of motivational states
in relation to the accreditation process and specified outcomes.
The Sample
The sample for this study was comprised of 18 full-time undergraduate faculty members
and five (5) academic administrators at a large, private research university located in the
southwestern United States who were directly involved in the university’s last accreditation
assessment. Their direct involvement was in the context of being faculty administrators or
serving on the steering committee dedicated to coordinating the university’s efforts to complete
45
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

the accreditation assessment. The sample was both purposeful and convenient: purposeful
because the members of the sample population met the study criteria, and convenient in terms of
access for the researcher.
The administrators were senior-level members of the university’s provost’s office: the
vice provost of academic affairs and vice president for academic planning and budget; the
associate provost for academic affairs; an assistant vice provost; the associate vice provost for
undergraduate programs; and the associate dean of undergraduate programs. Four were male, one
was female. The average length of experience working in positions related to accreditation was
five (5) years with the shortest term being two (2) years and the longest being ten (10) years.
The faculty members were part of a steering committee dedicated to coordinating the
accreditation assessment for the university. The committee consisted of thirty-one (31) members
representing 11 of the 19 schools that comprised the university. Eleven (11) of the faculty
members were male and seven (7) were female. Among them, eight (8) were full professors, five
(5) were associate professors, three (3) were assistant professors, one (1) was an emeritus
professor, and one (1) was an adjunct assistant professor.
The Content
When conducting a content analysis of text there are two main forms of content to
consider: manifest content and latent content (Abbott & McKinney, 2013). Manifest content is
the factual data contained in the text, such as the actual words. An example of manifest content
could be the way a subject is referenced, such as “President Bush”, “W”, or simply “the
president”. Latent content is the implicit meaning that may be inferred from the text. In the
preceding example, the reference “President Bush” could infer a degree of respect, the reference
“W” could infer a more favorable disposition that goes beyond mere professional respect, and
46
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

the reference “the president” could infer an intention on the part of the writer to establish a sense
of distance from the subject. The inference of meaning implied by communication also is
influenced by the context. The present study was focused on identifying and classifying the
latent content contained in a collection of texts.
The content that was utilized for this study consisted primarily of email correspondence
exchanged over the course of three years. The collected emails included messages between
faculty members at a university in the process of undergoing an accreditation assessment;
between faculty members and faculty who also served as university administrators (faculty
administrators); and between faculty administrators and representatives of the accrediting agency
(see Figure 5). The university already was accredited and was seeking reaccreditation. Access to
the content was gained through a faculty member at the university who, during the period of time
covered in this study, also served as a university administrator. The correspondence was
provided in a zip file containing 263 messages. Of those 263 messages, 43 were found to have
content relevant to the focus of this analysis. Additional content in the form of meeting minutes
also was provided for analysis. This amount of data is consistent with Krippendorff’s (2004)
characteristic description of qualitative content analysis as “a close reading of relatively small
amounts of textual matter” (p. 17). Those email messages and documents (collectively, the
content), were reviewed and coded according to the methodology described further along in this
chapter.

Figure 5 Flow of communication in email correspondence
Faculty
Members
Faculty
Administrators
Accrediting Agency
Representatives
47
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

The Coding Process
The coding process for this study was informed by self-determination theory (Deci &
Ryan, 1985). Segments of text in email correspondence and relevant documents were the units of
analysis for this study.
Initial Coding
Utilizing the generic coding method described by Saldana (2009), the first cycle of
coding employed a combination of coding methods, both descriptive coding and in vivo coding
(Saldana, 2009), to assign labels to passages of text that described the cognitive disposition of
the writer as perceived by the researcher. In vivo codes were created based on words used by
study subjects (Saldana, 2009). Guided by self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985),
descriptive codes generated by the researcher were based on whether identified statements
indicated the perception of or support of autonomy, or the absence of such, on the part of the
communicator (Lichtman, 2014).
Descriptive/In Vivo Codes
Adaptation/Acquiescence – This code is partially in vivo, taken from a comment about
“adapting to the profile set forth” by the visiting committee. It is further modified by a
description of the affect it is perceived to imply. This code was applied to comments that
indicated a mindset of going along with whatever was asked by the accrediting agency or its
representatives. It indicates a focus on meeting the requirements for accreditation, so comments
with this code were tallied under the primary category of External Regulation and correlated with
the secondary category of Choice, with choice of action or attention being either influenced or
imposed.
48
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Assertiveness/Initiative – This code was applied to comments that indicated a mindset of
being assertive and taking initiative, or asserting ideas or opinions. One such comment referred
to the university seemingly having “beat [the accrediting agency] to the punch” with regard to
contacting a potential member of the visiting committee. Several others contained expressions of
opinions of what information should be reported to the accrediting agency and its
representatives, and how. Comments with this code were tallied under the primary code of
Autonomous Orientation and correlated with the secondary category of Choice.
AutoDefensive – This code was applied to comments that indicated a mindset of
protecting or defending a sense of autonomy. It was reflected in comments such as, “We can
keep our dignity and philosophy of teaching…” and “…I don’t think that the university should
passively fit itself to whatever profile [the accrediting agency] wants to impose.” It also was
reflected in comments about recognizing or calling attention to efforts that were already being
made that could satisfy the requirements for accreditation, such as, “I think that this committee
should concentrate on compiling information on what is already happening at [the university] in
the way of learner-centered teaching…” Comments with this code were tallied under the primary
category of Autonomous Orientation and correlated with the secondary categories of Choice and
Recognition.
Autonomy Support – This code was applied to comments that indicated autonomy-
supportive behavior on the part of the accrediting agency or its representatives. These comments
included references to things such as the accrediting agency’s goal of having the accreditation
process be “aligned with institutional priorities”; recognizing the university’s efforts in meeting
its educational objectives; and inviting the general faculty to meet with their representatives and
take part in the accreditation process. Comments with this code were tallied under the primary
49
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

category of Autonomous Orientation, as they expressed efforts that, according to theory, would
have supported the autonomous orientation of faculty members and academic administrators.
The comments were correlated with the secondary categories of Recognition and Participation.
External Regulation – This code was applied to comments that indicated the presence of
external regulation and a focus on meeting the requirements for accreditation. A, if not the, prime
example of such a comment is: “…one of the main purposes is becoming accredited, which is
something we have to do…” It also was reflected in comments referencing tasks that needed to
be completed, decisions that were made, and areas of focus which were chosen with the purpose
of meeting the requirements of the accreditation process. Comments with this code were tallied
under the primary category of External Regulation and correlated with the secondary category of
Choice, with choice of action or attention being either influenced or imposed.
Involving Colleagues – This descriptive code was applied to comments that indicated
efforts to engage colleagues other than those working directly with accreditation in the
accreditation process. Faculty members were invited to review documents that were drafted for
submission to the accrediting agency and its representatives and asked for input on the
documents’ content. They also were invited to meet with representatives of the agency during the
visitation segment of the process. Involving members of the extended university community was
perceived as a means of preserving institutional autonomy, which was indicative of an
autonomous orientation on the part of faculty members and academic administrators. Comments
with this code were tallied under the primary category of Autonomous Orientation and correlated
with the secondary categories of Choice and Participation.
Non-Adversarial/Non-Confrontational – This code is in vivo, taken from comments about
not being adversarial with the accrediting agency. These comments were perceived to be
50
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

