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
An Examination of AACSB Member School
Processes for Evaluating Intellectual Contributions
and Academic and Professional Qualifications of
Faculty
Kenneth J. Smith , G. Timothy Haight & Donald L. Rosenberg
To cite this article: Kenneth J. Smith , G. Timothy Haight & Donald L. Rosenberg (2009) An Examination of AACSB Member School Processes for Evaluating Intellectual Contributions and Academic and Professional Qualifications of Faculty, Journal of Education for Business, 84:4, 219-228, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.4.219-228
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.4.219-228
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 26
View related articles
ection 3 of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International’s (2008) revised Eligibility Procedures and Standards for Business Accredita-tion, which is the fifth revision of the newstandardsinitiallypromulgatedon April 25, 2003, addressed the expecta-tions regarding the intellectual contri-butions (IC)of business school faculty (Standard 2) and faculty qualifications (Standard10).Bothstandardslinkfac-ulty expectations with the academic business unit’s mission, and provide detailed guidelines for evaluation and documentation. However, neither stan-dard provides specific quantitative or qualitative benchmarks, instead leav-ing this task to the individual member school. Although the omission of spe-cificbenchmarksallowseachschoolto tailor performance expectations to its unique mission, this lack of specificity alsoraisesquestionsabouttheappropri-ateinterpretationandimplementationof theseguidelinesinevaluatingindividual faculty, the rigor of established bench-marks,andthelike.
IntheAACSBInternational’s(2008) revised EligibilityProceduresandStan-dards for Business Accreditation,the textofSection3’sStandards2and10 has evolved after attempts to provide additionalguidancetomemberschools struggling to interpret or implement the expectations outlined therein.
On-goingAACSBInternational-sponsored workshopofferingsdealingwithissues regarding Standards’ 2 and 10 hint at thedifficultystillfacingmanyschools ininterpretingandimplementingthese guidelines. Furthermore, Flaherty and Trapnell (2007) reported that in the last 5 years, issues regarding Stan-dards 2 and 10 have ranked third and first,respectively,amongthemostfre-quentlycitedreasonsthatschoolshave received a 6th-year review, instead of thedesiredaccreditationmaintenance, as the outcome of their accreditation maintenancevisits.Thisfactservesas additional evidence that an informa-tion gap may exist between AACSB Internationalexpectationsandtheabil-ity of member schools to interpret or implementtheseAACSBInternational standards.
The aforementioned difficulties are not ubiquitous because numer-ous schools have attained accredita-tion maintenance under the revised standards. Although studies have ex-amined several other AACSB Inter-national standards (for a review, see Legorreta,Kelley,&Sablynski,2006), valuableinsightsmaybegainedfrom learningwhatsuccessfulschoolshave donetocomplywithSection3,Stan-dards2and10.Theseinsightsshould be particularly beneficial to readers from member schools seeking ini-tial accreditation, accredited schools
AnExaminationofAACSBMemberSchool
ProcessesforEvaluatingIntellectual
ContributionsandAcademicand
ProfessionalQualificationsofFaculty
KENNETHJ.SMITH DONALDL.ROSENBERG
SALISBURYUNIVERSITY TOWSONUNIVERSITY
SALISBURY,MARYLAND TOWSON,MARYLAND
G.TIMOTHYHAIGHT MENLOCOLLEGE ATHERTON,CALIFORNIA
S
ABSTRACT.Section3,Standards2and 10oftheAssociationtoAdvanceCollegiate SchoolsofBusiness(AACSB)Internation-al’s(2008)revisedEligibilityProcedures andStandardsforBusinessAccreditation
addressedtheexpectationsregardingthe intellectualcontributionsofbusinessschool facultyandfacultyqualifications.Toassess theextenttowhichAACSBInternational memberschoolscomprehendthese2criti-calstandards,theauthorssurveyeddeans from560AACSBInternationalmember schoolsintheUnitedStatesregardingthe expectationsandprocessesinplaceattheir institutionstoensurecompliancewith them.Theauthorsreceivedusablerespons- esfrom177(32%)peopleofthosesur-veyedintheallottedtimeframe.Theresults pointtoareasofconcernwithrespectto interpretationofbothofthesestandards.
Keywords:academicqualifications,Asso-ciationtoAdvanceCollegiateSchools ofBusinessqualifications,professional qualifications
Copyright©2009HeldrefPublications
220
seeking reaccreditation (i.e., accredi-tationmaintenance)undertherevised standardsforthefirsttime,andthose schools that did not attain accredita-tion maintenance during their initial sitevisits.
