Research,teaching, and service in promotion and tenure decisions of accounting faculty

This study examines whether the relative values of research, teaching, and service activities in promotion and tenure decisions of accounting faculty vary across American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)-accredited colleges of business and their departments of accounting in accordance with their educational missions. Educational mission is determined by an institution's classification under the Carnegie Foundation system. Deans and accounting department heads are surveyed to measure relative emphasis placed on research, teaching, and service. The results demonstrate that the manner in which deans and accounting department heads value research, teaching, and service is consistent with their institutions' educational mission. The views of both deans and accounting department heads at doctoral-granting, high research support schools (Research I and II) differ from those of their counterparts at both doctoral-granting, low-research support schools (Doctorate I and II), and nondoctoral-granting schools (Comprehensive). We conclude that in studies examining faculty performance, the traditional classification of institutions based simply on doctoral-granting status may provide misleading or incomplete results. Our results show that the views of both deans and accounting department heads at doctoral-granting institutions are not homogeneous regarding the relative emphasis placed on both research and teaching. Accordingly, we recommend that future research studies in this area utilize the more discriminating Carnegie classification scheme.     

Perceptions of promotion and tenure criteria: A survey of accounting educators

This paper investigates the perceptions of accounting educators with respect to the present and desired importance of various factors considered in promotion and tenure decisions. The results suggest substantial disagreement across types of institutions in the perceived importance of the various factors. Respondents at doctoral granting institutions exhibited a research profile, those at non-doctoral accredited institutions exhibited a teaching/research profile, and those at non-accredited institutions exhibited a teaching/research/service profile. These findings should be of value to new faculty entering the academic community, as well as faculty who wish to assess their academic mobility.     

Exploring the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Productivity: A Study of Accounting Faculty Who Are Caregivers of Children*

This study explores how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the productivity of accounting faculty who identify as caregivers of children. We examine the effects on caregivers of children because of the significant shift in the family-work interface that resulted from remote working and learning. We draw on existing family-work conflict research to develop four hypotheses that explore why the productivity of accounting faculty who are caregivers of children might be affected differently during the pandemic than that of accounting faculty who are non-caregivers of children. We surveyed accounting faculty primarily across Canada and the United States. We find that accounting faculty caring for children during the pandemic experienced reduced research, teaching, and service productivity because of increased family-work conflict and depletion. We supplement our main findings with an analysis of open-ended questions to further understand productivity changes and supports for research, teaching, and service. Our study contributes to research examining family-work conflict, employee productivity, and the accounting profession by making practical recommendations for providing targeted support for caregivers of children during times of crisis.     

Accounting education: Turning wrongs into rights in the 1980's

This article speculates upon the evolution of accounting education in the 1980's. Ideas are presented which impact upon many facets of higher education including undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education programs, as well as research and service. Further, institutional issues concerning the role of academics are addressed.The paper begins with “wrongs” of accounting research, education, libraries, and continuing education. Particular stress is placed upon weaknesses in educating and motivating accounting faculty to teach and have primary concern for students. Promotion, tenure, expense support, and reward structures are biased toward research and publication rather than teaching. Funding and faculty attention are not directed toward innovation in accounting education and development of university libraries as learning centers. In short, accounting educators continue to “educate for absolescence.”The paper ends with some suggestions of how to turn “wrongs” into “rights.” More than increased funding is needed. Of primary importance is a shift in attitudes and reward structures.     

A longitudinal study of the research productivity of graduates of accounting doctoral programs

While the number of graduates from U.S. accounting doctoral programs has declined significantly since the early 1990s (thus producing a significant faculty shortage), many schools' research requirements to achieve promotion and tenure [P & T] have increased significantly—along with salary packages for new faculty. The purposes of the study reported here are to: (1) compare the research output of accounting doctoral graduates across time (1989–1993 period versus their 1999–2003 counterparts) to see if there is sufficiently enhanced output to justify today's higher entry level salaries; and (2) extract from productivity measures information relative to P & T decisions, thus providing benchmarks for promotion to associate and full professor. We examine research records for six and 12 years beyond graduation because these are frequently relevant to tenure and promotion decisions.     

