Institutional Capacity for EMI Programme Quality and Public-University Accreditation

The rapid expansion of English-Medium Instruction (EMI) across public higher education systems reflects an institutional response to internationalization pressures, global ranking metrics, and cross-border academic mobility [1]. In emerging economies and transitional educational landscapes, such as East and Southeast Asia, public universities increasingly adopt English as the primary language of disciplinary instruction to elevate national competitiveness and foster human capital accumulation [2], [4]. However, this rapid curricular transition exposes significant institutional vulnerabilities, including uneven pedagogical readiness, faculty language friction, and inadequate institutional infrastructure to sustain specialized instructional standards across diverse disciplinary domains [6].

Concurrently, institutional capacity serves as the operational foundation for meeting national and international quality assurance benchmarks in public universities [2]. While institutional accreditation mandates formal criteria for curriculum governance, faculty qualifications, and learning outcomes, public accreditation frameworks frequently lack specialized metrics tailored to the linguistic and pedagogical complexities inherent in EMI delivery [1], [7]. Consequently, a noticeable divide persists between promotional branding—which positions EMI as a symbol of academic excellence and global prestige—and the actual operational capacity of public tertiary institutions to deliver equitable and rigorously assessed academic outcomes [1], [8].

This research examines the structural interaction between institutional capacity and program-level quality assurance mechanisms within public-university accreditation frameworks. Grounded in critical policy analysis, institutional theory, and comparative quality assurance paradigms, the study systematically investigates the operational dimensions required for sustainable EMI execution, including professional development, pedagogical scaffolding, and formal accreditation compliance [2], [6]. By establishing a coherent evaluative framework, this investigation addresses the systemic governance gaps that hinder consistent instructional quality and provides strategic pathways for public universities navigating institutional accreditation.