PURPOSE
Thepurposeofthepresentstudywas twofold.First,wesoughttoclarifythe natureofbusinessschooladministrators’ perceptions and expectations regarding compliance with the aforementioned AACSB International (2008)standards regardingICandacademicandprofes-sional qualifications.We examined the responsesofadiversegroupofAACSB International member school respon-dents,enablingustodetermineifthere isasignificantinformationgapbetween (a)themeaningandintentofStandards 2and10and(b)respondents’apparent comprehension (or lack of comprehen-sion) of these standards. The second focusofthepresentstudywastoassess whethertherearesignificantdifferenc-es in the interpretation of these stan-dardsamongrespondentsfromschools accreditedunderthenewstandards(i.e., those in effect since April 25, 2003), those accredited under the old stan-dards (i.e., those in effect beforeApril 25,2003;AACSBInternational,2001), and those from nonaccredited member schools.1 This approach should yield valuableinsightintotheextenttowhich thepurporteddifficultiesininterpreting thesestandardsisafunctionoffamiliar-ity with the standards (with accredita-tion status serving as the knowledge proxy),asopposedtodifficultiesmore fundamentally related to the standards themselves.
ICandtheMissionStatement Section 3 ofAACSB International’s revised EligibilityProceduresandStan-dardsforBusinessAccreditation(2008) outlines the standards for business accreditation with interpretative infor-mation. Section 3, Standard 2 states thefollowing:
Theschool’smissionstatementisappro-priate to higher education for manage-ment and consonant with the mission of any institution of which the school is a part.Themissionincludestheproduction
ofintellectualcontributionsthatadvance the knowledge and practice of business andmanagement.(p.21)
Standard2broadlyclassifiesICinto threecategories:(a)learningandpeda-gogical research, (b) contributions to practice,and(c)discipline-basedschol-arship (AACSB International, 2008). Althoughnotingthatindividualschools maydeterminetherelativeemphasisof contributionsfromeachcategory,Stan-dard 2 specifies that “the portfolio of faculty contributions must fit with the prioritizedmixofactivitiesasstatedin themissionstatementanddemandedby the degree programs and other activi-tiessupportedbytheschool”(AACSB must demonstrate sufficient mission- supporting development over the pre-vious 5-year review period. Thus, Standard 2 focuses on the body of IC thatisproducedbytheschool’sfaculty asawhole.Aspartoftheaccreditation maintenanceevaluationprocess,review-ers examine the school’s portfolio of IC to determine if it is consistent with themissionandinvolvesa“substantial cross-sectionofthefacultyineachdis-cipline”(AACSBInternational,p.24).
IndividualFacultyQualifications
AlthoughStandard2ofAACSBInter-national’srevisedEligibilityProcedures and Standards for Business Accredita-tion (2008) focuses on the aggregate faculty, the focus of Standard 10 is on the academic and professional qualifi-cations of individual faculty members. Withrespecttoacademicqualification, Standard10states,“Academicqualifica-tion requires a combinaStandard10states,“Academicqualifica-tion of original academic preparation (degree comple-tion)augmentedbysubsequentactivities that maintain or establish preparation for current teaching responsibilities” (AACSBInternational,p.44).
Tobeconsideredacademicallyquali-fied(AQ),anindividualfacultymember musthavecompletedadoctoralorother
terminal degree and be engaged in a seriesofactivitiestomaintaincurrency intheirteachingspecialty.Standard10
requires additional academic prepa-ration and maintenance activities of facultymemberswhoseprimaryteach-ing responsibility is in an area that is outside of their original academic preparation.The nature and number of subsequentactivitiesnecessarytomain-tainacademicqualificationisinfluenced bytheprogramlevelatwhichanindi-vidualteaches.Asanalternativeformof facultyqualification,Standard10states that academic preparation and relevant professionalexperiencearerequiredfor afacultymembertobeconsideredpro-fessionally qualified (PQ). The normal academicpreparationforPQfacultyis ity. Faculty who meet this requirement at the time of initial hire are deemed to be PQ as long as they engage in subsequentactivitiesthatmaintaintheir qualificationsintheirteachingarea.The school under review bears the burden of justifying that individual faculty are PQ. Although initial academic or pro-fessional qualifications are important, Standard10specifiesthefollowing:
Regardlessoftheirspecialty,workexperi-ence,orgraduatepreparation,thestandard requires that faculty members maintain theircompetencethrougheffortstolearn abouttheirspecialtyandhowitisapplied in practice. Likewise, faculty members mustengageinconstantlearningactivity to maintain currency with their fields’ developingresearchandtheory.(AACSB International,2008,p.47)
Thestandardpremisesthisrequire-ment on the rapid changes in the world of business and the need for faculty to stay up-to-date throughout theircareers.
Standard 10 of AACSB Interna-tional’s revisedEligibility Procedures and Standards for Business Accredita-tion (2008) does allow flexibility with respect to the activities in which indi-vidualfacultymembersmayengageto maintaintheiracademicorprofessional qualifications. In fact, it illustrates a number of activities that may be used tojustifythemaintenanceofAQorPQ
statusandevenstatesthattheactivities faculty choose to stay up-to-date may change as their careers progress. The illustratedactivitiesarenotintendedto beexhaustive,andthestandardassumes that most faculty members engage in multipleactivities.
