Benchmarking the Research Productivity of Accounting Doctorates

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 943-978 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Hasselback ◽  
Alan Reinstein ◽  
Mohammad Abdolmohammadi
Keyword(s):  
Research Productivity ◽  
Merit Pay ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Doctoral Graduates ◽  
Multivariate Tests ◽  
Journal Quality ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Accounting Faculty ◽  
Productivity Measure ◽  
Faculty Research Productivity

ABSTRACT Increasing attention to faculty research productivity suggests a need for reliable benchmarks, which the literature has provided. We add to this literature by providing alternative benchmarks based on records of 5,607 accounting doctoral graduates from 1971–2005. We measure research productivity in four ways: (1) unadjusted number of published articles in the Best 3, Best 13, Best 24, and Best 40 journals, (2) published articles adjusted for journal quality scores, (3) published articles adjusted for coauthorship, and (4) published articles adjusted for both journal quality and coauthorship. We find evidence that average publication productivity of accounting faculty per year has steadily increased over the 35 years under study. We present benchmark measures based on faculty productivity in four sets of journals both from 1971–2005 and for each year of 2001–2005. The former shows that a significant proportion of doctoral graduates have never published in any of the 40 journals studied. The latter shows nine years of productivity in the most recent years. These data can be useful as a benchmark for promotion and tenure decisions. We also present productivity percentiles as another benchmark, followed by research productivity of the top 10 most productive faculty (based on the most conservative measure of published articles adjusted for both journal quality and coauthorship) from 1971–2005 as yet another benchmark. Additional analysis indicates very high correlations between productivity measures. This evidence indicates that productive researchers rank high regardless of the productivity measure used to evaluate them. Finally, multivariate tests reveal effects for gender (male faculty generally scoring higher than female faculty), school of affiliation (faculty at doctoral granting institutions as significantly more productive than their counterparts at nondoctoral schools), professorial rank (professors scoring higher than those in administrative and other roles), and teaching years since doctorate (those with 10 years or less of service since doctoral year being more productive than those with 11 years or more). The benchmarks identified in the study can help with tenure, promotion, merit pay, appointment and renewal of chaired professorships, and other resource allocation decisions.

An Examination of Faculty Perceptions of Academic Journal Quality within Five Specialized Areas of Accounting Research

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Lowensohn ◽  
Donald P. Samelson
Keyword(s):  
Information Systems ◽  
Faculty Perceptions ◽  
Academic Journal ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Journal Quality ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Accounting Research ◽  
Accounting Faculty ◽  
Academic Publications

In recent years, the research and publishing efforts of accounting academicians have become increasingly more specialized, as evidenced by the popularity of American Accounting Association (AAA) specialized sections and the increase in specialized academic publications (Herron and Hall 2004; Zeff 1996). Despite the trend, there is evidence that specialized areas are under-represented in the academic accounting journals typically regarded as top-tier (Bonner et al. 2006) and minimally considered in journal quality studies (Bean and Bernardi 2005). This study identifies topquality research publication outlets in five specialized areas of accounting research (behavioral, taxation, government and nonprofit, management accounting, and information systems), as perceived by accounting faculty familiar with these areas. We survey members of five AAA sections regarding journal quality and the effect of journal quality on promotion and tenure. We find that there are multiple outlets for high-quality research in specialized fields, but that many of these are relatively new and overlooked in prior studies. Also, the findings demonstrate that accounting academics in at least two specialized areas of accounting research (government and nonprofit, and information systems) may face difficulties substantiating the quality of their research.

A New Tool for Identifying Research Standards and Evaluating Research Performance

2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald R. Bacon ◽  
Pallab Paul ◽  
Kim A. Stewart ◽  
Kausiki Mukhopadhyay
Keyword(s):  
Mathematical Model ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Evaluation Process ◽  
Faculty Research ◽  
Human Judgment ◽  
Faculty Evaluations ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Faculty Research Productivity ◽  
Research Standards

Much has been written about the evaluation of faculty research productivity in promotion and tenure decisions, including many articles that seek to determine the rank of various marketing journals. Yet how faculty evaluators combine journal quality, quantity, and author contribution to form judgments of a scholar’s performance is unclear. A mathematical model of faculty judgment is presented that estimates a scholar’s research productivity that is surprisingly consistent with actual faculty evaluations. The model does not replace human judgment in evaluating a scholar’s research performance, but the model enhances clarity and objectivity in the evaluation process. The method is demonstrated with marketing faculty at one university.

scholarly journals Impact of Achieved Tenure and Promotion on Faculty Research Productivity at a School of Pharmacy

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
David Scott ◽  
Michael Kelsch ◽  
Daniel Friesner
Keyword(s):  
Research Productivity ◽  
Pharmacy Practice ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Full Professor ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Pharmaceutical Sciences ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Time Of Application ◽  
Publication Rates ◽  
Faculty Research Productivity

