Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Judging Academic Qualifications, Professional
Qualifications, and Participation of Faculty Using
AACSB Guidelines
Daniel J. Koys
To cite this article: Daniel J. Koys (2008) Judging Academic Qualifications, Professional Qualifications, and Participation of Faculty Using AACSB Guidelines, Journal of Education for Business, 83:4, 207-213, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.83.4.207-213
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.83.4.207-213
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 31
View related articles
nimportantenvironmentalinflu-ence on many business schools is the Association to Advance Colle-giateSchoolsofBusinessInternational (AACSB).Theprimarymeansbywhich AACSB exerts its influence are the accreditationstandardsandtheopinions ofrespectedbusiness-schooldeans.The content of those expectations concerns businessschools’strategicplans,partic-ipants(faculty,staff,andstudents),and learning activities. This study focused on a method for determining whether facultymembershavethequalifications thatareappropriatetoperformingtheir teaching,research,andserviceroles.
IusedinstitutionaltheoryandAACSB guidelinestodevelopapointmethodto classify faculty members. Survey data showthatasampleofdeansissurpris-inglyconsistentinthepointsassignedto activitiesrelatedtodeterminingfaculty qualifications and faculty sufficiency. Theimplicationisthatbusinessschools canusetheaveragevaluesreportedhere as a starting point in developing their own methods to classify faculty mem-bers asacademically qualified, profes-sionallyqualified,andparticipating.
InstitutionalTheory
Institutionaltheorypredictsthatinsti-tutionscansurviveifinfluentialpeople in the external environment continue tograntthemlegitimacy(DiMaggio&
Powell,1983;Meyer&Rowan,1977). Theexternalenvironmentgrantslegiti-macy when the institution meets envi-ronmental actors’ expectations. Some important environmental actors for businessschoolsaregovernmentagen-cies, editors of magazines and jour-nals, students, parents, employers, and accrediting bodies (the focus of this research).
Therearethreemeansbywhichenvi-ronmental actors place expectations on institutions: coercion, normative endorsement, and mimetic pressures (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). AACSB cannot coerce business schools, but it doesgiveanormativeendorsementvia accreditation.Mimeticpressureisespe-cially relevant when there is environ-mentaluncertaintyaboutwhatisdefined as a successful organization (Goodrick & Salancik, 1996). For example, the traditional mission of a university is the development and dissemination of knowledge, but it is unclear what con-stitutes the successful accomplishment of that mission. AACSB encourages a businessschooltolookatpeerschools to help it determine appropriate teach-ing, research, and service expectations foritsfaculty.
Institutionaltheoryimpliesthatenvi-ronmental actors have three kinds of expectationsforinstitutions:pragmatic, moral,andcognitive(Suchman,1995). For example,AACSB’s leaders have a
JudgingAcademicQualifications,
ProfessionalQualifications,and
ParticipationofFacultyUsing
AACSBGuidelines
DANIELJ.KOYS DEPAULUNIVERSITY CHICAGO,ILLINOIS
A
ABSTRACT.Inthisarticle,theauthor discussesactivitiesthatresearchersand educatorscanusetodeterminefaculty qualificationsandfacultysufficiencyfor accreditationfromtheAssociationto AdvanceCollegiateSchoolsofBusiness International.Theauthorcollecteddataon therelativeimportanceofvariousactivi-tiesbyusingasurveyofbusiness-school deans.Thedeansfrommoreresearch-ori-entedschoolsagreedwithdeansfromless research-orientedschoolsontherelative importanceofmostactivities.Educators canusetherelativevaluestoguidebusiness schoolsinthedevelopmentoftheirown methodsofdeterminingfacultyqualifica-tionsandfacultysufficiency.
Keywords:AACSB,academicqualifica- tions,businessschoolaccreditation,profes-sionalqualifications
Copyright©2008HeldrefPublications
pragmatic expectation that accredited business schools have highly qualified facultymembers.AACSBexpectsethi-calbehaviorbyadministrators,faculty, andstudents(AACSB,2007).Thecog-nitiveexpectationsofAACSB’sleaders can be fulfilled when schools include faculty members’ intellectual contribu-tionsaspartofwhatittakestoprovide a high-quality education (see AACSB, 2007).