It is arguable that the most misun-derstoodaspectofthesetwostandards is the relation between IC and faculty qualifications. Although Standard 10 ofAACSB International’s revised Eli-gibility Procedures and Standards for Business Accreditation (2008) allows facultymemberstoengageinavariety ofactivitiestodemonstratetheirmain-tenanceofAQorPQstatus,itspecifies that a school’s portfolio of IC “must emanate from a substantial cross- section of faculty in each discipline” (p. 48). Thus, although some faculty may maintain their qualifications by means other than publishing mission- supportingIC,asubstantialcross-sec-tion of faculty members are expected tomaintaintheirqualificationsbypro-ducing IC as specified in Standard 2 and defined in the policies of their school.Aschoolmustjustifythequali-ficationsofitsfaculty.
Again, the impetus for the present investigation was in the apparent diffi- cultyfacingAACSBInternationalmem-berschoolsintheireffortstointerpret, implement, and comply with Section 3, Standards 2 and 10 (AACSB Inter-national,2008)guidelines.
METHOD
Participants
Deans from the 560 U.S.-based AACSBInternationalmemberschools, as reported in theAACSB Internation-al 2005–2006 Membership Directory (2005), provided the target sample for thepresentstudy.2 Wesentaquestion-naire package to the deans of these 560institutions,andafter3weeks,we sent e-mail reminder messages with questionnaires attached to all non-respondents. At 4 weeks, we sent a final request for survey completion to allnonrespondents.Weincludedinthe study those surveys that we received within10weeksoftheoriginalmailing, yielding177 usable responses (32%).3
A few surveys were returned incom-plete,withnotesthatindicatedthatthe respondent was too busy to complete thepackage.
Ofthe177respondents,145(81.9%) were from AACSB International-accredited institutions and 32 (18.1%) werefromnonaccreditedAACSBInter-nationalmemberschools.Achi-square test that we performed to comparethe ratio of accredited schools with total schoolsinthefinalsample,incompari-sonwiththatoftheunderlyingAACSB International member school popula- tion,didnotrevealasignificantdiffer-ence,χ2(1,N=177)=0.04,p=.84.
Amongtheaccreditedschoolrespons-es,103 came from schools accredited undertheoldstandards(AACSBInter-national,2001)and42camefromthose accredited under the new standards. A chi-square test performed to com-pare the ratio of those schools accred-itedunderthenewstandardswithtotal accredited schools in the final sample, withtheratiooftheunderlyingAACSB Internationalmemberschoolpopulation (–92 and 457, respectively), did not reveal a significant difference,χ2(1,N =145)=2.68,p=.1.Thisfindingand thatreportedinthepreviousparagraph supportedourassumptionthatthefinal samplewasrepresentativeoftheunder-lying population in terms of AACSB Internationalreportingstatus.
SurveyInstrument
The research questionnaire asked respondents to provide the following: (a)keydemographicinformationabout their schools; (b) information on how their schools are working to comply withtheICrequirementsasprescribed in Section 3, Standard 2 of AACSB International’s revisedEligibility Pro-cedures and Standards for Business Accreditation (2008); and (c) informa-tiononhowtheirschoolsareworkingto comply with the faculty qualifications requirementsasprescribedinSection3, Standard10.
The list of survey questions related to Section 3, Standards 2 and 10 were derivedfrom(a)carefulscrutinyofthe text of AACSB International’s revised Eligibility Procedures and Standards for Business Accreditation (2008), (b)
ourpreparatoryworkforAACSBInter-national accreditation at our respective schools, and (c) anecdotal evidence fromdiscussionswithmembersofother AACSBInternationalmemberschools.
Thefacevalidityoftheresearchques-tionnairewasassessedbysubmittingit todeansfrom12AACSBInternational member schools. They were asked to evaluate the instrument for clarity and comprehensiveness. As a result of the pretesting, additional questions were added, wording was modified, and the survey was resubmitted for review. Pretest respondents indicated that the revised version was more comprehen-siveandeasiertounderstand.
WeusedOppenheim’s(1966)early– late hypothesis to test for nonresponse bias, which is premised on the notion that late respondents serve as a proxy for nonrespondents. Specifically, we conductedaseriesofchi-squareanaly- sestoassessthesignificanceofthedis-tributionaldifferencesbetweenthefirst 25respondentsandthefinal25respon-dents on each of the key demographic categoriesandmeasures(reportedinthe Results section). We measured no sig-nificant distributional differences from these comparisons (p < .05), thus pro-viding reasonable assurance that there was no significant nonresponse bias associatedwiththepresentstudy.
Analyses
The results appear in the form of a series of chi-square analyses. Each analysis compared the responses from administrators at schools accredit-ed under the old standards (AACSB International, 2001) with those of schools accredited under the new standards and those of nonaccredited memberschools.
RESULTS
DemographicDataComparison The data in Table 1 reveal that respondents from each group were demographically similar in terms of university status and campus location. However, 83% of respondents from schoolsaccreditedunderthenewstan-dards (AACSB International, 2008)
had a doctoral program, compared
222
with only 29% of respondents from schools accredited under the old stan-dards (AACSB International, 2001), and 0% of respondents from non- accredited schools. Moreover, respon-dents fromschools accredited under the new standards came from larger universities and business schools than did respondents from schools accred-ited under the old standards, who, in turn,camefromlargeruniversitiesand business schools than did their non-accreditedschoolpeers.
