Innovation and Accreditation: Opposing Forces in Computer Science
Dr. Peter A. Cooper
Department Chair, Computer Science
Sam Houston State University
Huntsville TX 77340 USA
[email protected]
Fax: 0101.936.294.1882
Abstract
Computer science is more than an academic discipline. Computer science has
an intellectual and conceptual framework that is valuable and substantial in its own right,
and yet there is an increasing focus on application and utilization; a demand for
universities to produce competent professionals capable of design and development in
myriad other professional arenas. Universities can respond positively to such demand
through the development of hybrid programs that enhance the opportunity to recruit, and
generates a synergy between academic disciplines that results, not only in better
intellectual understanding but in the opportunity to develop new knowledge and to teach
through the medium of professional demand. A number of challenges exist in broadening
the scope of computer science, including accreditation concerns, the recruitment and
retention of faculty and the maintenance of programs that are universally recognized as
computer science.
Introduction
Computer science, since its split from Mathematics in the late 1960’s has established itself as a
distinct academic discipline with a well defined intellectual and conceptual base. The application of
computer science to the various professional, human and societal requirements of the outside world
however, has resulted in a wide array of related areas of professional expertise. Denning 1 for example lists
fifteen IT-specific CS related disciplines that interact with 16 IT-intensive external disciplines supported by
nine IT support occupations. The lists, of course, are not complete. In catering to the professions (in itself
an open question), two major institutional issues arise. To what extent should universities meet
professional demands for specific content? To what extent are universities responsible to the professions
for validation of the credentials they award? Some answers may emerge, indirectly from the primary focus
of this paper, an examination of the role of accreditation in computer science and its impact on the
curriculum.
Accreditation
In the United States the primary accreditation body for computer science is the Accreditation
Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). ABET provides accreditation criteria for a number of
disciplines including Computer Science and Information System2. Those criteria construct a framework in
which curriculum decisions are made and include:
 Objectives and Assessments
 Student Support
 Faculty
 Curriculum
 Laboratory and Computing Facilities
 Institutional support and Financial Resources
For each area of concern ABET provides both a statement of Intent that informs the underlying principles
or concerns, and a set of Standards that identify measurable levels of quality by which the program may be
evaluated. In general the Intent and Standards help to ensure minimum levels of quality. The Objective
and Assessment Intent, for example, supports the development and maintenance of sets of measurable
outcomes that graduating students are expected to achieve. This requires that significant thought is put into
defining what we as a university are trying to accomplish, and allows the results of assessment to guide
future direction. There is evidence3 to suggest that accreditation does indeed have a significant and large
positive effect on a set of quality indicators.
Accreditation agencies, ABET among them, typically conform computer science curricula into either pure
or applied moulds. ABET’s computer science curriculum requirement include 40 semester hours of
computer science, and 30 semester hours of mathematics and science. The computer science component
includes an established core covering data structures, software engineering programming language
concepts and computer architecture, with emphasis on theoretical foundations and problem analysis. The
mathematics requirement are similarly well defined, calculus, discrete mathematics and probability and
statistics. In contrast, the curriculum criteria for Information Systems programs stress data management
and communications, the role of IS in organizations, and also define a 15 semester hour Information
Systems Environment block (read Business minor)
It is in these two areas, outcomes and assessment and curriculum management that, computer science
departments have the clearest control. Facilities and intellectual resources are very often institutional issues
rather than departmental issues. The perspective of the institution is critical in the pursuit of accreditation
as a positive result very often has implications for the maximum acceptable teaching load, the level funding
required to maintain and develop resources, and the general level of faculty salaries within the accredited
department.
The notion of accreditation as providing a minimum level of quality in the process has lead some to assume
a corresponding level of quality in the product, the university graduate and emerging professional. It
follows, so the argument goes, that such minimum quality standards can then be evaluated and those that
meet or exceed the quality standards can be certified. Where the product of engineers, software or
hardware, impacts public safety; where failure can result in significant human or financial loss, some have
called for a system of licensing for Professional Engineers 4.
Curriculum Innovation
The demand for specialization in professionally-oriented information technology domains is fueling a
process of accretion and acquisition, by computer science, of the technology related aspects of many
disciplines. This process is at odds with a tendency in computer science of “bias toward a mathematical
representation of computing. Computer Science has stubbornly fought to focus on something other than
programming” 5 and, to some extent, that fight lead early on to the division of Computer Science into two
distinct programs; Computer Science (CS) and Information Systems (IS). This dichotomy is no longer
sufficient.
First, programs can be categorized along a continuum between theory and solution
management. Second, the field of study is impacted significantly by human factors and social and
economic issues6 producing an array (see figure 1 below) of potential professions that variously
 Focus on the creation of new infrastructure
 Create new applications applying engineering principles and applying CS practices
 Develop end-user solutions
Figure 1: RIT's Information Technology Dimension
In the process, the term “computer science” becomes less appropriate and two phrases emerge. Information
Technology describes the theory-solution continuum while Informatics describes the application of
computer science to specific human, social and economic domains. While some schools, particularly
within Business Colleges, are attempting to develop curricula that integrate CS and IS 7, there is a growing
recognition that computer science departments must move toward specialization and diversification.
