Content uploaded by Douglas Gilbert
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Douglas Gilbert on Mar 09, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
5
©Center for Promoting Education and Research (CPER) USA www.cpernet.org
https://ijbassnet.com/ http://dx.doi.org/10.33642/ijbass.v6n10p5
©Center for Promoting Education and Research (CPER) USA www.cpernet.org
International Journal of Business and Applied Social Science (IJBASS)
E-ISSN: 2469-6501
VOL: 6, ISSUE: 10
October/2020
DOI: 10.33642/ijbass.v6n10p5
ISO Alongside, Instead, or Inside?
The potential of ISO 21001:2018 to change and challenge higher education accreditation
Douglas J. Gilbert
Walden University USA
University of Phoenix, USA
Vilnius University, Lithuania
ABSTRACT
The recently released ISO standard, ISO 21001:2018, Educational organizations Management systems for educational
organizations Requirements with guidance for use, is poised to have a significant impact on critical elements of quality
assurance in higher education. Depending on the nature and extent of existing quality assurance structures, three
potential use scenarios of the new standard appear possible: ISO Alongside, ISO Instead, and ISO Inside. The Standard
may be used as an adjunct to existing quality assurance approaches (ISO Alongside). Some quality assurance systems
may opt to incorporate the attainment of ISO 21001 certification as the determinant of holding an accredited or
approved status (ISO Instead). Finally, the achievement of ISO 21001 certification may serve as a pre-requisite to the
application for specific recognitions or accreditations (ISO Inside).
Keywords: Accreditation, education quality assurance, higher education, ISO, International Organization for
Standardization, ISO 21001:2018, ISO 9001:2015, EQAR, AASCB, EFMD, ACBSP, AMBA, ESG, European
Higher Education Area (EHEA)
Introduction
Higher education today operates in an environment of
global competition for reputation, talent, and students. The
basis of that competition is increasingly focused on quality
(Musselin, 2018). Quality as a concept of higher education is
not easily defined, reflecting the complex relationships of
higher education to students and the diverse roles of a student
in the educational process. The International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) has recently entered the fray with
several new standards that may shape the view of quality in
higher education much as the extensively used ISO 9001
standard has since its debut in 1987. This paper focuses on
some of those potential impacts of one new education
standard, ISO 21001:2018, which is focused on education
organizations and thus may have significant implications on
higher education quality assurance including accreditation.
Changing quality marks for higher education
Accreditation often serves as a coveted quality mark,
which transcends national boundaries (Hazelkorn, 2011). The
accreditation agency EFMD highlights the common drivers of
seeking internationally recognized accreditation by noting:
With companies recruiting worldwide, with students
choosing to get their education outside their home
countries, and with schools building alliances across
borders and continents, there is a rapidly growing
need for them to be able to identify those institutions in
other countries that deliver high-quality education in
international management (Wanot, 2018).
Despite the international character and reach of many
higher education programs, agreement on one mark of quality
is elusive. For example, it is common for business schools to
pursue what is often called the triple crown accreditation of
AACSB, AMBA, and EQUIS as a means to be globally
relevant (MBA Today, 2019). The perceived need for multiple
accreditations give rise to questions about individual
accreditation agency shortcomings and why three separate
accreditations are needed with up-front costs of over $100,000
along with multiple years and significant staff time.
Many educational disciplines and universities as a
whole often chase global and regional rankings as an imperfect
surrogate for measures of quality (Hazelkorn,2015).
Furthermore, rankings and accreditation do not address the
rapidly growing area of educational certificates, which now
exceed the total number of degrees issued in the U.S. and often
are offered by organizations other than higher education
institutions or HEIs (Credential Engine, 2019).
In 2018 the International Organisation for Standardization
(ISO) issued ISO 21001:2018, entitled Educational Organizations
Management systems for educational organizations
Requirements with guidance for use (International Organization
for Standardization [ISO], 2018a). The new standard, based on
the widely used ISO 9001:2015 may represent a turning point
towards a more consistent and international quality mark for
higher education.