ICExpectations
Table 2 summarizes tabulated responses to a series of questions dealing with expectations of faculty in terms of production of IC in com-pliancewithSection3,Standard2of AACSB International’s revised Eligi-bility Procedures and Standards for Business Accreditation (2008). The majorityofrespondentsindicatedthat theirexpectationsareinwriting(152,
86%)andcategorizedbyformofout-put (144, 82%). They also indicated thatpeer-reviewedjournalarticlesare thehighestrankedformofoutput(135, 77%).However,themajorityofthose reporting from nonaccredited schools (19, 61%) stated that their IC expec-tations are not different from those fortenureorpromotion,apercentage significantlyhigherthanthatreported byaccreditedschoolrespondents(for old-standard [AACSB International, 2001] schools, 45, 44%; for new- standardschools,13,31%).Moreover, whereas most nonaccredited school respondents (19, 59%) indicated that IC are ranked in terms of relative importance (e.g., peer-reviewed jour-nal articles are more important than proceedings), the percentage is sig-nificantlylowerthanthatreportedby their accredited school counterparts (for old-standard schools, 82, 80%; fornew-standardschools,39,93%).
Withrespecttoconsonancebetween IC and the business school mission, there was general consensus among
allthoserespondingthat(a)theirmis-sion statements define IC in terms of content rather than in terms of audi-ence or a combination thereof (87, 71%)4 and(b)thatfacultyareencour-aged to produce IC that support their academic business unit mission (126, 72%). It is interesting, however, that there was also consensus among all thoserespondingthattheformofout-put is more important than whether the contribution supports the mission (132,83%).
AcademicQualification EvaluationCriteria
Table 3 reports how schools eval-uated the AQ status of faculty per Section 3, Standard 10, of AACSB International’sEligibility Procedures andStandardsforBusinessAccredita-tion(2008).Most(122,71%)statedthat their expectations are in writing, yet thispercentagewassignificantlyhigher among accredited schools (for old-standard[AACSBInternational,2001] schools, 74, 73%; for new-standard
TABLE1.DemographicDataComparison:AccreditedUnderOldStandardsVersusNewStandardsorNonaccredited
Accreditedunder Accreditedunder
oldstandardsa newstandardsb Nonaccreditedc
contributionexpectations n % n % n % N χ2 df p
Highestdegreeoffered 69.392 4 <.001
Doctoral 29 29 35 83 0 0 64
Masters 63 63 7 17 21 68 91
Baccalaureate 9 9 0 0 10 32 19
Universitysize(students) 43.564 6 <.001
Fewerthan5,000 23 22 2 1 12 38 37
5,000–9,000 39 38 4 10 15 47 58
10,000–20,000 23 22 18 44 2 6 43
Morethan20,000 18 18 18 44 3 9 39
Businessschoolsize(students) 35.995 6 <.001
Fewerthan500 9 9 0 0 4 12 13
500–999 30 29 1 2 12 38 43
1,000–1,999 36 35 12 29 12 38 60
Morethan2,000 28 27 28 69 4 12 60
Universitystatus 1.990 2 .370
Public 75 73 35 83 23 72 133
Private 28 27 7 17 9 28 44
Campuslocation 2.066 2 .356
Rural 58 56 26 62 14 45 98
Urban 45 44 16 38 17 55 78
Note.nequalsthetotalnumberofrespondentsfromeachaccreditationstatuscategory,andNrepresentsthetotalnumberwhorespondedtothisoption. Totalnumberrespondingtoeachissuecanbecalculatedbyaddingthenresponsestothatissue.Forexample,thetotalnumberofnonaccreditedschool respondentsreportingthehighestdegreeofferedattheirinstitutionis3.10+21+10.Thereportedcellpercentagesarebasedonthenumberresponding toeachissue.
aN=103.bN=42.cN=32.
Intellectual
schools, 32, 82%) than among non-accredited schools (16, 52%). Most respondents (134, 78%) also reported that they have faculty teaching out-sideoftheirareaoforiginalacademic preparation. However, a significant-ly higher percentage of respondents fromschools accredited under the old standards (86, 84%) stated that they have faculty in this category than did respondents from schools accredited under the new standards (27, 69%) or their nonaccredited school (21, 68%) counterparts. It is interesting that the vast majority of respondents (125, 93%)indicatedthattheyusedthesame criteria to evaluateAQ status for fac-ulty teaching outside of their field of original academic preparation as they didforfacultyteachingintheirfield.
