Abstract

The objective of this study is to explore the tensions between local and international accreditation. In particular, the study aims to uncover the issues related to differences in learning outcomes requirements between the Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA) and Local Accreditation (National Center for Academic Accreditation and Evaluation—NCAAA). CIDA is globally recognized for promoting quality standards. US Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) recognized the CIDA. There are around 195 interior design schools accredited by the CIDA. The NCAAA is in charge of academic accreditation for both public and private higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia. The study utilized a mixed-method approach, combining documentary analysis and interviews. Applying the theory of complexity, the study revealed issues related to local and international accreditation. The application of the theory of complexity addressed the fact that tensions exist between coevolution and agent. The study is unique in terms of how to align learning outcomes with the requirements of various accreditation bodies. The findings may be generalizable even to those countries that have accreditation requirements somewhat dissimilar to those of CIDA.