This article was downloaded by: [University of South Florida], [William E. Haley]On: 30 January 2012, At: 09:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Gerontology & Geriatrics EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wgge20

Is Gerontology Ready for Accreditation?William E. Haley a , Kenneth F. Ferraro b & Rhonda J. V. Montgomeryc

a School of Aging Studies, University of South Florida, Tampa,Florida, USAb Center on Aging and the Life Course, Purdue University, WestLafayette, Indiana, USAc Helen Bader School of Social Welfare, University of Milwaukee,Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Available online: 30 Jan 2012

To cite this article: William E. Haley, Kenneth F. Ferraro & Rhonda J. V. Montgomery (2012): IsGerontology Ready for Accreditation?, Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 33:1, 20-38

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2011.640729

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 33:20–38, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0270-1960 print/1545-3847 onlineDOI: 10.1080/02701960.2011.640729

Is Gerontology Ready for Accreditation?

WILLIAM E. HALEYSchool of Aging Studies, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA

KENNETH F. FERRAROCenter on Aging and the Life Course, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

RHONDA J. V. MONTGOMERYHelen Bader School of Social Welfare, University of Milwaukee, Milwaukee,

Wisconsin, USA

The authors review widely accepted criteria for programaccreditation and compare gerontology with well-establishedaccredited fields including clinical psychology and social work.At present gerontology lacks many necessary elements for credi-ble professional accreditation, including defined scope of practice,applied curriculum, faculty with applied professional creden-tials, and resources necessary to support professional credentialingreview. Accreditation with weak requirements will be dismissed as“vanity” accreditation, and strict requirements will be impossiblefor many resource-poor programs to achieve, putting unaccreditedprograms at increased risk for elimination. Accreditation may beappropriate in the future, but it should be limited to professionalor applied gerontology, perhaps for programs conferring bachelor’sor master’s degrees. Options other than accreditation to enhanceprofessional skills and employability of gerontology graduates arediscussed.

KEYWORDS gerontology academic program accreditation,certification of gerontologists, gerontology higher education,curriculum content, multidisciplinary collaboration, practicecompetencies, gerontological training

Address correspondence to William E. Haley, School of Aging Studies, University ofSouth Florida, MHC 1343, 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33620-8100, USA. E-mail:whaley@usf.edu

20

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

Is Gerontology Ready for Accreditation? 21

INTRODUCTION

There is much to celebrate in gerontology’s evolution as a field of studyduring the past half-century. Gerontology has penetrated many disciplines,leading to the creation of subfields dedicated to the study of aging. Theintellectual capital of the field has grown—as evidenced by the prolifer-ation of scholarly journals—and undergraduate and graduate programs ingerontology are educating a new generation of persons interested in aging.Many graduates from gerontology programs have gone on to great profes-sional success in a variety of aging services settings, as well as in educationaland research environments. Despite these notable achievements, most schol-ars still do not consider gerontology a discipline (Ferraro, 2006; Sterns& Ferraro, 2009). Gerontology is, however, a vibrant multidisciplinary—perhaps interdisciplinary—field of inquiry that holds great scientific andpolicy significance in many nations.

Although accreditation of gerontology programs has long been atopic for discussion, interest in this topic has been heightened since theAssociation for Gerontology in Higher Education (AGHE; 2011a) devel-oped a working document on accreditation that the authors have reviewedand respond to in this article. This article addresses the broad issue ofaccreditation in gerontology, and this working document, but does notaddress any subsequent proposals that AGHE may advance. It is not surpris-ing that the issue of accreditation has arisen because many undergraduateand master’s-level gerontology programs are educating people to assumepositions in services related to aging, but some graduates have foundinstitutional resistance to hiring persons whose credentials are solely ingerontology. Organizations dedicated to serving older people have a longhistory of hiring social workers, nurses, clinical psychologists, and so onfor positions, and there is some ambivalence about the skill set and profi-ciency of graduates of gerontology programs. Graduates from professionalprograms who hold state licensure often are eligible for employment by fed-eral agencies such as the Veterans Administration, and for reimbursementfor services by Medicare. In short, there is not yet a clearly defined marketfor gerontology credentials. Thus, it is reasonable to ask if the accreditationof “gerontology” programs might resolve some of the employment problemsconfronted by persons educated in these programs. Of course, this raises thequestion of what is a gerontologist?

Some argue that gerontology is the science of aging, but most of thediscussion of accreditation is not focused on scientific credentialing. Rather,we view accreditation as appropriate for programs that will be educatingpersons who will be involved in direct or administrative service deliveryto older people. Thus, we contend that much of the accreditation discus-sion in gerontology is insufficiently focused. The issue should probably beabout accreditation of clinical, applied, or professional gerontologists, not

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

22 W. E. Haley et al.

all gerontologists. Different terms may be used to modify gerontology, andwe use professional gerontology in the remainder of this article. The impor-tant point is to reject notions of accrediting gerontology programs withoutlimiting the focus to some type of service delivery or practice. The termgerontologist is simply too encompassing for a meaningful discussion ofaccreditation. Parallel to psychology, which includes academic and pro-fessional tracks, we exhort those interested in accreditation to first limitthe scope of accreditation to focus on programs that will train students toprovide services and/or interventions.

Closely related is the problem of credentialing gerontology educationprograms that range from undergraduate certificates and associate degreesto postdoctoral education. It is injudicious to attempt to roll all of the issuesof accreditation into such a complex set of programs. Again, our exhortationis to discuss accreditation only if referring to a specific educational level.

