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.     

The corporatization of research in Australian higher education

The recent public policy trend emphasising markets and economic logic among public sector institutions, including universities, has led to the introduction of greater managerialism and formal demonstrations of efficiency and effectiveness. Such moves require a definition of inputs, outputs and outcomes as a means to rendering these activities visible and measurable.In Australian universities, recent changes to higher education policy (particularly research and science policy) have tightened control by Federal Government over academic professional activities and increased the drive to render professional activities calculable (simple, standardized) for the allocation of scarce resources. This paper focuses on the narrowing of definitions in two particular areas, namely, research publication and the funding of postgraduate research degree completions. The paper argues that such policy strategies reinforce selectivity of styles of research, types of research problems undertaken, and favour the research approaches of some disciplines over others (that is, “big" science over “small" science and science over humanities and social science). A further consequence is tighter central control over both higher education institutions and academic professionals. Academics experience a drive to define their activity as either teaching or research, as opposed to teaching and research. This policy drive leads to a narrowing of professional activity into discreet categories. A further consequence of this drive on the part of the Federal Government may be the definition of higher education institutions into one of three categories, as either “teaching" or “research" universities, with a third group predominately “teaching" but undertaking some “research". As with other performance-based funding mechanisms, this may lead to a significant re-allocation of resources and standing amongst Universities in Australia.     

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.     

Are elite universities losing their competitive edge?

We study the location-specific component of research productivity for economics and finance faculty over the last three decades. We find that there was a positive effect of being affiliated with a top 25 university in the 1970s; this effect weakened in the 1980s and disappeared in the 1990s. The decline in elite university fixed effect is due to the reduced importance of physical access to productive research colleagues, which in turn seems due to innovations in communication technology. One implication is that knowledge-based organizations should find it more difficult to capture rents vis-à-vis workers. We find that faculty salaries increased the most where the estimated spillover dropped the most. Despite the loss in local spillovers, elite universities still enjoy an edge in average productivity because of agglomeration of top researchers in prestigious institutions with high long-term research reputations.     

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.”     

One-and-a-half decades of global research output in Finance: 1990–2004

We provide a ranking of world finance research output by countries and institutions. Based upon 21 finance journals, the top five most productive countries are in the following order: U.S., U.K., Canada, Hong Kong, and Australia. We find that higher per capita GNP, English-speaking countries, and a capital market that offers her investors more protections are associated with higher level of finance literature production. New York University, the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, the University of Chicago, and UCLA take the top five spots among the 1,126 academic institutions with most JF-pages appeared in 21 finance journals during the 15-year period from 1990 to 2004. The share of U.S. in the top-100 institutions is overwhelming; 78 out of the top-100 institutions come from U.S. We also show some factors that help to explain the cross-institutional variations among a sub-sample of the institutions. Specifically, faculty size, catalyst effect, and per capita budget are positively associated with research output.

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.     

An examination of the peer review process in accounting journals

An anonymous survey of university accounting faculty was conducted to assess current perceptions of the peer review process in accounting journals. The responses revealed that (a) most respondents are fairly positive about the peer review process, especially the process being fair/unbiased and improving the quality of research; (b) the most serious perceived threats to review process integrity involve reviewer misconduct (e.g., delaying reviews for self-interest or rejecting papers for revenge); (c) editors allowing excessive delays in the process and institutional favoritism by editors are seen as the most prevalent issues; (d) editors/associate editors of high-level or top-tier journals are most positive about the review process, while assistant professors, those at doctoral-granting institutions, and those submitting to top-tier journals are least positive; and (e) respondents’ suggestions for improving the review process emphasize improving timeliness, reducing favoritism, and reconsidering the notion of blind reviews (some consider blind reviews to be impossible, but others want to ensure that reviews are blind). Based on the results and other sources, we offer a proposed starting point for a peer review code of conduct for accounting journals.     

Efficiency in academe: Comparative advantage vs. “publish or perish”

A basic tenet of economic theory is that production increases in total whenever factors of production specialize according to their comparative advantages. This very basic law of comparative advantage is not restricted in its application to merely the physical factors of production such as land. Labor, or human capital, is a factor of production, and thus total production is greater if individuals specialize according to their natural, or acquired, talents. Despite the fact that academics propound this law of comparative advantage, very little has been done to implement the law into faculty assignments. Rather, we find that most academic departments at universities require their faculty to not only teach, but also to perform research. This assignment policy occurs even though not all faculty have equal capabilities in both teaching and research. The authors criticize this tendency toward standardization of faculty, using the economic law of comparative advantage as the theoretical justification for their criticism.     

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.     