indicative of a mindset of not wanting to be assertive for fear of being seen as adversarial or
confrontational and incurring the ire of the accrediting agency. For this reason it was determined
that these comments indicated the presence of external regulation. Comments with this code
were tallied under the primary category of External Regulation and correlated with the secondary
category of Choice, with choice of action or attention being either influenced or imposed.
Adaptation/Open to Change – This code is in vivo, based on a comment about making
changes to courses in order to better meet the needs of students. The comment was made in
relation to the prospect of changes being made based on recommendations by the accreditation
agency, which places it in the category of adaptation with the modification of the perceived
affect of being open to change. This affect implies identification with the reasoning for making
the change, which aligns with the motivational state of identification (Ryan & Deci, 2000a).
Therefore, for purposes of analysis in this dissertation, comments identified by this code were
tallied under the primary code of Autonomous Orientation and correlated with the secondary
category of Choice.
Adaptation/Room for Improvement – This code is in vivo, taken from a comment about
there being room for improvement in instruction. As the comment was not made in direct
relation to the prospect of changes being made based on recommendations by the accreditation
agency, it was perceived to be autonomous in nature; it implies an openness to change in the
interest of improving instructional practices, or identification with the need for improved
instruction. As such, it aligns with the definition of the motivational state of identification (Ryan
& Deci, 2000a). For purposes of analysis in this dissertation, comments identified by this code
were tallied under the primary code of Autonomous Orientation and correlated with the
secondary category of Choice.
51
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Utility – This descriptive code was applied to comments that indicated the mindset that
there was some utility to be found in the accreditation process. An example of such a comment
is, “…it’s important…that this not solely be an exercise that we do to become accredited, but it’s
a way for us to think about where we are as an institution and where we want to be.” Another is,
“…it’s an auspicious time to encourage departments and schools to think about whether they are
achieving what they [want] with their academic programs.” These comments indicate that faculty
members and administrators were able to find some alignment between their own professional
values and the accreditation process; the process actually provided a reason to examine how well
they were meeting their goals as an institution. This alignment with values is indicative of
identification (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Therefore, comments with this code were tallied under the
primary category of Autonomous Orientation and correlated with the secondary category of
Choice.
Secondary Coding
The second cycle in the coding process for this study was theoretical coding (Saldana,
2009) informed by self-determination theory also (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The initial codes were
placed into categories identified by the motivational state with which they were most closely
aligned as defined by self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000a). Between intrinsic
motivation, marked by engaging in a behavior simply for the enjoyment or satisfaction inherent
in doing so, and amotivation, which is the failure to engage in a particular behavior, there are
stages of extrinsic motivation defined by the form of regulation which initiates engagement in a
particular behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000a). Those four stages are external regulation, introjected
regulation, identified regulation, and integrated regulation. Identified regulation and integrated
regulation also are referred to, respectively, as identification and integration.
52
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

External regulation is present in situations in which engagement in a behavior is
completely motivated by circumstances outside the individual, and leads to the avoidance of a
punishment or the receipt of a reward. Accreditation represents such a situation. Schools must
participate in the accreditation process if they want to be eligible to receive federal funds
(reward). Once accredited, schools must continue to participate in accreditation to avoid losing
their accredited status and eligibility to receive federal funding (punishment). For schools that
want to be eligible to receive federal funds, not participating in accreditation is not an option.
The other three stages of extrinsic motivation infer that individuals can choose not to
engage in a behavior without incurring external consequences, so engaging in the behavior is of
their own volition. Introjected regulation implies that the individual is engaging in the behavior
for reasons such as avoiding feeling guilty for not doing so or out of a sense of obligation. As
such reasons do not indicate congruence between the behavior and the individual’s core values,
introjected regulation is not considered to be a healthy or desirable form of motivation or
motivational state.
Identification indicates congruence between the individual’s core values and the reasons
for engaging in a behavior. A person experiencing identification engages in a behavior of their
own volition, not to avoid an external punishment or avoid experiencing internal bad feelings.
This being the case, identification is considered to be indicative of autonomous regulation or
autonomous motivation, which is a healthier and more desirable motivational state. The same
applies to integration, the motivational state just shy of intrinsic motivation.
Drawing on this information, the primary categories established in this study for coding
data were based on two of the major delineations of self-determination: External Regulation and
Autonomous Orientation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). External Regulation applied to statements with
53
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

codes indicating that actions were taken or choices were made to meet requirements for
accreditation. Autonomous Orientation applied to statements with codes indicating a sense of
autonomy on the part of the communicator. A third primary category of Autonomy Support was
included for comments regarding support for autonomous orientation that did not originate from
faculty members or academic administrators. The relationships between the codes and primary
categories are depicted in the following table (Table 2).

Figure 6: Codes in relation to Primary Categories
Tertiary Coding
In addition to self-determination theory, research concerning autonomy-supportive
behavior was used to generate secondary classifications as an added measure to ensure the
reliability and validity of coding determinations. In environments such as the workplace the need
54
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

for autonomy can be met when individuals who are subject to others’ influence experience
autonomy-supportive behaviors enacted by their influencers. Research indicates that these
behaviors include being given opportunities for participation, recognition, the ability to make
decisions, and, when possible, a choice of options (Breaugh, 1985; Spreitzer, 1995; Ryan, 1982;
Latham, Winters, & Locke, 1994; Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978; Morgeson &
Humphrey, 2006). Once identified comments were coded according to whether they contained
indications of autonomous orientation or external regulation they were given a second
categorization based on indicators of autonomy-supportive behavior. These indicators also
provided a second lens for analyzing and categorizing statements indicating autonomous
orientation. This second stage of categorization entailed the following:
• Identifying communication indicating that faculty members and/or academic
administrators perceived that they were being given a choice, opportunities for
participation and/or decision making, or that some desired outcome was the result
of action undertaken by faculty members and/or academic administrators of their
own volition/of their choosing/by their own decision
• Identifying communication indicating that the accrediting agency or its
representatives explicitly or implicitly provided faculty members and
administrators the opportunity for choice, opportunities for participation, and/or
opportunities for decision making
• Identifying communication indicating that the accrediting agency or its
representatives explicitly or implicitly acknowledged that some desired outcome
was the result of action undertaken by faculty members and/or the university of
their own volition/of their choosing/by their own decision
55
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

A frequency table was utilized to determine the most prevalent underlying tone of the
content as inferred by a preponderance of one of the primary codes. Doing so provided a
quantitative representation of the qualitative assessment of faculty and administrators’
motivational states.
Codes Secondary Categories

Figure 7: Codes in relation to Secondary Categories

As illustrated in the above figure, nearly every code generated in the analysis was related
to the concept or perception of choice, either positively or negatively. External regulation
indicated that choice was somehow influenced or restricted, or simply not given. Codes
representing instances of acquiescence or the desire to be non-confrontational indicate choice of
action influenced by a sense of introjected motivation. Alternatively, feeling empowered enough
to be assertive and take actions regarding whom to include in the accreditation assessment or
Acquiescence
Choice
Assertiveness
AutoDefensive
Autonomy Support
Decision-Making
External Regulation
Involving Colleagues
Participation
NonConfront
Open to Change
Room to Improve
Recognition
Utility
56
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

make changes in behavior based on identification with the reasoning for the changes are
examples of a belief that one could choose to act of one’s own volition. These observations are in
line with research indicating that choice is a key factor in the perception of autonomy (Deci,
1975; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1995; Ryan, 1995; Gagné, 2003; Wichmann, 2011; Bidee et al., 2013).

Figure 8: Primary Categories in relation to Secondary Categories
Reliability
Assuring reliability and validity in qualitative studies often is challenging, particularly in
instances involving a solo researcher. In order to protect the reliability of such a study, Abbott
and McKinney (2013) state that the researcher must “be diligent in analysis in order to fully and
clearly articulate the patterns, substantiating them with the data” (p. 322). One check on
reliability, they propose, is for the researcher to be cognizant of the type of content on which he
57
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

or she is focusing. As was stated earlier, the present study was focused on the latent content
contained in a collection of texts. Throughout the course of conducting analysis for this study the
researcher was extremely conscious of his analytical focus. This was supported by the guidance
of theory and the use of a priori coding categories, which enabled the researcher to be diligent in
ensuring that all data coded and included in the final analysis was relevant to answering the
research question. The theoretical focus supports the reliability (and validity) of a) the codes that
were generated for the categorization of the data, and b) the resultant assessment of motivational
states.
This coding technique also is consistent with what Weber (1990) referred to as accuracy,
which “refers to the extent to which the classification of text corresponds to a standard or norm”
(p. 120). The primary coding categories were a priori, based on standards established by self-
determination theory, and the assignment of data to either of the primary categories was based on
their corresponding to the theoretically established standard. This corresponds with Weber’s
(1990) definition of accuracy. Weber (1990) states that accuracy “is the strongest form of
reliability” (p. 120). The primary categories also are mutually exclusive, which also increases
reliability (Weber, 1990).
Validity
Abbott and McKinney (2013) identify three factors that possibly can impact the validity
of the findings produced by content analysis. These factors are: deposit bias, survival bias, and
the making of invalid generalizations.
Deposit bias, also referred to as selection bias, comes into play when only a subset of the
materials that could be considered appropriate and relevant to answering the research question
are examined. The researchers give the example of seeking to answer a question about the lives
58
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