With respect to maintenance ofAQ status, most of those reporting (110, 64%)indicatedthattherearemultiple means to do so, yet most (89, 81%) didnotbelievethatprofessionaldevel-opment or experience (e.g., concur-rentworkexperience)canserveasthe sole evidence of AQ status mainte- nance.Mostrespondentsfromaccred-itedschools(forold-standard[AACSB International,2001]schools,61,62%; fornew-standard[AACSBInternation-al, 2008] schools, 25, 64%) indicated that faculty cannot maintain AQ sta-tus by engaging in different activi-tiesatdifferentcareerstages,whereas most respondents from nonaccredited schools(22,73%)statedthattheycan. All respondents who stated that AQ status activities are not career-stage
related formed a consensus that IC is thesinglecriterionthatcanreportedly serve as the sole evidence ofAQ sta-tusmaintenance(67,71%).Last,there wasgeneralagreement(128,79%)that a faculty member cannot be AQ per Standard10withoutcontributingtothe Standard 2 requirements regarding IC (AACSBInternational,2008).
ProfessionalQualification EvaluationCriteria
Table 4 presents the results of the finalsetofanalysesthatexaminedthe criteriaused bybusinessschooladmin-istrators to evaluate the PQ status of faculty per Standard 10 of AACSB International’s revisedEligibility Pro-cedures and Standards for Business TABLE2.FacultyIntellectualContribution(IC):ExpectationsforComplianceWithSection3,Standard2
Accreditedunder Accreditedunder
oldstandardsa newstandardsb Nonaccreditedc
ICexpectations n % n % n % N χ2 df p
Inwriting? 1.953 2 .377
Yes 92 89 35 83 25 88 152
No 11 11 7 17 6 12 24
ICexpectations(differentthanthose
fortenureorpromotion)? 6.664 2 .036
Yes 57 56 29 69 12 39 98
No 45 44 13 31 19 61 77
CategorizedICbyformofoutput? 4.182 2 .124
Yes 86 83 37 88 21 70 144
No 17 17 5 12 9 30 31
Formofoutputrankedintermsof
importance? 12.354 2 .002
Yes 82 80 39 93 19 59 140
No 21 20 3 7 13 41 37
Highestrankedoutputform? 0.0275 2 .872 Peerreviewedjournalarticles 79 96 38 97 18 95 135
Otherpeerreviewedoutput 3 4 1 3 1 5 5
MissiondescriptionofIC? 4.882 4 .300
Contentbased 49 70 24 75 14 70 87
Audiencefocused 11 16 6 19 1 5 18
Bothcontentandaudiencebased 10 14 2 6 5 25 17 Facultyencouragedtoproduce
missionsupportingIC? 1.393 2 .498
Yes 70 69 32 76 24 77 126
No 31 31 10 24 7 23 48
ICformmoreimportantthanits
supportofmission? 1.482 2 .477
Yes 81 85 29 81 22 76 132
No 14 15 7 19 7 24 28
Note.nequalsthetotalnumberofrespondentsfromeachaccreditationstatuscategory,andNrepresentsthetotalnumberwhorespondedtothisoption. Totalnumberrespondingtoeachissuecanbecalculatedbyaddingthenresponsestothatissue.Thereportedcellpercentagesarebasedonthenumber respondingtoeachissue.
aN=103.bN=42.cN=32.
224
Accreditation (2008). A majority of allrespondents(91,59%)statedthata faculty member’s professional experi-ence does not have to be concurrent with their teaching. However, among those in this group, most (83, 91%) indicated that there areother expecta- tionsformaintainingPQstatus.More-over, a significantly higher percent-age of accredited school respondents (for old-standard [AACSB Interna-tional, 2001] schools, 48, 92%; for new-standard schools, 25, 100%) maintained this opinion than did their nonaccredited school respondents (10, 71%). Consulting or practice, work-shopattendance,activitiestomaintain
professional qualifications (e.g., con-tinuing professional education for CPAs), research, and membership on a board of directors or a professional organization were the most frequently citedexamplesofactivitiesthatwould allow a participating faculty member to maintain PQ status. With respect to supporting faculty, most of those responding (98, 61%) indicated that professional experience does have to beconcurrentwithteaching.However, amongthosewhodidnot,mostaccred-ited school respondents (for old-stan-dard schools, 32, 86%; for new-stan-dardschools,15,88%)statedthatthere were other expectations for
maintain-ingPQstatus,whereasthemajorityof nonaccredited school respondents (6, 67%)didnothavesuchexpectations.
