CIDA Accreditation Standards: Past and Future Evolution

P
E
R
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
CIDA Accreditation Standards:
Past and Future Evolution
Holly Mattson, B.A. with Heather Robertson Corrigan, BID and Betsy S. Gabb, Ed.D.
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
Introduction
The Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA), formerly the Foundation for Interior Design Education
and Research (FIDER), has been a part of the interior design profession’s landscape since 1970 when an
Indenture of Trust was formed by the professional associations of the era: American Institute of Interior
Designers (AID), National Society of Interior Design (NSID), and Interior Design Educators Council (IDEC).
The Trust was created,
. . . for the purpose of establishing and administering a voluntary plan for the specialized accreditation
of programs of interior design education offered at institutions of higher learning located throughout
the United States . . . and Canada. Such a plan shall emphasize the use of accreditation procedures
to assure that the purpose and accomplishments of programs of interior design education meet the
needs of society, interior design students, and the interior design profession, and serve as a means of
protecting the public against professional incompetence.
Among the tactics to achieve this was to,
Establish a program of . . . research and investigation to assure that accreditation criteria continue
to reflect current practice in education and professional interior design
(Trust Indenture, 1970, p. 1–2).
Since 1970, CIDA has grown from being an untested start-up in the accreditation world to a thoroughly
well-established, recognized authority on quality professional-level interior design education. CIDA now
fulfills the vision established not so very long ago by our founders and continues to engage the community
of stakeholders in advancing that vision. While the means of achievement have been honed, the ultimate
goal of today’s Board of Directors is synchronous with FIDER’S original mandate: provide the foundation
for future excellence in the interior design profession through quality education that prepares graduates for
practice and instills the capacity for life-long learning. CIDA standards continue to be focused on practice
and education in the United States and Canada, although program eligibility is open to institutions across the
globe. CIDA’s current eligibility requirements and accreditation standards are available on the CIDA website
www.accredit-id.org (homepage link Professional Standards).
Currently, a process is underway that will lead to accreditation standards for 2017 and beyond. Throughout
several iterations and changes in scope, CIDA accreditation standards have been both a mirror of the
current times and a portent of the future. While each generation of standards has had inherent strengths and
limitations, each new iteration also has reached to advance from the former, incorporating new definitions
of best practices and projections about future needs. In so doing, standards have kept pace, integrating new
content, while also being sensitive to acknowledged needs and constraints.
As the next leg of our journey begins, CIDA is pleased to have an opportunity in the Journal of Interior
Design to discuss how standards have evolved and how priorities for the future are forecast. In the following
Journal of Interior Design
v
© Copyright 2013, Interior Design Educators Council,
Journal of Interior Design 38(4), v–xii
P
E
R
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
Much has changed in the world, the profession, higher education, and accreditation since the first generation
of Interior Design accreditation standards was implemented in 1973.
Figure 1. History of CIDA (formerly FIDER) Accreditation Standards
essay, we provide some examples of milestones in the development of accreditation standards and succinctly
explore topics for future consideration. The authors, by no means, seek to limit the conversation to these
topics or form conclusions about the next generation of accreditation standards. The intent is to create dialog
and offer a general framework for consideration.
Program Eligibility to Seek Accreditation
Much has changed in the world, the profession, higher education, and accreditation since the first generation
of accreditation standards was implemented in 1973. The original issue of accreditation standards reflected
an elaborate categorization of programs that sought to describe multiple levels of design education:
Preprofessional Design Aide or Technician (terminal), Preprofessional (preparatory), Professional School,
Baccalaureate, and Graduate Programs (see Figure 1).
Within two decades of the original standards being issued, it was clear that a critical mass of programs would
seek accreditation at the baccalaureate level (which evolved to become CIDA’s current Professional Standards),
but not at the post-professional or other levels. Notably, only one post-professional program sought accreditation during that era and fewer than 25 in total were accredited among the other nonbaccalaureate categories.
Journal of Interior Design
vi
Volume 38
Number 4
2013
P
E
R
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
CIDA will and must consider pressures being placed on higher education to reduce the time to degree and
the cost of education, and how these factors impact the breadth of educational content a professional-level
program can reasonably deliver.
Additionally, as the career track for a professional interior designer became better defined, the level of design
aide or technician was questioned as a terminal degree to practice. Design aide or technician positions,
while perhaps prevalent at one time, were no longer common in design firms, and design education did not
distinguish this as a career path. The prevailing consensus was that the baccalaureate (professional) level
should be the terminal degree for practice as an interior designer.