Institutional theory implies that a businessschoolcanbestsurviveifitful-fillstheexpectationsofitsstakeholders. As an important environmental actor, many business schools strive to fulfill theexpectationsofAACSB’saccredita-tionstandards.
AACSBStandards
Schoolsseekingtoobtainormaintain AACSB accreditation must comply with 21 standards of quality (AACSB, 2007). Standards 1–5 address strategic planning (e.g., mission statements, improvement objectives). Standards 6–14 address educational participants (e.g.,faculty,staff,students).Standards 15–21 address assurance of learning (e.g., setting learning objectives and measuringtheaccomplishmentofthose objectives).
Twoofthestandardsaredesignedto assurethatappropriatefacultymembers teach in business schools. Standard 9 says, “The school maintains a faculty sufficienttoprovidestabilityandongo- ingqualityimprovementfortheinstruc-tionalprogramsoffered”(AACSB,2007, p.35).Theofficialinterpretivematerial to this standard says that each faculty membermustbeclassifiedaseither par-ticipating orsupporting. Participating facultymustdeliveratleast75%ofthe business school’s teaching (e.g., credit hours)andatleast60%oftheteaching ineachparticulardiscipline.
Standard 10 says, “The faculty has, andmaintains,intellectualqualifications andcurrentexpertisetoaccomplishthe mission and to assure that this occurs, theschoolhasaclearlydefinedprocess toevaluateindividualfacultymember’s contributions to the school’s mission” (AACSB, 2007, p. 43). The official interpretivematerialmandatesthateach faculty member be classified either as
academically qualified,professionally qualified,orother .Atleast50%offull-time equivalent (FTE) business faculty members must be academically quali-fiedwhenaschoolhasonlybachelor’s
These requirements give rise to the research questions addressed in this article:
1.What activities can business schools use to classify faculty members as academicallyqualifiedorprofession-ally qualified? What is the relative importance of those activities? Does the relative importance differ for schoolswithdifferentmissions? 2.What activities can business schools
use to classify faculty members as participating or supporting? What is the relative importance of those activities? Does the relative impor-tancedifferforschoolswithdifferent missions?
QualificationandParticipation Activities
AACSBgivessomeguidancetohelp answer the questions on what activi-tiestouseinmakingtheclassifications (AACSB, 2006a, 2006b, 2007). Ini-tial academic qualification is normally obtainedviaaPhDinthefieldinwhich one teaches. This initial qualification lasts for 5 years. After that, one must showintellectualcontributionstomain-tain one’s academic qualification. The standards include more than a dozen examples of intellectual contributions, includingpeer-reviewedjournalarticles and other intellectual contributions (AACSB, 2007). AACSB’s accredita-tion standards list various intellectual contributions.Theseinclude
journal articles . . . reviewed by aca-demic and practitioner colleagues . . . research monographs, scholarly books, textbooks, proceedings from scholarly meetings, papers presented at academic or professional meetings, publicly avail-able research working papers, papers presented at faculty seminars, publica-tionsintradejournals,in-housejournals,
bookreviews,writtencaseswithinstruc-tional materials, instrucbookreviews,writtencaseswithinstruc-tional software, and other publicly available materials describingthedesignandimplementation of new curricula or courses. Generally, intellectual contributions will exist in a publicly written form and will be avail-able for scrutiny by academic peers and professionals,i.e.,proprietaryandconfi-dentialresearchandconsultingreportsdo not qualify as intellectual contributions. (AACSB,2007,p.50)
Manyofthesecontributionshavebeen discussed in the context of evaluating faculty research performance (Brax-ton & Del Favero, 2002; Doost, 1997; Graeff,1999;Leong,1989;McDermott sifying faculty as professionally quali-fied. Initial professional qualification normally requires a master’s degree in the field in which one teaches and a substantial practitioner experience that is current at the time one is hired to teach.Theinitialqualificationlastsfor 5years.Afterthat,onemaintainsone’s professionalqualificationsthroughvari-ous practitioner-related activities such as continued practitioner work and attendingcertificateprograms.