On the basis of these fundamental concerns, we conclude that muchwork needs to be done before accrediting professional gerontology pro-grams at any educational level. Moreover, there is some recent history oftepid interest in “approving” or accrediting gerontology programs.

WHY SO LITTLE INTEREST IN PROGRAMS OF MERIT?

One of the major actors in the discussion of credentialing gerontologistshas been AGHE, which spearheaded numerous panels and boards to iden-tify appropriate curriculum for the field (Johnson et al., 1980).The earlyapproach was to call for appropriate curriculum standards, including theAGHE Standards and Guidelines (Gugliucci, Moore, & Miller, 2008),butAGHE became more proactive by creating the Program of Merit (POM) in1999, which is described as “a voluntary program of review available to anyprogram in aging at the Master’s, Bachelor’s, or Associate’s level. The des-ignation provides gerontology programs with an AGHE ‘stamp of approval’”(AGHE, 2011b).

Despite the allure of such approval, few programs have actually appliedfor it. Indeed, in a recent address at the annual AGHE business meeting,Fisher (2011) noted that POM received a total of 20 applications duringthe past 12 years, of which 11 were approved. Although the membershipof AGHE has varied over its inception in 1974, it listed 147 institutionalmembers in 2011—down from a high of 269 during 2004 and 2008 (AGHE,2011b; D. Frazier, personal communication, July 11, 2011). Although thesemembership figures may have some inaccuracies (e.g., due to delays inrenewals), the combination of declining memberships, along with low num-bers of applications for POM, are troubling. So why would less than 14%of the AGHE members apply for POM? Moreover, AGHE membership isan unknown percentage of the educational institutions with gerontology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

Is Gerontology Ready for Accreditation? 23

programs. The number of different institutional affiliations represented bythe members of the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) exceeds 1,700(P. Stearns, personal communication, July 11, 2011). It is unknown howmany of these institutions have academic gerontology programs, but thesefigures suggest that there may be many GSA members who are not affiliatedwith AGHE and for whom POM is not a relevant distinction. As Fisher (2011,p. 11) admitted, the number of applications since 1999 does “not represent arousing success.” Indeed, the AGHE Accreditation Task Force (AGHE, 2011a)may have sensed as much because it articulated that if accreditation were togo forward, the accreditation body would be a unit of GSA, not AGHE.

We argue that core issues underlie the POM and purported accreditationmovement, including concerns about vanity approval (approval with mini-mal standards and review), cost, peer review (especially from aspirationalpeers), emphasis on academic versus professional expertise, and heightenedresponsibility for employment of graduates of approved programs. We usethe balance of this article to discuss these issues in more detail, beginningwith a clarification of the meaning of accreditation.

CRITERIA FOR AND EXAMPLES OF ACCREDITATION

According to the U.S. Department of Education (2011), there are twomajor types of accreditation: institutional and programmatic. Institutionalaccreditation refers to approval of an entire educational institution, suchas a college or university, as meeting established standards. Specialized orprogrammatic accreditation is focused on evaluation of programs, depart-ments, or schools within an institution. Departments and administrativeunits focused on scholarly disciplines without professional (i.e., practitioner)programs, such as sociology, philosophy, and history, are typically notaccredited, whereas applied and professional programs that train practi-tioners often do include accreditation. Thus, the recent AGHE accreditationworking document focuses on programmatic accreditation.

Although programmatic accreditation is generally undertaken only forprofessional training programs, and not for academic programs, it is impor-tant to consider whether contemporary gerontology education programs areprimarily professional versus academic in nature. In the sections that fol-low we review ways in which professions differ from scholarly disciplinesand examine psychology and social work as areas related to gerontologythat provide some useful comparisons to the current status of gerontologyeducation.

Although not a focus of this article, the term certification is also oftenlinked to discussions of accreditation. Certification involves the approval ofindividuals rather than programs. Certification is designed to demonstratethat an individual is qualified in an area of practice and in some states limits

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

24 W. E. Haley et al.

the use of certain titles, such as “physician” or “chiropractor” (Pryzwansky,1993). For example, psychologists can pursue board certification in specialtyareas such as clinical neuropsychology (Packard & Simon, 2006).

Is Gerontology a Profession?

The question of how to define a profession has a long history in sociol-ogy but often reduces to issues surrounding autonomy, rigorous standardsof practice, prestige, and occupational identity (Goode, 1960). In a chapterpublished as part of a debate on whether gerontology was a profession,Kosberg (1997) cited classic definitions of a profession and argued thatgerontology was not a profession because “there is no systematic bodyof knowledge, no monopoly of skills, no exit examinations for graduatesand entrance examinations for those entering the aging field, and no codesof ethical imperatives” (p. 204). As is discussed in detail below, since thetime of Kosberg’s review, several gerontology codes of ethics have beendeveloped, although they fall far short of the scope included in professionalpractice fields. Kosberg also noted the lack of standardization of gerontologyprograms, and the widely varied areas in which gerontologists are trained.