DISCUSSION
With respect to IC expectations, Standard 2 of AACSB International’s revised EligibilityProceduresandStan-dardsforBusinessAccreditation(2008) clearly indicates that they should be in writing, categorized, and prioritized (i.e., ranked). Standard 2 also recog-nizesmanyformsofoutput.Thepresent findingsindicatethattheseexpectations weregenerallyunderstoodandinplace. Inaddition,amajorityofschoolswere,
TABLE3.CriteriaUsedtoEvaluationFacultyAcademicQualifications(AQ)Status
Accreditedunder Accreditedunder
oldstandardsa newstandardsb Nonaccreditedc
(IC)expectations n % n % n % N χ2 df p
Inwriting? 13.441 4 .009
Yes 74 72 32 82 16 52 122
No 18 18 1 3 6 19 25
Underconstruction 10 10 6 15 9 29 25 Facultyteachingoutsideareaof
originalpreparation? 5.999 2 .050
Yes 86 84 27 69 21 68 134
No 16 16 12 31 10 32 38
Ifyes,arethesameAQcriteria
usedforthesefacultyasothers? 0.397 2 .820
Yes 81 94 25 93 19 90 125
No 5 6 2 7 2 10 9
Multiplemeansforfacultyto
maintainAQstatus? 5.166 2 .076
Yes 60 58 25 64 25 81 110
No 43 42 14 36 6 19 63
Ifyes,canprofessionaldevelopment
besoleAQevidence? 2.639 2 .267
Yes 13 20 2 7 6 23 21
No 47 80 23 93 19 77 89
CanAQstatusactivitiesvaryat
differentcareerstages? 12.779 2 .002
Yes 38 38 14 36 22 73 74
No 61 62 25 64 8 27 94
Ifno,whatsinglecriterionisused
toevaluateAQstatus? 1.475 2 .478
Intellectualcontributions 41 67 20 80 6 75 67
Noresponse 20 33 5 20 2 25 27
CanonebeAQperStandard10yet
notproduceICperStandard2? 0.182 2 .666
Yes 22 23 6 16 7 24 35
No 75 77 31 84 22 76 128
Note.nequalsthetotalnumberofrespondentsfromeachaccreditationstatuscategory,andNrepresentsthetotalnumberwhorespondedtothisoption. Totalnumberrespondingtoeachissuecanbecalculatedbyaddingthenresponsestothatissue.Forexample,thetotalnumberofnonaccreditedschool respondentsreportingthehighestdegreeofferedattheirinstitutionis3.10+21+10.Thereportedcellpercentagesarebasedonthenumberresponding toeachissue.
aN=103.bN=42.cN=32.
Intellectualcontribution
or were working to be, in compliance withStandard10’sexpectationthatthe process to evaluate faculty academic qualifications be documented. Docu-mentation compliance aside, substan-tiveconcernsexist.
Three key areas of concern emerge from our findings with respect to the present sample’s apparent comprehen-sion of Section 3, Standards 2 and 10 of AACSB International’s revised
Eli-gibility Procedures and Standards for Business Accreditation (2008). First, thereappearstobealackofcongruence between the academic business unit’s mission and the production of IC as specified in Standard 2. Although the April25,2003,eligibilitystandardsand theirsubsequentrevisionsfocusonthe relation between IC and the academic business unit’s mission, the reported ICevaluationcriteriaseemtobethose
more appropriate to the old standards. For example, Standard 2 (AACSB International)indicatesthattheschool’s mission or supporting documentation should clearly indicate the “nature and focus of the intellectual contributions that are expected from its faculty” and that “schools should have clear poli-cies that state expectations to guide faculty in the successful production of a portfolio of contributions that are
TABLE4.CriteriaUsedtoEvaluationFacultyProfessionalQualification(PQ)Status
Accreditedunder Accreditedunder
oldstandardsa newstandardsb Nonaccreditedc
PQstatusevaluativecriteria n % n % n % N χ2 df p
Participatingfaculty
Doesprofessionalexperienceneed
tobeconcurrentwithteaching? 1.450 2 .484
Yes 45 46 14 36 13 48 72
No 52 54 25 64 14 52 91
Ifno,dootherexpectationsexistfor
maintainingPQstatus? 9.319 2 .009
Yes 48 92 25 100 10 71 83
No 4 8 0 0 4 29 8
Ifotherexpectationsexist,most frequentlycitedactivitiesto
maintainPQstatus?
Consultingorpractice 6.894 2 .031
Yes 39 81 25 100 7 30 71
No 9 19 0 0 3 70 12
Workshopattendance 6.225 2 .952
Yes 33 69 18 72 3 30 54
No 15 31 7 28 7 70 29
Research 0.099 2 .952
Yes 29 60 16 64 6 60 51
No 19 40 9 36 4 40 32
Maintenanceofqualifications
(e.g.,activeCPAlicense) 0.415 2 .813
Yes 23 48 13 52 4 40 40
No 25 52 12 48 6 60 43
Boardorprofessionalorganization
memberships 0.366 2 .833
Yes 14 29 9 36 3 30 26
No 34 71 16 64 7 70 57
Supportingfaculty
Doesprofessionalexperienceneed
tobeconcurrentwithteaching? 0.896 2 .639
Yes 59 61 21 55 18 67 98
No 37 39 17 45 9 33 63
Ifno,dootherexpectationsexistfor
maintainingPQstatus? 16.31 2 .001
Yes 32 86 15 88 3 33 50
No 5 14 2 12 6 67 13
Note.nequalsthetotalnumberofrespondentsfromeachaccreditationstatuscategory,andNrepresentsthetotalnumberwhorespondedtothisoption. Totalnumberrespondingtoeachissuecanbecalculatedbyaddingthereportedresponsesforthatissue.Thereportedcellpercentagesarebasedonthe numberrespondingtoeachissue.Thoughnotdepictedintabularformat,thesamefiveactivitiestomaintainPQstatuswerereportedforsupporting facultyasthosethatweremostfrequentlycitedbyparticipatingfaculty(e.g.,consulting,workshops).However,only64accreditedschooland3non-accreditedschoolrespondentslistedanyactivitiesforsupportingfaculty,thusprecludingmeaningfulintergroupstatisticalcomparisons.
aN=103.bN=42.cN=32.
