Bridging the accreditation gap: a case study of faculty and student perspectives in a Mexican medical school

Purpose: This study explores how faculty and students perceive the accreditation process of undergraduate medical programmes at a private Mexican medical school. By contrasting these two stakeholder groups, it identifies how they define accreditation, understand its purpose and view its benefits, challenges and potential areas of improvement. Design/methodology/approach: An instrumental case study approach was employed, combining a literature-derived question guide and the nominal group technique (NGT) with 12 faculty members and 11 students. Data were collected and analysed sequentially using both deductive (based on established themes from the literature) and inductive (emerging codes from the data) methods. This process yielded five core themes that reflected participants’ experiences and suggestions regarding accreditation. Findings: Faculty and students shared concerns about programme quality, institutional prestige, working environments, personal and professional development and trust in the accreditation system. Faculty emphasised the need for training and role clarity, particularly regarding evidence collection and time management. Students recognised the impact of accreditation on their future opportunities but felt excluded from the process. Both groups suggested improvements, such as dedicated teams for accreditation tasks, better communication strategies and early orientation to promote engagement and continuous quality improvement. Originality/value: This study provides a multifaceted comparison of faculty and student perceptions of accreditation in the Latin American context, an area not extensively examined in the existing literature. By highlighting stakeholder-driven challenges and proposals, this study offers a framework for more inclusive, transparent and effective accreditation processes that can be adapted to similar educational settings worldwide.