Professions, as opposed to occupations or disciplines, typically have anumber of characteristics beyond those noted above (Kosberg, 1997; Wendt& Peterson, 1997). These include clear scope of practice that is distinct fromthat of other professions, state licensure available, the ability to practicetheir professions independently and without supervision from other pro-fessionals, and faculty who are themselves licensed and qualified to teachprofessional practice. Professions often have unique skills that are recog-nized by statute—for example, the term psychotherapy is regulated by somestates and may be used only by professionals with licensure in psychology,medicine, and so forth. Professions also band together in organizations toprotect their “turf” or interests and to prevent other groups of practition-ers from encroaching on their areas of specialty. For example, there havebeen substantial efforts over the past 20 years to allow clinical psychologiststo gain authority to prescribe psychotropic medications. These efforts, andrelated efforts by professions such as nurse practitioners, have been repeat-edly opposed by physician groups such as the American Medical Associationand the American College of Physicians (Fox et al., 2008).

The AGHE accreditation working document does not describe a spe-cific scope of practice for gerontologists. AGHE’s website describing jobsand careers for professionals working with older persons, however, includessuch diverse activities as developing programs for health promotion; the-ater groups, or intergenerational activities; providing direct care to olderpersons in hospitals and nursing homes; counseling older persons about top-ics such as caregiving and mental health; advising older persons about estate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

Is Gerontology Ready for Accreditation? 25

planning, investments, and housing options; and planning and administeringservice delivery through community agencies (AGHE, 2011c). This is a verybroad range of skills. It would be difficult to argue that graduates frommost gerontology programs are uniformly qualified to carry out all of theseactivities, and that they are uniquely qualified compared to graduates of pro-grams other than gerontology to carry out these professional activities. It isalso important to note that, for programs to graduate students who are qual-ified to provide professional services in the comprehensive set of appliedareas described above, they would need to ensure that their students havetraining in each of these skills by qualified faculty who themselves have suchprofessional skills.

Two fields that are somewhat akin to gerontology, and which mightoverlap with the practice activities of gerontologists, are clinical psychologyand social work. Because psychology offers accreditation for PhD programs,and social work for master’s and bachelor’s programs, viewing these fieldsshould be useful for looking across the scope of gerontology educationprograms. Students graduating from accredited programs in psychology andsocial work are also generally able to sit for state licensure examinationsand to become licensed, with the many benefits that follow. In addition,many discussions of the problems of gerontology graduates in finding jobsinclude comparisons to the relatively stronger opportunities available to stu-dents graduating with MSW degrees (Haley & Zelinski, 2007). In the nextsections we compare these fields with gerontology and note areas of con-cern for gerontology’s ability to measure up to the professional standards inthese fields. Of course social work and psychology have each been accredit-ing programs for decades, so it is important to keep in mind that gerontologywill find it difficult to compete quickly with these well-established profes-sional fields. Another article in this special issue (Maiden, Knight, Howe,& Kim, this issue) reviews the history and challenges of accreditation inpsychology and provides additional information about how accreditationprocesses can evolve in professions.

Scope of Accreditation in Psychology and Social Work: Implicationsfor Professional Gerontology

In the field of psychology, which includes professional and academic pro-grams, the only programs that are accredited by the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA) Commission on Accreditation (APA-CoA) are doctoral pro-grams in clinical (236), counseling (69), and school (61) psychology, witheight additional programs accredited with a combination of two of thesefoci. (We focus our remaining comments on psychology accreditation ofclinical programs—nearly two thirds of all its accredited programs.) Noaccreditation is offered for undergraduate programs, master’s programs,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

26 W. E. Haley et al.

or doctoral programs in such areas as social psychology or experimentalpsychology (APA, 2011c). Because professionals by definition should becapable of independent practice, APA has decided that it is not appropri-ate to accredit programs that grant bachelor’s and master’s degrees, and thatindividuals trained at less than the doctoral level should work under thesupervision of PhD-level psychologists.

According to the Council on Social Work Education’s (CSWE) AnnualReport (2011b), there are 471 baccalaureate and 201 master’s programsthat are currently accredited. Social work accredits bachelor’s and master’sprograms, but not minors, associate’s, or doctoral programs. The CSWEspecifically noted that their accreditation function is only applied to pro-grams that prepare students for independent professional practice. Theynoted that associate’s degree programs prepare students only for parapro-fessional positions (e.g., working under the supervision of others), andthat doctoral education in social work emphasizes research (CSWE, 2011a).Thus, clinical psychology and social work explicitly limit the levels at whichthey offer accreditation, and explicitly accredit only programs that preparestudents for professional practice.

In contrast, AGHE’s (2011a) accreditation task force working documentincludes the suggestion that competencies and standards be offered andaccredited at the associate, bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral, and undergrad-uate and graduate certificate levels. Although the working document liststhe goal of addressing needs for “competent and professionally trained ser-vice providers,” it does not limit accreditation to professional programs.The working document includes the goal of “preparation of Gerontologiststhat meet today’s needs in education, research, and practice” (p. 2).Thus, the approach that is evident in the March 2011 working docu-ment on accreditation in gerontology is vastly different than that utilizedby well-established professions, with a much larger scope of programsand including practice, research, and education. In short, AGHE’s cur-rent working document proposes an approach that we believe is far tooambitious.

Another point raised by examination of these data is that gerontologyprograms are vastly smaller in number than the currently accredited pro-grams in psychology and social work, which currently accredit more than300 and 600 programs, respectively. In an article reviewing the status ofgraduate programs in gerontology (Haley & Zelinsky, 2007), it was notedthat there were only 57 master’s degree programs in gerontology in theUnited States—and most of them are not explicitly applied or professionalgerontology programs. These programs graduated a total of only 525 indi-viduals per year according to the most recent data available from AGHEat the time that article was published. As is noted below, this relativelysmall number of program graduates, many of whom are educated princi-pally in academic gerontology, creates some serious political problems for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

Is Gerontology Ready for Accreditation? 27

gerontology in pursuing some of the goals that make accreditation desirable(e.g., state licensure).

