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.     

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.     

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.     

External reviews: What is being done?

Many universities use external reviews (ERs) for tenure and promotion decisions yet little has been written about the practice. Therefore, a questionnaire was sent to a sample of full professors and administrators at all AACSB-accredited schools to learn what was being done, i.e., what reviewers were asked to do for other institutions and what was being done at their own schools. The response rate on the survey was 46.4%. Responses were stratified into three categories; Group 1 (the 30 top publishing schools), Group 2 (other doctoral-granting institutions), and Group 3 (non doctoral-granting schools) according to the ‘different schools with different mission’ hypothesis. Results showed that individuals from Group 1 schools were more likely to be chosen to perform ERs, more likely to be asked to evaluate only the research component of faculty performance, and more likely to be chosen for their area of specialization. The results also showed that Group 1 and Group 2 schools were more likely to require external reviews in promotion and tenure decisions. In addition, there was a relative lack of negative reviews across all of the school-type groups. This study shows that if external reviews are requested, it is highly likely that only positive reviews will be received from the reviewers. Finally, the results indicate that the process may not be functioning as anticipated. Besides the general failure of the evaluators to give negative reviews, the respondents apparently did not feel that they received adequate information on the necessary criteria by which to conduct a review.     

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.     

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.     

Food for Thought on the ABS Academic Journal Quality Guide

This paper discusses issues relating to the use of the Association of Business Schools' (ABS) Academic Journal Quality Guide within UK business schools. It also looks at several specific issues raised by the Chair of the British Accounting Association/British Accounting and Finance Association regarding the ratings for top international journals, and for accounting education and accounting history journals. The increasing use of this guide by business school deans/heads as a tool for staffing and research resource allocation has significant implications both for individuals and specialist areas of research.     

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.     

Scholarly achievement and accounting journal editorial board membership

The importance of editorial boards to the peer review process makes it imperative that board members be selected on the basis of proven records of scholarly achievement as demonstrated by publications in peer-reviewed journals and subsequent citations to those publications. Although research in accounting has looked at the composition of editorial boards, the scholarly achievement of editorial board members has not been examined. The purpose of our study is to empirically investigate the scholarly achievement of editorial board members of selected accounting journals. We find that the top accounting journals may not be using the same criteria in selecting editorial board members. Further, the level of achievement of the editorial board members and their articles’ impact factors were often inconsistent with the perceived ranking of the journals in which they served. A discussion and implications of our results are also provided.     

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.     

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.     

Accounting research in the Asia–Pacific region: an update

We provide an updated study of accounting research in the Asia–Pacific region using the publication records of six premier accounting journals (top-6) from 1991 to 2010, and augment the findings with the broader range of publications from an additional twenty accounting journals during the same period. Overall, the higher education institutions (HEIs) in the region produced 7.7 and 11.1 % of the total weighted number of articles (wt-articles) in the top-6 and 20 accounting journals. Interestingly, HEIs in the region exhibit a trend toward an increase in the yearly wt-articles and relative percentage of the total. The general performance of the accounting programs in the region is persistent during 1991–2010. The Asia–Pacific accounting programs are particularly successful in placing publications in journals such as Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting. The accounting research productivity, however, is dominated by select institutions in Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and Singapore. Several institutions in these four countries/areas maintain a consistently high ranking. In terms of top-6 accounting journal publications, the top five institutions are the University of New South Wales, Nanyang Technological University, the University of Melbourne, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The percentage share of the research output among the top five institutions is high, suggesting that a high hurdle is set for up-and-coming institutions to move up the rankings.     

Finance Research Productivity and Influence

This study examines differences in finance research productivity and influence across 661 academic institutions over the five-year period from 1989 through 1993. We find that 40 institutions account for over 50 percent of all articles published by 16 leading journals over the five-year period; 66 institutions account for two-thirds of the articles. Influence is more skewed, with as few as 20 institutions accounting for 50 percent of all citations to articles in these journals. The number of publications and publication influence increase with faculty size and academic accreditation. Prestigious business schools are associated with high publication productivity and influence.     