As the technology components of other disciplines increases, the demand for computer scientists with
background in those disciplines increases, putting pressure on the CS curriculum to accommodate that
demand. With finite resources typically available in universities, growth can only emerge through the
synergy of cross discipline innovation. The conditions are thus right for a variety of informatics programs
to emerge. Such programs meet niche needs for universities, allow for growth without the addition of
significant new resources, and provide focused education to meet emerging professional needs.
A second force for curriculum innovation arises out of the efforts of the computer science community itself.
One of the significant areas of development is in the design of new applications, and the remodeling of old
applications for new media. Such developments often detract from the fundamentals in that theoretical
considerations are hidden, or at least force the instructor, the curriculum designer and the department into
making decisions between the theoretical domain and the implementation domain. They do however,
inevitably place pressure on the curriculum for change. Model curricula have emerged that encompass
much of what is traditionally considered computer science, but are taught through an implementation
domain such as Digital Forensics, Gaming, Multimedia Communication, Bioinformatics, Geographical
Information Systems.
Opposing Forces
Computer science departments face two competing pressures, accreditation, with its actual and perceived
benefits in terms of evaluation evidence, academic quality, program image and institutional status, and
curriculum innovation, responding directly to environmental pressures, both institutional and professional.
Accreditation, typically restricted to CS and IS programs, cannot evolve sufficiently quickly to
accommodate what is a very fluid and developing discipline. As such while it represents a measure of
quality it also represents conservatism and embodies reactionary thought.
The desire for accreditation is tempered by concerns that it is but one step along the road to professional
certification and licensing. Certification within technology-oriented fields has long been the domain of
junior institutions, viewed as being more akin to training than to education and is seen as a mechanism to
demonstrate or validate mastery of a relatively narrow set of techniques or tools for use within a well
defined environment. There is concern that licensing could be associated with accreditation, leaving nonaccredited programs in a situation where their graduates have fewer professional opportunities.
Curriculum innovation holds out the promise of a more up-to-date curriculum with the potential for
tailoring the curriculum to meet specific professional needs. Curriculum innovation may be a ‘politically
correct’ move in that it responds to internal and external pressures to change giving an indication of the
institutions desire to accommodate professional and societal needs. Such change may, however, bring
about some loss in actual or perceived quality. With no accrediting agency to evaluate, say, a Digital
Forensics program, it is difficult to establish or determine the program quality directly. With no
accreditation guidelines available and no means to establish quality levels, the potential quality of
innovative programs will be more variable.
One of the criticisms of accreditation is that the effort invested in obtaining accreditation and the perceived
benefits in terms of image projection and faculty, student and resources quality are such that, once
obtained, departments will tend to avoid changes that endanger future accreditation. Essentially, the
accrediting agency defines a model, from which few variations are permitted even when those variations
may have a solid professional rationale.
Accrediting bodies identify curriculum content with courses, typically three hour semester long courses.
By doing so, even with conversion formulae for quarters or terms, the focus is on the course structure, and
the labels applied to those courses rather than the content. When a department elects to embed ethics in
every course within the program, is that different in terms of product from teaching an ethics course? To
an accreditation agency it may be.
Conclusion
Computer science, as it has been for its entire history is still in a state of growth. As more professional
arenas embrace, and become dependent upon technology, as the body of knowledge expands, the need for
specialization in computer science increases, resulting in the introduction of new, innovative and
interdisciplinary programs targeted to specific professional areas. The accreditation process, while
providing some measure of quality assurance and tools for the promotion of academic programs to external
constituencies imposes some restrictions on programs such that it is more difficult to embrace change,
rendering accredited programs, if not obsolete, then less well connected to the needs of the professional
world.
Denning, Peter K., “The Professions of IT, Who Are We?”, Communications of the ACM (44,2) February
2001, pp 15-19.
2
Criteria for Accrediting Computing Programs (2002) Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology
Inc
3
Rozanski E.P. (1994) “Accreditation: Does it Enhance Quality”. Proceedings Of The Twenty-Fifth
SIGCSE Symposium On Computer Science Education, 145-149
4
Knight, J. C., & Leveson, N.G. “Should Software Engineers be Licensed?” Communications of the ACM
(45,11) November 2002, pp87-90.
5
Mitchell, W. “New Faces in the Computing Landscape: Not Your Father’s Oldsmobile”, The Journal of
Computing in Small Colleges, (18,6), June 2003. pp 97-108.
6
Referenced on the World Wide Web. http://www.rit.edu/~gccis/yourFutureComputing/
7
Hoganson, K. Alternative Curriculum Models For Integrating Computer Science And Information
Systems Analysis, Recommendations, Pitfalls, Opportunities, Accreditations, And Trends. The Journal of
Computing in Small Colleges, (17,2), December 2001. pp 313-325
1