of a group of people by reviewing records related to things such as housing, employment, and
even church records, but not reviewing any materials generated by the group members
themselves such as journal entries, email messages, or content that can be found on any number
of social media platforms. The materials reviewed for this study were either generated by the
subject group members (faculty members and administrators) or by others in direct relation to or
communication with them (as opposed to simply being about them), which is the most relevant
documentation to analyze in an effort to answer this study’s guiding research question. However,
while the documentation analyzed for this study was highly pertinent and relevant, it does
represent only a subset of the materials that could be considered relevant. Although the emails
analyzed in this study were generated by several members of the target sample, they were
provided from one person’s records. There may be any number of other relevant communications
transmitted via email to which that individual was not party. Therefore, deposit bias is a concern
with regard to the validity of this study and its findings. However, this concern is moderated by
the inclusion of data from relevant text other than email.
Invalid generalizations occur when researchers try to apply their findings to something
other than the materials that were analyzed. To guard against making invalid generalizations
Abbott and McKinney (2013) advise researchers conducting content analysis to only make
statements that refer to and/or are supported by the unit of analysis. In line with this advice, only
statements supported by the data (or the articulated application of theory) are presented in the
findings for this study. No invalid generalizations which could threaten the validity of this study
and its findings were made.
The third factor that may impact the validity of the findings in a content analysis is
survival bias. Simply put, this occurs when not all of the documents or artifacts that may be
59
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

relevant to a particular study survive and are available to be analyzed. Email can be deleted or
lost, documents may be misplaced or destroyed. The possibility of such indicates that the validity
of this study could be threatened by survival bias. The literature does not suggest a protection
against survival bias. However, it may be theorized that unless and until content is discovered
that challenges the findings of a study, the validity of said study and its findings reasonably
could be supported by the lack of contradictory content. The researcher respectfully presents this
theory in defense of the validity of the present study against survival bias.
Weber (1990) also provides criteria for establishing validity. The first criteria Weber
(1990) lists is face validity, “which consists of the correspondence between investigators’
definitions of concepts and their definitions of the categories that measured them. A category has
validity to the extent that it appears to measure the construct it is intended to measure” (p. 121).
As the categories and concepts measured in this study were based on and taken from self-
determination theory, which is an established and accepted theory, and presuming that the
researcher has demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the concepts presented by the
theory, it may be concluded that data was categorized accurately and the study meets the criteria
for face validity.
Weber (1990) also states that “much stronger validity is obtained by comparing content-
analytic data with some external criterion” (p. 121). One type of external validity, semantic
validity, is established when persons familiar with the terminology that guided the coding would
agree that all data items or recording units placed in the same category are indicative of the same
concept or construct (“have similar meanings or connotations”, p. 121). As the primary
categories in this study were derived from the titles of motivational states identified by self-
determination theory it is reasonable to conclude that persons familiar with the terminology of
60
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

self-determination theory would agree that content items placed in each category do indeed have
similar connotations and meanings, thereby establishing semantic validity.
In the next chapter, the findings of the content analysis are presented in both narrative
and numerical contexts.

61
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine faculty members’ and administrators’
perceived autonomy and motivational states in regard to participating in the process of
accreditation. Specifically, this study was conducted to answer the research question, “How do
faculty members and university administrators perceive accreditation in terms of self-
determination: do they see it as completely externally regulated, or are they able to maintain a
sense of autonomous orientation?” The findings of this study indicate the presence of both
external regulation and autonomous orientation. Results of the analysis are outlined below
illustrating how data were assigned to the primary coding categories.
Narrative Representation
External Regulation
External regulation is a factor in the accreditation process. Institutions must be accredited
in order to receive significant financial benefits. The results of this study indicate that external
regulation clearly was present among faculty members and academic administrators whom
participated directly in the most recent accreditation assessment at the subject institution. One
third of the meaning units recorded during the content analysis indicated the perception of
external regulation among members of the study sample. External regulation was associated with
instances of individuals expressing the belief or opinion that their choices were being controlled
or influenced. A prime example of this is the statement, “…becoming accredited…is something
we have to do…” Several other comments related instances of time, energy, action, and attention
being focused on meeting the requirements of accreditation. One such requirement was
evaluating student learning outcomes. Comments related to meeting this requirement included
faculty members being “willing to add” assessment components to their classes:
62
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

“As we discussed, I will add more of an assessment component to the use of [my class]
next Fall semester… This way I will have more hard data to present to [the accrediting
agency] next time around. As you mentioned, this will be helpful in the accreditation
process that [the university] will be going through in the next couple of years.”
They also included comments by administrators regarding purchasing software to add to
the university’s online classroom management system in order to provide assessment data for
accreditation:
“Blackboard is developing a new institutional assessment product codenamed ‘Caliper’
that may be of interest to [the university] as we move forward with our [accrediting
agency] accreditation.”
There also were comments concerning funding decisions:
“So shall we fund it for this year, while the accreditation continues, and leave open the
future?”
These all are clear examples of the presence of external regulation.
Autonomous Orientation
While one third of the comments analyzed for this study (31%) indicated the presence of
external regulation, the other two thirds (69%) indicated the presence of autonomous orientation.
As was presented in Chapter 1, there are stages of external motivation and regulation that
engender relative degrees of autonomous motivation or orientation according to the degree to
which the external regulation corresponds with an individual’s existing goals and values. If an
external regulation is in sync with an individual’s goals to the point of internalization or
integration, actions taken in relation to or compliance with the external regulation can be
63
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

considered to be autonomous in orientation. Comments analyzed for this study indicate that
faculty members and administrators were able to maintain a sense of autonomous orientation.
The majority of the comments that indicated the presence of a sense of autonomous
orientation (28%) expressed autonomy support on an internal level. They were coded as
“Involving Colleagues” with a secondary categorization of Participation. This support took the
form of including colleagues beyond the accreditation steering committee to participate in the
accreditation assessment process. Participation contributes to an autonomous motivation
orientation (Latham, Winters, & Locke, 1994) and inviting participation and input from
colleagues was perceived as an attempt to preserve institutional autonomy, which was
determined to be an indication of autonomous orientation. Faculty members and administrators
who were not serving on the accreditation steering committee were invited to review documents
intended for submission to the accrediting agency and give input as to what information should
be included in the documents and how it should be presented. Comments indicative of this effort
include:
“I also asked [John] to review [the information] on Effectiveness of Data Gathering and
Analysis Systems with the faculty members.”
“I suggested to [Jane] that her primary role is to make clear that the Academic Senate has
been fully involved in the strategic planning and accreditation processes…”
“Involving the Associate Deans group in the review of the draft Preparatory and Capacity
Review Report, along with the Academic Senate…is a great idea.”
“A current draft of the Capacity Report that will be submitted on behalf of the university
will be delivered to you today or tomorrow. We hope you will have an opportunity to
review the report and bring any suggestions for changes you might have to the
64
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

[scheduled] meeting. … If you have suggestions and cannot attend the meeting, please
send those suggestions directly to [the designated party].”
“…we do want to take [John’s] suggestions on the shift on emphasis…”
The next largest portion of comments that indicated the presence of a sense of
autonomous orientation (25%) were coded as Autonomy Defensive and correlated with the
secondary categories of Choice and Recognition. These comments were perceived by the
researcher as being indicative of a mindset of defending or protecting the communicators’ sense
of autonomy. The comments related to choice pertained to focusing on issues of importance to
faculty, academic administrators, and members of the university community.
“We can keep our dignity and philosophy of teaching…”
“And one thing to keep in mind is not only we align this with what we as a faculty think
are important and where we want to go, but also to leave room (this is a 3 ½ yr. process)
to find more things we want to work on.”
“…we’re trying to get to some of the very large issues that we want to focus on. We’re
trying to talk about some of these issues.”
“I now feel this is a [university] point of view, here are some things we care about…”
The comments related to recognition pertained to calling attention to university efforts
and programs that already were in place and that could be considered to meet the requirements of
accreditation. Recognition of one’s own efforts supports an internal locus of causality (seeing
oneself as the initiator of one’s behavior), which, in turn, is related to creating and maintaining a
sense of autonomy and an autonomous orientation (Deci, Connell, &Ryan, 1989). Examples of
autonomy defensive comments related to recognition include:
65
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