AACSBgivessomeguidanceonwhat it takes to be a participating faculty member.Theofficialinterpretivemate- rialsays,“Aparticipatingfacultymem-ber actively engages in the activities of the school in matters beyond direct teaching responsibilities. Such matters might include policy decisions, edu-cational directions, advising, research, and service commitments” (AACSB, 2007,p.37).
AACSB’sdiscussionofwhatittakes to be a participating faculty member includes participating in school gover-nance regarding policy decisions and educationaldirections;servingoninsti-tution committees; advising; having a long-term commitment to the school; being eligible for and participating in faculty development; other service commitments; and research (AACSB, 2007).
BusinessSchoolMission
According to AACSB, a business
sification of faculty that are consistent withitsmission.Onewaytodescribea businessschool’smissionisthedegree towhichitemphasizesresearchversus teaching. The Carnegie Foundation’s classification system can be used as a proxy measure of an institution’s mis-sion. The system in place in the year 2000hadtwocategoriesofdoctoralor research universities, two categories of master’s institutions, three categories ofbachelor’scolleges,andafewother categories. The system was revised in 2005toincludethreecategorieseachof doctoral,master’s,andbachelor’sinsti-tutions,plusnumerousothercategories (Carnegie Foundation, 2006). We used the 2000 version of doctoral, master’s, andbachelor’scategoriesineffectatthe timeofdatacollection.
According to AACSB, 37.0% of its U.S. member business schools are in institutions classified as doctoral or researchinstitutions,51.2%areinmas- ter’sinstitutions,8.9%areinbaccalau- reatecolleges,and2.9%areinspecial-ized colleges (AACSB, 2006c). Being inadoctoralorresearchinstitutioncan beaproxyforabusinessschoolmission thathasahighemphasisonresearch.
However, the Carnegie Foundation usestheentireuniversityforclassifica-tion purposes. The circumstance that the overall university is a doctoral or research institution does not mean that thebusinessschoolwithinitgrantsdoc-torates.A better proxy for the relative importance of research in a business school is whether the business school grantsdoctoraldegrees.Researchqual-ity and quantgrantsdoctoraldegrees.Researchqual-ity are not the same as the importance of activities related to being academically qualified, but hav-ing a doctoral program may be related totheperceivedimportanceofresearch-relatedactivities.
AACSB’s Standard 2 states, “The [businessschool’s]missionincludesthe production of intellectual contributions thatadvancetheknowledgeandpractice ofbusinessandmanagement”(AACSB, 2007,p.22).Thestandard’sinterpretive materialsaysthatthemissionstatement should “include a description of the school’s emphasis regarding intellec-tual contributions of faculty members” (AACSB,2007,p.22).Onestudyusing the 1987 Carnegie classification
sys-temfoundthatwhentheamountoftime an institution expects faculty to spend on research was controlled for, the effectoftheinstitution’sCarnegieclass on research productivity almost disap-peared (Blackburn, Bieber, Lawrence, &Trautvetter,1991).Anotherindicator ofabusinessschool’sresearchempha-sis is the importance its mission state-ment gives to research versus teaching andservice.
The aforementioned literature gives risetothehypothesisofthisstudy: relative importance of the various aca-demic and professional activities. The survey was completed by 41 business-school deans who attended a regional meetingofAACSB.
Sample
The deans came from schools that were similar to U.S. schools that are membersofAACSBonthethreeproxy measures of research orientation (see AACSB,2006c):
1.Of the sample, 39.0% came from institutions in the version of Carnegie Foundation’s (2000) classifications of doctoralorresearchextensiveanddoc-toral research intensive; according to theAACSBWebsite,37.0%ofallU.S. AACSB member schools are in those typesofuniversities.