226
consistent with the school’s mission” (p. 24).Although Standard 2 indicates that the IC portfolio “is expected to includeasignificantproportionofpeer reviewed journal articles and/or schol-arly books, research monographs, or sections/chapters of such publications” (AACSB International, p. 25), it does notstatethattheformofICshouldtake precedenceoversupportoftheschool’s mission. Still, the form of contribution was clearly more important than the extenttowhichitsupportsthemission accordingtotheschoolssurveyedinthe presentstudy.
The fact that most AACSB Inter-national-accredited schools reported that their IC expectations for tenure or promotion of faculty differ from those for compliance with Standard 2 is another possible cause for concern. If the expectation differences simply relate to output quantity, for example, this would not be an issue. However, if the differences relate to the form of output (e.g., promotion and tenure expectations that specify a prescribed numberofcontributionsofaparticular form), misalignment with the mission may result. Althoughthe data do not allowustodrawanyconclusionsinthis regard,theaforementionedfindingwith respecttooutputform,coupledwiththe fact that an overwhelming majority of schools ranked peer-reviewed journal articlesasthemostsignificantformof output, suggests that many schools are still applying antiquated standards in theirevaluationoffacultyIC.
Oursecondmajorconcernrelatesto theapparentmisunderstandingofStan-dard 10 expectations ofAACSB Inter-national’srevisedEligibilityProcedures and Standards for Business Accredita-tion(2008)andtheimplicitdistinction between these expectations and those of Standard 2. For example, an over-whelmingmajorityofschoolsreported thattheyareusingthesamecriteriato evaluatetheAQstatusoffacultyteach-ing outside of their field of academic preparationastheyusetoevaluatethose whopossessadoctoralorotherterminal degreeintheareainwhichtheyteach. ThisisdirectlyatvariancewithStandard 10’s expectation that “the greater the disparitybetweenthefieldofacademic preparation and the area of teaching,
the greater the need for supplemental preparationintheformofprofessional development” (AACSB International, p. 45). Moreover, most respondents’ schoolsdidnotallowforfacultytosus-tain their qualifications solely through meansotherthanpublishing(e.g.,con-sulting, internships, other professional experiences),andmostrespondentsdid notbelieve that professional develop-ment or experience may serve as the soleevidenceofAQmaintenance.Both findingsareinconsistentwithStandard 10expectations:
Finally, it is ironic that the majority of accredited schools did not support the notionthattheactivitieschosentomain-tain relevance and currency may change atdifferentstagesofafacultymember’s career,anoptionspecificallyprovidedfor inStandard10.(p.47)
Ourfinalconcernrelatestotheerrant perceptionthatStandard10ofAACSB International’s revisedEligibility Pro-cedures and Standards for Business Accreditation(2008)specifiesdifferent professional qualifications and mainte- nancecriteriaforparticipatingandsup-porting faculty. More than 44% of all those responding (72 of 163) reported that professional experience has to be concurrentforparticipatingPQfaculty. However, as noted previously, 61% of those responding indicated that this is thecaseforsupportingPQfaculty.Pro- fessionalexperiencehasonlytobecur-rentatthetimeofhire,asspecifiedin Standard10,notconcurrentwithteach-ing. Moreover, with respect to main-tenance of qualifications, the standard makes no distinction between partici-patingandsupportingfaculty.
Tosomeextent,theseapparentmisper-ceptions may be intentional interpreta-tions on the part of the respondents as a matter of convenience. For example, itismoreconvenientandexpeditiousto assesstheacademicqualificationsoffac-ulty (regardless of field of original aca-demic preparation) in terms of a single criterionsuchasIC,whichisoftentrans-lated as peer-reviewed journal articles. ICareeasytocount,easytoclassify,and arguablyeasytorankintermsofimpor-tance.However,thissimplisticapproach may have deleterious consequences to the schools, particularly schools with an applied emphasis. Using this one-
size-fits-all approach often stifles cre-ativity and limits a school’s ability to deployfacultymembersinamannerthat bestleveragestheirindividualtalentsin supportofthemission.