“I think that this committee should concentrate on compiling information on what is
already happening at [the university] in the way of [accreditation standards]…”
“We’re going to be talking shortly on topics of assessment and outcome analysis as well.
And I think that there’s a lot of discussion of best practices. Identifying best practices,
identifying things that are innovative at [the university].”
“I think the document looks great. I think the examples of our programs will illustrate our
programs clearly. … I think it is important to show the long term impact of our programs
on our students.”
“So for a lot of these exemplary programs, we need to be more contentful [sic], we need
to not just list them, we need to actually say what their successes were.”
The next largest portion of comments that indicated the presence of a sense of
autonomous orientation (13%) were coded as Assertiveness and correlated with the secondary
categories of Choice and Participation. Comments related to choice pertained to things such as
taking the initiative to reach out to a faculty member at another university to ask them to serve on
the visiting team representing the accrediting agency and choosing the means by which the
university would be evaluated.
The next portion of comments that indicated the presence of a sense of autonomous
orientation on the part of faculty members and academic administrators, also representing 13
percent of the sample, were those coded as Autonomy Support. These comments were correlated
with the secondary categories of Choice, Participation, and Recognition. Choice was indicated in
comments referring to the fact that members of the university had the option of vetoing
selections for members of the accreditation visiting committee, and that the main purpose of the
accreditation process was to support the university in reaching its educational objectives.
66
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Participation was indicated in comments referring to requests from the accrediting agency’s
representatives to be able to meet with members of the faculty and seeking participation in the
accreditation process from the university community. Recognition was reflected in comments
from the accrediting agency’s representatives recognizing the university’s objectives and
initiatives and supporting their efforts in reaching them.
“…we have distributed a recent article by [a representative of the accrediting agency],
just to give you a sense of how they are explaining their new view of accreditation: the
rhetoric from [the agency] is consistent with letting us pick how we want to be evaluated
and how we want to drive the process.”
“The [accrediting agency] accreditation process is intended to help us document our
progress in developing…strategic capabilities that are defined by the 2004 Strategic
Plan.”
“…[the accrediting agency] wants wide community involvement.”
Following closely behind comments coded as Assertiveness and Autonomy Support were
comments coded as Utility, at 12 percent. These comments were perceived to indicate the
opinion on the part of the communicator that the accreditation process held some utility value.
The recognition or assignation of value to the accreditation process is consistent with the
identification state of motivation, which is consistent with a sense of autonomous orientation.
Comments expressing the recognition of the utility of the accreditation process included:
“…it’s important…that this not solely be an exercise that we do to become accredited,
but it’s a way for us to think about where we are as an institution and where we want to
be.”
“…one thing we can use for our own positive purposes, this review…”
67
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

“With regard to learning assessment, my thought is that perhaps we could use this
process to begin constructing an Assessment Plan that would be flexible and applicable
across units…”
The remaining portion of comments that indicated the presence of a sense of autonomous
orientation (9%) were those coded as Open to Change and Room for Improvement. These
comments were correlated with the secondary category of Choice. These comments were
determined to be indicative of a willingness to make changes in academic-related behaviors.
“In general, it’s becoming clear to me that we do enough things to assess learning but we
haven’t organized them coherently in the form of a definable [university-specific]
approach to learning.”
“We might want to work on getting coherence across courses and experiences for
students.”
“We’re going to need some infrastructure on a couple topics that haven’t been covered
yet but seem very critical. One might be to establish an assessment system or rather
culture that is focused on learning. I think we ought to look at our strategy for helping
units think about these learning expectations.”
Numerical Representation
To answer the research question the researcher conducted a phenomenological content
analysis of content generated by 23 individuals, including five (5) academic administrators and
18 faculty members. This content analysis produced a total of 99 recording units, 68 (68.69%) of
which were indicative of autonomous orientation, and 31 (31.31%) of which were indicative of
external regulation.

68
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Administrators Faculty members

Autonomous External Autonomous External

63
28 18 9 8 A = 37 E = 26
Recording Units
(Email Messages) 46 17

Administrators Faculty members

Autonomous External Autonomous External

36
13 1 18 4 A = 31 E = 5
Recording Units
(Meeting Minutes) 14 22

Administrators Faculty members

Autonomous External Autonomous External

99
41 19 27 12 A = 68 E = 31
Recording Units
(Total) 60 39

Content analysis for this study began with the review of 263 email messages provided, 43
of which were determined to contain relevant content. Of those 43 emails messages 33 were
originated by academic administrators and 10 were originated by faculty members. All
administrators and faculty members included in this sample were working directly with the
accreditation assessment taking place at the subject university during the three-year time span
covered in this study, either as part of their administrative duties or by serving on the
accreditation steering committee. Forty-six (46) recording units were taken from the 33 messages
generated by administrators, and 17 recording units were taken from the 10 messages that were
generated by faculty members, for a total of 63 recording units total taken from email
correspondence. As described earlier in Chapter 3 of this document, following initial descriptive
coding, recording units were organized under one of two main categories: External Regulation or
Autonomous Orientation, corresponding to the respective motivational states as defined by self-
Table 3: Overview of Content Analysis Findings (Autonomous vs. External Regulation)
69
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Of the 63 recording units taken from the email
correspondence provided, 37 (58.73%) were indicative of autonomous orientation, and 26
(41.27%) were indicative of external regulation. With regard to the research question posed by
this study, the data indicate a motivational state reflecting autonomous motivation.

Table 4: Faculty email recording units

Autonomous
Orientation
Autonomy
Support
External
Regulation
Faculty member 1 1
Faculty member 2 1
Faculty member 3 1
Faculty member 4 1
Faculty member 5 1
Faculty member 6 1 1
Faculty member 7 1
Faculty member 8 1
Faculty member 9 2 1
Faculty member 10 3 2

8 1 8

A = 9 E = 8

70
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Table 5: Administrator email recording units

Autonomous
Orientation
Autonomy
Support
External
Regulation
Administrator
1
1
Administrator
2
1
Administrator
3
2 6
Administrator
4
7 2 4
Administrator
5
11 6 6

20 8 18

A = 28 E = 18

In addition to email correspondence, minutes from a meeting of the accreditation steering
committee were reviewed as well. The minutes contained comments from eight (8) faculty
members who were different than the faculty members whose comments were included in the
analysis of email correspondence along with comments from two (2) of the administrators whom
also contributed comments to the email correspondence that was provided for analysis. Thirty-
six (36) comments were taken from the meeting minutes: 14 from the administrators and 22 from
the faculty members. Of the 14 recording units taken from the administrators’ comments 13 were
indicative of autonomous orientation and one (1) was indicative of external regulation. Of the 22
recording units taken from the faculty members’ comments, 18 were indicative of autonomous
orientation and four (4) were indicative of external regulation. Thirty-one (31) of the 36 total
recording units taken from the meeting minutes, or 86 percent, were indicative of autonomous
orientation and five (5) of the 36 total recording units, or 14 percent, were indicative of external
regulation. This is in line with and supports the email-generated data.
71
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Table 6: Meeting minutes recording units

Autonomous
Orientation

Autonomy
Support

External
Regulation

Faculty member 11 1
Faculty member 12 1
Faculty member 13 1
Faculty member 14 3 2
Faculty member 15 8 2
Faculty member 16 2
Faculty member 17 1
Faculty member 18 1

Total 18 4

Administrator 3 10 1 1
Administrator 5 2

10 3 1

Overall Totals 28 3 5

A = 31 E = 5

The findings of this study indicate that the prevailing motivational state among faculty
members and academic administrators who worked directly with the accreditation assessment
conducted at the subject institution during the period covered by this study was reflective of an
autonomous orientation. To answer the research question of “How do faculty members and
university administrators perceive accreditation in terms of self-determination: do they see it as
72
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

completely externally regulated, or are they able to maintain a sense of autonomous orientation?”
more directly, while a degree of external regulation was present, the faculty members and
academic administrators were able to maintain a significantly autonomous orientation.