2.Similarly, 14.6% of the sample came from business schools with doc-toral programs; 16.4% of the U.S. AACSB-memberschoolshavedoctoral programs.
3.Likewise, 46.3% of the sample placed the highest emphasis on teach-ing,moderateemphasisonresearch,and lowemphasisonservice;36.6%ofthe sampleplacedequalemphasisonteach-ingandresearch,withthelowemphasis onservice.AACSB(2004)reportsthat
48.9% of U.S. business schools place the high emphasis on teaching, mod-erate emphasis on research, and low emphasisonservice.Italsoreportsthat 30.2% of U.S. business schools place an equal emphasis on teaching and research,withlowemphasisonservice (AACSB,2004).
Measures
Inthisstudy,Iusedthreeproxymea-sures of the research orientation of a business school: (a) the Carnegie class of a business school’s university, (b) the presence of a doctoral program in thebusinessschool,and(c)theempha-sis placed on research in the business school’s mission statement. According tothedeansinthissample,themedian importancethattheirmissionstatements gavetoresearchwas35%(inrelationto teachingandservice).Forthisstudy,a school that placed a high emphasis on research was one whose mission state-ment gave research a weight greater than35%.
The survey asked the deans to esti-mate the relative importance of activi-ties that could be used to determine academic qualifications, professional qualifications,andparticipatingfaculty. As a benchmark, the survey defined an article in a journal refereed by aca-demicpeerstobeworth1pointtoward academicqualification.Forprofessional qualifications,thebenchmarkof1was set at a full-time practitioner job in a field related to the teaching assign-ment. For being a participating faculty member,thebenchmarkwassetat1for service on a departmental committee. The deans were asked to give points to activities related to respective aca-demic, professional, and participation benchmarks.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the results for aca-demicqualifications.Exceptforwriting a new scholarly book (M = 1.07,SD = 0.86), all of the activities received mean scores below the 1.00 bench-markforarticlesreviewedbyacademic peers. For example, a published case with instructional material received a meanscoreof0.53(SD=0.38),anda
presentationatanationalacademiccon-ference received a mean score of 0.37 (SD = 0.26). It is interesting that there was only one dean (from a highly research-oriented school) who thought thatonlypeer-reviewedjournalarticles shouldreceivepoints.
Table2showstherelativeimportance ofactivitiesthatcouldbeusedtomain-tain professional qualifications. All of theactivitiesreceivedmeanscoresbelow the1.00benchmarkofafull-timeprac-titioner job in the field. For example, a practitioner-oriented book received a mean score of 0.74 (SD = 0.44), and moderate consulting received a mean scoreof0.45points(SD=0.27).
Table 3 shows the results for deter- miningifsomeoneisaparticipatingfac-ulty member. Serving on a department committeewasthebenchmarkof1.00.
Servingasthechairofauniversitycom-mitteehadthehighestmeanscore(M= 1.27,SD=0.74).Otherexampleswere providingacademicandcareeradvising (M=0.70,SD=0.56)andbeingeligible to vote in faculty governance elections (M=0.29,SD=0.36).
This study’s hypothesis was that the perceivedimportanceoftheitemswould berelatedtotheresearchorientationof thebusinessschool.Thefirsttestofthe hypothesisinvolveddividingthesample intotwogroups,thoseindoctoralinsti-tutions (doctoral or research extensive and doctoral or research intensive;n = 16) and those in nondoctoral-granting institutions (all other Carnegie classi-fications;n=25).Aseriesofone-way analysesofvariance(ANOVAs)showed that there were no significant differ-ences(p<.05)betweenthegroupsfor the academic qualification items and fortheprofessionalqualificationitems.
There was one significant difference (p<.05)fortheparticipationitems.
The second test of the hypothesis involveddividingthesampleintothose thatgranteddoctoratesinbusiness(n= 6) and those that did not (n = 35). Another series of one-way ANOVAs showedthat3ofthe31itemsrelatedto academicqualificationsdifferedsignifi-cantly(p<.05)acrossthetwogroups. One of the 17 items related to profes-sional qualifications differed signifi-cantly(p<.05).Ofthe10participation items,2differedsignificantly(p<.05).