CFO tenure,CFO board membership and accounting conservatism

We examine the influence of chief financial officer (CFO) tenure and CFO board membership on accounting conservatism among Australian listed companies. The study uses market-based (i.e., timeliness of earnings to news) and accounting-based (i.e., accrual-based loss recognition) measures of conservative accounting. The results show that while longer CFO tenure and CFO board membership increases accounting conservativism, this is not the case when CFOs become entrenched through long board-membership tenure. This entrenchment appears to lead to the use of aggressive accounting practices. Overall, the results indicate that CFO tenure and CFO board membership improve financial-reporting quality by increasing accounting conservatism in organizations, providing evidence of the importance of recognizing these two governance characteristics in policymaking and in regulation.     

Experiences in publishing peer-reviewed research with undergraduate accounting and finance students

This paper describes an educational program involving joint research projects undertaken between faculty and undergraduate accounting and finance students. The goal of the program was to provide undergraduate accounting and finance students a valuable educational experience resulting in a joint peer-reviewed journal publication. The paper discusses issues, concerns, and strategies that were successfully and unsuccessfully employed in conducting and publishing research with undergraduate students. The program was conducted over a six-year period, resulting in ten publications in peer-reviewed journals as well as several conference presentations, proceedings, and awards. Administrators should consider the program described here as one tool in their arsenal to help faculty maintain academic qualifications while simultaneously benefiting students.     

Research Misconduct in Accounting Literature: A Survey of the Most Prolific Researchers' Actions and Beliefs

Incidents of research misconduct, especially falsification, in the hard sciences and medicine have been widely reported. Motives for misconduct include professional advancement and personal recognition. Accounting academics are under the same tenure, promotion and recognition pressures as other academics; and, without the life-and-death issues of medical research, rationalizing misconduct in accounting research seems much easier. It is reasonable to assume that dishonesty has occurred, even if little evidence exists about its prevalence. Further, accounting research can influence tax policy and market conditions, affecting people's lives. This study is, to our knowledge, the first attempt to survey accounting researchers directly as to their ethical practices; it uses the randomized response technique of addressing sensitive questions. To maximize its relevance to the most respected accounting research, this questionnaire was sent only to the most prolific researchers at U.S. colleges and universities—those who have published in the 'top thirty' accounting journals. The results indicate that serious misconduct has occurred among these established accounting researchers. The estimated percentage of seriously tainted articles in the top thirty accounting journals, based on self-reporting, is about 4 per cent, while the respondents on average believe that about 21 per cent of the literature is tainted. Faculty who were tenured more recently provide higher estimates of the falsification rate, and attribute more of the cause to external factors like tenure pressure. The article concludes by discussing implications and offering policy recommendations.     

Role models in finance: Lessons from life cycle productivity of prolific scholars

This paper examines the nature of lifecycle intellectual contributions (publication productivity and quality) of prolific scholars in finance, i.e., those that have published twelve or more scholarly papers in finance journals. Like other scholars, their productivity increases dramatically in the years before tenure and early success seems to be a useful forecast of future quality and quantity of publications. However, unlike the average finance Ph.D., these role models begin publishing earlier and they maintain a high level of productivity over long periods with productivity appearing to decline only slightly after tenure. Further, there is increasing tendency to publish with co-authors and there is high concentration of these prolific scholars especially at the five top-rated finance journals. Our findings have important implications for aspiring new finance professors.

Using student evaluation of teaching in administrative control: The validity problem

Many, if not most, business schools rely on student evaluation of teaching (SET) for at least one measure of teaching effectiveness. The accounting education literature seems not to have critically distinguished the purposes of SET, and at least one recent article (Hooper & Page, 1986) appears to accept the conclusion that these evaluations are both reliable and valid for use in administrative decisions (merit, tenure, and promotion). This article partially dissents from that position and examines the validity problems of these instruments as measured by the relationship between SET results and learning, which should be the most critical consideration. The relative ease with which SET are obtained, and their quantitative nature, result in a greater tendency to rely on them, often to the exclusion of other measures of teaching effectiveness. While SET can provide an input to managerial control decisions concerned with teaching effectiveness, undue reliance on them has the potential for serious dysfunctional effects.     

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.