Due to these factors, many of the major changes that occurred to CIDA Standards from 1973 through
1998 were related to eliminating the multiple tracks of accreditation eligibility and honing the definition of
professional-level education. Extensive resources were required to navigate these, sometimes controversial,
changes and a laborious lesson was learned about assessing the demand for accreditation prior to developing
services. In many ways, the evolution and move toward a single set of professional-level standards also
reflects the profession’s maturation during this 25-year period as the interior design career track became
more concentrated and robust, due in large part to heightened performance expectations from the National
Council for Interior Design Qualification exam, regulation of practice, and employer hiring practices.
The end result is that CIDA is able to focus resources and expertise on professional-level interior design
education. This has created many procedural efficiencies and a new clarity of purpose in communicating
CIDA’s mission and role. Would CIDA consider expanding its scope of services to include other levels of
education in the future? No doors are closed; however, clear data would need to exist to demonstrate demand
as well as a resulting measurable benefit to society and the profession in order for this to occur.
Another facet of the eligibility conversation that should not be overlooked is the bachelor’s degree requirement
to seek accreditation. For eligibility, the pendulum has swung from being a degree requirement, to being
expressed in total number of credit hours required for graduation, back to centering on the degree requirement.
There are proponents of both approaches and in the final analysis the decision about the eligibility requirement
is based on a majority consensus derived from consultation with practice and education.
Related to the degree requirement, some design educators and practitioners have called for CIDA to further
raise the bar by requiring programs to culminate in a minimum of a master’s degree in order to seek
accreditation. While not a foregone conclusion, this change would be unlikely unless: (1) the profession
requires a minimum of a master’s degree for the majority of entry-level positions, (2) a large majority of
professional-level programs culminate in a master’s degree, and (3) eligibility for examination, licensing,
and professional membership are similarly aligned. While CIDA would not prevent programs from evolving
toward professional-level master’s degrees, neither would there appear to be a basis upon which to make this
a requirement under the current practice paradigm.
CIDA will and must consider pressures being placed on higher education to reduce the time to degree and
the cost of education, and how these factors impact the breadth of educational content a professional-level
program can reasonably deliver. There are many other aspects of program eligibility that will be part of the
dialog as standards are revised. These include, but are not limited to:
•
Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and resulting changes to recognition criteria for accreditors
The Council for Higher Education Accreditation’s recognition criteria for accreditors
• Institutional and programmatic accreditors’ definitions and standards
• International quality assurance of higher education
•
Journal of Interior Design
vii
Volume 38
Number 4
2013
P
E
R
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
One major shift that CIDA navigated early on in developing accreditation standards was a move away from
solely using input-based criteria to measure educational effectiveness to evaluate outcome-based criteria
focused on student learning.
CIDA expects the community of stakeholders, particularly interior design educators, to be highly engaged
in providing insights about the future. Stakeholders are encouraged to discuss with colleagues the state
of higher education and the role of accreditation. What dynamics of the current higher education and
practice environment may impact eligibility? What is occurring globally that should be considered in defining
eligibility? Are there specific sources of information CIDA should investigate to better understand how higher
education is evolving?
Structure and System of Evaluation
The system of evaluation set forth in CIDA accreditation standards has been expressed in a variety of
configurations over the years. CIDA has gone from a literal checklist approach, to narrative analysis, to
a hybrid type of reporting. CIDA also has taken a range of approaches to interpretation and weighting
of accreditation criteria, some generations of standards being more prescriptive than others in delineating
educational approaches and required content.
One major shift that CIDA navigated early in developing accreditation standards was a move away
from solely using input-based criteria to measure educational effectiveness (e.g., counting credit hours and
dedicated square footage) to evaluating outcome-based criteria focused on student learning. CIDA was an
early adapter of outcome-based accreditation criteria and continues to be a leader among accreditors. The
current accreditation standards are a blend of input-based criteria and student learning criteria. Both measures
are considered valuable and meaningful in evaluating quality. The current standards are also a blend between
checklist and narrative analysis; however, the checklist of expectations is less rigid in determining compliance
with Standards than the preceding generation of standards.
Historically, the structure of standards has not changed during the time that a generation of standards
is in use. For example, while CIDA has issued two updates to Professional Standards 2009, the overall
structure has not changed; there remain 16 standards and each has expectations that are used as measures of
compliance. A system of evaluation set forth in standards is typically static from one generation to the next;
therefore, the structure must be built to endure for an 8- to 10-year time frame.
