Initial Inquiry
The institution contacts AAC and provides initial information about its profile, objectives, and intended accreditation pathway.
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.
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.
Application and Scope Confirmation
AAC reviews the intended scope and confirms whether the case concerns Program Accreditation, Institutional Accreditation, AI-Native University Accreditation, or another applicable AAC pathway.
Opening of the Procedure
Once the scope and procedural conditions are confirmed, the accreditation procedure is formally opened according to AAC requirements.
Self-Evaluation
The institution prepares a self-evaluation against the relevant AAC standards and reflects on its own quality, evidence, systems, and development needs.
Evidence Submission
The institution submits supporting documentation, records, policies, reports, examples, and other evidence relevant to the accreditation pathway.
Peer Review and Expert Evaluation
AAC appoints qualified experts to review the evidence, prepare questions, and evaluate the case through a peer-review approach.
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.
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.
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.
Applicant Institution
Prepares the self-evaluation, submits evidence, participates in review meetings, and responds to factual matters where applicable.
AAC Administration
Coordinates the procedure, manages communication, checks administrative completeness, and maintains records.
Peer Review Experts
Review evidence, ask questions, participate in meetings or visits, and provide findings and recommendations.
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.
Program 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.
Evidence may include curriculum documents, course descriptions, assessment examples, staff CVs, student support materials, stakeholder feedback, quality assurance reports, and improvement records.
Institutional Accreditation
Institutional Accreditation focuses on the institution as a whole.
The review normally examines mission, governance, leadership, internal quality assurance, teaching and learning environment, student support, resources, facilities, sustainability, research where applicable, and stakeholder relationships.
Evidence may include strategic documents, governance records, institutional policies, quality assurance reports, organizational charts, resource information, student support evidence, and records of monitoring and improvement.
AI-Native University Accreditation
AI-Native University Accreditation focuses on responsible AI use, AI-enabled governance, institutional processes, and quality assurance in the AI era.
The review follows AAC’s general accreditation logic, but the evidence focuses on how the university governs, implements, monitors, and improves AI-enabled institutional development.
Evidence may include AI strategy, governance records, process maps, AI use-case and risk records, data and vendor controls, academic integrity and assessment redesign materials, monitoring records, and examples of human oversight.
Decision and follow-up
Decision and Follow-Up
The AAC Accreditation Commission considers the full review record and makes the accreditation decision. Outcomes may include conditions, recommendations, monitoring, renewal expectations, or follow-up evidence requirements.
Conditions
Where accreditation includes conditions, the institution may need to provide evidence or complete specified actions within a defined period. Follow-up may include document review or progress updates.
Monitoring
Monitoring confirms that relevant requirements continue to be met. It may include progress reports, evidence checks, public status review, or condition follow-up.
Renewal
Accreditation is granted for a defined period. Renewal normally requires a structured review of continuing quality, changes, improvement actions, and ongoing compliance.
Complaints and Appeals
Applicable AAC procedures may allow complaints or appeals concerning procedural matters, material factual error, or demonstrated inconsistency with policy.
Next steps
Continue Through the Accreditation Section
Use the links below to review AAC accreditation pathways, understand related pages, or submit an inquiry.
Accreditation Overview
Review AAC’s accreditation pathways and understand how Program Accreditation, Institutional Accreditation, and AI-Native University Accreditation relate to each other.
Program Accreditation
Explore the process and standards for the external review of academic programs.
Institutional Accreditation
Explore the process and standards for the external review of institutional quality, governance, and academic capacity.
AI-Native University Accreditation
Explore AAC’s pathway for universities developing responsible AI-enabled governance, institutional processes, and quality assurance.
Directory
View public listings of accredited institutions, evaluations, AI+QA Institute members, and AI+QA statuses.
Submit Accreditation Inquiry
Discuss the appropriate AAC accreditation pathway for your institution, program, or AI-native university development goals.
Accreditation · Peer Review · Quality Assurance
Ready to Start the Accreditation Conversation?
AAC can help clarify the appropriate pathway, expected scope, evidence requirements, and procedural steps.
The first step is to contact AAC and discuss the institution’s objectives, readiness, and intended review scope.