ISO 21001: History and Development
ISO 21001:2018 was developed to be a part of the ISO
9001 family of standards, which was first introduced in 1987
48
5
©Center for Promoting Education and Research (CPER) USA www.cpernet.org
https://ijbassnet.com/ http://dx.doi.org/10.33642/ijbass.v6n10p5
©Center for Promoting Education and Research (CPER) USA www.cpernet.org
International Journal of Business and Applied Social Science (IJBASS)
E-ISSN: 2469-6501
VOL: 6, ISSUE: 10
October/2020
DOI: 10.33642/ijbass.v6n10p5
and is currently in use in 160 countries with nearly 900,000
registered certificates as of 2018 (ISO, 2018b). The 21001
Standard development was led by the Korean Agency for
Technology and Standards with 86 expert members drawn
from 39 national standardization bodies, plus multiple observer
stakeholders (LaChapelle et al., 2018).
The development was a multi-year process spanning
more than five years. Following the publication of the
Standard in 2018, the responsibility for maintenance and
coordination with other ISO standards was handed off to
Technical Committee 232, led by DIN, the German Institute
for Standardization (ISO, n.d.). The Committee has oversight
for a total of seven standards spanning higher education both
in higher education institutions and programs delivered by
non-traditional providers such as certificate providers.
The sections of the ISO 21001 are shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Key clauses of ISO 21001:2018 (ISO, 2018a, p. 14).
ISO 21001:2018 follows the general structure of ISO
9001:2015, which is aligned with Annex SL, the norm for all
ISO management standards. The Standard has two key areas: a
core structure based on the PDCA improvement cycle and an
overarching model termed an EOMS or management system
for educational organizations (ISO, 2018a). Figure 2 below
depicts the relationship of the PDCA cycle and the EOMS with
the various sections of the Standard.
Clause
Key elements
1 to 3
Prefatory material
4
Context of the organization
Understanding the organization and its context
Understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties
Determining the scope of the management system for educational organizations
Management system for educational organizations (EOMS)
5
Leadership
Leadership and commitment
Policy
Organizational roles, responsibilities and authorities
6
Planning
Addressing risks and opportunities
Educational organizational objectives and planning to meet them
Planning of changes
7
Support
Resources
Competence
Awareness
Communication
Documented information
8
Operation
Operation planning and control
Requirements for educational products and services
Design and development of educational products and services
Control of externally provided processes, products and services
Delivery of educational products and services
Release of educational products and services
Control of nonconforming educational outputs
9
Performance Evaluation
Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation
Internal audit
Management review
10
Improvement
Nonconformity and corrective action
Continual improvement
Opportunities for improvement
49
5
©Center for Promoting Education and Research (CPER) USA www.cpernet.org
https://ijbassnet.com/ http://dx.doi.org/10.33642/ijbass.v6n10p5
©Center for Promoting Education and Research (CPER) USA www.cpernet.org
International Journal of Business and Applied Social Science (IJBASS)
E-ISSN: 2469-6501
VOL: 6, ISSUE: 10
October/2020
DOI: 10.33642/ijbass.v6n10p5
Figure 2. ISO 21001 EOMS (ISO, 2018a, p. ix)
HEIs desiring to use the Standard can do so under
several certification scenarios. The scenarios represent three
approaches:
Self-assessment (first-party certification);
External assessment through consultants (second-party
certification); or
Certification by an approved certification body (third-
party certification).
The third option, the use of an approved certification
body, is very similar to current models of HEI institution and
programmatic accreditation with some key differences. Similar
to accreditation, certification bodies are recognized by a
sanctioned approval body, which has itself documented and
implemented quality assurance processes under several ISO
standards, ISO 17000,17020, 17021, and 17024. In contrast to
higher education accreditation, the certifying bodies are not
dedicated solely to education and may serve a variety of
sectors, including business, healthcare, information
technology, automotive, aviation, etc.
EOMS-A new perspective on the education enterprise
ISO 21001 introduces the idea of an operating system
model for educational institutions, which uses the acronym
EOMS. The operating system model is based on a foundational
concept of using processes to define the key aspects of an
organization. The ISO standard does not mandate any
particular process approach, and there are many available from
which to choose, e.g. Capability Maturity Model Integration
(CMMI Institute [CMMI], 2018) or APQC’s Process Classification
Framework (APQC, 2018). As higher education transitions from
exclusive reliance on in-person classroom teaching to
technology-enabled education, process management grows in
importance. Because of the use of an array of information and
communication technologies, online education modalities
require much higher levels of pre-planning and specification
than in-person, face-to-face lecturing.
ISO 21001 is not exclusively oriented towards HEIs.
The Standard covers any provider of instruction from pre-
Kindergarten to graduate studies at universities. Vocational
training is an example of how the Standard may expand
standardized quality assurance beyond accreditation.