Objective: Critics of the promotion and tenure system contend that promotion and tenure may lead to a decline in research productivity (“dead wood phenomena”) by those faculty. To assess this perception, we compiled the publications and grants at the time of application for promotion, and again through 2017 for the same faculty following promotion and/or tenure. Methods: Promotion documents at a school of pharmacy at a public Midwestern university were assessed. Mean publication rates and grant dollars per year per faculty member were compared to the same group of faculty (n=13) pre and post-promotion. Results: At the time of promotion to associate professor, mean numbers of total publications per year per faculty in the pharmacy practice department were 1.1, compared to 1.4 post-promotion. For pharmaceutical sciences department faculty, corresponding means were 5.0 and 4.1, respectively. At the time of promotion to full professor, mean numbers of total publications per year for pharmacy practice faculty were 7.0, compared to 7.2 post-promotion. For pharmaceutical sciences faculty, corresponding means were 3.5 and 4.7, respectively. For grant activity, both associate professors and full professors increased the mean total dollars per year from pre-promotion to post-promotion for both departments. Conclusion: Research productivity at this school of pharmacy continues to be either maintained or increased since promotion for the collective group of faculty. This evidence runs counter to the perception that promotion and tenure may lead to decreased scholarly productivity. The study provides a roadmap for other schools/colleges to quantify research productivity and make comparisons to national mean levels reported in the literature.    Article Type: Original Research

Do Accounting Faculty Characteristics Impact CPA Exam Performance? An Investigation of Nearly 700,000 Examinations

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis M. Bline ◽  
Stephen Perreault ◽  
Xiaochuan Zheng
Keyword(s):  
Exam Performance ◽  
Faculty Research ◽  
Pass Rates ◽  
Accounting Faculty ◽  
Research And Teaching ◽  
Faculty Characteristics ◽  
Cpa Exam ◽  
Faculty Research Productivity ◽  
And Performance ◽  
First Time

ABSTRACT While many colleges and universities publicize CPA examination pass rates as evidence of having a high-quality accounting program, some have questioned whether program-specific characteristics are legitimate predictors of examination success. To examine this issue, we empirically investigate the link between accounting faculty characteristics and performance on the CPA examination. We examine the results from nearly 700,000 first-time exam sittings taken during the period 2005–2013 and find that faculty research and teaching specialization has a significant impact on CPA exam performance. That is, when a program has a relatively higher percentage of accounting faculty with expertise in a particular content area tested on the exam (e.g., auditing), graduates achieve higher scores on the related exam section (e.g., AUD). We also find that faculty research productivity and CPA certification status are positively related to candidate exam performance. We believe these results contribute to the existing literature on the determinants of CPA exam success and also provide important insights to those responsible for accounting faculty staffing and development.

Type A behavior and faculty research productivity: What are the mechanisms?

1984 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 402-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.Susan Taylor ◽  
Edwin A. Locke ◽  
Cynthia Lee ◽  
Marilyn E. Gist
Keyword(s):  
Research Productivity ◽  
Type A ◽  
Type A Behavior ◽  
Faculty Research ◽  
Faculty Research Productivity

Evaluating the Impact of the Accounting Doctoral Scholars Program on Academic Accounting in the US

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan S. Pyzoha ◽  
Timothy J. Fogarty
Keyword(s):  
Degree Completion ◽  
Completion Time ◽  
Business Schools ◽  
Doctoral Program ◽  
Doctoral Graduates ◽  
Accounting Faculty ◽  
Unmet Demand ◽  
The Us ◽  
Market Trends ◽  
The Impact

The accounting establishment and AICPA Foundation responded to an inadequate supply of new accounting faculty by creating the Accounting Doctoral Scholars (ADS) program. Between 2009–2018, the $17 million program enabled 105 practitioners to become audit and tax faculty. Based on market data and an ADS participant survey, we find an increase in doctoral graduates at ADS and non-ADS schools relative to pre-ADS years, and unmet demand for audit has decreased after ADS, whereas tax remains in need. Compared to the market, ADS graduates experienced somewhat better placements by moving up to more prestigious strata and were more likely to place at schools with a doctoral program. Additionally, we present results for ADS students’ motivations, degree completion time, and differences between audit and tax participants. Our findings have important implications for academic accounting, business schools, regulators, and policymakers. We also provide important context for changes in market trends preceding COVID 19.

Usage of Journal Rankings: An International Perspective

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ervin L. Black ◽  
Lesley Stainbank ◽  
Dan Elnathan ◽  
Begoña Giner ◽  
Sidney J. Gray ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Small Groups ◽  
Task Force ◽  
International Perspective ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Journal Ranking ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Journal Rankings ◽  
Global Engagement ◽  
Faculty Research Productivity ◽  
Set Up

ABSTRACTEstablished by the Global Engagement Task Force, this committee was charged with examining the usage of journal rankings internationally. Through questionnaires, literature review, and discussions with various international accounting organizations we gain a better understanding of the uses and challenges of journal rankings. Journal rankings are used by governments, professional accounting bodies, university organizations, individual universities, schools, and departments to evaluate the quality and quantity of faculty research productivity. Rewards for journal publications differ around the world, but can range from promotion and tenure to monetary rewards. Publishing in a journal that is on a journal list does provide some weight or legitimacy to the publication and thereby assists in promoting the academic's career, yields monetary awards, or is in other ways beneficial to the academic. However, there is a danger in using a one-size-fits-all model. We caution strongly against using journal rankings to primarily assess the research quality of individuals or even small groups, because rankings are by design unsuited for this purpose. When journal rankings are used, they should be used in conjunction with other metrics. It is highly unlikely that a single solution with regard to the usage of journal ranking lists can be proposed. Rather, different accounting schools and/or departments need to set up their own guidelines as to how journal ranking lists can be used in decision making. The balance of the evidence suggests that journal ranking lists should be used with caution, and should not be used to assess individuals or small groups, or to assess research quality across disciplines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document