73
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to answer the question, “How do faculty members and
university administrators perceive accreditation in terms of self-determination: do they see it as
completely externally regulated, or are they able to maintain a sense of autonomous orientation?”
The answer to the question is, as indicated by the findings presented in the preceding chapter,
while external regulation was a factor in the accreditation process, faculty members and
administrators working on accreditation were able to maintain a sense of autonomous
orientation. In this chapter the findings are discussed, along with implications and limitations of
the study. Suggestions for future research are offered, followed by the conclusion of the study.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Work Situations
Intrinsic motivation or regulation involves engaging in an activity purely out of interest
or the enjoyment provided simply by engaging in the activity. Intrinsic motivation is present
when one acts of one’s own volition and experiences a sense of self-determination with regard to
one’s own behavior and therefore is associated with an autonomous orientation. Extrinsic
motivation or regulation—also known as external regulation—involves engaging in an activity
not specifically for any enjoyment of the activity itself, but to obtain a separable outcome, such
as gaining a reward or avoiding a punishment. Even when individuals find their work interesting
or enjoyable, people seek out work and employment for the beneficial outcomes connected with
doing so, such as receiving payment and having benefits. As such, it is, by definition, not
possible to have completely intrinsic motivation in a work situation. Work situations fall under
the domain of external regulation. However, as was discussed in Chapter 1 of this dissertation,
there are stages of external regulation that incorporate varying degrees of autonomous
orientation. An autonomous orientation imparts the benefits associated with intrinsic motivation,
74
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

including greater persistence, “more effective performance and greater health and well-being”
(Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 19).
The findings of this study serve to illustrate the presence of both external regulation and
autonomous orientation in work situations, as the above-referenced research indicates. While
participating in a process that was externally regulated, members of the sample for the study
were able to maintain an autonomous orientation. They did so by reinforcing an internal locus of
control by taking actions that are discussed in further detail below.
These findings are in keeping with what would be expected when examining work-
related motivation via the framework of self-determination theory—especially among
individuals holding jobs that were very intentionally selected, such as faculty members and
administrators in higher education. All work situations involve a degree of external regulation
because the receipt of rewards generally is a significant factor influencing engagement in work-
related behaviors. However, factors such as interest in the work and its outcomes and
identification with the reasons for engaging in work-related behaviors can have a significant
positive impact on work motivation (De Cooman et al., 2013; Shu, 2015; Allan, Autin, & Duffy,
2016). That being the case, the presence of both external regulation and autonomous orientation
was to be expected in the present situation.
Autonomy and Tenure
Research on job tenure, autonomy, and job satisfaction suggests that the salience of
autonomy in the workplace may be related to job tenure in some situations (Denton & Kleiman,
2001). The study was conducted with workers in the service industry and tenure referred to time
on the job as opposed to tenured positions in higher education, but there still may be some
correlation. Time and experience are factors in achieving tenure in higher education, so it is
75
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

reasonable to expect that perceived autonomy in the workplace would be especially relevant for
tenured faculty and that, by extension, tenured faculty would be used to experiencing a certain
level of work-related autonomy. Assuming that to be the case, it stands to reason that a sample of
eighteen (18) faculty members of which fourteen (14) had either achieved tenured status or were
tenure-track generated data indicating the presence of an autonomous motivational state.
Work Motivation and Organizational Justice
Latham and Pinder (2005) identified organizational justice theories as one of the schools
of thought that would influence the study and understanding of work motivation in the twenty-
first century. Organizational justice theories appear to operate based on the premise of some sort
of adversarial relationship between organizations and their members. They seek to determine the
cognitions that form individuals’ perceptions of fair treatment in work-related situations and
predict what actions they make take in pursuit of relief in situations when unfair treatment is
perceived (Greenberg, 1987). Broadly, the theories focus on either processes or outcomes. To
discuss this study in terms of organizational justice, taking a process approach would be most
appropriate. “A process approach to justice focuses on how various outcomes (in organizations,
pay and recognition are good examples) are determined. Such orientations focus on the fairness
of the procedures used to make organizational decisions and to implement those decisions”
(Greenberg, 1987, p. 10). That description can be applied to accreditation, even though it is a
process that takes place between organizations rather than within a single organization. It is
especially appropriate because institutions largely participate in accreditation expressly to be
able to receive payment in the form of various forms of federal funding and student aid monies.
Two key factors in the process approach are “the ability to control the selection and development
of the evidence used” to determine the outcome of the process, known as process control, and
76
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

“the ability to determine the outcome” of the process, which is referred to as decision control
(Greenberg, 1987, p. 14). Research presented and referred to throughout this dissertation indicate
that the ability to exert a degree of control is key to developing and sustaining a sense of
perceived autonomy. Having a degree of process control supported the members of this study’s
sample in maintaining an autonomous orientation with regard to accreditation. This likely also
contributed to the perception of fairness regarding the outcome of the assessment. The perception
of fairness is the cornerstone of the concept of organizational justice and is a key factor in
influencing the acceptance of outcomes by those being evaluated (Greenberg, 1987; Akhtar &
Khattak, 2013). The data analyzed for this study did not contain indications for perceptions of
fairness, but the perception of control was reflected in the preponderance of comments indicating
the presence of autonomy, and the perception of control contributes to the perception of
organizational justice, as outlined above. This concept is similar to that of providing/allowing
opportunities for participation, which research has identified as an autonomy-supportive
behavior (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989).
In addition to the perception of fairness, Fall (2014) reported that recognition from
superiors supported the perception of organizational justice and its influence on autonomous
motivation in work situations. Recognition of workers’ accomplishments supports the perception
that they can bring about beneficial outcomes through their own actions, and contributes to the
perception that they are being evaluated fairly. In this way, perceptions of organizational justice
can contribute to workers feeling more autonomous. This, along with fairness of process, falls
under the heading of interactional justice. This is in line with research which indicates that
recognition of employees’ efforts and contributions to the achievement of desirable outcomes by
the organization is an autonomy-supportive behavior (Spreitzer, 1995). While accrediting
77
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

agencies may not technically be the “superiors” of institutions of higher education, their role as
gatekeepers for financial rewards does position them similarly to employers. Given this situation
it is possible to see how the concept of organizational justice could be applied to the
accreditation process, and how the application of that concept could influence motivational
outcomes.
Description of the Situation
All institutions of higher education must participate in the process of accreditation in
order to be eligible to receive important financial benefits. That places participation in
accreditation under the category of external regulation. Through autonomy-supportive behaviors
and identification with or integration of the stipulations of accreditation, individuals participating
in the process of accreditation may achieve and maintain a degree of autonomous motivation, or
an autonomous orientation. Such was the case with the accreditation assessment that was the
subject of this study.
At the outset of the accreditation assessment there were expressions of autonomy-
supportive behavior on the part of the accrediting agency—namely, statements that the intention
of the accreditation process was to help the institution reach its educational objectives, and that
the university members could choose the metrics by which they would be assessed. The agency
also presented opportunities for members of the university community to express their opinions
and participate in the accreditation assessment process. Those statements lend credence to the
presence of an autonomous orientation on the part of faculty members and administrators who
were directly participating in the accreditation process.
Another main objective of the accreditation process was the assessment of learning
outcomes. Faculty members and administrators expressed identification with that regulation,
78
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