Drivers of Teaching Effectiveness: Views from Accounting Educator Exemplars in Australia

Abstract

This paper summarizes the views, obtained via a survey instrument created by the authors and reported in studies by Stout and Wygal, of 22 accounting educator teaching exemplars from Australia. Each of these individuals has been cited for teaching excellence through receipt of one or more formal teaching awards. The paper responds to calls in Australia for increased attention to the dimensions of teaching effectiveness and to initiatives in the United States calling for a broader sharing of information among members of the academy regarding the characteristics of teaching effectiveness. Little direct evidence from the field of accounting education is available to date regarding such characteristics or antecedents of teaching effectiveness in the student learning environment. Our research therefore extends in a fundamental way the work of Stice and Stocks and Stout and Wygal. Specifically, perceptions from a sample of award-winning non-US faculties regarding the ‘drivers of teaching effectiveness’ in accounting education are recorded and analyzed. In decreasing order of perceived importance, drivers of teaching effectiveness are: having a student focus; commitment to teaching (as a profession); high levels of preparation/organization; the ability to link subject matter to the practice environment; and, instructor skills and attributes. This paper adds to our understanding of the drivers of teaching effectiveness and begins the process of creating a worldwide knowledge base in accounting education. The paper should be of interest to accounting faculty members interested in improving their teaching effectiveness and/or mentoring junior faculty members.     

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.     

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.     

Fusion of expertise among accounting faculty: towards an expertise model for academia in accounting

This paper aims to portray an accounting faculty expert. It is argued that neither the academic nor the professional orientation alone appears adequate in developing accounting faculty expertise. The accounting faculty expert is supposed to develop into a so-called ‘flexpert’ (Van der Heijden, 2003) who is able to deploy practical accounting exposure in teaching and research. This ‘fusion’ (mix of expertise) resulting from gaining expertise in quite different occupational areas, is attainable at academic career start levels in accounting, where during one's career orientation a professor is both an academic and a professional by training. Fusion is also attainable in complementary competence building wherein the faculty member invests in training and development in the non-core competence domain. The so-called ‘fusion framework’ that is depicted in this contribution could be usefully applied in recruitment efforts of business schools in search of a promising accounting professor.     

Accounting and finance in UK universities: Academic labour,shortages and strategies

This paper contributes to the literature on change in the higher education sector arising from massification, increased political control, international mobility and competition. Drawing on various data sources and labour shortage models, it considers academic labour in UK accounting and finance academia over the period 2000 to 2012. A disequilibrium between supply and demand is evidenced through the identification of recruitment problems, unfilled vacancies, and retirements. The impact of research assessment on faculty backgrounds is shown to result in inadequate supply of faculty with the required skills. Strategic responses to labour shortages include: increased recruitment efforts, early promotions, enhanced remuneration and reducing restrictions on occupational entry. The consequences and future implications of shortages and strategies are considered. In particular, the decoupling of research and teaching in accounting is challenging the future existence of accounting as an academic discipline. The current generation of accounting academics is also under threat – if they neither excel at research nor are professionally-qualified they risk becoming undesirable.     

Academic accountants: A study of faculty characteristics and career activities

Promotion and tenure are the rewards for faculty who successfully allocate their time among their various areas of responsibility. Conflicting pressures for publication, good teaching, service to the university and to the non-university community, and demands of personal lives limit the time that any one area receives. To help identify how accounting faculty address this problem, this study reports on the activities and attitudes of accounting academics, focusing on teaching, research, service, administration, and consulting. The study examines actual effort allocation and perceptions of what the allocations should be to maximize career benefits. Differences are reported on the basis of academic rank, type of degree held, type of institution, and faculty tenure status.     

Sixty years of research leadership: contributing authors and institutions to the journal of finance

While corporate executives freely admit that they work in a jungle, faculty members in institutions of higher learning are supposed to pretend that they work in the relaxed atmosphere of an informal English garden (Alice Vandermeulen, 1975).

The Journal of Finance was the first pure finance journal to emphasize research, and it has been the undisputed “gold standard” in academic finance literature for the past 60 years. This study identifies the contributors to JF over these 60 years—the authors, the institutions employing the authors, and the institutions granting PhDs to the authors. The prolific authors listed in this article make it look easy, like Alice’s relaxed English garden, but the information reported herein suggests otherwise.

Observations on measuring the differences between domestic accounting standards and IAS

In an earlier edition of this journal, Ding et al. use data in GAAP 2001 to assess determinants and effects of differences between domestic and international standards. This paper examines whether those data are suitable for the purposes of academic research by outlining the biases and particular features of GAAP 2001. The main problem with the data for research is that the differences from IAS that it records, which focus on rules, are of varying importance for accounting practice. This raises questions about the equal weighting applied by Ding et al. This paper also questions their distinction between absence of IAS requirements and divergence from those requirements. Some doubts are also raised about the independent variables.     

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.