The incidence of documented standards for research in departments of accounting at US institutions

Evidence suggests that standards for research in accounting are vague to junior faculty at the same time business schools are placing more emphasis on scholarship when evaluating faculty for tenure and promotion (T&P). In response, we investigate the incidence of accounting-specific documented standards for research in T&P decisions based on an email survey of accounting department administrators at US institutions. In addition, we report respondent data about the use of documented and informal journal lists. Our findings suggest that few accounting departments, regardless of accreditation status, utilize department-specific written scholarship standards or journal lists, supporting faculty perceptions that scholarship requirements for T&P are vague. As part of our analysis we review implications of the Final Report of the AACSB International Impact of Research Task Force (AACSB International, 2008) on the use of journal lists for tenure and promotion decisions. We summarize by advocating for specific accounting department-level policies for T&P, including consideration of explicit journal lists.     

Attitudes of accounting practitioners towards accounting faculty and accounting education

The purpose of this study is to assess how accounting practitioners view accounting faculty, accounting education, and the contributions of accounting faculty to the accounting profession. In general, the results of the survey indicate that practitioners have a favorable view of accounting faculty in that accounting faculty are viewed as honest, highly competent, and up-to-date, and their research as being useful to the profession. However, accounting faculty are viewed as not being very helpful in providing guidance towards solving the day-to-day problems of the practitioner. Moreover, the attitudes of the respondents towards accounting education appear related in many cases to the respondents' backgrounds, including their level of education, current position, and previous college teaching experience.     

What happened to the class of Year 2000: Examining their research and employment records

Today's academic environment requires high levels of research from faculty to earn promotion and tenure [P&T], merit pay, summer research grants, and other university resources. Increasingly rigorous doctoral programs have increased the competition for publishing high quality academic research. Those individuals seeking faculty positions should recognize the varying research standards of different strata of accounting programs. Most P&T committees compare candidates' research productivity to that of schools in their strata (i.e., their peer or aspirational schools). This study thus examines the research productivity through 2009 for all Year 2000 graduates from U.S. accounting doctoral programs. Information is categorized by different strata of schools to highlight current research accomplishments, and, by implication, research requirements. These results should help faculty and university administrators make better informed decisions.     

Productivity in Top‐10 Academic Accounting Journals by Researchers at Canadian Universities at the Start of the 21st Century

We assess the research publication productivity of Canadian‐based accounting researchers in highly ranked accounting journals for the 2001–13 period. Our research provides important benchmarks for use by individual researchers and universities for matters such as promotion and tenure decisions. For example, each Canadian‐based faculty member had approximately 0.50 of a weighted article for the 13‐year period, and 45 percent of all accounting faculty members published at least once in a top‐10 accounting journal. We also provide an overview of the type of research being published by Canadian‐based researchers in each of the top‐10 journals (financial accounting, managerial, audit, tax or other) and we assess how productivity at top‐10 journals has changed over time. In supplemental analysis, we compare and contrast the productivity of the 15 male and 15 female academics that publish most in top‐10 accounting journals to assess the breadth of outlets being used beyond top‐10 outlets (including FT 45 journals, accounting journals ranked “A”, “B”, and “non‐A/B”; non‐accounting peer‐reviewed journals, non‐peer‐reviewed outlets). The supplemental analysis also helps to shed light on the finding from this paper, and prior research, that women are less likely to be represented on lists of those with most publications in highly ranked accounting journals, by comparing the two groups of researchers across a variety of institutional and other factors.     

Benchmarks for evaluating the research productivity of accounting faculty

This study reports comprehensive data on both the quantity and quality of research productivity of 3878 accounting faculty who earned their accounting doctoral degrees from 1971 to 1993. Publications in 40 journals were used to measure faculty publication quantity. Journal ratings derived from a compilation of the rankings of five prior studies and co-authorship were used to measure publication quality. Choosing benchmarks for an individual faculty requires users of our data to determine four parameters: (1) what credit to give a faculty member for co-authored articles; (2) what level of journal quality is appropriate, e.g. presenting benchmarks for publications in the Best 4, Best 12, Best 22 and Best 40 journals; (3) choosing appropriate levels of performance, e.g. considering the publication record in the top 10%, top 20%, top 25%, top 33%, or top 50% of all faculty; and (4) deciding the emphasis to place on the number of years since the doctoral degree was earned. We believe that this is the first set of benchmarks that allows administrators to state, with some justification, a required number of articles for tenure or promotion. In addition, we discovered that the average number of authors per article is significantly correlated with time and growing at a pace of 0.017 authors per article per year.     

Faculty perceptions of online homework software in accounting education

Emerging technologies are providing a variety of tools for accounting educators. One of these tools is Online Homework Software (OHS). This study collects survey data from accounting faculty in the U.S.A. who were queried as to the utilization and perception of OHS in undergraduate accounting courses. Analysis of the survey data indicated five differences between OHS users and nonusers: (1) years of teaching, (2) number of course sections taught, (3) Accounting AACSB accreditation status, (4) faculty rank, and (5) courses taught by the respondents. Faculty indicated the tool is helpful when teaching in the online format and that OHS saves faculty time by reducing the time spent grading and processing student work. Users of OHS raised concerns about whether and how the tool helps students learn, how the students view the tool, and the cost of OHS. The data reported in this study are relevant to educators who have never used OHS as well as those who are currently using OHS. The data collected is important in promoting dialog concerning OHS usage and developing recommendations for continued improvements in the software.     

Scholarly accomplishments in promotion and tenure decisions of accounting faculty

Deans and accounting department heads are surveyed to measure the relative importance assigned to various scholarly accomplishments in promotion and tenure decisions of accounting faculty at AACSB-accredited institutions. We also investigate whether these importance ratings vary across colleges of business and their departments of accounting in accordance with their educational missions, as determined by an institution's classification under the Carnegie Foundation system. The results demonstrate that accomplishments involving publication, external recognition, and funding count most in tenure and promotion decisions. Academic publications and awards are rated the highest at all institutional types. And, of the 39 scholarly accomplishments examined, fewer than half were assigned an average importance of four or higher on a 7-point scale. Further, the importance assigned to certain scholarly accomplishments by deans and accounting heads varies with the educational missions of their institutions. At doctoral-granting, high research support institutions, deans and heads employ a different definition of scholarship than do their colleagues at Comprehensive institutions. Academic publication activities and external recognition tend to dominate tenure and promotion decisions at doctoral-granting, high research support institutions. Comprehensive deans and heads place significantly more importance on scholarly accomplishments associated with practitioner publications, pedagogical publications, national and regional academic meetings, and instruction.     

You Cannot Judge a Book by Its Cover: The Problems with Journal Rankings

Abstract

Journal rankings lists have impacted and are impacting accounting educators and accounting education researchers around the world. Nowhere is the impact positive. It ranges from slight constraints on academic freedom to admonition, censure, reduced research allowances, non-promotion, non-short-listing for jobs, increased teaching loads, and re-designation as a non-researcher, all because the chosen research specialism of someone who was vocationally motivated to become a teacher of accounting is, ironically, accounting education. University managers believe that these journal ranking lists show that accounting faculty publish top-quality research on accounting regulation, financial markets, business finance, auditing, international accounting, management accounting, taxation, accounting in society, and more, but not on what they do in their ‘day job’ – teaching accounting. These same managers also believe that the journal ranking lists indicate that accounting faculty do not publish top-quality research in accounting history and accounting systems. And they also believe that journal ranking lists show that accounting faculty write top-quality research in education, history, and systems, but only if they publish it in specialist journals that do not have the word ‘accounting’ in their title, or in mainstream journals that do. Tarring everyone with the same brush because of the journal in which they publish is inequitable. We would not allow it in other walks of life. It is time the discrimination ended.     

Setting realistic expectations for publishing in leading accounting research journals

At most colleges and universities, an accounting academic's publication record is a primary consideration in promotion and tenure decisions. Many institutions encourage and expect faculty members to publish in leading accounting research journals. No longer limited to institutions with strong research orientations, these expectations often become an informal part of promotion and tenure guidelines at other colleges and universities. This article evaluates the use of such criteria in light of a five-year study (1978–1982) of several attributes of academics who have published in two leading research journals, The Accounting Review and The Journal of Accounting Research. The objective is to initiate dialogue and promote reasonable expectations among and between accounting faculty and administrators.     

Personality types of accounting students and faculty: Comparisons and implications

This exploratory study presents and discusses differences found in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) types (personality preferences) of undergraduate and graduate accounting students, as well as accounting faculty members as they apply to two concerns. The first is the ability of today's accounting education programs to attract the types of students demanded by the profession. The second is the propensity of accounting faculty to expand traditional teaching modalities beyond those aimed at disseminating technical accounting knowledge. The results (using chi square tests) indicate significant differences in certain MBTI types among the groups, which have implications for accounting programs as they attempt to implement fundamental changes advocated by the profession and the Accounting Education Change Commission. The implications are discussed as they relate to accounting students who are predominantly extraverts, sensors, thinkers, and judgers, as well as to attracting and retaining a more diverse group of students. The implications of expected changes in teaching modalities are also discussed as they relate to accounting faculty who are predominantly introverts, sensors, thinkers, and judgers.     

Excel in the accounting curriculum: perceptions from accounting professors

Public accounting firms emphasize the importance of accounting graduates being proficient in Excel. Since many accounting graduates often aspire to work in public accounting, a question arises as to whether there should be an emphasis on Excel in accounting education. The purpose of this paper is to specifically look at this issue by examining accounting faculty's perceptions of Excel in public accounting and accounting education. We survey 245 faculty members at over 100 accounting programs. We find that a majority of faculty incorporate Excel in their accounting classes consistent with their perception of Excel importance. However, we find that students are not fully proficient in Excel based on faculty's perceptions. This study contributes to the accounting education literature by identifying possible disconnections between Excel skills faculty include in the accounting curriculum and specific Excel skills faculty believe new hires (i.e. recent accounting graduates) most often use in public accounting.     

The Impact of Research Assessment Exercises on UK Accounting and Finance Faculty

Published research outputs have for a long time been used to assess the performance of UK accounting and finance faculty. This process has been institutionalised and formalised through the introduction of Research Assessment Exercises (RAEs). RAEs have now become a central and recurring feature of university life. This research evaluates the perceptions of UK accounting faculty of the RAE. We surveyed 713 research active academics in November 1997 drawn from old and new universities, and from senior and non-senior faculty. The 182 academics who responded perceived that the quality of their individual and their department’s research had been increased. However, teaching and administration were believed to have been negatively affected. Overall, twice as many academics believed the RAE had a negative rather than a positive impact upon their jobs. The results across the university divide (old vs. new universities) were fairly homogeneous. However, the responses of senior and non-senior staff were significantly different. Non-senior respondents believed the RAE had a significantly greater negative impact on their teaching, administration, promotion prospects and job mobility than senior respondents. Overall, respondents perceived the RAE ratings to be fair. Publication in top UK research journals was perceived to be the greatest indicator of research quality. The findings have important implications, particularly for the recruitment and retention of non-senior accounting and finance faculty.     

Negative behaviors that impede learning: Survey findings from award-winning accounting educators

A review of the education literature, both within and beyond accounting, indicates previous consideration of attributes of teaching “effectiveness.” This literature provides educators with an ability to model approaches and techniques to enhance their teaching. Largely absent from the literature, however, is any attempt to identify teaching attributes that impede the learning process. While it may be assumed that “the opposite of best practices” would constitute methods or behaviors to be avoided, very little evidence is available to support this view. Little is known, except anecdotally, about why and how behaviors other than those subsumed in “best practices” frameworks can produce unintended negative results. Generally absent from the literature as well are perspectives from exemplars; that is, award-winning educators. This paper responds to both of these voids and presents evidence of classroom behaviors to be avoided because of their perceived negative effect on student learning. Specifically, we report survey responses from a sample of 105 accounting educators who have been formally recognized for their teaching excellence. These teaching exemplars were asked to list, in their own words and in ranked order of importance, up to five responses to the following question: “what behaviors would you counsel other accounting educators to avoid?” We received 374 responses to this question. A content analysis of these responses suggests the following major factors (in decreasing order of importance): negative or uncaring attitudes about students and the class; improper preparation and organization; faulty or deficient course-delivery skills; assessment mistakes; and, inflexible/inaccessible demeanor. Our results should be relevant to accounting faculty interested in assessing and improving their own teaching as well as to senior faculty who are interested in mentoring junior faculty.     

The life of an accounting information systems research course

This paper describes the development, evaluation, and the changes made to a research course for part-time Master of Science students in accounting. The course prepares students for their Master of Science thesis and aims to develop their research skills. On top of this, it managed to overcome barriers between faculty members who were chiefly involved in teaching, and those who mainly conducted research. In the course, students work in teams, closely supervised by faculty members, and go through a research process that ends with the preparation of a research paper. The course consists of 10 steps, which are described and critically discussed. Evaluation scores indicate that students appreciate the course and experience a steep learning curve. Faculty members also experience benefits, despite the extensive preparation time involved.