CONCLUSION
There appear to be several misper-ceptions among AACSB International member schools regarding the provi-sionsofSection3,Standards2and10 of the revisedEligibility Procedures and Standards for BusinessAccredita-tion (2008) as they relate to IC and the academic and professional quali-fications of faculty. These mispercep-tions can result in many dysfunctional consequences, such as the inefficient allocation of faculty resources, failure to attain stated goals and objectives as outlined in the school’s mission, and failure to attain AACSB Interna-tional accreditation maintenance. In fact,19%ofthebusinessmaintenance reviews that have occurred in the past 5 years have resulted in a 6th-year review instead of accreditation main-tenance (Flaherty & Trapnell, 2007). Thus,itappearsincumbentonAACSB International member schools seeking accreditation maintenance to obtain a clearerunderstandingofthesetwocriti-calstandards.Wehopethatbyshedding some light on these apparent misper-ceptions, the present study can bridge the information gap and assist schools in their efforts to comply with these standardsinatimelymanner.
NOTES
1. The termold standardsrefers to the Stan-dards for BusinessAccreditation (AACSB Inter-national,2001).Hedlin,Barnes,andChen(2005) described the old standards as mission-centric and outcome-focused ones, in contrast to the revisedstandards,whichtheydescribedasashift awayfromoutcome-focusedstandardstoprocess-focusedones.Thenewstandardsrequireschools to develop, use, and document processes that providethemwiththecapabilitytoenhancetheir managementeducationofferingstoconstituents.
2. Of the 560 target institutions, 447 (79.8%) hadAACSB International accreditation, and 113 (20.2%)werenonaccreditedmemberschools.
3. Theresponseratewasfavorableincompari-sonwiththatofothernationalstudiesusingtrade associationmembershiplists(e.g.,Fogarty,Singh, Rhoads,&Moore,2000).
4. AmissionstatementthatdefinesICinterms ofcontentmaystatethatthefaculty’sscholarship will be a mix of practice-related advances and pedagogicalresearch,whereasanaudience-based
descriptionmaystatethattheschoolwillencour- ageandsupportthedevelopmentanddissemina-tionofarticlesandotheroutputdesignedtoserve astoolsformanagers.
KennethJ.SmithistheTrice,Geary,&Myers professorofaccountingandchairoftheDepart-ment ofAccounting and Legal Studies at Salis-bury University. His primary teaching interest is financialaccounting,andhehaspublishednumer-ousarticlesdealingwithaccountingpedagogical issuesandbehavioralissuesaffectingaccountants, businessprofessionals,andstudents.
G.TimothyHaightispresidentandprofessor offinanceatMenloCollege.Heisalsotheformer dean of the College of Business and Economics at California State University, LosAngeles, and hasservedasmemberonanumberofAACSB’s reaffirmationreviewteams.
DonaldL.Rosenberg isprofessorofaccount-ing at Towson University in the Department of
AccountingandLegalStudies.Histeachinginter-estsincludetaxaccountingandbusinesslaw.He haspublishedarticlesinanumberofprofessional journals,andhisresearchinterestsincludepeda-gogicalissuessuchasstudentethicsandcollege programaccreditation.
Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressedtoKennethJ.Smith,SalisburyUni- versity,AccountingandLegalStudies,1101Cam-denAvenue,Salisbury,MD21801,USA.
E-mail:kjsmith@salisbury.edu
REFERENCES
AssociationtoAdvanceCollegiateSchoolsofBusi-ness(AACSB)International.(2001).Standardsfor businessaccreditation.St.Louis,MO:Author. AACSB International. (2005).AACSB
Inter-national 2005–2006 membership directory. Tampa,FL:Author.
AACSB International. (2008).Eligibility proce-duresandstandardsforbusinessaccreditation (Rev.ed.).Tampa,FL:Author.
Flaherty, R. E., & Trapnell, J. (2007, Febru-ary).Continuous improvement: AACSB 2007 accreditation standards update. PowerPoint presented at the AACSB International Dean’s Conference,LasVegas,NV.
Fogarty, J., Singh, J., Rhoads, G., & Moore, R. (2000). Antecedents and consequences of burnout in accounting: Beyond the role stress model.BehavioralResearchinAccounting,12, 31–67.
Hedin, S. R., Barnes, C. H., & Chen, J. C. H. (2005).AACSB 2003 accreditation standards: Impact on continuous quality improvement.
International Journal of Services and Stan-dards,1,358–378.
Legorreta, L., Kelley, C. A., & Sablynski, C. J. (2006). Linking faculty development to the business school’s mission.Journal of Educa-tionforBusiness,84,3–10.
Oppenheim, A. (1966).Questionnaire design and attitude measurement.New York: Basic Books.
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� � ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
� ������������������������������������������������������������� � �����������������������������������
� �����������������������������������������
���������� ������ ����
������� �������� �������
����������������������� ������������������������������� ����������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������
������������������������������
�����������������
��������������������
�������������������������������������������
������������ � ������ �� ��� ������
����������� �� ���������� �� ��������������� ������������ ������������������������������ ���������������
����������������
�����������
���������������
������������������������������������������������������������������������������
���������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�����������������������������������������������������������������������������
�������������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������������������������������
����������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������
�����������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������������������������
�������������������������������������������������������������
������������������������������
�������������������������������������
�������������������������������������������
������������ � ������� �� ��� ������
����������� �� ���������� �� ��������������� ������������
������������������������������ ���������������
