Accreditation process
Accreditation Process and Requirements
AAC accreditation follows a structured peer-review process based on application, evidence submission, expert review, reporting, Commission decision-making, monitoring, and renewal.
The object of accreditation may differ. A review may concern an academic program, an institution, or AI-Native University Accreditation. However, AAC applies the same core accreditation principles across its accreditation pathways: standards-driven review, evidence-based evaluation, peer review, and decision-making by the AAC Accreditation Commission.
View Process Steps Understand Review Roles Submit Accreditation Inquiry（https://www.aac.cw/contactus）
Process at a glance Standard Review Sequence
AAC accreditation normally follows a clear sequence. The details may vary depending on the pathway and scope, but the main procedural stages remain consistent.
01
Initial Inquiry
The institution contacts AAC and provides initial information about its profile, objectives, and intended accreditation pathway.
02
Application and Scope Confirmation
AAC reviews the intended scope and confirms whether the case concerns Programmatic Accreditation, Institutional Accreditation, AI-Native University Accreditation, or another applicable AAC pathway.
03
Opening of the Procedure
Once the scope and procedural conditions are confirmed, the accreditation procedure is formally opened according to AAC requirements.
04
Self-Evaluation
The institution prepares a self-evaluation against the relevant AAC standards and reflects on its own quality, evidence, systems, and development needs.
05
Evidence Submission
The institution submits supporting documentation, records, policies, reports, examples, and other evidence relevant to the accreditation pathway.
06
Peer Review and Expert Evaluation
AAC appoints qualified experts to review the evidence, prepare questions, and evaluate the case through a peer-review approach.
07
Site Visit or Virtual Review
Depending on the scope and format of the procedure, AAC may conduct an onsite visit, virtual review, or structured online meetings.
08
Expert Report and Institutional Response
The expert panel prepares a report with findings and recommendations. Where applicable, the institution may respond to factual matters before the decision stage.
09
Commission Decision and Follow-Up
The AAC Accreditation Commission considers the review record and makes the accreditation decision. Where accreditation is granted, AAC may issue a certificate, publish the status, define monitoring requirements, and establish the renewal cycle.
Review roles Decision Authority and Responsibilities
AAC accreditation depends on clear separation of responsibilities between the applicant institution, AAC administration, peer review experts, and the AAC Accreditation Commission.
Role 01 Applicant Institution
Prepares the self-evaluation, submits evidence, participates in review meetings, and responds to factual matters where applicable.
Role 02 AAC Administration
Coordinates the procedure, manages communication, checks administrative completeness, and maintains records.
Role 03 Peer Review Experts
Review evidence, ask questions, participate in meetings or visits, and provide findings and recommendations.
Role 04 Accreditation Commission
Considers the review record and makes the accreditation decision in accordance with AAC procedures.
Expert panels provide findings and recommendations. They do not grant accreditation.
Evidence and review formats Evidence and Review Formats
AAC accreditation is evidence-based. The exact evidence package depends on the accreditation pathway, but all cases require documentation that can be reviewed, discussed, and verified.
Evidence Submitted by the Institution
Evidence may include self-evaluation materials, policies, governance records, academic documents, quality assurance reports, staff and student information, assessment materials, stakeholder feedback, institutional data, meeting records, improvement plans, and other materials relevant to the applicable standards.
Review Formats
AAC reviews may include document review, structured interviews, online meetings, virtual visits, onsite visits, clarification requests, factual correction stages, and follow-up evidence checks.
Evidence in Practice
AAC reviewers examine whether submitted evidence is implemented, monitored, and used for improvement. A strong submission shows a clear connection between policies, practice, evidence, and quality development.
Pathway-specific scope How Scope and Evidence Differ by Pathway
AAC applies the same accreditation principles across pathways. What differs is the object of review, the applicable standards, the evidence package, and the expertise required.
Programmatic Accreditation
Program Accreditation focuses on a specific academic program.
The review normally examines program aims, learning outcomes, curriculum design, teaching and assessment, academic staff, student support, stakeholder engagement, program documentation, and program-level quality assurance.