{"title":"Assessing the Publication Records of Accounting Faculty Successfully Tenured and Promoted","authors":"Hughlene Burton , Suzanne Krail Sevin , Marcia Weidenmier Watson","doi":"10.1016/j.jaccedu.2023.100841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The quantity and quality of research articles required to attain tenure or to be promoted in accounting is not always known and evolves over time. To help add clarity to this dilemma, this study evaluates the quantity and quality of publication records for faculty who successfully achieved tenure or promotion at universities offering Ph.D. and/or Masters programs in accounting. Quality of publication was determined based on a number of metrics including the Australian Business Dean’s Council journal list (ABDC), which is now widely used for tenure and promotion decisions as well as for accreditation purposes, and the BYU rankings of accounting journals. We are one of the first empirical studies to use the ABDC to determine research quality. Our analysis shows that for tenure decisions, accounting faculty at Ph.D. granting institutions publish, on average, fewer articles than accounting faculty at Masters universities, but those published articles are at much higher quality journals. In addition, both tenured and promoted faculty at private universities publish significantly more in high quality accounting journals than faculty at public universities. Collectively, our results indicate that research quality and quantity differ between universities that grant Ph.Ds. in accounting and those that only offer a Masters degree in accounting, and between public and private universities. More importantly, our research provides quantity and quality expectations for tenure and promotion cases that can be used by accounting faculty, administrators, and external reviewers across different types of universities. Given that our results are based on historical data and tenure/promotion requirements tend to continually increase over time, this study’s results should only be used as a guide for future tenure and promotion cases.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":35578,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Accounting Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0748575123000131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The quantity and quality of research articles required to attain tenure or to be promoted in accounting is not always known and evolves over time. To help add clarity to this dilemma, this study evaluates the quantity and quality of publication records for faculty who successfully achieved tenure or promotion at universities offering Ph.D. and/or Masters programs in accounting. Quality of publication was determined based on a number of metrics including the Australian Business Dean’s Council journal list (ABDC), which is now widely used for tenure and promotion decisions as well as for accreditation purposes, and the BYU rankings of accounting journals. We are one of the first empirical studies to use the ABDC to determine research quality. Our analysis shows that for tenure decisions, accounting faculty at Ph.D. granting institutions publish, on average, fewer articles than accounting faculty at Masters universities, but those published articles are at much higher quality journals. In addition, both tenured and promoted faculty at private universities publish significantly more in high quality accounting journals than faculty at public universities. Collectively, our results indicate that research quality and quantity differ between universities that grant Ph.Ds. in accounting and those that only offer a Masters degree in accounting, and between public and private universities. More importantly, our research provides quantity and quality expectations for tenure and promotion cases that can be used by accounting faculty, administrators, and external reviewers across different types of universities. Given that our results are based on historical data and tenure/promotion requirements tend to continually increase over time, this study’s results should only be used as a guide for future tenure and promotion cases.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Accounting Education (JAEd) is a refereed journal dedicated to promoting and publishing research on accounting education issues and to improving the quality of accounting education worldwide. The Journal provides a vehicle for making results of empirical studies available to educators and for exchanging ideas, instructional resources, and best practices that help improve accounting education. The Journal includes four sections: a Main Articles Section, a Teaching and Educational Notes Section, an Educational Case Section, and a Best Practices Section. Manuscripts published in the Main Articles Section generally present results of empirical studies, although non-empirical papers (such as policy-related or essay papers) are sometimes published in this section. Papers published in the Teaching and Educational Notes Section include short empirical pieces (e.g., replications) as well as instructional resources that are not properly categorized as cases, which are published in a separate Case Section. Note: as part of the Teaching Note accompany educational cases, authors must include implementation guidance (based on actual case usage) and evidence regarding the efficacy of the case vis-a-vis a listing of educational objectives associated with the case. To meet the efficacy requirement, authors must include direct assessment (e.g grades by case requirement/objective or pre-post tests). Although interesting and encouraged, student perceptions (surveys) are considered indirect assessment and do not meet the efficacy requirement. The case must have been used more than once in a course to avoid potential anomalies and to vet the case before submission. Authors may be asked to collect additional data, depending on course size/circumstances.