The third test of the hypothesis involved dividing the sample into two groups, one for schools with mission statements placing more than 35% emphasisonresearch(n=19)andone group for schools placing 35% or less onresearch(n=22).Anotherseriesof one-wayANOVAsshowedthat8ofthe TABLE1.ScoresAssociatedWithActivitiesinWhichRespondentsParticipatedtoMaintainAcademicQualifications
Category Activity M SD Range
Article Articleinajournalrefereedbyacademiccolleagues 1.00 — —
Articleinajournalrefereedbypractitionercolleagues 0.74 0.31 1.00–0.00
Articleinatradejournal(nonrefereed) 0.31 0.24 1.00–0.00
Articleinanin-housejournal 0.20 0.17 0.70–0.00
Researchmonograph 0.36 0.30 1.00–0.00
Bookrelated Scholarlybook(new) 1.07 0.86 5.00–0.00
Scholarlybook(revised) 0.57 0.42 2.00–0.00
Textbook(new) 0.79 0.64 3.00–0.00
Textbook(revised) 0.49 0.45 2.50–0.00
Chapterinascholarlybook(new) 0.50 0.39 2.00–0.00
Chapterinascholarlybook(revised) 0.29 0.24 1.00–0.00
Chapterintextbook(new) 0.36 0.38 2.00–0.00
Chapterintextbook(revised) 0.23 0.22 1.00–0.00
Publishedcompilationofcasesorreadings(new) 0.54 0.38 2.00–0.00
Publishedcompilationofcasesorreadings(revised) 0.35 0.37 2.00–0.00
Publishedbookreview 0.18 0.18 0.75–0.00
Presentation Paperpresentedatnationalorinternationalacademic
conference 0.37 0.26 1.00–0.00
Paperpresentedataregionalorlocalacademicconference 0.25 0.17 0.75–0.00 Paperinanationalproceedings(pointsbeyondthe
presentation) 0.36 0.27 1.00–0.00
Paperinregionalproceedings(pointsbeyondthe
presentation) 0.23 0.18 0.60–0.00
Panelistatanacademicconference 0.14 0.14 0.50–0.00
Discussantatanacademicconference 0.12 0.14 0.50–0.00
Teachingaids Writtencasewithinstructionalmaterial 0.53 0.38 1.50–0.00
Instructionalsoftware 0.40 0.35 1.00–0.00
Instructor’smanual(new) 0.29 0.29 1.00–0.00
Instructor’smanual(revised) 0.21 0.22 0.80–0.00
Editor Editorofarefereedjournal 0.75 0.70 3.00–0.00
Editorofaspecialissueofarefereedjournal 0.50 0.50 2.00–0.00
Memberofarefereedjournal’sreviewboard 0.31 0.28 1.00–0.00
Adhocrefereeforajournal 0.22 0.28 1.50–0.00
Workinprogress Publiclyavailableresearchworkingpaper 0.17 0.18 0.50–0.00
Paperpresentedatfacultyresearchseminar 0.09 0.13 0.50–0.00
31itemsrelatedtoacademicqualifica-tions differed significantly (p < .05) across the two groups. None of the 17 items related to professional qualifica-tions was significantly different. None of the 10 items related to participation wassignificantlydifferent.
Because one quarter of the items relatedtoacademicqualificationswere significantly different across schools withdifferentresearch-orientedmission statements, those items are shown in Table4.Themeanscoresoftheseitems were higher in the schools that placed lessemphasisonresearch.
DISCUSSION
AACSB states that accredited busi-
nessschoolsmusthavesufficientnum-bersofqualifiedfacultymembers.The official interpretive material on faculty sufficiency and faculty qualifications says that a school should develop cri-teria for classifying individual faculty membersasparticipatingorsupporting andasacademicallyqualifiedorprofes-sionallyqualified.