Illustrative of the strong emphasis on alternatives to university
education, the European Quality Assurance Framework for
Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET) began as a
project in 2019, VET21001, to provide tools and guidance for
implementation of the Standard for vocational programs
(EQAVET, n.d.).
The use of ISO 21001:2018 has been promoted
heavily in several countries although adoption by HEIs does
not yet appear to be widespread. An international school in
India, Scottish High in Guragon, attained the first certification
under the Standard in late 2018. (Scottish High International
School, 2018). Adoption of the Standard in competitive
50
5
©Center for Promoting Education and Research (CPER) USA www.cpernet.org
https://ijbassnet.com/ http://dx.doi.org/10.33642/ijbass.v6n10p5
©Center for Promoting Education and Research (CPER) USA www.cpernet.org
International Journal of Business and Applied Social Science (IJBASS)
E-ISSN: 2469-6501
VOL: 6, ISSUE: 10
October/2020
DOI: 10.33642/ijbass.v6n10p5
education markets such as India is likely to accelerate as ISO
21001 becomes more well-known and is promoted by
certifying bodies.
For other types of HEIs, the new standard is
recognized as the start of a cycle of change towards more
standardized approaches to quality in higher education
(Schumann et al., 2019). In the European context, ISO 21001
is seen as a potential tool to define the required quality
assurance system of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality
Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG)
(Anttila & Jussila, 2018). The ESG is used to guide the
approval of accrediting agencies by the European Quality
Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR).
As aptly noted by Anttila and Jussila (2018), the
standard “will challenge all educational organizations, because
it requires the adoption of the general basic quality concepts
and quality management structures and practices” (p. 1070).
One could question how the standard might displace, augment,
or conflict with accreditation.
ISO 21001 and the ISO certification landscape
ISO 21001 exists within a landscape of practices and
norms. Entities wishing to issue a certification as a registrar
under ISO 21001, must be separately approved as a certifying
body. ISO 17021-1:2015 guides the requirements. If an
existing HEI accreditation agency were to seek status as a
certifying body, it would need to comply with ISO 17021 and
pass a certification audit. Adopting ISO approaches could, in
turn, displace the peer-review processes in use by most HEI
accreditation agencies as described below.
A further distinction from accreditation practice relates
to the certification of reviewers/evaluators or auditors in ISO
terminology. It is typical for ISO certifying bodies to require at
least one auditor to have an external quality auditor credential,
reflecting knowledge and application of a specified body of
knowledge about the audit process. For example, ASQ offers
such a credential known as the Certified Quality Auditor (ASQ,
2020a). TÜV, a German-based certification authority, offers
auditor certification that is ISO-specific (TÜV., n.d.).
Figure 3 below depicts the elements of what might be a
landscape of entities.
Figure 3. ISO 21001 Certification Landscape
The use of professionally certified auditors can
represent a marked change compared to the practice of many
accreditation agencies. Peer reviewers are often chosen based
on being a peer, such as a dean or senior administrator, rather
than specific knowledge and certification in audit and review
skills. Furthermore, audit team composition for ISO audits also
is intentional to reflect a mix of subject matter disciplines in
addition to audit process knowledge. Not all team members
may come from within the higher education sector, unlike the
practice in accreditation.
Another significant change is the duration of the
certification. ISO certificates are for a limited duration, usually
three years, and require interim surveillance audits to ensure
that the quality processes remain in place (Coletto & De
Monte, 2019). The shorter validity period is in contrast to
accreditation, which often grants decade-long authorization
with reduced scrutiny in the interim period. Given the rapid
changes occurring in higher education with technology and
certificate-based education, a shorter review period may be a
feature for ISO that demonstrates an advantage of ISO 21001
over accreditation.
Potential advantages of ISO 21001
There are several advantages to the use of ISO 21001
in an accreditation setting. ISO 9001, as the foundation
standard, is well known globally as a quality mark in the
business, government, nonprofit, and education sectors.
Attaining ISO certification would be understood as indicative
of a level of quality by the stakeholders external to education.
The use of a regularized approach to auditor and
reviewer qualification provides a further advantage. Perceived
professionalism may increase with the use of certified auditors
and team members trained in the principles of effective quality
reviews. Such professionalism can lead to a perception of a
fairer and thorough review.
51
5
©Center for Promoting Education and Research (CPER) USA www.cpernet.org
https://ijbassnet.com/ http://dx.doi.org/10.33642/ijbass.v6n10p5
©Center for Promoting Education and Research (CPER) USA www.cpernet.org
International Journal of Business and Applied Social Science (IJBASS)
E-ISSN: 2469-6501
VOL: 6, ISSUE: 10
October/2020
DOI: 10.33642/ijbass.v6n10p5
The short and limited duration of ISO certificates and
the requirement of surveillance audits support a view that the
quality assessment of the institution represents current reality
rather than a decades-old history. The fluidity of educational
certificate offerings rather than credits and degree programs
will almost certainly require a more rapid and current quality
assurance review system than delivered by accreditation today.
A final advantage lies in the relatively high
institutional completion rates and relatively low time to
completion for ISO projects. Figure 4 shows data from a large
study presented in ASQ’s Quality Progress publication. In this
study, ISO projects, when analyzed, rested in a golden
quadrant with lower times to completion and higher success
rates over other quality efforts such as Lean, Six Sigma, and
the Baldrige system.
Figure 4. Comparative success rates for quality systems. Adapted from Hansen (2018)
Accreditation efforts are known to span multiple years
with some agencies boasting that no program can be accredited
in less than five years. The organizational agility needed with a
more fluid educational sector may make such extended
timeframes unsustainable. If timeframes for ISO 21001 hold to
those shown in this study, the ISO system may deliver the
much-needed benefit of faster and more certain quality
certification.
Further developments related to the Standard
ISO 21001 represents one part of an evolution of
standards relating to education. The ISO technical committee
responsible for 21001, ISO.TC 232, has published three
standards in addition to 21001. The committee has three
further standards in its work program, with one related to
distance learning outside of formal learning. (ISO, n.d.). These
additional standards will complement the existing standards
and may create a more compelling case for the use of ISO
certifications in HEI as the core for quality assurance and
accreditation.
Also, ISO standards progress through cycles of
revisions and updates every few years. For example, after the
initial publication of ISO 9001 in 1987, the standard was
revised in 1994, 2000, 2008, and 2015. Each cycle of revision
often entails an increase in scope and coverage of the standard
(ASQ, 2020b). Such development for ISO 21001 would mean
revisions offering a more comprehensive scope nearer to
accreditation standards.
Changes in a standard are designed to reflect user
experience with implementation. As the number of ISO 21001
implementations grows, that experience may reflect how the
Standard coexists with or displaces accreditation. New
education offerings such as certificates may also influence the
future contents of the Standard (ASQ, n.d.).
Impact on accreditation
It is too early to appreciate fully the impact that a
standard may have on accreditation. The changes may be
different depending on the scope of accreditation, e.g.,
institutional vs. specialized/programmatic, and the legal
environment of accreditation. Based on developments with
existing accrediting models, some potential threads emerge.
Merged accreditation and authorization. The model
of merging accreditation with institutional authorization to
grant degrees exists in several states in the United States.
Under such a model, the attainment and maintenance of ISO
certification could be an alternative pathway towards
authorization. If implemented, this could allow a bypass of the
gatekeeping function currently enjoyed by accreditors and
allow decisions of independent ISO certifying bodies to
substitute for today’s accreditation process.
Blended regulation and accreditation. Countries and
jurisdictions that blend educational regulation and
52
5
©Center for Promoting Education and Research (CPER) USA www.cpernet.org
https://ijbassnet.com/ http://dx.doi.org/10.33642/ijbass.v6n10p5
©Center for Promoting Education and Research (CPER) USA www.cpernet.org
International Journal of Business and Applied Social Science (IJBASS)
E-ISSN: 2469-6501
VOL: 6, ISSUE: 10
October/2020
DOI: 10.33642/ijbass.v6n10p5
accreditation, e.g., India, may incorporate ISO standards as a
part of their overall standards and criteria. Although not a
mandatory regulatory pre-condition, ISO certification has been
used in practice by some education regulators, e.g., the UAE,
as a condition precedent to additional program authorizations.
The availability of a specialized standard for education may
encourage more regulators to use it as a pre-condition to
additional program authorizations.
EQAR and EHEA: A competitive market for
accreditors. Within the European Higher Education Area
(EHEA) context, it would be imaginable for an accreditor to
seek EQAR approval based on an accreditation model using
ISO standards, including ISO 21001. The accreditation process
would likely rest on using the customary audit processes
required by ISO registrars but applied in a manner consistent
with the ESG. Given the international character of the EHEA,
the use of an accepted international standard may be an
appealing accreditation basis. The EQAR system also does not
contain the rigid territorial or discipline-specific scope of
accreditation limitations of the U.S. model. An ISO 21001-
based accreditor might gain greater traction in this
environment because the focus is on the quality assurance
system, not on peer institution types and geographies of the
19th Century.
Specialized or programmatic accreditation. The
impact on specialized or programmatic accreditation may be
the most significant. Transnational employers could demand
uniformity based on familiarity with the benefits of
international business operations certification under ISO.
Different market approaches taken by business program
accreditors may provide some insight into potential
approaches. AACSB, for example, was certified under ISO
9001:2015 in early 2019 (AACSB, 2019). One could ask if the
next step for AACSB might be to seek status as an ISO
registrar under the ISO 17020 series. Achieving registrar status
would allow the agency to expand membership by certifying
member schools under ISO 21001, even if those programs do
not yet fit squarely within the agency’s historic accreditation
model.
AMBA, as a highly specialized accreditation model,
may present a different avenue for the use of ISO 21001.
AMBA historically has limited its scope of accreditation to
MBA programs but has expanded its scope to include DBA
and MBM programs (AMBA, 2019). The organization has
recently created a second accreditation track for schools and
programs outside of its traditional degree scope (Business
Graduate Association, 2019). AMBA's efforts predate ISO
21001 but may signal a trend toward a bifurcation of
accreditation into tiers based on factors such as school size,
program offerings, and reputation. ISO 21001 could serve as
the entry point in such a beginning-tier model and create
ready-made starting tier standards.
None of the developments suggested above have yet
come to fruition, given the recent publication of ISO 21001.
Over the next few years, however, the new standard may serve
as a basis for greater simplicity and transparency of
accreditation for a transnational higher educational world.
Scenarios for the future: ISO Alongside, Instead, or
Inside?
Potential scenarios for the influence of ISO on
accreditation may be described
as alongside, instead, and inside. The HEI experience to date
with ISO 9001 reflects an ISO alongside scenario. ISO 9001
has not displaced accreditation but tends to be an additional
quality certification sought or required for certain HEIs and
other providers. Such a situation reflects the current focus of
accreditation on programs offering courses, credits, and
degrees. With ISO 21001, it may be plausible that the triple
crown designation is displaced by a quadruple crown with the
addition of ISO certification.
An ISO instead scenario would require a major shift in
accreditation practice away from peer- and discipline-based
practices of review and recognition. Such a change could
upend the entire accreditation enterprise. Significant change
takes time because wholesale changes in education regulation
unfold over decades, not years or months. Some areas such as
the specialized or programmatic accreditors serving less
regulated, non-licensure programs may see change sooner.
Agencies such as AMBA, AASCB, ACBSP, and IACBE serve
schools feeding students directly to business organizations,
many of which use ISO certification for business operations.
The demand for a transnational quality standard with
independent recognition may well be felt first in this arena.
The scenario of ISO inside may prove tempting to
settings where accreditation has meshed with regulation or
authorization. Incorporating required ISO certifications into a
regulatory web would allow regulators to offload supervision
and oversight to a neutral third party. ISO standards serve
as de facto regulatory norms in many sectors, including
healthcare, IT, and aviation. For example, the healthcare
accreditor DNV GL Healthcare incorporates ISO 9001
certification into its accreditation model (DNV GL, 2020). The
approach exists within the highly regulated healthcare
environment in the United States, a much more complex and
challenging environment than higher education. It would not
thus be surprising to see educational accreditation and quality
assurance adopting a similar model.
Conclusion
The use of ISO 21001 in HEI quality assurance may
prove a noteworthy development with potentially significant
influences on accreditation processes. Higher education is an
economic sector that has historically followed other service sectors
such as healthcare, aviation, information/communications
technologies, and financial services, in adopting consistent
53
5
©Center for Promoting Education and Research (CPER) USA www.cpernet.org
https://ijbassnet.com/ http://dx.doi.org/10.33642/ijbass.v6n10p5
©Center for Promoting Education and Research (CPER) USA www.cpernet.org
International Journal of Business and Applied Social Science (IJBASS)
E-ISSN: 2469-6501
VOL: 6, ISSUE: 10
October/2020
DOI: 10.33642/ijbass.v6n10p5
approaches to measuring and reporting quality. The further use
of ISO 21001 may provide a useful step towards greater
consistency of quality assurance in the sector.
References
Anttila, J., & Jussila, K. (2018). Universities and smart cities: the challenges to high quality. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 29(9/10), 1058-1073. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1486552
APQC. (2018). Cross industry process classification framework, v. 7.2.1. APQC.
ASQ. (2020a). Quality auditor certification CQA. https://asq.org/cert/quality-auditor
ASQ. (2020b). What is ISO 9001:2015 – quality management systems? https://asq.org/quality-resources/iso-9001
ASQ. (n.d.). What is ISO 9001:2015 – Quality management systems. https://asq.org/quality-resources/iso-9001
Association of MBAs [AMBA]. (2019). Become an accredited business school.
https://www.mbaworld.com/accreditation/become-an-accredited-business-school
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business [AACSB]. (2019). AACSB's accreditation quality management system
achieves ISO 9001:2015. AACSB. https://www.aacsb.edu/iso
Business Graduate Association. (2019). Accreditation. https://businessgraduatesassociation.com/business-schools/accreditation/
CMMI Institute [CMMI]. (2018). Capability maturity model integration (CMMI) v. 2.0.
CMMI. https://cmmiinstitute.com/cmmi/intro
Coletto, M., & De Monte, T. (2019). ISO 9000 quality standards. In T. De Monte, S. Marco, & O. Guido (Eds.), Quality
management: tools, methods, and standards (pp. 187-198). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-
78769-801-720191012
Credential Engine. (2019). Counting U.S. postsecondary and secondary credentials. Credential Engine.
DNV GL. (2020). Hospital accrediation. DNV GL's pioneering NIAHO program integrates ISO 9001 with the Medicare
conditions of participation. https://www.dnvglhealthcare.com/accreditations/hospital-accreditation
European Quality Assurance Framework for Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET). (n.d.). Improving VET through
standards. https://vet21001.eu/about-the-project/
Hansen, M. C. (2018, December). Influential and impactful. Successful implementation of quality methods syncs with higher
job satisfaction. Quality Progress, 51(12), 16.
Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the reshpaing of higher education. The battle for world-class excellence. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education. The battle for world-class excellence. Plagrave
Macmillan.
International Organization for Standardization [ISO]. (2018a). Educational organizations — Management systems for
educational organizations — Requirements with guidance for use (ISO Standard 21001). International Standards
Organisation.
International Organization for Standardization [ISO]. (2018b). The ISO survey. https://www.iso.org/the-iso-survey.html
International Organization for Standardization [ISO]. (n.d.). Standards by ISO/TC 232. Education and learning
services. https://www.iso.org/committee/537864/x/catalogue/p/1/u/1/w/0/d/0
LaChapelle, E., Aliu, F., & Emni, E. (2018). ISO 21001:2018 Educational organizations — Management systems for
educational organizations — Requirements with guidance for use. PECB.
MBA Today. (2019). The triple accredited business schools (AACSB, AMBA, EQUIS). https://www.mba.today/guide/triple-
accreditation-business-schools
Musselin, C. (2018). New forms of competition in higher education. Socio-Economic Review, 16(3), 657-
683. https://doi.org/https://academic.oup.com/ser/issue
Schumann, C.-A., Xiao, F., Reuther, K., & Tittmann, C. (2019). Transnational education networks of excellence based on
quality, accreditation, and recognition management: A holistic approach. In A. Badran, E. Baydoun, & J. R. Hillman
(Eds.), Major challenges facing higher education in the Arab world: Quality assurance and relevance (pp. 69-96).
Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03774-1
54
5
©Center for Promoting Education and Research (CPER) USA www.cpernet.org
https://ijbassnet.com/ http://dx.doi.org/10.33642/ijbass.v6n10p5
©Center for Promoting Education and Research (CPER) USA www.cpernet.org
International Journal of Business and Applied Social Science (IJBASS)
E-ISSN: 2469-6501
VOL: 6, ISSUE: 10
October/2020
DOI: 10.33642/ijbass.v6n10p5
Scottish High International School. (2018). Scottish High first again. https://www.scottishigh.com/the-first-school-in-the-
country-to-be-accredited-and-certified-as-iso-210012018-standard/
TÜV. (n.d.). ID No. 2511150561: Quality auditor (TÜV). https://www.certipedia.com/quality_marks/2511150561?locale=en
Wanot, M. (2018). Advantages of attending an EQUIS accredited business school.
https://blog.efmdglobal.org/2018/06/20/advantages-of-attending-an-equis-accredited-business-school/
55