ABSTRACT

Objectives: This study evaluates the design and stakeholder perceptions of a discipline inspection model within institutional governance, aiming to assess its validity, reliability, and applicability across diverse demographic and professional groups. Methodology: Employing mixed-method analyses including quantitative scale reliability testing, group comparisons, and cross-tabulation, alongside qualitative focus group discussions with key experts the research examines how gender, age, education level, professional roles, and administrative hierarchies shape perceptions of the model’s core dimensions. Findings: Findings reveal high internal consistency and broad acceptability of the model, particularly in punitive and integrative components, though educational dimensions’ lag in perceived efficacy. Education level emerged as a critical factor, with advanced-degree holders demonstrating distinct evaluations of incentive structures, while minimal differences were observed across gender, age, and professional roles. Qualitative insights from expert discussions reinforced the model’s theoretical and practical robustness, emphasizing the need for balanced punitive, preventive, and educational strategies, multi-departmental collaboration, and policy adaptability. Experts highlighted the model’s foresight in addressing institutional risks but cautioned against implementation challenges, including the need for institutional buy-in, resource allocation, and tailored training programs. Conclusion: The study concludes that while the model offers a comprehensive framework for institutional accountability, targeted enhancements in educational components and operational safeguards are necessary to address stakeholder expectations. Implications: Implications highlight the need for iterative policy refinement to align governance mechanisms with both demographic-neutral procedural consistency and context-specific adaptations. By integrating quantitative and qualitative perspectives, this research advances a novel, multidimensional approach to disciplinary systems, challenging assumptions about demographic determinism in institutional governance.