AACSB also states that the criteria should fit the school’s particular mis-sion, which is in agreement with insti-tutional theory. One aspect of a busi-ness school’s mission is the degree to which the school is research-oriented. Thisstudyshowsthattheresearchori-entation of a business school has very little relation to the relative weights given to activities that can be used to determineacademicqualifications,pro-fessional qualifications, and
participa-tion. If these results are confirmed by additionalresearch,schoolswithdiffer-entlevelsofresearch-orientedmissions could use fairly consistent weights for theactivitiesusedinclassifyingfaculty membersforAACSB.
Still, the items and point values reportedhereshouldonlybeconsidered guidelines. Schools can add or delete items from the lists reported here. For example, this research used a bench- markof1.00foranarticleinanyjour-nal refereed by academic colleagues, but some schools may want to have separate items for journals of different qualitylevels.Someschoolsmaywant toaddmoreserviceactivitiesascount-ingtowardbeingaparticipatingfaculty member. Other schools may adjust the pointvaluesforsomeitems,especially TABLE2.ScoresAssociatedWithActivitiesinWhichRespondentsParticipatedtoMaintainProfessionalQualifications
Category Activity M SD Range
Job Full-timepractitionerjobrelevanttoteachingassignment 1.00 — —
Consulting Substantialconsulting(averageofmorethanonedayperweek) 0.73 0.35 1.50–0.00
Moderateconsulting(averageofonedayperweek) 0.45 0.27 1.00–0.00
Writing Practitioner-orientedbook 0.74 0.44 2.00–0.00
Articleinajournalrefereedbypractitionercolleagues 0.72 0.40 2.00–0.00
Articleinatradejournal 0.54 0.36 1.00–0.00
Editorialinajournalormagazine 0.28 0.28 1.00–0.00
Editorialinanewspaper 0.14 0.20 1.00–0.00
Experttestimony 0.20 0.24 1.00–0.00
Presentation Presentationatapractitionerconference 0.36 0.27 1.00–0.00
Leadingacontinuingeducationseminarforpractitioners 0.34 0.28 1.00–0.00
Leader Leadershippositioninanationalassociation 0.51 0.49 3.00–0.00
Leadershippositioninaregionalassociation 0.35 0.35 2.00–0.00
Leadershippositioninalocalassociation 0.23 0.33 2.00–0.00
Substantialinvolvementonboardofdirectors(fewweeksperyear) 0.48 0.43 2.00–0.00 Moderateinvolvementonaboardofdirectors(fewdaysperyear) 0.28 0.28 1.00–0.00
Development Attendaprofessionalconference 0.22 0.21 1.00–0.00
Maintainone’sprofessionalcertification 0.52 0.38 1.00–0.00
TABLE3.ScoresAssociatedWithActivitiesUsedtoDetermineParticipatingFacultyMembers
Category Activity M SD Range
Committee Serveasamemberofadepartmentcommittee 1.00 — —
Serveasamemberofacollegecommittee 1.01 0.41 2.00–0.10
Serveasamemberofauniversitycommittee 1.10 0.59 3.00–0.20
Serveasachairofadepartmentcommittee 1.10 0.55 2.00–0.00
Serveasachairofacollegecommittee 1.27 0.74 4.00–0.00
Serveasachairofauniversitycommittee 1.29 1.08 6.00–0.00
Studentservice Directextracurricularactivity(e.g.,advisortostudentgroup) 0.94 0.79 4.00–0.10
Provideacademicandcareeradvising 0.70 0.56 2.00–0.00
Facultyservice Long-termmemberofthefaculty 0.26 0.44 2.00–0.00
Participateinthegovernanceoftheschool(votingrights) 0.29 0.36 1.00–0.00 Eligiblefor,andparticipatein,facultydevelopmentactivities 0.55 0.56 2.00–0.00
those that had relatively high standard deviations in this study (e.g., writing books and serving as chairs of univer-sitycommittees).
