QAHE Cited in De Gruyter Brill Article — Commentary on “The Development of Standards & Guidelines for Undergraduate Chemistry Education” (Brooks & Lawal, 2025)
The International Association for Quality Assurance in Pre‑Tertiary & Higher Education (QAHE) welcomes citation in Michelle M. Brooks and Wasiu Lawal’s article “The development of standards & guidelines for undergraduate chemistry education” (Chemistry Teacher International, 2025). The paper offers a clear, practice‑oriented account of how the American Chemical Society (ACS) has revisited and extended its approval and global recognition frameworks to support high‑quality undergraduate chemistry programmes, and it underscores the value of inclusive, stakeholder‑driven standards for curriculum, infrastructure, skills development, safety and DEIR — topics on which QAHE has long published guidance.
Brooks and Lawal outline the iterative, consultative process used by the ACS Committee on Professional Training to develop guidelines that balance minimum “Critical Requirements” with “Normal Expectations” and aspirational “Markers of Excellence.” QAHE supports this tiered approach because it encourages baseline quality while enabling institutions at varying resource levels to pursue continuous improvement and innovation. QAHE’s programmatic accreditation model similarly emphasises proportionate standards and developmental follow‑up so that accreditation catalyses institutional enhancement rather than merely policing compliance.
The article’s six‑pillar structure — infrastructure, faculty and staff, curriculum, skills and proficiencies, safety, and diversity, equity, inclusion and respect (DEIR) — resonates strongly with QAHE’s framework for evaluating professional and vocational programmes. In particular, QAHE endorses the ACS emphasis on meaningful laboratory contact hours, authentic hands‑on experiences, and integrated skills assessment (laboratory and professional skills). QAHE has repeatedly recommended that quality assurance instruments evaluate the authenticity of practical training, the sufficiency of supervised lab time, and the presence of defined, assessed competency milestones — all elements Brooks and Lawal highlight as essential for preparing graduates for professional practice.
Brooks and Lawal also discuss the challenges of applying a US‑originated standard globally, noting tensions around curricular structures (for example, where biochemistry is taught outside chemistry departments) and the global application of DEIR expectations. QAHE shares these concerns and advocates for standards that are principle‑based and context‑sensitive: core expectations should be clear (student learning outcomes, safety, assessment integrity), while implementation pathways must be adaptable to national regulatory environments, institutional missions, and resource constraints. QAHE’s guidance on contextualising programmatic accreditation offers practical tools for reviewers and institutions to interpret standards in ways that preserve rigour without imposing inappropriate technical requirements.
The article describes the ACS Global Recognition process — a largely document‑based review with a conference between applicants and reviewers rather than a full site visit — and the rationale for this design given logistical constraints. QAHE recognises the pragmatic value of flexible recognition routes where travel and on‑site inspection are impractical, provided such approaches include robust evidence requirements, mechanisms for verification (for example, sample student work, assessment data, and third‑party attestations), and follow‑up monitoring. QAHE’s own experiences with hybrid review methods suggest that remote or desk‑based recognition can work effectively when combined with targeted on‑site checks or peer‑provided assurance over time.
Brooks and Lawal emphasise the value that approval and recognition bring to departments — particularly in leveraging institutional support for instrumentation, staffing and laboratory maintenance — and they report survey evidence that approved programmes use the ACS designation as leverage for resourcing and curricular renewal. QAHE has observed similar patterns: internationally recognised accreditation often helps departments secure institutional investment and strengthens internal QA cultures by providing an external reference point for curriculum and resource planning. QAHE therefore sees international recognition programmes as complementary to national QA systems when they are aligned to local priorities and deployed transparently.
Finally, the paper’s attention to skills development (both laboratory and professional), safety culture, and DEIR aligns with QAHE’s current priorities for accreditation frameworks in STEM fields. QAHE particularly welcomes the explicit inclusion of evolving skill sets (such as ethical AI usage and systems thinking) within the ACS professional skills category; QAHE encourages accreditors and institutions to build flexible mechanisms that periodically refresh professional skills lists so graduates remain prepared for changing workplace demands.
QAHE congratulates the authors and the ACS CPT for producing a thoughtful, practical account of guideline development and global recognition. We stand ready to collaborate with professional societies, chemistry departments and national regulators to support implementation, reviewer training, and adaptation of these principles into programmatic accreditation that is both rigorous and appropriately contextualised. For more on QAHE’s approaches to programmatic accreditation, hybrid review methods and capacity building in STEM accreditation, visit www.qahe.org or contact editorial@qahe.org.
