Differences in international accreditation: Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to count the number of international program accreditations at universities in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan; and second, to understand why Kazakhstan has dramatically more such accreditations.

Design/methodology/approach

The methodology included identifying agencies working in each country, reviewing data on their websites, and analyzing government documents and relevant literature.

Findings

Findings were that Kazakhstan has 645 international program accreditations and Kyrgyzstan has 9. Analysis of the reasons for this difference includes strong government support and incentives for internationalization of higher education in Kazakhstan, furthering the government’s goal of becoming one of the world’s 30 most developed economies by 2050; Kazakhstan’s financial wherewithal to support internationalization policies; and its membership in the Bologna Process. In Kyrgyzstan, on the other hand, few rewards result from the costly and time-consuming process of international accreditation; only programs with existing international connections or institutions with large international student populations seem interested.

Research limitations/implications

Limitations are that the research was based on document analysis and did not include interviews with staff of programs seeking international accreditation.

Practical implications

One implication, i.e., international program accreditation, while an indicator of program quality, also denotes the financial and infrastructural wherewithal to carry it out, plus the perceived benefits and costs of doing so.

Originality/value

The value of this research is that it analyzes the reasons for divergence and different results in two countries that, 25 years ago, were part of the same higher education system.

Citation

Merrill, M. (2020), "Differences in international accreditation: Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan", Asian Education and Development Studies, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 465-478. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-08-2018-0131