In broad terms, the structure adopted for a generation of standards is evolutionary and builds on concepts
previously introduced. The structure also tends to move in tandem with the current needs of higher education
and practice. For example, the standards that were implemented in 2000 expanded and elevated expectations
for technical knowledge about building systems and laws, codes, and standards. Additionally, the bar was
raised by requiring programs to comply or partially comply with a set of 12 broadly stated standards in
order to be accredited. Indicators were used to evaluate compliance and were weighted by must and should
statements. While content and criteria could be traced from previous standards, the format was different and
the weighting of indicators was deemed important for consistency in application. The content of indicators
was delineated quite specifically and discretely. This was intentional to ensure evaluation of each item. The
2000 standards paved the way for the current standards, which include similar content and devices, but with
less weighting and specificity relative compliance with standards. This intentionally allows for more program
flexibility in meeting criteria, which was considered a logical next step building on the previous generation.
Needless to say, the system of evaluation set forth by CIDA offers a complex and powerful tool underpinning
the accreditation process. Each aspect of methodology has inherent strengths and weaknesses. For example,
Journal of Interior Design
viii
Volume 38
Number 4
2013
P
E
R
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
CIDA continually monitors emerging priorities for design practice and develops criteria to encourage
development of educational content that prepares future interior design practitioners.
expressing criteria in holistic terms allows for a great deal of flexibility; however, less specificity creates
challenges for clarity of intent, interpretation, and consistency in evaluation. Many considerations are
deliberated by the CIDA Standards Committee when crafting the structure of standards. These include, but
are not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
Balance between outcome and input-based measures
Calibration and definition of learning levels for outcome-based measures
Balance between holistic versus discrete measures
Weighting of content relative to compliance and accreditation status
Degree of guidance and elaboration
Stakeholders are encouraged to discuss specific changes being forecast for the content and delivery of interior
design higher education. What characteristics of interior design education are presently evolving and what
are future implications? What structural aspects of accreditation standards will best support this evolution in
2017 and beyond?
Emerging Practices
CIDA continually monitors emerging priorities for design practice and develops criteria to encourage
development of educational content that prepares future practitioners. At the time of this writing, CIDA
accredits 180 interior design programs located in the United States, Canada, and Qatar. Because CIDA
accreditation is aimed at describing threshold expectations for a wide range of professional-level programs,
many programs exceed expectations in various areas. There are also some programs that struggle to meet
thresholds and use CIDA standards as a tool for program development. CIDA’s ability to identify emerging
practices and incorporate these as accreditation criteria ensures that interior design programs have a reliable
gauge of the core content required to prepare graduates for practice.
Several ready examples of how accreditation criteria support development of emerging priorities are in
the areas of technology-based design and sustainable design. Aspects of both of these content areas were
included in accreditation standards well in advance of becoming ubiquitous in practice or design education.
As each content area gained traction and importance in practice, related content in accreditation criteria were
expanded and expectations elevated. Both areas revolutionized practice and CIDA anticipated these waves of
change and helped prepare interior design programs.
In addition to practice expectations, CIDA also monitors higher education practices and develops criteria that
encourage programs to address emerging societal demands. Two recent examples are in the areas of program
assessment and publishing information about student achievement. Both areas have become elevated priorities
for higher education in the past decade and CIDA has worked diligently to incorporate accreditation criteria
that encourage interior design programs to develop procedures to address these. In so doing, CIDA serves
the purpose of helping programs keep pace with society’s expectations of higher education and demonstrate
accountability.
CIDA monitors many categories of information in order to identify emerging issues for practice and higher
education. Some examples are:
•
•
Population Demographics (of students, educators, who)
sustainability
Journal of Interior Design
ix
Volume 38
Number 4
2013
P
E
R
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
The development of accreditation standards for professional-level interior design education requires the
educator community to be highly engaged and provide input about the future.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
market forces
globalization
legislation in North America
technology
changing models of practice
government regulation of higher education in North America
design leadership
Stakeholders are encouraged to discuss forces shaping the future. What factors are foreseen to have the most
influence on practice and/or higher education in 2017 and beyond? How is educational content evolving? Are
there specific sources of information CIDA should investigate to forecast the dynamics of future practice?
A Brief Overview of the Upcoming Standards Development Project
CIDA is in the beginning stages of the 2013–2015 standards development project. The CIDA Standards
Committee stewards the process of standard setting, which requires information gathering, validation, and
consensus building. The process involves a high level of outreach to interior design educators as well as other
major stakeholder groups. The following highlights the project plan:
•
•
•
•
•
2013–2014 Trend Review and Analysis. In the first project phase, CIDA focuses on building a strong
knowledge base about the future of interior design. A broad array of information about trends impacting
the interior design profession and higher education is collected, synthesized, and culled for implications.
Surveys are conducted to gauge community consensus about degree of impact and importance.