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.
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.
Initial Inquiry
The institution contacts AAC and provides initial information about its profile, objectives, and intended accreditation pathway.
Application and Scope Confirmation
AAC reviews the intended scope and confirms whether the case concerns Program Accreditation, Institutional Accreditation, AI-Native University Accreditation, or another applicable AAC pathway.
Opening of the Procedure
Once the scope and procedural conditions are confirmed, the accreditation procedure is formally opened according to AAC requirements.
Self-Evaluation
The institution prepares a self-evaluation against the relevant AAC standards and reflects on its own quality, evidence, systems, and development needs.
Evidence Submission
The institution submits supporting documentation, records, policies, reports, examples, and other evidence relevant to the accreditation pathway.
Peer Review and Expert Evaluation
AAC appoints qualified experts to review the evidence, prepare questions, and evaluate the case through a peer-review approach.
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.
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.
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.
Applicant Institution
Prepares the self-evaluation, submits evidence, participates in review meetings, and responds to factual matters where applicable.
AAC Administration
Coordinates the procedure, manages communication, checks administrative completeness, and maintains records.
Peer Review Experts
Review evidence, ask questions, participate in meetings or visits, and provide findings and recommendations.
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.
Program 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.
Evidence may include curriculum documents, course descriptions, assessment examples, staff CVs, student support materials, stakeholder feedback, quality assurance reports, and improvement records.
Institutional Accreditation
Institutional Accreditation focuses on the institution as a whole.
The review normally examines mission, governance, leadership, internal quality assurance, teaching and learning environment, student support, resources, facilities, sustainability, research where applicable, and stakeholder relationships.
Evidence may include strategic documents, governance records, institutional policies, quality assurance reports, organizational charts, resource information, student support evidence, and records of monitoring and improvement.
AI-Native University Accreditation
AI-Native University Accreditation focuses on responsible AI use, AI-enabled governance, institutional processes, and quality assurance in the AI era.
The review follows AAC’s general accreditation logic, but the evidence focuses on how the university governs, implements, monitors, and improves AI-enabled institutional development.
Evidence may include AI strategy, governance records, process maps, AI use-case and risk records, data and vendor controls, academic integrity and assessment redesign materials, monitoring records, and examples of human oversight.
Decision and follow-up
Decision and Follow-Up
The AAC Accreditation Commission considers the full review record and makes the accreditation decision. Outcomes may include conditions, recommendations, monitoring, renewal expectations, or follow-up evidence requirements.
Conditions
Where accreditation includes conditions, the institution may need to provide evidence or complete specified actions within a defined period. Follow-up may include document review or progress updates.
Monitoring
Monitoring confirms that relevant requirements continue to be met. It may include progress reports, evidence checks, public status review, or condition follow-up.
Renewal
Accreditation is granted for a defined period. Renewal normally requires a structured review of continuing quality, changes, improvement actions, and ongoing compliance.
Complaints and Appeals
Applicable AAC procedures may allow complaints or appeals concerning procedural matters, material factual error, or demonstrated inconsistency with policy.
Next steps
Continue Through the Accreditation Section
Use the links below to review AAC accreditation pathways, understand related pages, or submit an inquiry.
Accreditation Overview
Review AAC’s accreditation pathways and understand how Program Accreditation, Institutional Accreditation, and AI-Native University Accreditation relate to each other.
Program Accreditation
Explore the process and standards for the external review of academic programs.
Institutional Accreditation
Explore the process and standards for the external review of institutional quality, governance, and academic capacity.
AI-Native University Accreditation
Explore AAC’s pathway for universities developing responsible AI-enabled governance, institutional processes, and quality assurance.
Directory
View public listings of accredited institutions, evaluations, AI+QA Institute members, and AI+QA statuses.
Submit Accreditation Inquiry
Discuss the appropriate AAC accreditation pathway for your institution, program, or AI-native university development goals.
Accreditation · Peer Review · Quality Assurance
Ready to Start the Accreditation Conversation?
AAC can help clarify the appropriate pathway, expected scope, evidence requirements, and procedural steps.
The first step is to contact AAC and discuss the institution’s objectives, readiness, and intended review scope.