The Global Accreditation Paradox: Navigating the Tension Between Quality Assurance, Innovation, and Equity in Higher Education

Abstract

 Background: Global higher education faces a persistent tension between converging on common quality benchmarks to secure trust and mobility, and preserving local innovation, equity, and epistemic diversity. Methods: We integrate Institutional Theory, Postcolonial Theory, and Stone’s Policy Paradox into an Institutional–Postcolonial–Policy-Paradox lens and conduct (i) a comparative policy analysis across Northern America, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia, and (ii) a critical discourse analysis of high-salience policy texts. We operationalize “external recognition” as EQAR listing, ENQA full membership, or alignment with INQAAHE’s ISG to proxy cross-system trust, and reproducibly map these markers by region. Results: Evidence confirms an “assurance–trust–mobility chain”: externally validated QA increases trust, lowers recognition frictions, and raises the probability of mobility agreements. Europe shows near-universal external evaluation; Southeast Asia exhibits regionally owned but uneven uptake; Northern America retains strong domestic assurance with limited cross-regional alignment; parts of Sub-Saharan Africa show sparse external validation—patterns that help explain uneven recognition and mobility outcomes. Three paradoxes emerge: (1) QA both enables and hinders mobility; (2) recognition validates yet excludes institutions and knowledge traditions outside dominant regimes; and (3) standardization assures baselines but can constrain innovation through compliance-first cultures. Conclusions: We propose “context-sensitive harmonization”: use global reference points as principled ceilings and locally owned interpretation as the operational floor. Ten-year foresight (to 2035) highlights modular standards, digital credentials, and capacity building as levers to reconcile assurance with innovation and fairness—if designed to avoid isomorphic mimicry and epistemic dominance. Policy recommendations include mutual recognition of QA agencies, innovation-friendly accreditation pathways, risk-based review, and equity-focused capacity building to close recognition gaps while protecting standards.