The Process and Cost of Accreditation in Related Fields

Program membership in the CSWE is required for accreditation, and costsrange from $1,360 to $4,345 for undergraduate programs and $3,270 to$6,575 for master’s programs, with variation according to program size(CSWE, 2011c). Applying for accreditation costs an additional $1,733 forinitial review of eligibility, and $4,542 for full review, with additional costsfor site visits at the expense of the program (CSWE, 2011c).

According to a colleague who is director of clinical training at theUniversity of South Florida (USF) Psychology Department (V. Phares, per-sonal communication, July 5, 2011), applying for APA accreditation costs$2,500, the most recent site visit cost $5,100, and annual dues to retainaccreditation costs $2,500. The accreditation process in both fields is alsoquite involved and includes not only a self-study, but also site visits tointerview students, faculty, and university administration. The costs for thesite visits can be extensive because they involve transporting and lodgingmultiple senior-level professionals for several days to conduct the review.

At present, annual AGHE dues are $500, and review for POM costs$400 per program for programs that are AGHE members ($1000 for nonmem-ber institutions). The authors of this article are aware that many gerontologyprograms struggle to pay these minimal fees. Review for POM is basedentirely on review of self-study documents—and there have been few appli-cants for POM status. It is likely that a thorough accreditation process, thatincluded a site visit, would be substantially more expensive than is currentlythe case. As is described in detail below, the U.S. Department of Educationconsiders site visits, which are very expensive, to be part of their minimumexpectations for credible accreditation review and considers accreditationwithout a site visit a sign of an organization being an “accreditation mill.”It is difficult to see how gerontology accreditation could be substantiallyless expensive than what other professions pay for similar accreditation.If more expensive programmatic reviews are required to achieve credi-ble accreditation, the costs involved may make many programs unable toparticipate in accreditation.

Are Contemporary Gerontology Programs Focused on ProfessionalGerontology?

It is difficult to know what is actually taught by gerontology programs,except that the paradigm includes multiple disciplines interested in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

28 W. E. Haley et al.

study of aging (Wilmoth & Ferraro, 2007). Nonetheless, AGHE has publishedfour editions of its Standards and Guidelines for Gerontology and GeriatricsPrograms to recommend or prescribe goals for gerontology curriculum atdifferent levels (Gugliucci et al., 2008). As an example, this document speci-fies 39 to 42 credit hours of gerontology requirements for an undergraduatemajor in gerontology. Of these credit hours, only a six-credit hour practicumis specifically focused on gerontology practice. The vast majority of thesuggested required hours are in areas such as biology, sociology, psychol-ogy, and humanities and aging, research methods, and statistics. AGHE’srecommended curriculum does not include courses in psychopathology,assessment, counseling, case management, program administration, or otherapplied areas that would be essential for students preparing for professionalcareers in the practice of gerontology.

At the master’s degree level, 30 to 60 credits are recommended. Again,no specific courses in professional gerontology, administration, counseling,etc. are specified, although a 6- to 12-credit hour practicum is suggested.This contrasts dramatically with the educational requirements for accreditedprograms in professional programs such as social work. For example, theMSW program at the University of South Florida, which requires 60 credithours, includes 18 required hours of coursework on professional practicetopics (e.g., individual and group therapy, psychopathology), and 12 addi-tional hours of practicum. All of these practice courses must be taught bylicensed clinical social workers (LCSWs), and the practicum must be super-vised by LCSWs. Thus about 30 hours, or 50% of the MSW curriculum, isfocused on professional practice and taught or supervised by individualswho themselves have practice credentials.

Although some gerontology programs require a practicum, there are nouniform standards for the practicum. Students may be placed in practicumsettings that vary widely. In addition there are no requirements for thequalifications of practicum supervisors. In well-established professionalareas such as psychology and social work, practicum supervision must beprovided by individuals who are themselves licensed in the profession.

This review of the AGHE Standards document suggests that even pro-grams that meet the recommended standards do not focus much of theireducational efforts on professional gerontology (Gugliucci et al., 2008).Although applied content may be provided in some gerontology courses, itappears that any effort to accredit professional gerontology programs wouldrequire a very comprehensive reworking of the gerontology curriculum toinclude applied skills for gerontologists, within whatever scope of prac-tice is identified to be the purview of these specialized gerontologists. Forexample, courses in which students learn to conduct geriatric assessments,provide counseling to older adults, conduct caregiver training programs,administer programs in the aging services network, carry out geriatric caremanagement functions, and other applied skills, would need to replace the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

Is Gerontology Ready for Accreditation? 29

current emphasis on courses in sociology, psychology, and biology of aging(Mezey, Mitty, Burger, & McCallion, 2008). Whether gerontology programshave the resources and capacity to revamp their curricula in this manner is aserious question given the lack of resources typically available to academicgerontology programs (Bass & Ferraro, 2000).

Who Is Qualified to Teach Professional Gerontology?

