EMERGING DIALOGUES IN ASSESSMENT

November 3, 2025

• Sterling Richards, PhD, CSCS (corresponding author)
  Assistant Professor of Exercise Science
  College of Nursing and Health Science
  Lewis University, Romeoville, IL

• David Fuentes, EdD, PharmD, MSOL, SHRM-CP
  Associate Dean, College of Health
  Professor, Pharmacy Practice, Skaggs School of Pharmacy
  University of Montana, Missoula, MT

• Jeremy Hughes, PharmD, EdD
  Associate Dean for Professional Pharmacy Education
  University of Washington School of Pharmacy
  University of Washington, Seattle WA
  

Framing program review and assessment leadership opportunities through multiple lenses can help ensure that issues are being addressed in collaborative and holistic ways that benefit institutions and the review of academic programs. For a team or organization to be successful, assessment professionals and other faculty and staff must recognize and appreciate the program review process and the impact it has on organizational health and employee engagement. Assessment leaders can use four frames of leadership to recognize and address challenges in the program review process. Here, we present a case that progressively applies four frames to the program review and accreditation process. 

Case: Sample Program Review at Example University 

We present a fictional case at Faraway University where a department with a professional degree program is preparing for a university program review process and has a programmatic accreditation self-study and site visit slated for two years in the future. The Department of Fascinating Studies is facing challenges with morale, and low student and faculty engagement scores on surveys, as well as low course and faculty evaluation scores. The department has also been experiencing declining enrollment in the past several years, as well as challenges in recruitment and hiring, high turnover in deans, chairs, and directors, and a lack of policies governing curriculum change processes. Although this is a fictional case, we developed this case with full awareness that these challenges are seen across institutions in higher education. The lessons here can be applied and integrated into various types of institutions, teams, and cultures in academia.

Challenges to the Program Review Process 

It is important to monitor silos because while they can create necessary delineations, they also have the potential for enabling communication breakdowns, and inhibiting collaboration and transdisciplinary innovation (Logan et al., 2019). The structure of most academic institutions creates perceived and operational silos based on organizational divisions and hierarchies, including separations based on disciplines and/or activities. Traditional departmental structures can create artificial islands, promoting tribalism and territorialism. Additional examples of the negative impacts of silos include that units may ascribe ownership over physical facilities, curricula, majors, courses, workload equivalents, committee representation, and governance models (Lei et al., 2020). Perceptions of ownership are associated with the need to defend and protect resources (Shah et al., 2012). Territorial behaviors make necessary changes when critically evaluating existing programs and processes, developing new programs, and anything requiring transdisciplinary collaboration even more challenging (Denti et al., 2024). When silos present themselves in a negative manner, there is a greater propensity to adopt a scarcity mindset, which further diminishes collaboration.

Program Review as an Assessment and Quality Improvement Practice

In the case of Faraway University, it is important to outline the need for ongoing quality reviews and assessment as part of the program review.

At Faraway University, the purpose of the academic review is generally divided into five sections which should be used to guide the review process, often in connection with regional, state, and regulation, or discipline-specific, accreditation standards. When examining the relationship of these accrediting bodies, understanding the connection with the Department of Education (DOE). In a connected fashion, the DOE provides oversight of the accrediting bodies, which holds higher education institutions accountable. Elements critical to the program review process include evaluation of quality and effectiveness – this includes curriculum, teaching, faculty and student learning outcomes. It is important to identify areas for improvement, facilitate strategic planning, ensure continuous and ongoing progress on goals, and meet accreditation standards.

Applications of the Four Frames to the Approach to Institutional Program Reviews

Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames of leadership (structural, political, human resources, and symbolic) can be applied as a reflective tool to identify challenges and opportunities in the program review process by assessment professionals, regardless of their level of work. Assessment professionals within smaller departments, or those working university-wide can benefit from embracing the four frames of leaders in their ongoing assessment roles. The four frames are more fully described in Table 1, and they include: structural, human resources, political, and symbolic perspectives.  We will also outline direct connections for each of the four frames of leadership to the case at Faraway University.

Table 1. Aspects of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) Four Frames for Assessment Leaders

Structural 

As departments prepare for their program review, structural foundations in project management structures and workflow processes should be developed and widely shared. This includes outlining the composition, roles and responsibilities, expectations, and timelines of the taskforce assigned with drafting and collecting the supportive evidence for the program review. Management functions, including team member recruitment, hiring, evaluation, and professional development, benefit from the transparent and consistent practices (including rubrics and forms) that are ratified into policies and procedures (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Similarly, documentation for formal processes such as strategic planning, budgeting, and team goal setting allow for shared understanding of purpose, objectives, and strategic direction (Jones, 2013). A description of the process and procedures for such internal assessment and review processes, including assessment plans and curricular maps, will likely be required supporting documents for both the department self-study for the program review process and future programmatic accreditation reporting.