which also contributed to establishing a sense of autonomous orientation. Comments analyzed
indicated that faculty members and academic administrators saw participation in accreditation as
an opportunity to identify and implement changes that could improve their educational
processes. They also recognized and highlighted efforts that they already were making in that
area, which also contributed to their sense of autonomy.
According to the findings of the study, the sense of perceived autonomy was most
evidenced by the inclusion of other members of the university community in the accreditation
process. Providing opportunities for inclusion and participation is a recognized autonomy-
supportive behavior. Including colleagues to have a say in how the university presented itself and
proceeded with the accreditation process was perceived to be an indicator of an autonomous
orientation on the part of faculty members and administrators.
Having identified the ways in which faculty members and administrators were able to
create and maintain a sense of perceived autonomy and an autonomous orientation, the next
section will discuss the implications of that motivational state.
Implications for the Sample and for Practice
Operating under circumstances of external (controlled) regulation is a less than ideal
motivational state. In such situations individuals experience a loss of perceived autonomy, which
can result in reduced persistence and engagement in work-related behaviors, which can lead to
lessened performance outcomes and decreased well-being. Accreditation is a process that takes
years to complete and requires significant amounts of time and energy. If faculty members and
administrators had to function during that entire time under a sense of completely controlled,
external regulation they could experience the above-referenced undesirable consequences. The
purpose of this study was to determine whether or not that was the case by examining faculty
79
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

members’ and administrators’ motivational states in relation to accreditation. The findings of the
study indicate that the subject faculty members and administrators were able to maintain a sense
of perceived autonomy and an autonomous orientation in relation to accreditation. That being the
case, the implication is that the subject faculty members and administrators were able to
experience the benefits of autonomous motivation while participating in the process of
accreditation. This is consistent with studies reporting that workers who experience higher levels
of perceived autonomy and self-determination report and exhibit experiencing the benefits of
autonomous motivation, even in situations that also involve controlled motivation in the form of
external regulation (Moran et al., 2012; Howard et al., 2016).
The subject faculty members and administrators were able to maintain a sense of
perceived autonomy and an autonomous orientation by taking the following steps to maintain an
internal locus of control: recognizing and calling attention to processes and programs that met
accreditation-related requirements that the school initiated before the then-current accreditation
assessment process started; and seeking and encouraging input from the faculty and university
community on choices and decisions regarding what information should be submitted to the
accrediting agency. While this study’s findings are not generalizable, they do present the
practical implication that if these practices were implemented by other groups of faculty
members and academic administrators in similar situations it may enable them and their
colleagues to maintain an autonomous orientation when participating in the process of
accreditation.
Limitations
The chief limitation of this study was the amount of content available to be analyzed. The
main source of data consisted of email correspondence provided by a faculty member and
80
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

academic administrator who was involved in the subject university’s most recent accreditation
assessment. As was discussed in Chapter 3, it is highly likely that there were other email
exchanges regarding the accreditation assessment in question to which that individual was not a
party. As was mentioned in the methodology, this may have created a case of survival bias.
Another limitation of this study actually is a strength of content analysis in general: the
fact that it is unobtrusive. While the email exchanges and other texts analyzed were sufficient to
provide answers for this study’s research question, speaking directly with individuals about their
perceptions of the accreditation process also may have been informative.
A third limitation of this study is that it was conducted by a solo researcher who served as
the sole coder. Steps were taken to help ensure reliability and validity in accordance with the
literature, but those efforts would have been bolstered by the inclusion of additional coders.
Future Research
The next step for future research with this study’s sample would be to conduct interviews
with the faculty members and administrators based on the results of this content analysis. The
themes identified could be utilized to develop interview questions that would provide data for
deeper qualitative analysis. Another option would be to solicit additional email correspondence
for additional content analysis.
Another possibility would be to conduct a similar study at an institution that did not
receive accreditation or re-accreditation to examine how faculty members and administrators
experienced that situation. Depending on the reasons for the attempt at becoming accredited not
succeeding, the process and perhaps the outcome could have an effect on faculty members’ and
administrators’ motivational states. Theoretically, such a situation would be perceived as highly
externally regulated.
81
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Another possible option would be to assess motivational states at accrediting agencies.
As was mentioned in Chapter 1 it has been reported that accrediting agencies are perceived to
have the responsibility of acting as watchdogs and gatekeepers for entities that are in charge of
dispersing federal funds. Such a situation could have an impact on accrediting agencies’ and
their representatives’ sense of perceived autonomy and self-determination.
It also could be of interest to conduct research at accrediting agencies to assess the degree
to which members of accrediting agencies perceive the accreditation process as being protective
of institutional autonomy. It likely would be best to start by conducting unstructured interviews.
Potential initial questions could be: “Tell me how the accreditation process protects institutional
autonomy?” or, “How does your agency support institutional autonomy during the course of the
accreditation process?”
A final suggestion for future research would involve performing another content analysis.
It would consist of reviewing reports detailing accreditation situations in which accreditation was
not granted. The reasons for the institutions not becoming accredited or re-accredited would be
examined to determine whether they involved the agencies trying to impose choices on faculty
members and administrators. This could be the precursor or a companion study to the second
suggestion for future research offered above.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to determine whether faculty members and administrators
experienced participation in the accreditation process as completely externally regulated, or if
they were able to maintain a sense of autonomy and an autonomous orientation. External
regulation is present in all work-related situations, but it benefits all parties when employees are
able to establish a sense of autonomy and maintain an autonomous orientation. Workers who feel
82
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

a sense of autonomy exhibit greater persistence and engagement in work-related behaviors, and
also exhibit better performance and greater levels of well-being.
The findings of this study indicated that the subject faculty members and administrators
were able to maintain an autonomous orientation in relation to accreditation. They did so largely
by recognizing the efforts they had been making prior to the start of the accreditation assessment,
of their own volition, and making efforts to include other colleagues in the accreditation process.
Autonomy-supportive statements on the part of the accrediting agency also were a factor in
helping the subject faculty members and administrators maintain their autonomous orientation.
These findings are hopeful for and hopefully will be helpful to faculty members and
administrators working in higher education who participate in the process of accreditation
because it is not likely that the process will be discontinued anytime soon. If institutions need to
continue participating in accreditation it is good to know that there are practices that can help
participants maintain an autonomous orientation and experience the benefits associated with
autonomous motivation.

83
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

References
Abbott, M. L., & McKinney, J. (2013). Understanding and applying research design. Hoboken,
NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Akhtar, T., & Khattak, S. (2013). Employee acceptability of performance appraisals: Issues of
fairness and justice. World Applied Sciences Journal, 24(4), 507-518.
Allan, B. A., Autin, K. L., & Duffy, R.D. (2016). Self-determination and meaningful work:
Exploring socioeconomic constraints. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(71), 1-9. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00071
American Heritage Dictionary. (2001). 4
th
edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis
of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34(10), 2045-2068.
Baker, R. L. (2002). Evaluating quality and effectiveness: Regional accreditation
principles and practices. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(1/2), 3-11.
Bidee, J., Vantilborgh, T., Pepermans. R., Huybrechts, G., Willems, J., Jegers, M., & Hofmans,
J. (2013). Autonomous motivation stimulates volunteers' work effort: A self-
determination theory approach to volunteerism. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(1), 32-47.
Blais, M. R., & Briére, N. M. (1992). On the mediational role of feelings of self-determination in
the workplace: Further evidence and generalization. Unpublished manuscript, University
of Quebec at Montreal. Retrieved from http://www.cirano.qc.ca/pdf/publication/2002s-
39.pdf

84
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Blauch, L. E. (1959). Accreditation in higher education. Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/
pt?id=mdp.39015007036083;view=1up;seq=1
Boyd, R. G. (1973). The development of accreditation and its influence upon curriculum
development in higher education. Journal of Thought, 8(3), 188-196. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1292569205?pq-origsite=summon
Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations, 38, 551-570.
DOI: 10.1177/001872678503800604.
Brittingham, B. (2009). Accreditation in the United States: How did we get to where we are?
New Directions for Higher Education, 145, 7-27.
Brock, T. (2010). Young adults and higher education: Barriers and breakthroughs to success. The
Future of Children, 20(1). Retrieved from
http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=72&articleid
=523§ionid=3589
Brown, K. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822-848.
Brown, K. R., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and
evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 211–237.
Cayetano, R. E. (2014). A descriptive analysis focusing on similarities and differences among
the U.S. service academies. Unpublished dissertation.
Cheng, Fleischmann, Wang, and Oard (2008). Advancing social science research by applying
computational linguistics. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 45(1), 1-12.
85
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions. (2003). Regional accreditation and student
learning: Principles for good practices. Retrieved from
https://www.msche.org/publications/Regnlsl050208135331.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davenport, C. A. (2000). Recognition chronology. Retrieved from www.aspa-usa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/Davenport.pdf
Davis, C. O. (1932). The North central association of colleges and secondary schools: aims,
organization, activities. [Chicago]: The Association. Retrieved from http://
babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031490645;view=1up;seq=15
deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behaviour.
New York: Academic Press.
De Cooman, R., Stynen, D., Van den Broeck, A., Sels, L., & De Witte, H. (2013). How job
characteristics relate to need satisfaction and autonomous motivation: Implications for
work effort. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(6), 1342-1352.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 18, 105-115.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580-590.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.

86
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024-1037.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality.
In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on
motivation (pp. 237-288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem.
In M. Kemis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31-49). New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008a). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological
well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14-23.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008b). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human
motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182-185.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001).
Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former
Eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930-942.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education:
The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346.
Denton, D. W., & Kleiman, L. S. (2001). Job Tenure as a Moderator of the Relationship Between
Autonomy and Satisfaction. Applied H.R.M. Research, 6(2), 105-114.
Duffy, R. D., Blustein, D. L., Diemer, M. A., & Autin, K. L. (2016). The psychology of working
theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 127-148.
87
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis
literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological
refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 5-34.
Dysvik, A., Kuvaas, B., & Gagné, M. (2013). An investigation of the unique, synergistic and
balanced relationships between basic psychological needs and intrinsic motivation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 1050–1064. doi:10.1111/jasp.12068
Eaton, J. S. (2011). U.S. accreditation: Meeting the challenges of accountability and student
achievement. Evaluation in Higher Education, 5(1), 1-20. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/pdf/EHE5-
1_U%20S%20_Accreditation_Meeting_the_Challenges_of_Accountability_and_Student
_Achievement-Judith_S%20_Eaton.pdf
Eaton, J. S. (2012). An overview of U.S. accreditation. Council for Higher Education
Accreditation. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544355.pdf
Eaton, J. S. (2013). The changing role of accreditation: Should it matter to governing boards.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/pdf/Eaton-Changing_Role_Accreditation.pdf
Ewell, P. T. (2008). U.S. accreditation and the future of quality assurance: A tenth anniversary
report from the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Washington, DC: Council
for Higher Education Accreditation.
Fall, A. (2014). Organizational justice, recognition and intrinsic motivation at work: Empirical
study results. Industrial Relations 69(4), 709-731.
Fisher, C. D. (1978). The effects of personal control, competence, and extrinsic reward systems
on intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 273-288.
88
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Friedman, I. A. (1999). Teacher-perceived work autonomy: The concept and its measurement.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1). 58-76.
Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior
engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 199-223.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.
Gagné, M., Ryan. R. M., & Bargmann, K. (2003). Autonomy support and need satisfaction in the
motivation and well-being of gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 372-
390.
Gagné, M., Senecal, C. B., & Koestner, R. (1997). Proximal job characteristics, feelings of
empowerment, and intrinsic motivation: A multidimensional model. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 27(14), 1222-1240.
Ganster, D. C., & Rosen, C. C. (2013). Work stress and employee health: A multidisciplinary
review. Journal of Management, 39, 1085–1122. doi:10.1177/0149206313475815
Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness at work. In A. Joshi,
H. Liao, & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources
management (pp. 115–157). Emerald: Bingley.
Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In D. C. Berliner &
R. C. Calfee (Eds.). Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 63-84). New York: Simon
& Schuster Macmillan.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management
Review, 12(1), 9-22.

89
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Grenville-Cleave, B, & Boniwell, I. (2012). “Surviving or thriving? Do teachers have lower
perceived control and well-being than other professions?” Management in Education,
26(1), 3-5.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159–170.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through design of work: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.
Hannah, S. B. (1996). The higher education act of 1992: Skills, constraints, and the politics of
higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(5), 498-527. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2943866
Harvey, P. (2004). The power of accreditation: Views of academics. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, 26(2), 207-223.
Holsti, O.R. (1968). Content Analysis. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of
Social Psychology (2nd ed.) (pp.596-692), Vol. 2, New Delhi: Amerind Publishing Co.
Howard, J., Gagné, M., Morin, A. J. S., Van den Broeck, A. (2016). Motivation profiles at work:
A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 95-96, 74-79.
Hulsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J. E. M., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. B. (2013). Benefits of
mindfulness at work: The role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional
exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 310–325.
Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Vaughan, A. L., & Wright, S. L. (2015). Development of a self-
determination measure for college students: Validity evidence for the basic needs
satisfaction at college scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 48(4), 266-284.
90
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Kennedy, V. C., Moore, F. I., & Thibadoux, G. M. (1985). Determining the costs of self-study
for accreditation: A method and a rationale. Journal of Allied Health, 14(2), 175-182.
Kiken, L. G., & Shook, N. J. (2011). Looking up: Mindfulness increases positive judgments and
reduces negativity bias. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(4), 425–431.
Kim, D., Twombly, S., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2008). Factors predicting community college faculty
satisfaction with instructional autonomy. Community College Review, 35(3), 159-180.
Koestner, R., Losier, G. F., Vallerand, R. J., & Carducci, D. (1996). Identified and introjected
forms of political internalization: Extending self-determination theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 1025-1036.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey
of Student Engagement. Change 33(3), 10–17.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change 35(2),
24–32.
Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review
of Higher Education, 24(3), 309-332.
Lathan, G. P, & Pinder, C. C. (2005) Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the
twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.
Latham, G. P., Winters, D. C., & Locke, E. A. (1994). Cognitive and motivation effects of
participation: A mediator study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 49-63.

91
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Dimitrova, N. G., & Sels, L. (2013). Mindfulness, authentic functioning,
and work engagement: A growth modeling approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
82(3), 238–247.
Lichtman, M. (2014). Chapter 12: Drawing meaning from the data. Qualitative research for the
social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 3-30.
Malmberg, L.-E. (2006). Goal-orientation and teacher motivation among teacher applicants and
student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1), 58-76.
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and
motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 991-1007.
Meyer, J. P., & Gagné, M. (2008). Employee engagement from a self-determination
theory perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 60-62.
Moller, A. C., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). Choice and ego-depletion: The
moderating role of autonomy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1024-
1036.
Moran, C. M., Diefendorff, J. M., Kim T., & Liu, Z. (2012). A profile approach to self-
determination theory motivations at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 354-363.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ):
Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the
nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321-1339.
92
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI). (2012). Higher
education act reauthorization: Accreditation policy recommendations. U.S. Department
of Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi-dir/2012-
spring/teleconference-2012/naciqi-final-report.pdf
Olafsen, A. H. (2017). The implications of need-satisfying work climates on state mindfulness in
a longitudinal analysis of work outcomes. Motivation and Emotion, 41, 22-37. DOI
10.1007/s11031-016-9592-4
Olafsen, A. H., Niemiec, C. P., Halvari, H., Deci, E. L., & Williams, G. C. (2017). On the dark
side of work: A longitudinal analysis using self-determination theory. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(2), 275–285.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1257611
Ostafin, B. D., & Kassman, K. T. (2012). Stepping out of history: Mindfulness improves insight
problem solving. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(2), 1031–1036.
Parker, G. (2015). Teacher’s autonomy. Research in Education, 93, 19-33.
Pascarella, E. T. (2001). Identifying excellence in undergraduate education: Are we even close?
Change, 33(3), 19–23.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2
nd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress,
work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly,
29(1), 38-54.

