Ranking Accounting Ph.D. Programs and Faculties Using Social Science Research Network Downloads

We rank accounting Ph.D. programs and accounting faculties based on downloads individuals' working papers posted to the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) receive. We retain 185 individuals included in Accounting Faculty Directory 2002–2003 (Hasselback, 2002) whose work has been most heavily downloaded as of August 21, 2002. We rank Ph.D. programs (faculties) both adjusting and not adjusting for program (faculty) size. We provide rankings both without regards to when individuals graduated and for individuals graduating during three consecutive sub-periods: pre-1982, 1982–1991 and 1992–2001. We first provide rankings without regards to teaching or research area. After dichotomizing individuals into those whose teaching/research area is financial versus non-financial we provide additional rankings focusing on non-financial research areas.     

A further inquiry into the scholarly productivity of academic accountants: Twenty years of evidence from classes of 1980-82

Scholarly productivity is a key component of faculty evaluation at many universities. In fact, under current accreditation standards promulgated by the AACSB, faculty members must remain academically qualified in research. Here we provide evidence regarding faculty research productivity. The determinants of faculty productivity are estimated with data spanning a 20 year period for 487 accounting doctoral graduates during the years of 1980-82. Sample statistics reveal that a relatively small portion of researchers produce over half of the sample's articles. Also, our regression results suggest that top-tier institutions of first hire, larger department size of initial hire, and the experience within academic ranks are all positive determinants of scholarly productivity. Conversely, research output is reduced with increased time spent teaching and accepting an initial hire at a public rather than a private institution.     

Survey evidence of teacher development based on AECC recommendations

Recent graduates from accounting doctoral programs were surveyed about their perceived preparation for specific teaching characteristics espoused by the Accounting Education Change Commission AECC (Accounting Education Change Commission). [(1993). Evaluating and rewarding effective teaching: position statement no. five. Issues in Accounting Education 8(2), 436-439.] Respondents also provided information on specific teacher training methods currently being used by doctoral programs, by academic employer departments, and by individual faculty. Overall, our results suggest that most faculty responding to the survey feel inadequately prepared in all AECC-espoused teaching characteristics. Further, most endeavors to develop skills reflecting these characteristics appear to rely on efforts of the individual, instead of from systematic efforts of doctoral programs or academic employers. That is, respondents generally indicate that training received in their doctoral programs is a relatively minor source of preparation for current teaching responsibilities, while investments in self-training have had the greatest impact on their preparation for teaching. Respondents also indicate that doctoral programs, academic employers, and individual efforts should share more equally in the responsibility to develop “teaching scholarship.”     

Ranking Journals Using Social Science Research Network Downloads

I use a new approach to rank journals, namely the number and percent frequency of articles a journal publishes that are heavily downloaded from the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). I rank 18 accounting and finance journals, and I identify five journals not considered by the two most recent major published ranking studies of publications by accounting faculty, namely (in rank order): Journal of Financial Economics, Review of Accounting Studies, Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Journal of Corporate Finance, and Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting. I show that financial accounting faculties are more likely to post their working papers to SSRN, and papers posted by financial faculties generate more downloads. I mitigate this bias in favor of the financial area by providing separate rankings based on authors in the financial versus non-financial areas.     

The winnowing away of behavioral accounting research in the US: The process for anointing academic elites

This paper reports the results of a study of the most prolific publishers in the four recognized most prestigious journals in accounting for the period 1963 through 1999. The focus is on learning whether the widespread perception that behavioral accounting research (BAR) has diminished in significance as a prominent paradigm in the US accounting academy has any validity and to identify whether a new generation of US BAR researchers is emerging to join the academic elite. Based on the characteristics of persons who have appeared as authors five or more times during the study period, it seems that BAR is in recession in shaping the US academic agenda in accounting. The power of successful individuals to shape the academic agenda as evidenced by service on editorial boards of prominent journals is dominated by those individuals who are graduates of a set of elite schools utilizing a neoclassical economics based research paradigm. The power of this group seems to be growing in the US. In spite of the interest in BAR among accounting doctoral students and faculty, it is not a pursuit that now leads to academic status, which, in turn, diminishes its potential contribution towards the shaping of the accounting academic agenda.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Ranking North American accounting scholars publishing accounting education papers: 1966–2011

This paper ranks accounting’s education authors who teach at institutions located in the United States and Canada. During the 46-year period from 1966 through 2011 that we examined, 13 journals published accounting education papers; the publication period for each journal varies. The data indicate that only 31.4% of accounting’s 4855 doctoral faculty who teach at schools in North America have one or more publications in these 13 journals. For those doctorates still teaching, the research provides rankings of authors by doctoral year and for four periods: 2002–2011 (most recent 10 years), 1992–2001 (next 10-year period), 1966–1991 (last 26 years), and for the entire 46-year period. To acknowledge the contributions of retired and deceased authors, the research lists those authors who would have been included on the overall list had they still been actively teaching. While Urbancic (2009) and Brigham Young University (BYU) provide rankings of authors in accounting education, these rankings are limited in the scope of the journals included – Urbancic includes only six accounting education journals, while BYU includes only Issues in Accounting Education. We found that Urbancic’s (BYU’s) 10-year (20-year) data had a Spearman’s rho of −0.84 (0.39) with our rankings. We believe that data presented herein provides a more comprehensive ranking of accounting’s authors in the area of education.     

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.     

Knowledge and the academic accountant: An empirical study

This article concerns the way that academic accountants approach and perceive knowledge. Knowledge within disciplines is based upon knowledge strategies, which are the sets of beliefs and “rules” by means of which academics deal with knowledge. Knowledge strategies underlie the basic philosophy of the various departments which make up the university business school, and affect the way in which academics research and teach their disciplines. The origin of this article lies in our speculation about what it is that academic accountants consider worth knowing about accountancy issues, and further, what rules and strategies impact on their perception of what is valid or appropriate knowledge. In order to ascertain whether or not the concept of knowledge strategies has any validity and whether accounting faculty hold different knowledge strategies compared to nonaccounting business faculty, a study was undertaken involving the seven English university business schools which cover the full range of undergraduate, MBA, doctoral, and executive programmes. A questionnaire was sent to 407 academics at these schools. Following a factor analysis of the data collected, three strategies were identified as the Personal Knowledge Strategy (characterised by reliance on individual creativity, personal experience and judgement), the External Strategy (characterised by the view that knowledge can be found by means of objective criteria), and the Collegial Knowledge Strategy (characterised by debate and consultation with colleagues in order to compare, contrast, discuss and evaluate knowledge). A comparative analysis of the 68 accounting faculty who responded to the questionnaire and the 165 responding nonaccountant faculty revealed that academic accountants hold a significantly lower personal knowledge strategy and also a significantly higher external strategy, when compared with nonaccountant faculty. These empirical findings lend support to Zeff's concern that academic accountants' approach to education does not result in students being acquainted “with a field of professional endeavor consistent with the liberal tradition of universities” (Zeff, 1989b, p. 204).     

CALL FOR PAPERS

This study investigates publication profiles of 137 accounting and finance faculty promoted to professor at UK universities during 1992–2007. On average, nine papers in established academic journals, with 5 at the highest 3*/4* quality levels in a portfolio of 20 outputs are required for promotion. Based on various theoretical perspectives, multivariate models of key performance benchmarks (quality and quantity measures) are constructed and have good explanatory power (R 2 Tenure was effectively abolished in the UK via the 1988 Education Reform Act on the insistence of the government. The only real protection that academic employees now have is that of employment law relating to open-ended contracts and to fixed-term contracts longer than 2 years duration. Also, many universities recruit lecturers/assistant professors on probationary contracts and the award of a permanent contract is not guaranteed. We are grateful to the editor and a reviewer for these two corrective comments. ?≥?0.7). Publication requirements seem to have increased over time, argued to be mainly attributable to government-initiated Research Assessment Exercises. For internal promotions, there is some evidence of higher hurdles but no evidence that quality requirements differ based on gender; sub-discipline; research intensity of institution peer group; or government-initiated research ranking of unit. Similarly, the quality benchmark is not reduced for those having an increased recent publication history, a high number of non-ABS outputs or sole-authored papers. Comparison with the US suggests underlying geographically-based paradigm differences. UK promotion benchmarks are argued to have evolved through a dynamic and complex interaction between university managers, the government and the accounting and finance academic community.     

The Impact of Journal Rankings on Australasian Accounting Education Scholarship – A Personal View

Abstract

The higher education environment in which academics currently find themselves is one characterised by corporatisation and commodification. The pursuit of scholarly academic research is increasingly plagued by quantification, ranking pursuits, and what might be referred to as a ‘publication’ maximisation culture. This paper provides reflective insight into the impact felt of journal rankings on Australasian accounting education research. The paper challenges the short-termism and narrow focus currently adopted by many business faculty executives, who continue to use journal rankings as the sole measure of academic performance. The paper argues that this results in incentive schemes not too dissimilar to that recently found within the financial industry. The paper concludes that such a narrow approach to measurement should be abandoned in order to encourage creativity and innovation in business research that assists in solving business problems today and well into the future.     

Knowing one’s place: The distribution of new accounting academics into a segmented labor market

New academic accountants tend to believe that there is a singular academic labor market that will receive them as they approach the completion of their doctoral programs. In such a world, the caliber of their ideas would be judged according to their ability to make a contribution to the knowledge of discipline. However, past research suggests that a prestige structure exists for doctoral programs such that a candidate’s ability to be placed at a school is a function of his/her doctoral programs position in that hierarchy. In this world, limits exist upon possible placement for most candidates such that the caliber of their work will not be a determinative factor in their placement. Various divisions of the doctoral schools in accounting show that movement to higher groups is difficult for all groups. The higher-tier schools are more able to place their graduates in the same tier. Falls to lower tiers are especially likely for the graduates of the lower prestige groups of doctoral schools. This paper seeks to help participants in the labor market, doctoral candidates and those that hire them, obtain a more informed appreciation for their realistic prospects. In this way, an achievable expectation should lead to more efficient placement behavior.     

Ranking accounting journals using dissertation citation analysis: A research note

Prior literature on accounting journal rankings has provided different journal lists depending on the type of examination (citations- vs. survey-based) and the choice of journals covered. A recent study by Bonner, Hesford, Van der Stede, and Young (2006) [Bonner, S., Hesford, A., Van der Stede, W. A., & Young, M. S. (2006). The most influential journals in academic accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(7), 663–685] documents disproportionately more citations in the financial accounting area, suggesting a financial accounting bias in the accounting literature. We use citations from accounting dissertations completed during 1999–2003 to provide a ranking of accounting journals. The database allows us to assess the research interests of new accounting scholars and the literature sources they draw from. Another innovation is our ranking of accounting journals based on specialty areas (auditing, financial, managerial, tax, systems, and other) and research methods (archival, experimental, modeling, survey, and other). To mitigate the financial accounting bias documented by Bonner et al. (2006), we derive a ranking metric by scaling (normalizing) the journal citations by the number of dissertations within each specialty area and research method. Overall, the top journals are, JAR, AOS, TAR, and JAE. We also provide evidence that top journal rankings do vary by specialty area as well as by research methods.     

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.     

Publications: A valid measure of faculty contribution?

Publication productivity of academic accountants has been variously measured and used to rank accounting faculties as well as accounting doctoral programs. Implicit in the results of these studies is the assumption that publications are a surrogate measurement of the contribution of faculty members. This study presents evidence of the declining publication productivity of academic accountants throughout their careers and discusses some implications of this phenomenon for performance evaluation.     

Ranking accounting authors and departments in accounting education: different methodologies – significantly different results

This research tests whether Holderness Jr., D. K., Myers, N., Summers, S. L., & Wood, D. A. [(2014). Accounting education research: Ranking institutions and individual scholars. Issues in Accounting Education, 29(1), 87–115] accounting-education rankings are sensitive to a change in the set of journals used. It provides updated rankings for accounting-education authors from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States using a sample that included the publications in 13 accounting-education journals. Our analysis indicated that Holderness et al.’s rankings of authors and departments were significantly different from our rankings. This research provides rankings of the top 50 authors and departments for three periods: from 2010 to 2015, from 2004 to 2015, and from 1992 to 2015. We provide data indicating the distribution of authors for these periods to assist authors not listed in the most prolific lists in determining their relative ranking. Finally, we provide data on the distribution of journal choices for accounting-education publications for the authors from each country.     

Why are first‐year accounting studies inclusive?

This study is motivated by the increasing diversity among first‐year accounting students and the increasing number of first‐year accounting students whose majors are not in accounting related areas in UK universities. The main contribution of this study is that it uses student data over four consecutive academic years from a first‐year accounting course at a UK university to provide empirical evidence in support of the theoretical framework proposed by Rankin et al. (2003). Our results show the effects of metacognitive knowledge and content knowledge on academic performance as well as highlighting the inclusiveness of the first‐year accounting course. For instance, regardless of the choices of secondary subjects, students who have good prior academic achievement are the best performers on the first‐year accounting course. The influence of content knowledge on academic performance is strongly felt when the assessments of the course changed from a 100 per cent final exam to a combination of mid‐term coursework and a final exam. The results suggest that well‐designed mid‐term coursework is academically beneficial to accounting students, especially non‐native English‐speaking students.     

Developing benchmarks for evaluating publication records at doctoral programs in accounting

This paper summarizes the publication productivity of 87 accounting doctoral programs in two subsets of the 30 highest-rated academic accounting journals over five years (1992–1996). Three measures are developed as surrogates for the quality, breadth, and depth of the aggregate publication productivity of faculty in each program. Results indicate that the three indices are measuring different dimensions of scholarly productivity. Accounting program administrators should find the results useful for establishing benchmarks for scholarly activity needed for, among other purposes, AACSB accreditation.