2014–2015 Community Consultation. With solid information about future implications in hand, criteria
for evaluation of interior design programs are formed through a series of surveys and other activities
that engage the interior design community in a high level of discussion. The goals of this dialog with
the community are to (1) capture and build agreement about the range of interior design content that
is required of interior design graduates, (2) calibrate the appropriate level of student learning required
for entry-level interior design practice, and (3) develop clear and meaningful statements to communicate
expectations for quality professional-level interior design education.
One tactic for community engagement is the Board of Directors’ Future Vision session, which is slated to
take place in September 2014. Future Vision is a summit of leaders from higher education, interior design
practice, and industry who are charged with envisioning the future of the profession and education based
on implications culled from information gathering. These thought leaders are asked to establish priorities
for the future content of CIDA accreditation standards.
2015 Review and Comment. The criteria developed through community consultation in 2014 are compiled
into draft standards. CIDA circulates draft standards for review and comment with the interior design
community. Community responses either verify agreement with, or point out areas of disagreement with,
the criteria for evaluating educational programs. Review and comment is the final step of validation and
refinement of standards. At the end of 2015, the Board of Directors is presented with the final standards
for adoption and sets an implementation date of 2017.
2015 Accreditation Process Review. The accreditation process supports and strengthens the consistent
application of standards and CIDA’s evaluation of interior design programs that aspire to achieve those
standards. As standards are developed, CIDA’s Accreditation Commission will conduct a self-study of
the accreditation process and determine strategies to implement new standards that increase both the
efficiency and value of the rigorous accreditation process.
Journal of Interior Design
x
Volume 38
Number 4
2013
P
E
R
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
CIDA welcomes all stakeholders to participate in the process of crafting evaluation criteria for interior
design higher education in 2017 and beyond.
The development of accreditation standards for professional-level interior design education requires the
educator community to be highly engaged and provide input about the future. The topical areas described
in the preceding article (e.g., eligibility, structure, and emerging practices) provide a general framework for
debate and consensus building. CIDA encourages community members to submit information that will help
the Standards Committee form strategies for the next generation of accreditation standards. As the standards
development project proceeds, CIDA welcomes all stakeholders to participate in the process of crafting
evaluation criteria for interior design higher education in 2017 and beyond.
Please send any feedback to the stakeholder queries raised in this Perspective to [email protected].
Reference
Foundation for Interior Design Education Research, Trust Indenture, June 12, 1970.
Holly Mattson is Executive Director of the Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA) located in
Grand Rapids, Michigan, and has been with the organization for 20 years. Mattson has a broad range
of responsibilities associated with strategic organizational management, carried out in partnership with a
nine-member Board of Directors. Mattson previously served as Director of Accreditation. She has extensive
experience developing quality assurance standards for accreditation of interior design academic programs,
having provided leadership through two major revision projects and numerous standards updates.
Journal of Interior Design
xi
Volume 38
Number 4
2013
P
E
R
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
Located in Nova Scotia, Canada, Heather Robertson Corrigan is founder, President, and principal designer
for Robertson MacLean Design Limited (RMDL), a firm that has provided design consulting to thousands
of public and private sector projects over the past 26 years. She is a founding member of the Association of
Interior Designers of Nova Scotia (IDNS, 1973) and has served in all executive positions, including President.
She also served as a Director of the Interior Designers of Canada (IDC) from 2000–2005. Perhaps her most
important contribution to the profession in Nova Scotia was her lobby effort over many years to make the
Nova Scotia Interior Design Practice Act and Regulations a reality in 2003. To date, Nova Scotia is the only
province in Canada to legislate public practice rights for interior designers. Corrigan serves as a member
of the Nova Scotia Building Advisory Committee, representing the Interior Designers of Nova Scotia. The
committee advises the government on the National and Provincial building codes and regulations. Corrigan
was part of the first graduating class (1975) at Ryerson to be awarded the degree, Bachelor of Interior Design.
Dr. Betsy S. Gabb is a Professor and Program Director of the Interior Design Program in the College of
Architecture at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Dr. Gabb has been actively involved in interior design
curriculum development, teaching and program administration from inception through accreditation. An
award-winning educator, she was instrumental in the development of an online post professional master’s
program in Interior Design at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Dr. Gabb is a member of IIDA and was
named a Fellow of the Interior Design Educators Council (IDEC) in2007. She has served as the Midwest
Regional Chair of IDEC and on the Editorial Board for the Journal of Interior Design. In addition, she
has served on the Technical Review Board for InformeDesign. Dr. Gabb has also served on the Board of
Directors of the Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA) and is currently Chair of the Standards
Committee.
Journal of Interior Design
xii
Volume 38
Number 4
2013