Rhetorical Styles in University Accreditation: Judgmental Rules or Collaborative Creation?

The university accreditation process is at a crossroads. After more than a century of allowing universities to function as self‐governing institutions, legislatures are now demanding more accountability. That puts pressure on the accreditation process to impose more external rules, which are diametrically opposed to the high value placed on heterogeneity and the spirit of free and independent inquiry. However, accreditation, and the assessment practices that accompany it, need to resist this restrictive methodology. Assessment is a rhetorical social practice, and as such, the kind of rhetoric we use when we engage this practice influences how we think and feel about the work and contributes to the effectiveness of our practice. Aristotle's distinction between forensic and deliberative rhetoric provides a heuristic framework for us to think about regional accreditation and internal assessment of universities. A close look at recent accreditation guidelines reveals that the context of much regional and local assessment calls for a deliberative rhetoric (thinking together about how to create a common future) rather than forensic rhetoric (gathering evidence to judge a past event). However, habituated responses to existing assessment genres can cause those involved in accreditation and assessment to fail to move beyond a mentality of mere compliance and miss the opportunities of progressive, aspirational assessment practice, a practice that requires a deliberative rhetoric in order to set us on the open pathway of building educational community.