In established professions such as clinical psychology and social work,a key element of the accreditation process is review of program faculty.Professional programs in these areas must have faculty who are themselvesqualified professionals, and accreditation is dependent on having sufficientnumbers of faculty who themselves are licensed in the profession provid-ing the teaching and providing supervision. Certain courses, such as thoseon counseling and psychotherapy, must be taught by faculty with appro-priate credentialing (e.g., a licensed clinical social worker, LCSW). Althoughthere are no published figures available on the professional preparation ofgerontology faculty in the United States, the authors believe that the vastmajority of gerontology faculty are not licensed professionals themselves.Many gerontology faculty come from academic disciplines such as sociology,human development, or developmental psychology. In addition, to mount astrong program that could stand the scrutiny of accreditation comparable toother professional fields, there must be sufficient numbers of professionallytrained faculty members available to teach the required applied/professionalcourses.

Ethical Standards

As noted above, professions have detailed codes of ethics that describe thenature of ethical practice in their profession. For example, the AmericanPsychological Association has a lengthy document, the Ethical Principlesof Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 2011b) that addresses a vari-ety of concerns that are relevant for professional practice. The documentis 15 web pages long and provides detailed ethical guidance on practice-related matters such as how to deal with conflicts between ethics, laws,and organizational demands; processes for handling complaints of ethicsviolations; guidance concerning practicing only within boundaries of com-petence; multiple relationships, including sexual relationships, with clients;confidentiality; and maintenance of patient records. The APA also has a sys-tem for processing ethical complaints from the public or other professions,and processes for sanctioning offenders. In contrast, AGHE and GSA pro-vide only a brief, single-page ethics statement (Gerontological Society ofAmerica, 2011) that provides general ethical principles, primarily focused

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

30 W. E. Haley et al.

on research and instruction. Although it is understandable that this doc-ument mainly focuses on academic issues, this ethics statement does notprovide the detailed ethical guidelines that are expected of professions. TheNational Association for Professional Gerontologists (NAPG; 2011) has alsoproduced a Code of Ethics, but this is also relatively brief and lacking indetail compared with those used by other professions.

Risk of Vanity Accreditation?

Psychology and social work accreditation are recognized by the U.S.Department of Education and the Council of Higher Education Accreditation.The U.S. Department of Education (2011) stated that proper accreditationrequires six elements: standards, self-study, on-site evaluation, publication(listing of programs), monitoring, and reevaluation. The Council for HigherEducation Accreditation (CHEA; 2011a) described organizations that offeraccreditation that is not approved by their organization or the Department ofEducation as having been granted by “accreditation mills.” They stated thatsuch mills offer accreditation without a proper basis, and their examples oforganizations considered to be mills include accrediting bodies that reviewonly documents but do not require site visits. CHEA (2011b) listed 68 recog-nized Programmatic Accrediting Agencies. These include organizations thataccredit diverse professional programs such as pharmacy, journalism, mas-sage therapy, and forestry. The American Psychological Association (APA,2011b) also warned about the dangers of accreditation mills, for example,accrediting bodies not approved by the Department of Education or CHEA.Psychology and other professions use the term vanity accreditation or van-ity certification to refer to credentials given by organization without properstanding. For example, Pryzwansky (1993) stated that,

Individual professional credentials consist of documents that vary inrespect to the granting source (“vanity” boards offering a credentialbased on limited paper records versus a state regulatory body) and tothe extent to which the quality of the practitioners’ service is examined(paper review of credentials versus competency-based examinations).(p. 220)

Packard and Simon (2006), in a section titled “What is the difference betweenvanity and bona fide specialty certification boards?” (p. 121), noted charac-teristics of bona fide boards. These include board members have licensureand certification in the specialty, limited terms of office, and publicly avail-able credentials; review of work samples within the professional specialtyby the board; and candidates demonstrate competence in their ability topractice the profession via both written and oral examinations. Certificationwithout such characteristics is characterized as a vanity credential.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

Is Gerontology Ready for Accreditation? 31

Although the AGHE working document describes the goal of even-tually receiving recognition by the U.S. Department of Education and theCHEA, the present authors are concerned that the extensive scope of reviewexpected by these national agencies, including expensive site visits, wouldbe a prohibitive cost for many gerontology programs. Do the proponentsof the AGHE accreditation efforts believe that there are a large numberof gerontology programs that could manage the expense of accreditationreviews that would cost thousands of dollars per year? If not, then whatkind of “accreditation” would ensue?

Would Accreditation Lead to Licensure of Professional Gerontologists?

One of the justifications for pursuing gerontology accreditation is thatgerontology graduates are at a serious competitive disadvantage comparedwith graduates from programs that receive licensure, such as social work.However, there are serious questions about whether licensure could begained in gerontology even if accreditation was successfully accomplished.Licensure of professions is a process that is regulated by states. The pro-cess of adding new areas of licensure within states is a highly politicalprocess. Part of the function of professions is to serve the interests oftheir guilds, and to prevent competitors from encroaching on their profes-sional territory (see discussion above of the efforts of medicine to opposeprescriptive authority for clinical psychologists). Because the likely areasof practice of professional gerontologists would likely include many of theactivities currently conducted by social workers, nurses, and nursing homeadministrators, gerontology could expect strong political opposition fromthese other fields to adding a gerontology licensure to state statutes. Thiswould be a battle that would have to be fought state by state. As notedabove, gerontology programs produce relatively small numbers of master’sdegree program graduates, many of whom primarily receive an academicrather than a professional (applied) education. As a comparison, the NationalAssociation of Social Workers’ website mentions that they have more than150,000 members. We think that it is very unlikely that gerontology couldproduce the political strength necessary to achieve professional gerontologylicensure within the next decade.

Accreditation Versus Certification of Professional Gerontologists

One alternative to pursuing licensure is for gerontology graduates to achievecertification. As noted above, certification refers to approval of individu-als rather than programs. Certification can be offered by any organization,although as described in detail above, the quality of certifications that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

32 W. E. Haley et al.

are available vary tremendously, from organizations that are extremelyrigorous, to “certification mills” that provide vanity certifications after min-imal scrutiny. Even without program accreditation in gerontology, thereare already a number of certifications available to gerontology programgraduates. For example, the NAPG (2011) provides certifications with thetitles of Gerontologist, Gerontology Coordinator, Gerontology Specialist,or Professional Scholar Affiliate depending on educational background.Information about this process and experience to date is provided in arelated article in this special issue (Pelham, Schafer, Estes, & Abbott, thisissue). The process for the certification described on the organization’swebsite, however, includes no requirement for professional or applied expe-rience or coursework. The NAPG (2011) stated that it credentials individualswho possess a core body of knowledge in gerontology, including “a broadbackground in the social, psychological and physical/biological aspects ofaging, including theoretical concepts; and, knowledge of practice conceptsin working with older adults, including ethical issues.” For individuals withgraduate degrees in gerontology, receipt of this credential (certification asa Gerontologist) requires a review of college or university transcripts, pass-ing a credentialing examination offered by this body, and payment of a$200 application fee plus $250 to take the examination. Of note is that thiscertification does not guarantee in any manner that the recipient of certifica-tion is qualified to carry out any kind of professional gerontology practice,such as geriatric assessment, counseling, care management, or gerontologyprogram administration.

Such certifications should be viewed with caution. Even if the certifi-cation process is very rigorous and well intentioned, unless certification isgiven only to individuals who have training and demonstrated expertise inprofessional practice (e.g., care management), there is a risk that the certifi-cation might misinform the public or employers about the professional skillsets of those receiving certification.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS: THE RISKS OF PURSINGACCREDITATION

In addition to our fundamental concerns regarding conceptual imprecisionof the term gerontology in discussions of accreditation, and the scope ofproposed accreditation program, we also have concerns that are focusedon pragmatic issues that gerontology programs are likely to encounterwithin their institutional settings. Ironically, one of the most looming con-cerns is that the introduction of an accreditation process may actuallyundermine the credibility of a program rather than foster greater respectwithin academic settings. Even among individuals who view themselves as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

Is Gerontology Ready for Accreditation? 33

gerontologists, there is not a clear or common understanding of the uniqueset of knowledge and the skill set that is requisite to be proficient. It wouldtherefore not be unreasonable for professionals and scholars in other fieldsto perceive accreditation in gerontology as a vanity accreditation, especiallythose that offer specialization in gerontology within their curriculums (e.g.,clinical geropsychology, geriatric social work). Like other cross-disciplinaryspecializations such as urban studies, women’s studies, or African Americanstudies that draw heavily upon the content of other well established disci-plines such as sociology, psychology, or social work, gerontology programscontinue to be challenged to articulate their unique niche. Indeed, theyare often viewed as “fringe disciplines” (Kosberg, 1997). It is questionablewhether an accreditation program that is not well defined in scope and isnot clearly linked with specific employment opportunities will enhance thereputation of such programs.

It is also important to note that accreditation has an exclusionary edgeto it. The premise of accreditation is that some programs that are currentlyeducating students to work in or supervise service delivery to older peopleare doing the task appropriately; others are not and will either voluntarilydrop out of the endeavor or be informed that they are not a suitable edu-cational site for professional gerontology. An important historical precedentis that the Flexner Report of 1910 endeavored to improve and standardizethe curriculum in U.S. medical schools, but the latent consequence was thatnearly one half of the medical schools at the time closed within 5 years(Starr, 1982). As Starr (1982) noted, “steadily rising requirements set by statelicensing boards and other authorities gradually altered the economics ofmedical education for students and schools alike” (p. 118). The field shouldcarefully consider whether it wants to undertake a process that will excludesmall programs with few resources, because failure to achieve accreditationcould certainly be used by academic administrators as a reason to eliminatesome gerontology programs.

A second and major concern is the costs associated with accreditation,which are likely to be prohibitive for many small programs. As described ear-lier, there are initial evaluation fees and annual renewal fees. However, thesecosts pale when compared to the costs for faculty and staff time requiredto prepare for an initial accreditation assessment, maintain records, andproduced annual reports. Any conversation with a chair of a professionalprogram regarding accreditation quickly elicits comment as, “The time andresources involved to remain accredited is astonishing.” These costs wouldbe incurred in addition to those associated with hiring and retaining fac-ulty with appropriate expertise to teach required courses. As noted above,many gerontology programs may not have sufficient numbers of facultywho have applied or professional skills in areas such as assessment, coun-seling, care management, or program administration. It is very likely that theresources that will be required on an ongoing basis to retain accreditation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

34 W. E. Haley et al.

will be prohibitive for small programs. Moreover, there is a danger that thewhole accreditation process will produce a structure whereby “compliance”becomes the end goal with minimal attention to the quality of the program.

When weighing the merits of introducing an accreditation program, it isalso important to consider the potential limitations that an accreditation pro-cess might place on academic freedom and innovation. As Kosberg (1997)previously noted there is great variation among gerontology programs interms of the level of degree offered and their foci. Many gerontology pro-grams have a social–psychological focus and are modeled on programs inthe social sciences that include courses on research and theory. The designof applied gerontology programs, though fewer in number, is more con-sistent with those business or professional schools. These programs tendto focus on preparing students to be administrators or work directly withelders, which is the type of program most suited to developing profes-sional gerontology at either the baccalaureate or master’s degree level.Regardless of the focus, most gerontology programs are designed to bemulti-disciplinary and therefore include courses taught by faculty who haveprimary appointments in other disciplines. In truth, it is difficult to con-ceive of accreditation criteria that would accommodate this diversity ofprogramming without significantly altering programs or limiting innova-tion. Moreover, it is difficult to envision a faculty for such programs thatwould have a uniform understanding of gerontology as a profession or besufficiently large to teach a full range of courses.

Given the diversity of faculty and of the design and foci of gerontologyprograms, the process of creating or altering a program to meet uniformaccreditation requirements would be daunting and likely produce conflictamong faculty members and between the program and other establishedprofessional programs within an institution such as social work, psychology,and occupational therapy. In short, given the absence of clear consensusthat gerontology is a profession with a systematic body of knowledge anda unique skill set, the costs to programs of seeking accreditation are realand prohibitive while the benefits to programs remain hypothetical andunsubstantiated.

Alternatives to Development of Gerontology Accreditation

Based on our review, the present authors are convinced that gerontologyis not currently ready to pursue accreditation. Accreditation should befocused on programs that train students to be professionals who can pro-vide or administer applied services and programs, and much of the currentteaching and training in gerontology is not focused on professional prac-tice. The field lacks consensus on the focus of practice that is distinctivefor gerontology, and many gerontology programs do not have sufficient

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

Is Gerontology Ready for Accreditation? 35

numbers of professionally trained faculty members to train students inapplied skills such as counseling, case management, or program adminis-tration. The officially recommended curriculum of AGHE does not includerequirements for coursework on applied and professional gerontology,and gerontology does not have a comprehensive ethical code to guideprofessional practice.

Although we believe that pursuit of accreditation of gerontology pro-grams is misguided at present, if gerontology were to pursue accreditation,it is recommended that such accreditation be undertaken only for bachelor’sand master’s degree programs that have an applied and professional focus.Students who receive minors, certificates, and associates degrees receivetoo little gerontology training to merit status as gerontology professionals.Accrediting research oriented PhD programs in gerontology would be con-trary to widely accepted standards in which accreditation is undertaken onlyfor professional programs. To pursue accreditation for bachelor’s and mas-ter’s programs, AGHE or GSA would need to develop an agreed upon scopeof gerontology practice, and programs would need faculty who were pro-fessionally qualified to train students in applied/professional topics relatedto this practice area. Current AGHE guidelines for curriculum would need tobe substantially revised to train students in applied topics and in practice-oriented skills such as assessment, counseling, care management, and/ornursing home or gerontology program administration. Appropriate ethicalstandards would need to be developed. We believe that few gerontologyprograms have the faculty resources to offer professional gerontology train-ing, meaningfully supervise practicums, and shoulder the heavy costs ofprofessional accreditation. Programs also vary considerably in what kindof expertise they have so it might be very difficult to find a commonscope of gerontology practice fitting the resources available to a majorityof gerontology programs.

Despite our critical conclusions about the appropriateness ofaccreditation for gerontology programs, the authors are enthusiastic aboutthe benefits of and prospects for gerontology education. There are a num-ber of alternatives to separate accreditation of gerontology programs thathave been recommended (Haley & Zelinski, 2007). One that we believeis promising is for gerontology programs to partner with extant profes-sional programs (such as social work, counseling, public administration, andbusiness administration) to offer joint degree programs that can prepare stu-dents for licensure or certification. The University of Southern California isan example of a gerontology program that has pursued this route, offer-ing dual degrees with professional programs that grant the MBA, MPA, orMSW along with a gerontology graduate degree. These fields are betterpositioned, in terms of human resources and accreditation experience, tomanage the integration of gerontology into established training programs.In short, we advise that gerontology programs work with professional fields

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

36 W. E. Haley et al.

to create professional gerontology accreditations within their fields. Doingso would create a new generation of professional gerontologists in fieldssuch as social work, counseling, and public administration to expand theranks of professional gerontology.

Another option is for gerontology programs to develop professionaltracks within their degree programs, building on areas of strength, and tar-geting areas not requiring licensure for students to gain employment. Forexample, USF is developing graduate tracks in Geriatric Care Managementand Program Administration that focus heavily on professional preparationrather than general gerontology coursework. Such programs will only bepossible for universities with relatively large faculty resources, includingfaculty with applied and professional skills.

It should also be noted that there are certifications or licensure oppor-tunities for which graduates of gerontology programs may be qualified,depending on the nature of the program. These include licensure as anursing home administrator, or certification as a geriatric care manager.

There are many alternative paths to offering accreditation ofgerontology programs. Because faculty strengths and opportunities vary sowidely across programs, it is recommended that gerontology programsexplore their own paths to offering professional credentialing opportu-nities based on the resources available to them. We also believe thatjoint-accreditation and/or dual-title programs are worthy of considerationto address the substantial needs of a large and rapidly growing olderpopulation. Gerontology is an area that should be greatly expanded to pre-pare students for careers in working with older adults, but discussions ofaccreditation and professionalization must look realistically at what our fieldwould need to do to transform itself into a credible accredited profession.

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (2011a). About accreditation: Why are degreemills and accreditation mills harmful? Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/about-accreditation.aspx

American Psychological Association. (2011b). Ethical principles of psychologists andcode of conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx

American Psychological Association. (2011c). Understanding APA accreditation.Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/index.aspx

Association for Gerontology in Higher Education. (2011a). AGHE accreditation taskforce working document: 3/11/11. Washington, DC: Author.

Association for Gerontology in Higher Education. (2011b). Program of merit.Retrieved from http://www.aghe.org/677916

Association for Gerontology in Higher Education. (2011c). What jobs and careersare available? Retrieved from http://www.aghe.org/500220

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

Is Gerontology Ready for Accreditation? 37

Bass, S. A., & Ferraro, K. F. (2000). Gerontology education in transition: Consideringdisciplinary and paradigmatic evolution. The Gerontologist, 40, 97–106.

Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2011a). Important questions aboutaccreditation, degree mills, and accreditation mills. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/degreemills/default.htm

Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2011b). Recognized accrediting orga-nizations. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/pdf/CHEA_USDE_AllAccred.pdf

Council on Social Work Education. (2011a). Accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.cswe.org/About/FAQ/14803.aspx

Council on Social Work Education. (2011b). Annual report, 2009–2010. Retrievedfrom http://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=46133

Council on Social Work Education. (2011c). 2008 EPAS handbook. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cswe.org/Accreditation/Handbook/Overview14745.aspx

Ferraro, K. F. (2006). Imagining the disciplinary advancement of gerontology:Whither the tipping point? The Gerontologist, 46 , 571–573.

Fisher, B. (2011). Reflections on the program of merit. AGHExchange: Newsletter ofthe Association for Gerontology in Higher Education, 34(3), 11.

Fox, R. E., DeLeon, P. H., Newman, R., Sammons, M. T., Dunivin, D. L., & Baker,D. C. (2008). Prescriptive authority and psychology: A status report. AmericanPsychologist, 64, 257–268.

Gerontological Society of America. (2011). The Gerontological Society of Americaethics statement. Retrieved from http://www.geron.org/Membership/code-of-ethics

Goode, W. J. (1960). Encroachment, charlatanism, and the emerging profes-sion: Psychology, sociology, and medicine. American Sociological Review, 25,902–914.

Gugliucci, M. R., Moore, K., & Miller, R. (2008). Standards and guidelinesfor gerontology and geriatrics programs. Washington, DC: Association forGerontology in Higher Education.

Haley, W. E., & Zelinski, E. I. (2007). Progress and challenges in graduate educationin gerontology: The U.S. experience. Gerontology and Geriatrics Education,27 , 11–26.

Johnson, H. R., Britton, J. H., Lang, C. A., Seltzer, M. M., Stanford, E. P., Yancik, R.,. . . Middleswarth, A.B. (1980). Foundations for gerontological education. TheGerontologist, 20(3 pt. 2), 1–61.

Kosberg, J. I. (1997). Should gerontology be considered a separate profession?NO. In A. E. Scharlach & L.W. Kaye (Eds.), Controversial issues in aging(pp. 203–207). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Maiden, R., Knight, B. G., Howe, J. L., & Kim, S. (2012). Accreditation in the pro-fession of psychology: A cautionary tale. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education,33(1), 55–74.

Mezey, M., Mitty, E., Burger, S. G., & McCallion, P. (2008). Healthcare professionaltraining: A comparison of geriatric competencies. Journal of the AmericanGeriatrics Society, 56 , 1724–1729.

National Association for Professional Gerontologists. (2011). How it works-Credentialing. Retrieved from http://www.napgerontologists.org/how.html

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012

38 W. E. Haley et al.

Packard, T., & Simon, T. (2006). Board certification by the American Board ofProfessional Psychology. In T. J. Vaughn (Ed.), Psychology licensure and certifi-cation: What students need to know (pp. 117–126). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Pelham, A., Schafer, D., Abbott, P., & Estes, C. (2012). Professionalizing gerontology:Why AGHE must accredit gerontology programs. Gerontology & GeriatricsEducation, 33(1), 6–19.

Pryzwansky, W. B. (1993). The regulation of school psychology: A historicalperspective on certification, licensure, and accreditation. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 31, 219–235.

Starr, P. (1982). The social transformation of American medicine. New York, NY:Basic Books.

Sterns, H. L., & Ferraro, K. F. (2009). The evolution of gerontology education overthree decades: Reflections and prospects. In H. L. Sterns & M. A. Bernard (Eds.),Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics (pp. 3–12). New York, NY: SpringerPublishing.

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Accreditation in the United States. Retrievedfrom http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg2.html#U.S.

Wendt, P. F., & Peterson, D. A. (1997). Should gerontology be considered a separateprofession? YES. In A. E. Scharlach & L. W. Kaye (Eds.), Controversial issues inaging (pp. 198–202). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Wilmoth, J. M., &Ferraro, K. F. (2007). The fountain of gerontological discovery.In J. M. Wilmoth & K. F. Ferraro (Eds.), Gerontology: Perspectives and issues(pp. 3–12). New York, NY: Springer.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

, [W

illia

m E

. Hal

ey]

at 0

9:59

30

Janu

ary

2012