93
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Perlman, D. J. (2013). Effective teaching and motivation: application of self-determination
theory. Journal of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers & Teacher Education, 3(2),
31-37.
Prasad, B. D. (2008). Content analysis: A method in social science research. In Lal Das, D. K. &
Bhaskaran, V. (eds.) Research methods for Social Work (pp. 173-193). New Delhi:
Rawat.
Pringle, C., & Michel, M. (2007). Assessment practices in AACSB-accredited business schools.
Journal of Education for Business, 82(4), 202-211.
Prior, L. (2014). Content analysis. In Leavy, P. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative
Research. Oxford University Press: London. DOI:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.013.008. Retrieved from
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.001.0001/oxf
ordhb-9780199811755-e-008?print=pdf
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R.
M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination Research (pp. 183-203). Rochester,
NY: University of Rochester Press.
Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and
motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 537-548.
Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for
teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(4), 761-774.
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of
cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450-461.
94
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of
Personality, 63, 397-427.
Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V. I., Little, T. D., Sheldon, K. M., Timoshina, E., & Deci, E. L. (1999).
The American dream in Russia: Extrinsic aspirations and well-being in two cultures.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1509-1524.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic
definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychology, 55,
68-78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An
organismic dialectical perspective. In Deci, Edward L. & Ryan, Richard M. (eds.).
Handbook of Self-Determination Research (pp. 3-33). New York: University of
Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008a). From ego-depletion to vitality: Theory and findings
concerning the facilitation of energy available to the self. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 2, 702-717.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008b). Self-determination theory and the role of basic
psychological needs in personality and the organization of behavior. In O. P. John, R.W.
Robbins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 654–
678). New York: Guilford.

95
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Grolnick, W. S. (1995). Autonomy, relatedness, and the self: Their
relation to development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D, J. Cohen (Eds.),
Developmental psychopathology: Theory and methods (pp. 618-655). New York: Wiley.
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25, 293–315.
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP). (2015). Higher education
accreditation: Concepts and proposals. Retrieved
from http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/Accreditation.pdf
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are “personal”: Comparing
autonomous and controlling goals on effort and attainment. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24, 546–557.
Shu, C.-Y. (2015). The impact of intrinsic motivation on the effectiveness of leadership style on
work engagement. Contemporary Management Research, 11(4), 327-250. doi:
10.7903/cmr.14043
Sittig, D. F. (2003). Results of a content analysis of electronic messages (email) sent between
patients and their physicians. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 3(11).
Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/3/11
Slemp, G. R., & Vella-Brodick, D. A. (2014). Optimising employee mental health: The
relationship between intrinsic need satisfaction, job crafting, and employee well-being.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 957-977.
96
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Spady, W. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and synthesis.
Interchange, (1), pp. 64-85.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). An empirical test of a comprehensive model of intrapersonal
empowerment in the workplace. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5),
601-629.
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17.
Svartvatten, N., Segerlund, M., Dennhag, I., Andersson, G., & Carlbring, P. (2015). A content
analysis of client e-mails in guided internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for
depression. Internet Interventions, 2, 121–127.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: a theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, (45), pp. 89-125.
Tinto, V. (2007). Research and practice of student retention: what next? Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, (8), pp. 1-19.
Tremblay, M. A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L. G., & Villeneuve, M. (2009). Work
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale: Its value for organizational psychology research.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41(4), 213-226.
Umbach, P., & Wawrzynski, M. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student
learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46, 153-184.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senécal, C., & Vallieres, E. F.
(1993). On the assessment of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education: Evidence
on the concurrent and construct validity of the Academic Motivation Scale. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 53, 159–172.
97
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Van den Broeck, A., Lens, W., De Witte, H., & Van Coillie, H. (2013). Unraveling the
importance of the quantity and the quality of workers’ motivation for well-being: A
person-centered perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 69-78.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the
relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic
psychological need satisfaction. Work and Stress, 22, 277–294.
Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C. P., Soenens, B., De Witte, H., & Van den Broeck,
A. (2007). On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need
satisfaction, and job outcomes: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 251–277.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Content analysis. In Basic Content Analysis, 2
nd
ed. (pp. 117-124).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.
White, C., B., Moyer, C. A., Stern, D. T., & Katz, S., J. (2004). A content analysis of e-mail
communication between patients and their providers: Patients get the message. Journal of
the American Medical Informatics Association, 11(4), 260-267.
Wichmann, S. S. (2011). Self-determination theory: The importance of autonomy to well-being
across cultures. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 50(1), 16-26.
Wild, C. T., Enzle, M. E., Nix, G., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Perceiving others as intrinsically or
extrinsically motivated: Effects on expectancy formation and task engagement.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(8), 837-848.
Willis, C. R. (1994). The cost of accreditation to educational institutions. Journal of Allied
Health, 23, 39-41.
98
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Wilson, S. M. (1993). The self-empowerment index: A measure of internally and externally
expressed teacher autonomy, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 727-737.
Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E. L. (1978). On the importance
of self-determination for intrinsically-motivated behavior. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 4(3), 443-446.

99
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Appendix A

IRB Approval Letter
100
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

101
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Appendix B

Code Book arranged alphabetically by Code 1

102
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

103
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

Appendix C

Code Book arranged alphabetically by Code 2

104
ACCREDITATION AND FACULTY SELF-DETERMINATION

105

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Every year universities across the country take part in the accreditation process. Accreditation is a system of academic assessment intended to ensure that institutions of higher education are performing up to certain standards. These standards are established by accrediting agencies in an effort to monitor institutional accountability. It is said that participation in accreditation is voluntary, but universities must be accredited in order to receive financial benefits administered by the federal government, such as grants for studies and federal student aid. This calls into question whether accreditation truly is a voluntary process. It also is said that the accreditation process is designed to protect institutional autonomy, but what about the faculty members and academic administrators who are involved with their university’s accreditation process? Do they feel autonomous? What is the state of their motivation in relation to participating in the process of accreditation? ❧ The purpose of this study was to examine the motivational states of faculty members and academic administrators who had direct participation in the accreditation process at a large private research university. A content analysis of meeting minutes and email correspondence from a sample of faculty members and administrators (N = 23) revealed that, while external regulation was present, the faculty members and administrators were able to maintain a sense of autonomous orientation while participating in accreditation.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Approaches to encouraging and supporting self-regulated learning in the college classroom

PDF

The effects of accreditation on the passing rates of the California bar exam

PDF

Examining perspectives of academic autonomy in community college students: a quantitative study

PDF

The goals of specialized accreditation: A study of perceived benefits and costs of membership with the National Association of Schools of Music

PDF

Perspectives on accreditation and leadership: a case study of an urban city college in jeopardy of losing accreditation

PDF

Contributing human factors expertise to the United States national intelligence community

PDF

An examination of the direct/indirect measures used in the assessment practices of AACSB-accredited schools

PDF

Examining internal communication practices to improve teachers’ motivation to use ICTs in instruction: a case study of Peruvian secondary schools

PDF

The benefits and costs of accreditation of undergraduate medical education programs leading to the MD degree in the United States and its territories

PDF

The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment

PDF

Best practices general education teachers implement to foster a positive classroom environment

PDF

Assessment, accountability & accreditation: a study of MOOC provider perceptions

PDF

Competency in a blended workforce: an evaluation study of contracted labor development challenges

PDF

Women of color: self-efficacy and sustainability as administrators in education

PDF

An exploratory study on flipped learning and the use of self-regulation amongst undergraduate engineering students

PDF

Effects of teacher autonomy support with structure on marginalized urban student math achievement

PDF

Cultivating motivation and persistence for urban, high achieving, low-SES African American students

PDF

Adjunct faculty engagement at the community college: an exploration of work engagement and perceived motivational factors through the lens of Self-Determination Theory

PDF

Labor displacement: a gap analysis an evaluation study addressing professional development in a small business environment

PDF

Developmental education pathway success: a study on the intersection of adjunct faculty and teaching metacognition

Asset Metadata

Creator Foxxe, Austin (author)

Core Title States of motivation: examining perceptions of accreditation through the framework of self-determination

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/09/2018

Defense Date 01/22/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag accreditation,Autonomy,external regulation,intrinsic motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-determination

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Martinez, Brandon (committee member), Shipley, Brad (committee member)

Creator Email austinfoxxe@yahoo.com,foxxe@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-2548

Unique identifier UC11672613

Identifier etd-FoxxeAusti-6174.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-2548 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-FoxxeAusti-6174.pdf

Dmrecord 2548

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Foxxe, Austin

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA