The Roles and Responsibilities of an HLC Peer Reviewer

Peer review in accreditation is based on the fundamental assumption that quality in higher education is best served through a process that enables peers of the organization, informed by standards created and applied by professionals in higher education, to make the judgments essential to assuring and advancing the quality of higher learning.

Peer Reviewer Roles

Peer review means bringing judgment based on experience and knowledge to the evaluation process—from setting the standards, to conducting the evaluation, to making final decisions. In all evaluation processes, judgment, reason, and the documentation of evidence contribute to effective peer review. This is especially true for the Commission’s accreditation activities; for the breadth of its Criteria for Accreditation requires that their application be informed significantly by the context of the institution and its mission.

Members of the Peer Review Corps serve as agents of the Commission in its evaluation and decision-making processes for AQIP, PEAQ, and the Program for Seeking Initial Status. In general, the groups within the Peer Review Corps include

PEAQ consultant-evaluators (C-Es)
AQIP reviewers
PEAQ Eligibility Reviewers and consultant-evaluators for the Program for Seeking Initial Status
Review and decision-making council members: Institutional Actions Council (IAC) and Accreditation Review Council (ARC)

Peer reviewers may serve in a single role for one program above or may hold multiple roles simultaneously in more than one program. In addition, peer reviewers may also serve as members of Commission decision-making groups. Further, they may be invited to serve as speakers, trainers, and mentors for Commission programs or as members of Commission task forces and advisory teams.

The Commission also includes representatives of the public in its decision-making groups and makes use of one-time peer reviewers who are not regular members of the Corps when appropriate.

Primary Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Commission peer reviewers have two primary responsibilities:

Organizational improvement. Within the context and mission of the organization, peer reviewers offer consultative information intended to contribute to the quality of its academic offerings and to its improvement.
Public certification of organizational quality. Within its context and mission, peer reviewers provide public assurance of the organization by affirming its fulfillment of the Criteria for Accreditation.

Characteristics of Effective Peer Reviewers

Effective peer reviewers have several attributes.

They are organizational generalists rather than programmatic specialists. The Commission's peer review processes evaluate and accredit an entire organization as a whole. To achieve this, the Commission selects and prepares its peer reviewers to conduct evaluations as generalists rather than as administrative, functional area, or programmatic specialists. As generalists, peer reviewers must prepare comprehensively for their Commission work.

Peer reviewers should not confuse institutional and program accreditation. Institutional accreditation does not testify to the merits of every unit or program, nor does the Commission attempt to assure that every subject-area specialty is evaluated in depth or represented by peer reviewers.

Peer reviewers maintain objectivity and confidentiality. They must be able to render impartial and objective decisions on behalf of the Commission. Therefore, the Commission will not knowingly allow participation by persons whose past or present activities could affect their ability to be impartial and objective in evaluation processing.

Before participating in an evaluation process, peer reviewers agree to the Commission’s Confirmation of Objectivity and Professional Confidentiality policies as regards the organization being evaluated. Confirmation of Objectivity requires disclosure of any conflicts, any predisposition about the institution, or any affiliation that could be prejudicial to the organization in deliberations and decision making or that could otherwise affect in any way such deliberations or decision making.

In addition to confirming objectivity, peer reviewers must agree to protect confidentiality. Professional Confidentiality requires peer reviewers to hold in confidence all information obtained during accreditation processes, including information from discussions with other peer reviewers or with Commission staff and from Commission file materials (previous team reports, portfolios, appraisals, data reports, correspondence, etc.).

Peer reviewers make use of reason and judgment through deliberation. Effective peer reviewers engage in deliberation, recognizing that their role is fundamentally interpretive and requires understanding, reason, and wise judgment in applying the Criteria and Core Components to a specific organization.

Expectations and Abilities of Peer Reviewers

For accreditation based on peer review to be a credible and effective tool in self-regulation and self-improvement, peer reviewers are expected

To attend Commission training as required
To understand, abide by, and be able to apply the principles, policies, processes, and Criteria for Accreditation as explained in the Commission's Handbook, Policy Book, peer review manuals, and additional guidelines and other relevant material maintained on the Commission Web site
To recognize the time and commitment necessary to serve as a peer reviewer and to accept and follow through on team assignments and visit invitations
To maintain a generalist rather than a subject-area or specialist role
To prepare comprehensively and well so as to be informed and knowledgeable about the organization
To communicate with other peer reviewers as appropriate to prepare for, conduct, and provide a record of the evaluation or event
To meet the time and schedule expectations of the evaluation or event
To participate fully as peer reviewers, carrying out the roles as assigned by the Commission and/or the team chair or leader
To make fair and objective judgments using relevant information when evaluating an organization
To provide consultation that effectively advances the work of the organization and contributes to its ongoing improvement
To conduct themselves as professionals throughout the visit, demonstrating respect for the organization and its mission and basing judgments related to the organization’s accreditation on demonstrated evidence
To protect confidentiality
To show respect for the organization and the people associated with it

Application and Selection of Peer Reviewers

By policy, the majority of members of the Peer Review Corps must be full-time faculty and administrators from member organizations in good standing. The Commission recruits prospective peer reviewers; it accepts nominations for prospective peer reviewers; and it accepts applications from people who want to serve as a peer reviewer.

Terms of Service

When first joining the Peer Review Corps, members complete a probationary term that requires building experience and participating in required training. A peer reviewer's appointment will be reviewed at the end of the probationary period. If invited to continue to serve on the Corps, a peer reviewer will be placed on a five-year term. At the expiration of a term, a peer reviewer may be invited to reapply for reappointment for successive five-year terms.

Education and Training

The Commission continually improves the effectiveness of the Peer Review Corps through enhanced education and training programs. Before becoming full members of the Corps, peer reviewers must complete the required education and training programs upon entering the Corps and are expected to attend additional education and training programs as needed to fulfill and remain current in their roles.

Evaluation of Peer Reviewers

As part of its continuous improvement processes, the Commission invites organizations, Commission staff, and peer reviewers to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the evaluation process and the performance of individual peer reviewers. The evaluation responses are used in the term review of individual peer reviewers, in improving the Commission’s education and training programs, and in evaluating the general effectiveness of the Commission’s processes.