Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 20, 2026

Objectification of Tongue Diagnosis in Traditional Medicine, Data Analysis, and Study Application
Published on: April 14, 2023
The "Glocalization" of Medical School Accreditation: Case Studies From Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan
Ming-Jung Ho1, Joan Abbas, Ducksun Ahn
1M.J. Ho is professor, Department of Medical Education and Bioethics, National Taiwan University College of Medicine, and council member, Taiwan Medical Accreditation Council, Taipei, Taiwan; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1415-8282. J. Abbas was a research assistant, Department of Medical Education and Bioethics, National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan, at the time of the study. D. Ahn is professor, Department of Medical Humanities, College of Medicine Korea University, Seoul, Korea; vice president, World Federation for Medical Education, London, United Kingdom; and immediate past president, Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation, Seoul, Korea; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2762-0026. C.W. Lai is immediate past chairman, Taiwan Medical Accreditation Council, and chair professor, Medical Education Promotion Fund, Taipei, Taiwan. N. Nara is director, Japan Accreditation Council for Medical Education, Tokyo, Japan. K. Shaw was a research assistant, Department of Medical Education and Bioethics, National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan, at the time of the study.
Purpose:
In an age of globalized medical education, medical school accreditation has been hailed as an approach to external quality assurance. However, accreditation standards can vary widely across national contexts. To achieve recognition by the World Federation for Medical Education (WFME), national accrediting bodies must develop standards suitable for both local contexts and international recognition. This study framed this issue in terms of "glocalization" and aimed to shine light on this complicated multistakeholder process by exploring accreditation in Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.
Method:
This study employed a comparative case-study design, examining the national standards that three accreditation bodies in East Asia developed using international reference standards. In 2015-2016, the authors conducted document analysis of the English versions of the standards to identify the differences between the national and international reference standards as well as how and why external standards were adapted.
Results:
Each country's accreditation body sought to balance local needs with global demands. Each used external standards as a template (e.g., Liaison Committee on Medical Education, General Medical Council, or WFME standards) and either revised (Taiwan, South Korea) or annotated (Japan) the standards to fit the local context. Four categories of differences emerged to account for how and why national standards departed from external references: structural, regulatory, developmental, and aspirational.
Conclusions:
These countries' glocalization of medical accreditation standards serve as examples for others seeking to bring their accreditation practices in line with global standards while ensuring that local values and societal needs are given adequate consideration.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Global Regulatory Systems
International Nursing Organizations II
The WHO provides expert team support, including funding, vaccines, testing, and treatment tools at the country level to fight...
International Nursing Organizations I
ICN member organizations work to advance the field of nursing and healthcare via policies, partnerships, lobbying, professional...
Secondary Healthcare System
Tertiary Healthcare System
National Nursing Organizations II
The AACN emphasizes a healthy work environment through six standards to achieve an optimal patient outcome. The standards are appropriate staffing, meaningful recognition, collaboration, authentic leadership, effective communication, and decision-making. In addition, AACN provides certification programs, webinars, journals, and...