Further,schoolsmaywanttochange theplacementofsomeitems.Forexam-ple,someschoolsmayconsiderservice to academic disciplines (e.g., being a journal editor) and service to commu-nities (e.g., being on a board of direc-tors) as counting toward academic and professionalqualifications,respectively, whereasotherschoolsmaycountthose activities toward being a participating facultymember.
AACSB says that schools need to specify the quantity and frequency of activitiestheyexpectwithinthe5-year AACSB review cycle. One way to do thatistorequirethatafacultymember obtainsacertainnumberofpointsover 5 years to be classified as qualified. For example, to be classified as aca-demically qualified, one school’s mis-sionmaysuggestthatfacultymembers earn 3 academic points over 5 years, whereas another school’s mission may suggest5academicpointsover5years. In another example, one school may require 3 points over 5 years from all academicactivitiestogether,butanother schoolmaysaythatoneofthe3points must come from publishing articles in peer-reviewedjournals.Anotherwayto specify quantity and frequency is for a particular school to expect different pointtotalsfordifferentteachinglevels. For example, a school may expect 3 practitioner points to be professionally
qualified to teach introductory cours-es, but that same school may expect 5 practitioner points to be professionally qualifiedtoteachadvancedcourses(see AACSB,2007).
Some business schools have adapt-ed the system describadapt-ed in this arti-cle to their own situations; some of these schools are DePaul University, Minnesota State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Southern New Hampshire University, Temple Univer- sity,andUniversityofTechnology,Syd- ney(Australia).Basedontheirparticu-larmissions,theseschoolsaddedsome items and deleted others.Their faculty adjusted some of the point values, but they were fairly similar to the mean scoresreportedhere.
Additionalresearchisneededinthis area. This study used data collected from 41 deans. We need a study that collectsdatafrommoredeansandana-lyzes those data by using additional institutional characteristics. We also needasimilarstudyontheperceptions offacultymembers;theymayhavedif-ferentopinionsthandodeans.
In this article, I present a model of how business schools can articulate to AACSB how they determine who is academically qualified, who is profes-sionally qualified, and who is partici-pating. To help assure that appropriate faculty members teach in accredited schools, business-school deans should work with their faculty members and theAACSBstandardstodevelopdefen-sibleclassificationmethods.Themodel
suggestedhereisamethodthatcanbe adapted to fit many different types of businessschools.
NOTES
Dr. Daniel J. Koys’ research interests are in business school administration and human resourcesmanagement.
Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressedtoDr.DanielJ.Koys,DePaulUni-versity, College of Commerce, 1 East Jackson Blvd,Chicago,IL60604.
E-mail:dkoys@depaul.edu
REFERENCES
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of BusinessInternational(AACSB).(2004). Over-view of U.S. business schools: Data from the 2002–2003 business school questionnaire. St. Louis,MO:Author.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2006a).
Deploying academically qualified faculty: An interpretation of AACSB standards. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.aacsb.edu/ accreditation/papers/AQ-statuspaper.pdf Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
BusinessInternational(AACSB).(2006b). De-ploying professionally qualified faculty: An interpretation of AACSB standards. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.aacsb .edu/accreditation/papers/PQ-facultypaper updated11-2-06%2006.pdf
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2006c).
Overview of U.S. business schools: Data from the 2004–2005 business school questionnaire. Tampa,FL:Author.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2007). Eli-gibilityproceduresandaccreditationstandards forbusinessaccreditation.RetrievedMarch1, 2007,fromhttp://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/ process/documents/AACSB_STANDARDS_ Revised_Jan07.pdf
Blackburn,R.T.,Bieber,J.P.,Lawrence,J.H.,& Trautvetter, L. (1991). Faculty at work: Focus onresearch,scholarship,andservice.Research inHigherEducation,32,385–413.
TABLE4.ActivitiesRelatedtoAcademicQualificationsThatDifferedSignificantly
Item Ma SD Mb SD F(1,39) p
Articleinatradejournal(nonrefereed) 0.38 0.26 0.23 0.21 4.35 .044
Articleinanin-housejournal 0.27 0.20 0.12 0.11 8.28 .006
Revisedchapterinascholarlybook 0.36 0.27 0.21 0.18 4.12 .049
Paperpresentedataregionalorlocal
academicconference 0.31 0.17 0.18 0.13 7.33 .010
Paperinregionalproceedings(points
beyondthepresentation) 0.30 0.19 0.16 0.14 7.06 .011
Panelistatanacademicconference 0.19 0.16 0.09 0.10 5.27 .027
Discussantatanacademicconference 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.07 6.74 .013
Revisionofaninstructor’smanual 0.27 0.25 0.13 0.15 4.38 .043
aM=Meanforschoolswhereresearch≤35%.Thisreferstothemeannumberofpointsthatonegroupofrespondentsgavetoparticularactivities.Thisfirst
groupsaidthatresearchattheirschoolswasweightedat35%orless(incomparisontoteachingandservice).bM=Meanforschoolswhereresearch>35%.
Thisreferstothemeannumberofpointsthatthesecondgroupofrespondentsgavetotheparticularactivities.Thissecondgroupsaidthatresearchattheir schoolswasweightedmorethan35%(incomparisontoteachingandservice).
Braxton,J.M.,&DelFavero,M.(2002).Evaluat-ing scholarship performance: Traditional and emergent assessment templates.New Direc-tionsforInstitutionalResearch,114,19–31. CarnegieFoundation.(2001).
TheCarnegieclassi-ficationofinstitutionsofhighereducation(2000 ed.)MenloPark,CA:CarnegieFoundation. CarnegieFoundation.(2006).
TheCarnegieclas-sification of institutions of higher education.
Retrieved June 15, 2006, from http://www .carnegiefoundation.org/classifications. DiMaggio,P.J.,&Powell,W.W.(1983).Theiron
cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.
AmericanSociologicalReview,48,147–160.
Doost,R.K.(1997).Facultyevaluation:Anunre-solveddilemma?ManagerialAuditingJournal, 12,98–104.
Goodrick, E., & Salancik, G. R. (1996).
Orga-nizational discretion in responding to institu-tionalpractices:HospitalsandCesareanbirths.
AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,41,1–28.
Graeff,T.R.(1999).Measuringintellectualcon- tributionsforachievingthemissionoftheCol-lege of Business.Journal of Education for Business,75,108–115.
Leong, S. M. (1989). A citation analysis of the
Journal of Consumer Research. Journal of ConsumerResearch,15,492–497.
McDermott,D.R.,&Wayland,J.P.(1994).For-malizing evaluation procedures for marketing facultyresearchperformance. JournalofEdu-cationforBusiness,70,48–54.
Meyer,J.W.,&Rowen,B.(1977).Institutional-ized organizations: Formal structures as myth andceremony.AmericanJournalofSociology, 83,340–363.
Perry,R.P.,Clifton,R.A.,Menec,V.H.,Struthers,
C. W., & Menges, R. J. (2000). Faculty in transition:Alongitudinalanalysisofperceived control and type of institution in the research productivityofnewlyhiredfaculty.Researchin HigherEducation,41,165–194.
Srinivansan, S., Kemelgor, B., & Johnson, S. D. (2000).Thefutureofbusinessschoolscholar-ship: An empirical assessment of the Boyer framework by U.S. deans.Journal of Educa-tionforBusiness,76,75–80.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Acad-emyofManagementReview,20,571–610. Vincent,A., & Ross, D. (2000). On evaluation of
facultyresearch:Impactofcitationanalysis. Jour-nalofAppliedBusinessResearch,16,1–14. Zivney,T.L.(1992).Publishorperish:Whatthe
competitionisreallydoing.JournalofFinance, 48,295–329.
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������
���������� ������ ����
������� �������� �������
�����������������
��������������������
������������������������������������������� ������������ � ������
�� ��� ������
����������� �� ���������� �� ��������������� ������������ ������������������������������ ���������������
����������������������� ������������������������������� ������������������������������������������
������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������
