Guidelines for Reporting

Each Working Group will be responsible for submitting an initial and final draft Self-Study Chapter Report to the Steering Committee, in accordance with the provisions described in the General Working Group Charge and Self-Study Timetable.

Self-Study Chapter Reports should be analytical in substance, using evidence to support all claims being made. An ideal Chapter Report will be balanced in tone and feature aspects of what Fordham does well, as well as areas in need of improvement, with conclusions based on evidence-based findings of the Working Group.

Chapter Reports will summarize the work of the Working Groups and demonstrate compliance with the specified Standard for Accreditation and each criterion listed within the Standard, while also addressing the interconnections of the Standard with the Institutional Priorities.

Chapter Reports must demonstrate fulfillment of the relevant Requirements of Affiliation. Compliance is demonstrated by developing an analytical narrative explaining how documented evidence gathered shows that Fordham meets a given criterion or criteria associated with the Standard under focus. Once all evidence is identified, collected, and analyzed, the Chapter Report should examine and assess institutional strengths and weaknesses that emerge in connection with the Standard under focus. It should also emphasize, when appropriate, areas of distinction and opportunities for institutional improvement that can, in turn, be linked to particular Institutional Priorities.

In some cases, assessment answers will be readily discernible and linked directly to specific evidence. Assessment examples are not required for every criterion; however, each criterion must be addressed and examples are required for the Standard as a whole. In cases where documentation, policies, or other data are missing, please notify the Steering Committee Co-Chairs immediately. Likewise, if a Working Group finds it is unable to address any of the criteria associated with the Standard, please ensure it is reported to the Steering Committee Co-Chairs as soon as possible.

Kindly note that the final editing process may necessitate that the entirety of a draft Chapter Report is not replicated in full in the final Self-Study Report. The Steering Committee may have to make editorial decisions to clarify and synthesize content, avoid repetition, and ensure consistency and/or compliance with Standards set by MSCHE.

Structure

Working Groups should utilize the following structure for initial and final draft Self-Study Chapter Reports:

  • Executive Summary

  • Introduction/Context – This section should comprise a brief overview of the Working Group charge, Standard for Accreditation and Requirements of Affiliation under focus, and describe how the Working Group approached its work to fully examine the criteria through the Institutional Priorities.

  • Method and Analysis – Narrative in this section will convey how and what types of data were identified, collected, and analyzed to demonstrate compliance with the Standard under focus, with supporting documents in the Evidence Inventory. This section will also demonstrate the group’s findings, including how Fordham complies with each criterion associated with the Standard for Accreditation under examination. It should be comprehensive and as detailed as possible, including how the group carried out its work, which actors and groups it collaborated with on its work, descriptions of assessment data used to conduct the group’s analysis and pursue its Lines of Inquiry, and integrate appropriate links to evidence noted/hyperlinked throughout the narrative. Appendices should be used to reference Evidence Inventory documents, data, etc.

  • Strengths – Narrative in this section should extend the analysis in the prior section to present concise but comprehensive elaboration of Fordham’s strengths in relationship to the Standard for Accreditation under focus, including how they relate to Institutional Priorities.

  • Areas for Improvement – Narrative in this section should extend the analysis in the prior section to present concise but comprehensive elaboration of the gap analysis undertaken, identifying areas in need of improvement and that Fordham should plan to address, including how they relate to Institutional Priorities.

  • Recommendations – Working Groups should build on the prior section by identifying key suggestions and offering insights into how Fordham could effectively address each of the identified areas of improvement. This could include identifying benchmarks against which to measure future progress or improvement.

Length and Format

The final document will be stylized by the University Marketing and Communications team, and the following conventions should be observed.

Platform

➢ Google Doc
Page Limit

➢ 12-15
Spacing

➢ Single
Font

➢ Times Roman, 12 pt.
Acronyms

➢ Upon first use, write out in full with acronym in parentheses. Subsequent use,

acronym only (except when first or last word in a full sentence–in which case, spell out in full)
Margins

➢ 1 inch on all sides
Pagination

➢ Bottomcenter
Section Headings

➢ Primary - bold, 16 pt.

➢ Secondary - italic, 14 pt.
Tense

➢ Third-person “Fordham University has demonstrated...”