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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Accounting conservatism in a setting of Information Asymmetry between majority and minority shareholders

Following LaFond and Watts (2008), we examine the relation between information asymmetry (as measured by PIN, probability of information-based trading) and accounting conservatism but focus on a country – Taiwan – whose institutional background is different from that of the United States. Due to the disparate degree of conservatism across the world, the conclusions of LaFond & Watts (2008) might not be universally applicable. Our findings support, in general, the applicability of their conclusion to a Taiwan data set. We find, however, that the effect of PIN appears weaker when auditor tenure is taken into account, thus supplementing their conclusions.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.”     

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.     

A pragmatic model to estimate journal quality in accounting

This article presents a model to estimate the relative quality of publication outlets based on objective journal characteristics. Our model improves upon the one proposed by Bean and Bernardi [Bean, D. F., & Bernardi, R. A. (2005). Estimating the ratings of journals omitted in prior quality ratings. Advances in Accounting Education, 7, 109–127.] in three important ways. First, we develop a dependent variable that is a composite score based on five prior journal perception studies. Second, our model considers different independent variables; audience, journal availability, inclusion in the Social Sciences Citation Index (an independent measure of quality), and the journal’s submission fee. This combination of variables increases the model’s explanatory power by 21% compared to Bean and Bernardi’s average R². Finally, the results of our model are more consistent with those of prior perception studies. We also apply the model to recent accounting faculty publications, which provides a comparative rating of more than 200 journals. We expect our model for estimating journal quality to help faculty, promotion and tenure committees, and university administrators evaluate the quality of journals where accounting faculty publish, an important aspect of assessing research productivity.     

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 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.     

Twenty years of minority PhDs in accounting: Signs of success and segregation

This study examines the minority status of the 3213 individuals who have earned U.S. accounting PhDs in the last 20 years and considers the relative progress along the academic pipeline of minority graduates. Overall, this study indicates that minority accounting PhD graduates are making greater progress along the academic pipeline than that indicated in many other disciplines. However, the study finds that while accounting doctoral graduation rates of minorities are increasing they have not reached parity with population rates or academia in general. While the overall cohort of minority graduates appear, on average, to have patterns of employment and promotion similar to the non-minority graduates, recent minority PhD graduates are attending significantly lower ranked schools than either earlier minority graduates or their more recent non-minority peers and are gaining employment in lower ranked institutions than their non-minority peers. The findings suggest that while there are signs of success in minority progress, there are also signs of segregation.     

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.     

A profile of recent doctoral graduates in accounting: Some guidance in what to expect

This article reports results of a survey of recent accounting doctoral graduates (1985 and 1986). The study profiles the graduates by summarizing their academic skills, background, and other personal information. It also summarizes the dollars and time successful graduates invested in earning doctoral degrees. Candidates, on average, completed all requirements within 5 years. Those candidates who spent the majority of their time at the institution where they studied were able to finish sooner. Candidates who chose to leave ABD took more time to finish their dissertations. Graduates of “higher-tier” schools were more likely to be employed by AACSB and doctoral-granting programs and to receive higher salaries.