Can the transformation of global health education for impact rely on input-based accreditation?

Burck Smith wrote in 2012 what remains one of the clearest summaries of how accreditation is based primarily on a higher education institution’s inputs rather than its outcomes, and serves to create an “iron triangle” to maintain high prices, keep out new entrants, and resist change.

It is worth quoting Smith at length (see this link) as we think through the proposal that the transformation of global health education for impact should rely on accredited institutions. Global health efforts are focused on outcomes and aim to achieve impact. Of necessity, this requires rethinking a broad swath of fairly fundamental issues, from how to construct education to what philosophy should underpin what we design and develop. And the focus on results makes the prevailing input-based accreditation criteria unlikely to be the most useful ones to help achieve global health goals.

Read the full story by

Tags:

RELATED READS
Two false dichotomies: quality vs. quantity and peer vs. global expertise Against the hegemony of the ‘International Trainer’: Transforming learning to decolonize global health
We are updating our Privacy Policy, so please make sure you take a minute to review it. As of May 25, 2018 your continued use of our services will be subject to this new Privacy Policy.
Review Privacy Policy OK