Specifically at Faraway University, applying the structural frame may help with identifying specific points of contact, clarity of roles and responsibilities, and documentation of knowledge management approaches that sets the department up for success. When applying the structural leadership frame to poor morale and enrollment challenges, the institution could outline engagement behaviors and metrics explicitly in writing so they can be recognized and accessed by any member of the community. Being able to document, outline, and otherwise record information, expectations, and goals can help a department unite around explicit and shared goals. The structural frame can connect well with survey results, as the data will help guide efforts towards pinpointing the true challenges, and creating steps to lead better moving forward. Documenting “what is” can be a great first step in sharing information transparently, creating shared goals based on evidence, and ensuring that information can be shared widely in an organized and logical fashion.

Human Resources

Assessment leaders and others leading the program review process need to ensure that faculty and staff across departments understand why the program review process is important, and not just see it as busy work. It is important to help team members to see how their work is connected to the goals, outcomes, and strategic direction of the department. Transparency, collective involvement for creating vision, and understanding a unified motivation for change within the department and the greater institution will increase the collective desire to support one another within the system. Developing assessment processes that enhance student learning and support institutional needs must be a collective endeavor by the administration and the faculty.   

At Faraway University, the importance of the human resource frame can help with morale, which may have a positive impact on employee engagement, development, and retention. Impacting leadership turnover, the infusion of human resource elements into the department may help with employee satisfaction and belonging. Attention can be placed on improving relationships between department members, creating guidelines for behaviors aligning well with organizational values, and clarifying expectations so individuals understand and feel when they have met the expectations of their roles, thus helping preserve their energy.

Symbolic

The symbolic frame emphasizes meaning and importance behind ideas, actions, words, and more (Alvesson & Berg, 2011). Meaning within organizations can often be taken for granted and the symbolic frame allows leaders to avoid such oversight. Assessment leaders ignoring the symbolic frame may be challenged with surprises to words or actions, potentially unwittingly upsetting others because of misunderstandings or failure to recognize others (Abdourrahmane, 2019). 

The symbolic frame challenges assessment professionals to consider meaning, and then reconsider deeper meaning through diverse lenses (Winkler & Winkler, 2009). Program review and assessment operating with a symbolic lens may inculcate a program mindset that facilitates powerful questions about effects of assessment approaches on others organization wide. (Thacker & Freeman, 2019). 

At Faraway University, the meaning behind accreditation can be highly significant, as it creates an opportunity to demonstrate the positive successes of the department. Currently, the department is feeling a lack of motivation, and like they are currently in crisis management mode. Signs of low morale among faculty can negatively impact enrollment, perpetuating a vicious cycle of hopelessness. Holding team retreats to discuss and document the meaning behind the work of accreditation would be valuable to promote engagement in the process and participation in the approach. Earning accreditation may mean that compliance is met on the surface, but also speaks to the successes and the efforts of faculty, staff, and students in the department. An ascribed element of mastery and excellence can also be conveyed and shared when accreditation is met. Accreditation can also serve as a celebration of past accomplishments and instill hope for future successes. Leveraging the symbolic frame can challenge teams, such as this department, to see accreditation and compliance as more than a report. 

Political

The political frame focuses on addressing the interests and motivations of diverse groups (Andrade, 2011). Institutions of higher learning are systems that must always be evolving to ensure that the highest level of education and skill development is being executed. Such evolution requires frequent change and evaluation of its processes to ensure success. Often when institutional change needs to occur, individual groups with similar interests will “turn inward” resulting in silos of isolation to protect their interests resulting in turf-protection and blunting progress (Andrade, 2011). Assessment conflict can arise when siloed departments stand by the assessments that have been established, and administrative oversight suggests that the assessment process is insufficient.  

Assessment should be an evolving process resulting in change over time. This change should be a time for growth and development and not met with obstruction and resistance, both from the administration and the faculty. Leaders must understand that successful change occurs when all stakeholders feel ownership in the creation of change and will support it when they recognize it as beneficial. The bargaining and negotiation skills emphasized as vital within the political frame enhance the ability to unite individuals around a shared goal. 

Within Faraway University, the department can leverage the political frame to establish priorities to everyone, share those priorities within the department, and then determine how to help one another achieve their goals. It is also a worthy exercise to connect all goals to the larger departmental vision and start to identify priorities in which to assist one another. In the political frame, department members can start to learn about what each person desires and is better able to help them meet their short term and longer-term goals. Leveraging the political frame, it is also possible to develop a timeline for when individual, team, and departmental goals can be achieved. By knowing what each person values, and how these values and goals connect with the larger department, team members can exchange help and help procure resources for each other.

Conclusion / Institutional Application 

When assessment leaders at all levels apply the four frames of leadership in their work, they can effectively use assessment to create positive change. Further, they can be seen as leaders by encouraging others to collaborate, work effectively within their given constraints, engage in greater organizational learning and awareness, and assist in setting priorities that matter most to the success of their institution. We hope that examining the case of Faraway University and how they are grappling with accreditation processes is relatable. Institutions can benefit from heavy exploration and delineation of how they might use the four leadership frames to celebrate their work and turn a process that is often seen as tedious and mundane into an exploration of their departmental successes. Approaching the challenges in higher education requires that we see all elements of our work through the diverse perspectives outlined in the four leadership frames.