In academic disciplines, content rather than writing accuracy is usually emphasized (Hyland, 2013), leaving many English-as-an-additional-language (EAL) students unmotivated to improve writing accuracy. However, the workplace may demand accurate and clear writing. Thus, Ferris (2002, 2011) calls for research into employers’ perspectives on inaccurate and unclear writing of EAL employees to help raise academic faculty and EAL student consciousness. To respond to Ferris' call, this study investigated: 1) employers’ expectations regarding writing accuracy of EAL employees, 2) EAL employees’ language problems in work-related writing, and 3) the impact of writing problems on EAL employees’ employment and career opportunities. The study employed qualitative interviews with ten Canadian employers for data collection and a grounded theory approach for data analysis. Results indicated that the participants generally maintained the same writing standards for EAL and native-English-speaking (NES) employees. The study showed a disconnect between the academic and professional worlds regarding EAL writing standards.

Purpose Higher education institutions are required to evaluate program quality through cyclical program review processes. Despite often being considered the “gold standard” of academic review, there persists dissatisfaction with the lack of integration of program review findings into other planning processes, such as budgeting, assessment and strategic planning. As a result, the notion of program review action plans “collecting dust on the shelf” is so ubiquitous that the concept is normalized as an expected outcome. The purpose of this paper is to describe a conceptual model whereby teams of faculty members receive education and training from quality assurance practitioners and educational developers, access to institutional resources, opportunities for cross-departmental collaborations and collective advocacy to increase the capacity of faculty members to implement improvement goals resulting from program reviews. Design/methodology/approach The authors theorize that a professional learning community is a meaningful approach to program review and present a conceptual model – the Academic Program Review Learning Community (PRLC) – as an antidote to hierarchical, fragmented, compliance-oriented processes. The authors suggest that the PRLC offers a reliable institutional framework for learning through formalized structures and nested support services, including peer learning and external coaching, which can enhance the catalytic capacity of reviews. Findings The authors argue that postsecondary institutions should create formal structures for incorporating learning communities because, without a reliable infrastructure for collective learning, decision-making may be fragmented oridiosyncratic because of shifting demands, priorities or disconnected faculty. Originality/value A learning community model for program review fits well with a new way to think about program review because faculty are most engaged when they feel ownership over the process. Furthermore, few models exist for conducting program review; as a result, chairs and academics often struggle to conduct reviews without a coherent framework to draw upon.

Purpose Academics and administrators frequently lament the bureaucracy in higher education, which diverts attention from teaching and research. Heightened monitoring of institutions as a result of dominant neoliberal ideologies shapes perceptions of accreditation as a bureaucratic burden rather than a value-added tool for continuous quality improvement. This paper aims to identify factors that positively and negatively impact a culture of quality in North American accredited postsecondary institutions to address issues of equity and inform policy changes that are relevant to community needs. Design/methodology/approach Academics’ and administrators’ perceptions of accreditation processes are explored through an interpretivist mixed-methods study that combined focus group and survey results from over 200 participants representative of four-year private and four- and two-year public institutions and tribal colleges in North America. Findings Findings suggest that a utilitarian and exclusionary mindset perpetuated by neoliberal logics restricts participatory decision-making processes in postsecondary institutions. Furthermore, the research identified a noticeable gap between those who are invited to participate in accreditation processes and those who contribute to decision-making. This lack of inclusive governance inhibits the ability of institutions to respond appropriately to the needs of its community. Originality/value The scope of the study and prioritization of qualitative data offers a comprehensive picture of academics’ and administrators’ perceptions and positions them as the experts in their own learning and development. Through participant narratives, strategies for increasing the value of quality assurance processes are illuminated. As a result, the study participants become the change agents who provide the solutions for ameliorating academics’ and administrators’ resistance to quality assurance.

No abstract