ACCOUNTING FACULTY RESEARCH COLLABORATION: A STUDY OF RELATIONSHIP BENEFITS AND GENDER DIFFERENCES

Transcription

1 Globl Perspectives on Accounting Eduction Volume 2, 2005, ACCOUNTING FACULTY RESEARCH COLLABORATION: A STUDY OF RELATIONSHIP BENEFITS AND GENDER DIFFERENCES Mry Jenne Welsh L Slle University Phildelphi, Pennsylvni USA Wyne G. Bremser Villnov University Villnov, Pennsylvni USA ABSTRACT This study exmines the collbortive reserch reltionships which ccounting fculty identified s hving the gretest influence on their creer development. We investigte whether the benefits of working collbortively on reserch projects extend beyond reserch guidnce to include creer guidnce nd psychosocil support. We report on ccounting fculty views of benefits ssocited with collbortive reserch reltionships, focusing on the effect of gender nd creer stge. Gender brriers in developing importnt cdemic reserch reltionships re not mnifest in the results of the study, which differs from prior reserch suggesting tht cross-gender reltions re more difficult to develop. Forty-six percent of the respondents considered the co-uthor tht hd the gretest influence on their creer development to be mentor, but most reltionships were viewed s peer collbortions, especilly when between femle co-uthors. Women were less likely to report inititing reserch collbortions. The gender composition of the reserch dyd demonstrted explntory power in respondents expecttions of benefits to be provided to co-uthors, s well s in the ctul benefits provided. 19

2 20 Welsh nd Bremser INTRODUCTION Development of cdemic mentoring nd collbortive reserch reltionships cn be beneficil for junior fculty becuse stndrds for evluting fculty reserch, teching nd service re often written in generl terms or communicted informlly. Additionlly, n informl network of senior scholrs often determines wht reserch issues re importnt nd wht reserch is vlued. Admission to nd dvncement through collegue system is esier when newcomers hve the support of n lredy estblished member of the system nd thus re presumed to fit the system s shred norms nd stndrds (Assocition of Americn Colleges, p. 2). The importnce of published reserch in the promotion decision for ccounting fculty hs been documented by number of studies (Crgile nd Bublitz, 1986; Hgermn nd Hgermn, 1989; Schultz et l., 1989). One strtegy junior fculty cn use to develop reserch strem is to work collbortively (Urbncic, 1992; Nthn et l., 1998). Hsslebck et l. (2000) report n incresing trend in the verge number of uthors per rticle in the ccounting literture. Reserch collbortions cn lso develop into support reltionships. Experienced reserchers re well wre of the chllenges nd disppointments tht cn be encountered in vrious phses of reserch projects, nd reserchers my look to their co-uthors for emotionl support. However, lrge body of mentoring literture suggests tht women my be t disdvntge in developing such support reltionships in predominntly mle orgniztions (Blckburn et l., 1981; Assocition of Americn Colleges, 1983; Noe, 1988; Rgins nd Cotton, 1991; Burke et l., 1994). 1 The objective of this study is to exmine collbortive reserch reltionships which ccounting fculty identified s hving the gretest influence on their creer development. We report on ccounting fculty views of their most importnt reserch collbortion reltionships nd perceptions of ssocited benefits expected, received nd provided. We present survey dt on how fculty viewed their reserch reltionships, pying prticulr ttention to the effect of gender nd creer stge. Understnding influentil reltionships should be helpful to business fculty in understnding their professionl reltionships nd in deling with creer issues. If the gender composition of collbortion is found to hve positive or negtive impcts, fculty cn exmine the implictions for their creer decisions. BACKGROUND Reltionship Benefits Collbortive reserch reltionships vry widely in terms of interpersonl dynmics nd reltionship benefits. At one end of the spectrum, the prticipnts my view collbortive reltionships s void of development functions, while t the other end re mentor reltionships of vrying intensity. Whether one or both of the prticipnts view collbortive reltionship s mentor reltionship is influenced by the benefits received nd by emotionl fctors. Krm (1985) defines two brod ctegories of developmentl functions beyond reserch collbortion tht cn be enhnced by mentoring: 1) creer functions (i.e. lerning the ropes ), which contribute to dvncement in the orgniztion; nd, 2) psychosocil functions tht enhnce person s sense of 1 Although women hve entered cdemic ccounting in incresing numbers over the pst two decdes, the profession is still predominntly mle (Streuly nd Mrnto, 1994; Crolfi et l., 1996).

3 Accounting Fculty Reserch Collbortion 21 competence, clrity of identity, nd effectiveness in professionl role. The mentorship literture contins mny studies of these fctors. Creer functions provided by mentor include sponsoring, protecting, promoting visibility in the orgniztion, nd providing chllenging work. Psychosocil functions include role modeling, counseling, cceptnce nd confirmtion, nd friendship. Krm nd Isbell (1985) found tht conventionl mentors provide the protégé both creer-enhncing functions such s sponsorship nd coching, s well s the psychosocil functions of cceptnce nd confirmtion, counseling, role modeling, nd friendship. However, mentoring reltionship is lso reciprocl, with the mentor deriving not only psychosocil benefits, but lso tngible benefits such s respect from collegues for successfully developing younger tlent (Krm, 1985). Junior fculty cn lso work collbortively with their peers. Peer reltionships lso provide the creer-enhncing functions of informtion shring, creer strtegizing, nd job-relted feedbck. Psychosocil functions included in the peer reltionships include confirmtion, emotionl support, personl feedbck, nd friendship. Between peers, these functions re performed for ech other, so there is mutulity ttribute to the reltionship (Krm nd Isbell, 1985), nd this is sometimes referred to s peer mentoring. University Environment In university setting, full professors nd experienced ssocite professors cn nurture the creers of junior fculty. A junior fculty member s dvncement is bsed on reserch productivity, teching bility, nd service; senior fculty cn provide guidnce in ny of these res. However, given the primcy of reserch in promotion nd tenure decisions (Schultz et l., 1989; Englebrecht et l., 1994), reserch is likely to be n re where reltionships will be sought nd developed (Green et l., 1995). Blckburn et l. (1981) found tht cdemic mentors overwhelmingly identified successful protégés s those who shred similr reserch interests. Both junior nd senior fculty cn benefit from reserch collbortion. A senior fculty member hs more experience with the publiction process nd cn bring prcticl direction to the reserch efforts of junior fculty. In return, the senior fculty member hs the stisfction of helping nother person s creer development, nd my gin ides nd ssistnce in crrying out his or her reserch gend. With regrd to promotion nd slry increse decisions, Nthn et l. (1998) report tht co-uthors ech receive full credit for co-uthored rticles t vst mjority of schools surveyed. Thus, senior fculty co-uthors cn lso benefit in the merit evlution process. Gender Differences in Scholrly Reserch A number of studies hve exmined gender differences in scholrly ctivity, nd the findings hve implictions for our study of gender differences in reserch collbortions. Streuly nd Mrnto (1994) nd Dwyer (1994) reviewed studies of reserch output mong femle cdemicins in fields other thn ccounting. Regrdless of discipline, women published significntly fewer rticles thn did men. Authors of the vrious studies offer number of competing explntions for this finding, but the explntion relevnt to this study is the suggestion tht women publish less becuse they collborte or co-uthor less often thn do men. Syre et l. (2000) studied smple of public universities nd report tht on verge mles hd greter number of publictions nd more

4 22 Welsh nd Bremser seniority, which were vribles in their reserch model on the ssocition of cdemic slries nd gender. Dwyer (1994) looked t the reltionship of gender to scholrly ctivities of cdemic ccountnts who received doctorl degrees in She found tht women hd significntly fewer publictions thn their mle collegues, lthough the difference ws less pronounced when publictions were discounted for the number of co-uthors. Streuly nd Mrnto (1994) lso exmined gender differences in reserch productivity of ccounting fculty, but looked t fculty who grduted between 1960 nd They only compred number of publictions fter weighting by the inverse of the number of co-uthors, not bsolute number of publictions. Using weighted publiction rte, they did not find overll significnt differences in the reserch productivity of women nd men, but their dt did suggest tht women co-uthor less frequently thn men. McDowell nd Smith (1992) found reltionship between gender nd co-uthoring reltions mong economics fculty in tht co-uthors were more frequently of the sme gender thn of the opposite gender. In ddition, femle economists generlly co-uthored less often thn men. If the tendency is prevlent mong ccounting fculty, it could pose problem for women fculty in developing collbortive reserch reltionships, given the smller number of senior women fculty with whom they cn work. Gender Differences in Reltionships Reserch on the development of mentoring reltionships in orgniztions provides possible explntion for gender differences in collbortive reserch experiences. Some reserchers hve theorized tht the scrcity of women occupying the upper rnks in n orgniztion cretes gender differences in ccess to mentors. Of necessity, women hve to develop cross-gender reltionships, while their mle peers do not (Rgins nd Cotton, 1991; 1993). Even if potentil mle mentors hve positive ttitudes towrd women, reserch suggests tht mle mentors will choose mle protégés becuse personl identifiction with the protégé is key element in the selection process (Rgins, 1989). If cross-gender reltions re more difficult to develop, then junior femle ccounting fculty my be disdvntged reltive to their mle peers in developing reltionships with senior fculty. There re reltively few femle full professors in ccounting vilble to ct s mentors or sponsors to femle junior fculty. In the period between 1988 nd 1993, women received pproximtely 30 percent of Ph.D.s nd held comprble proportion of tenure trck positions, but less thn nine percent of full professors were women. A mjority of schools listed in Hsselbck s Accounting Fculty Directory hd no, or only one, terminlly qulified femle fculty member in their ccounting deprtments (Crolfi et l., 1996). Hsselbck et l. (2003) report on model of prolific uthors of ccounting literture. They identify the most productive doctorl grdutes for the period between 1968 nd Approximtely 11 percent of the 315 uthors re femle, which is n indiction there re reltively few highly experienced femle reserchers vilble s mentors or sponsors. DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS Some reserch on the effect of gender on mentoring reltionships suggests tht the gender composition of the mentoring reltionship (gender of both protégé nd of mentor) influences the

5 Accounting Fculty Reserch Collbortion 23 dynmics of the reltionship (Noe, 1988; Rgins, 1989; Rgins nd McFrlin, 1990). Therefore, this study exmines benefits ssocited with importnt reserch collbortions using gender composition of the reserch dyd (DYAD) s n explntory vrible, rther thn just gender of the respondent lone. The first reserch question reltes to the extent to which women nd men enter into crossgender reserch collbortions. The literture cited bove suggests tht cross-gender reltionships re more difficult to develop thn sme gender reltionships. However, our study exmines professionl ctivity, scholrly reserch, where gender brriers to developing reltionships my be less importnt. Since there re more mle thn femle ccounting cdemicins, it seems likely tht more co-uthors will be mle thn femle; in survey of co-uthorship ptterns in ccounting journls, Bremser nd Welsh (1998) found reltively few instnces in which women co-uthored with other women. In contrst, there is limited evidence from McDowell nd Smith (1992) tht couthors re more frequently of the sme gender. Thus, femles my seek out femle co-uthorship, even though there re more potentil mle co-uthors. It my be tht co-uthorship experience with someone of the sme gender is viewed s more likely to develop into strong influentil reltionship. Therefore, the first reserch question is: R1: Is the gender of the chosen co-uthor function of the respondent s gender? Mentoring literture suggests tht the initition stge of professionl reltionship is where gender brriers my be most pronounced (Krm 1985; Rgins 1989; Rgins nd Cotton, 1991). Women often must find mle mentor if looking for mentor in the upper rnks of the orgniztion, nd cross-gender reltionships my be more difficult to initite. Therefore, our second reserch question is: R2: Are there gender differences in initition of reserch reltionship? Reserch questions three nd four relte to benefits received or provided s result of the respondent s reltionship with the co-uthor. Some theories of women s creer development suggest tht women my expect nd receive more benefits from mentoring reltionships becuse these reltionships meet developmentl needs nd re lso more ligned with trditionl gender-role expecttions (Rgins nd Scndur, 1994). However, reserch evidence hs been mixed. There is evidence tht cross-gender mentoring reltionships provide less psychosocil support (Burke et l., 1990; Scndur nd Vitor, 1994; Rgins nd Cotton, 1999). However, some studies tht hve used gender s vrible, rther thn the reserch dyd composition, hve found no evidence of gender differences (Rgins nd McFrlin, 1990; Turbn nd Dougherty, 1994). Creer development stge could lso hve significnt effect on expecttions regrding dditionl benefits from reserch reltionships. Senior (junior) fculty should be more likely to expect to provide (receive) sponsorship, reserch, creer nd teching guidnce. However, cdemic rnk t the time the reltionship ws initited would not necessrily ffect expecttions bout psychosocil benefits. We exmine the benefits tht respondents expected to receive or provide t the beginning of the reserch reltionship s well s their ssessment of the benefits received from or provided to their co-uthor.

6 24 Welsh nd Bremser R3: Does the gender composition of the reserch dyd nd the rnk t initition of the respondent ffect expecttions of benefits to be received or provided t the beginning of joint reserch project? R4: Does the gender composition of the reserch dyd nd the rnk t initition of the respondent ffect benefits tht respondents feel they received from or provided to their co-uthors? METHOD Accounting fculty members were sked to respond to questions bout the collbortive reserch reltionship tht they felt hd hd the gretest influence on their creer development. Items on the questionnire cme from literture on mentoring, prior study by the uthors, nd n instrument developed by Snds et l. (1991). The questionnire ws developed fter reviewing the literture on mentoring, nd more specificlly literture on mentoring in cdemic institutions. Attributes of the collbortive reltionship were derived from theoreticl work on mentoring (Krm, 1985; Krm nd Isbell, 1985; Rgins, 1989) nd pplied reserch (Noe, 1988; Snds et l., 1991; Burke et l., 1994). The survey instrument (click here to view survey instrument) listed reltionship benefits received nd benefits provided, which were identified in our literture review. The fculty surveyed were sked to rnk them on six-point Likert scle (0 = no benefit to 5 = very high benefit). A rndom smple of ccounting fculty ws selected from Hsselbck s Accounting Fculty Directory (1998). Fculty surveyed hd to hve Ph.D. or DBA, nd cdemic rnk of ssistnt, ssocite or full professor. In order to hve sufficient number of femle respondents for dt nlysis, the popultion ws strtified into mle nd femle strt, nd the smple ws eqully divided between mle nd femle fculty. Of the 600 surveys miled in 1999, 162 usble responses were received. Five surveys were returned s undeliverble or were returned from fculty who indicted tht they did not publish. We excluded three responses from fculty who indicted tht they were doctorl students t the time the reserch collbortion ws initited. Thus, the usble response rte ws 27 percent, with 81 men nd 81 women returning the questionnire. Twenty-four of our usble responses were from second miling. Erly nd lte responders were compred to ssess possible non-response bis, nd no significnt differences were identified. Our response rte ws similr to the 30 percent response rte reported for survey of successful ccounting fculty co-uthors by Nthn et l. (1998), nd we hve similr interprettion of our response rtes. Since mny ccounting fculty never publish (Zivney et l., 1995), respondents to the survey my hve hd more successful experiences with reserch collbortions thn the generl popultion of ccounting fculty. RESULTS Descriptive Dt Selected demogrphic dt is presented in Tble 1. With regrd to rnk when the first project ws initited, there were more femle ssistnt professors nd more mle ssocite nd full professors. However, chi-squre nlysis of rnk t reserch initition by gender ws not significnt. Eighty-two percent of the respondents were tenured nd chi-squre nlysis lso found

7 Accounting Fculty Reserch Collbortion 25 TABLE 1 Selected Demogrphic Dt (n = 162) Pnel A: Acdemic Rnk when the First Project ws Initited Mle Femle Totl Assistnt Professor Associte Professor Full Professor Totl Chi-squre 4.28, df 2, p =.12 Pnel B: Reserch ctivity Men Medin Mode Number of projects with sme co-uthor Number of single-uthored rticles published or ccepted Totl number of rticles published or ccepted no significnt difference in the tenure sttus of the men nd women responding, or in the type of institution in which they were employed (chrcterized s Ph.D. grnting or non-ph.d. grnting). Heck nd Bremser (1986) reported on the importnce of institutionl ffilitions in reserch productivity. Co-uthorship would pper to be more likely to become n importnt creer development reltionship if both co-uthors re employed t the sme institution, nd proximity certinly ppers to be mjor fctor contributing to the development of reserch collbortions mong respondents in this study. Seventy percent of the respondents were t the sme institutions s their co-uthors when the projects begn, nd nother 16 percent hd been t the sme institutions with their co-uthors t some point in their creers. The respondents were sked to nswer the questions with respect to the co-uthorship experience tht hd the gretest influence on their creer development. Generlly, these influentil collbortions encompssed more tht single reserch project. The verge number of reserch projects respondents reported with the sme co-uthor ws 4.4. Tble 1, Pnel B provides profile of the reserch ctivity. The men number of rticles published or ccepted ws reported s 15.1 totl 2 nd 4.5 single uthored, reflecting 10.6 co-uthored rticles. The mens reflect in prt the number of very prolific uthors who responded to the survey. The medin (mode) totl number of rticles published ws 11.0 (10.0) nd single rticles published were 2.0 (0.0). Men reported n verge of 17.0 nd women reported n verge of 14.0 totl rticles published or ccepted. We tested for differences in mens; however, the difference ws not 2 These reported mounts re similr to the 10.7 men reported co-uthored rticles nd 3.8 men single uthored rticles (3.8 clculted by using the reported 74 percent of creer publictions co-uthored) reported by Nthn et l. (1998).

8 26 Welsh nd Bremser significnt. This suggests tht the women nd men in our smple publish t comprble frequency. With respect to single-uthored rticles published or ccepted, men reported 5.1 rticles on verge nd women reported 3.8, nd the difference in mens ws not significnt t p =.10. While Streuly nd Mrnto (1994) nd Dwyer (1994) report tht women in cdemic ccounting settings published significntly fewer rticles thn did men, our more recent study suggests more comprble frequency. Reserch Question 1 The first reserch question sked whether the gender of the chosen co-uthor is function of the respondent s gender. A chi-squre nlysis of uthor gender nd co-uthor gender ws significnt t the.01 level, indicting greter-thn-chnce propensity for respondents to hve couthor of the sme gender. Given tht cdemic ccounting deprtments re predominntly mle, we expected tht most of the respondents influentil co-uthors would be mle. Ninety percent of the men nd 75 percent of the women responding cited mle co-uthor s the most influentil (Tble 2), which suggests tht the women in our smple re ble to develop importnt reserch reltionships with men. Since 75 percent of the women respondents nmed mle co-uthor, it might seem tht women in ccounting do not fce gender brriers in developing cross-gender reserch reltionships. However, the study only identified women who hd been ble to develop successful collbortive reltionships. The implictions of this finding will be discussed further in the concluding section. The incidence of men citing femle co-uthor s being the most influentil ws only eight cses, or ten percent. However, 25 percent (20 cses) of the women responding cited femle couthor s the most influentil on their creer development, suggesting tht reserch reltionships between cdemic women, while perhps not common, cn be very importnt to the prticipnts. TABLE 2 Gender Composition of the Reserch Dyd Co-uthor Gender Respondent Gender Mle Femle Totl Mle Femle Totl Chi-squre 6.22, df 1, p=.01 (one-tiled) Reserch Question 2 We then looked t whether there were gender differences in the initition of the reserch collbortion. Our results suggest tht there re gender differences in the initition of the reserch collbortion. Consistent with prior reserch, we found tht femle respondents were less likely to report tht they hd initited the reltionship (Tble 3, Pnel A). Forty-two percent of the men, but only 18 percent of the women indicted tht they hd initited the project (chi squre 11.5, p <. 005).

9 TABLE 3 Initition of Reltionship nd Gender Pnel A: Gender Respondent Gender Initited by Respondent row % Initited by Co-uthor row % Initited Jointly row % Cnnot recll row % Totl column % Mle 34 42% 19 23% 25 31% 3 4% 81 50% Femle 15 18% 31 38% 32 40% 3 4% 81 50% Totl 49 30% 50 31% 57 35% 6 4% % Chi-squre = 11.11, df 3, p=.005 (one-til) Pnel B: Reserch Dyd Reserch Dyd Respondent/Couthor Initited by Respondent row % Initited by Co-uthor row % Initited Jointly row % Cnnot recll row % Totl column % Mle/Mle 29 40% 18 25% 24 33% 2 3% 73 45% Femle/Femle 4 20% 8 40% 8 40% 0 0% 20 12% Mle/Femle 5 62% 1 13% 1 13% 1 13% 8 5% Femle/Mle 11 18% 23 38% 24 39% 3 5% 61 38% Totl 49 30% 50 31% 57 35% 6 4% %

10 28 Welsh nd Bremser Gender composition of the dyd did not pper to ffect how women described initition of the project (Tble 3, Pnel B). Women respondents reported tht they hd initited the project in 20 percent of the cses with femle co-uthor nd in 18 percent of the cses with mle-co-uthor. In contrst, in only one of the eight cses in which mle respondent hd identified femle couthor s the most importnt, did the mle report tht the femle co-uthor hd initited the reltionship. In the 15 cses in which women indicted tht they hd initited the project, 11 were with mle co-uthor nd four were with femle co-uthor. Thirty-five percent of the couthorships were described s developed jointly, nd men nd women responded in equl numbers tht the project ws developed jointly in cses in which the co-uthor ws mle. The reserch design cnnot determine whether women re ctully less likely to initite project, or re more willing to give their co-uthor credit s being prt of joint effort, or s the project inititor. Reserch Question 3 The next reserch question is whether the gender composition of the reserch dyd nd the respondent s rnk t initition ffects expecttions of benefits to be received or provided t the beginning of joint reserch project. Respondents rted five benefits reserch guidnce, creer guidnce, teching guidnce, psychosocil benefits, nd sponsorship on scle of zero to five (none to very high). Responses were nlyzed in two MANOVAs, one with benefits expected to be received s the response vribles, nd the other with benefits expected to be provided s the response vribles. The fixed fctors were the gender composition of the reserch dyd (DYAD) nd cdemic rnk t the initition of the project (RANK). Prior reserch hs suggested tht it is gender composition of the dyd tht ffects benefits provided nd received in mentoring reltionship, not just gender lone. Therefore DYAD ws the vrible used to test the hypothesis. The nlysis ws lso repeted with respondent gender s n independent vrible, but gender ws not significnt. We found tht the respondents rnk did ffect expecttions of benefits to be received, but tht composition of the reserch dyd did not. RANK ws significnt but DYAD ws not significnt in the MANOVA on benefits respondents expected to receive. However, the DYAD X RANK interction ws lso significnt. As follow-up nlysis, seprte MANOVAs were done t ech rnk, holding DYAD constnt, nd for ech DYAD, holding RANK constnt. Significnt MANOVAs re reported in Tble 4, Pnel B for RANK in the ll-mle dyds nd in the ll-femle dyds. There were more significnt differences cross rnks in the ll-mle dyds, in prt becuse full professors were represented in tht group (The ll-femle dyds included no full professors). A follow-up ANOVA on the individul benefits identified significnt differences mong men cross rnks in four benefits respondents expected to receive: reserch guidnce, creer guidnce, teching 3 guidnce, nd sponsorship. Assistnt professors expected to receive significntly more reserch guidnce nd creer guidnce thn did ssocite nd full professors, nd more sponsorship benefits thn did ssocite professors. Although the ANOVA on teching guidnce in the mle-mle dyd ws significnt nd the pir-wise comprison between ssistnt nd full professors ws significnt, overll, the respondents did not expect gret del of teching guidnce (mens of 0.85 nd 0.00 for ssistnt nd full professors respectively), which is resonble since the reltionship centered on 3 An open-ended response Other ws provided, but respondents left tht blnk.

11 Accounting Fculty Reserch Collbortion 29 TABLE 4 Expecttions t the Beginning of your Collbortion of Benefits Expected to be Received from the Co-uthor Pnel A: MANOVA Test of Benefits Expected to Receive (n=162) Fctor Wilk s Lmbd Hypothesis df F Prob>F DYAD RANK DYAD x RANK Pnel B: Men Responses DYAD: Respondent Gender/Co-uthor Gender Mle-Mle (n=73; MANOVA F=2.17, p=.023) Acdemic Rnk t First Project Initition Type of mentoring benefit expected to receive Assistnt Professor (n=34) Associte Professor (n=28) Full Professor (n=11),b Reserch guidnce b,b Creer guidnce b Teching guidnce Psychosocil Sponsorship Femle-Femle (n=20; MANOVA F=3.64, p=.025) Acdemic Rnk t First Project Initition Type of mentoring benefit expected to receive Assistnt Professor (n=10) Associte Professor (n=10) Reserch guidnce Creer guidnce Teching guidnce Psychosocil Sponsorship Men scores where: None = 0, Very low = 1, Low = 2, Medium = 3, High = 4, Very high = 5 ANOVA significnt t p<.05 ANOVA significnt t p<.10 Letters indicte significnt pir-wise comprison t p<.05

12 30 Welsh nd Bremser reserch project. The only significnt benefit expecttion in the ll-femle dyd group ws in reserch guidnce, with ssistnt professors expecting more reserch guidnce. The men response on reserch guidnce ws 3.50 for ssistnt professors nd 1.90 for ssocite professors. On psychosocil benefits, the mens of 2.90 for ssistnt professors versus 1.90 for ssocite professors ws noticeble, but not significnt difference. In contrst, Tble 5 shows tht in the nlysis of benefits respondents expected to provide, DYAD ws significnt but RANK ws not. Although mle respondents expected to provide more reserch guidnce nd sponsorship to their co-uthors thn did femle respondents, the differences were not significnt. However, there were significnt differences in responses cross DYAD on creer guidnce, teching guidnce, nd psychosocil benefits (t p <.05). Mle respondents working with femle co-uthor expected to provide more creer guidnce nd teching guidnce thn mles working with mle co-uthor. With respect to the cross-gender dyds, mle respondents expected to provide more benefits to their femle co-uthors thn did femle respondents working with mle co-uthor, lthough the only significnt differences were in creer nd teching TABLE 5 Expecttions t the Beginning of your Collbortion of Benefits Expected to be Provided to the Co-uthor Pnel A: MANOVA Test of Benefits Expected to Provide (n=162) Fctor Wilk s Lmbd Hypothesis df F Prob>F DYAD RANK DYAD x RANK Pnel B: Men Responses DYAD: Respondent Gender/Co-uthor Gender Type of mentoring benefit expected to provide Mle/Mle (n=73) Femle/Femle (n=20) Mle/Femle (n=8) Femle/Mle (n=61) Reserch guidnce Creer guidnce ,b 0.79 b Teching guidnce ,b 0.50 b Psychosocil ,b b Sponsorship Men scores where: None = 0, Very low = 1, Low = 2, Medium = 3, High = 4, Very high = 5 ANOVA significnt t p<.05 Letters indicte significnt pir-wise comprison t p<.05

13 Accounting Fculty Reserch Collbortion 31 guidnce. We lso found tht femle respondents working with femle co-uthor expected to provide significntly more psychosocil benefits thn did femle respondents working with mle co-uthor or mle respondents working with mle co-uthor. Reserch Question 4 The lst reserch question is whether the gender composition of the reserch dyd nd the rnk t initition of the respondent ffect benefits respondents feel they received from or provided to their co-uthors. Agin, respondents were sked to rte the sme five benefits reserch guidnce, creer guidnce, teching guidnce, psychosocil benefits, nd sponsorship on scle of zero to five (none to very high); but this time, respondents were rting their perceptions of the ctul benefits received from nd provided to their co-uthors. Responses were nlyzed in two MANOVAs, with reserch DYAD nd cdemic RANK t project initition s fixed fctors. 4 Overll, the MANOVAs on benefits received nd provided generlly were consistent with the nlysis of benefits expected from the collbortion. In the nlysis of benefits received (Tble 6), RANK ws significnt, but DYAD ws not. Unlike the nlysis of expected benefits, the interction ws not significnt, so men responses were not nlyzed seprtely by DYAD. Assistnt professors felt they received significntly more reserch, creer, nd teching guidnce thn did full professors. They lso reported significntly more creer guidnce thn did ssocite professors. Associte professors lso rnked reserch guidnce received significntly higher thn did full professors. DYAD ws significnt in the nlysis of perceived benefits provided to the co-uthor, which ws consistent with the nlysis of benefits expected. However, the only significnt ANOVA ws on creer guidnce, nd there were no significnt pir-wise comprisons between dyds (Tble 7). Although there were significnt differences in expecttions (Tble 4) bout teching guidnce nd psychosocil benefits to be provided to co-uthors, those vribles were not significnt in the nlysis of ctul benefits provided (Tble 7). When sked bout expecttions of providing psychosocil benefits, femle respondents in femle dyd hd significntly higher expecttions (men 2.45) thn did respondents in mle dyd (men 1.42) or femle/mle dyd (men 1.51). Although the men score for psychosocil benefits provided ws still higher in the femle/femle dyd (2.65), n exmintion of mens shows tht respondents in ll dyds reported providing higher level of psychosocil benefits thn expected. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Our explortory study of the collbortive reserch reltionship which ccounting fculty reported s hving the gretest influence on their creer development should be helpful to ccounting fculty in understnding reltionships nd deling with creer issues. Hsselbck et l. (2003) report on model of prolific uthors of ccounting literture, which indictes tht there re reltively few highly experienced femle reserchers vilble s mentors or sponsors. This study nd others cited bove suggest tht women my be t disdvntge in developing reserch reltionships. In our study, women ppered less likely to initite reserch collbortions. However, if we ssume tht 4 The reserch instrument included 15 other specific benefits, which were nlyzed using fctor nlysis. However, the fctor nlysis hs been omitted from the pper becuse it does not provide dditionl insight.

14 32 Welsh nd Bremser TABLE 6 Benefits Received from the Co-uthor Pnel A: MANOVA Test of Benefits Received (n=162) Fctor Wilk s Lmbd Hypothesis df F Prob>F DYAD RANK DYAD x RANK Pnel B: Men Responses Acdemic Rnk t First Project Initition Type of mentoring benefit received Assistnt Professor (n=87) Associte Professor (n=56) Full Professor (n=16) Reserch guidnce ,b 1.72,b,b Creer guidnce b Teching guidnce Psychosocil Sponsorship Men scores where: None = 0, Very low = 1, Low = 2, Medium = 3, High = 4, Very high = 5 ANOVA significnt t p<.05 Letters indicte significnt pir-wise comprison t p<.05 the co-uthor did, in fct, initite the collbortion s reported, then it ppers tht mong ccounting cdemics, men re not reluctnt to initite reserch projects with women. Seventy-five percent of the women identified mle co-uthor s hving the gretest creer influence on them. Therefore, gender brriers in developing importnt reserch reltionships re not pprent in this study. The reserch dyd gender composition demonstrted explntory power in how respondents viewed their reltionships. However, with the exception of reserch guidnce, expecttions of other benefits received nd provided by the reltionship were low. Although literture on mentoring suggests tht women hve higher expecttions thn men bout the benefits of professionl reltionship, our study identified no significnt differences in expecttions t the beginning of reserch collbortions, regrdless of the gender composition of the reserch dyd. These results suggest tht t lest initilly, women nd men do not hve different expecttions bout the benefits of co-uthorship, regrdless of whether their co-uthor is mle or femle, nd define benefits rther nrrowly in terms of reserch guidnce. When views on benefits received were nlyzed, gender

15 Accounting Fculty Reserch Collbortion 33 Pnel A: MANOVA Test of Benefits Provide (n=162) TABLE 7 Benefits Provided to the Co-uthor Fctor Wilk s Lmbd Hypothesis df F Prob>F DYAD RANK DYAD x RANK Pnel B: Men Responses DYAD: Respondent Gender/Co-uthor Gender Type of mentoring benefit provided Mle/Mle (n=73) Femle/Femle (n=20) Mle/Femle (n=8) Femle/Mle (n=61) Reserch guidnce Creer guidnce Teching guidnce Psychosocil Sponsorship Men scores where: None = 0, Very low = 1, Low = 2, Medium = 3, High = 4, Very high = 5 ANOVA significnt t p<.05 composition of the reserch dyd ws not significnt. Therefore, women s nd men s experiences working in collbortive reserch reltionships did not pper to differ. There were some differences in women s nd men s perceptions of the benefits they provide in reserch collbortions. Women expected to provide more psychosocil benefits to their femle co-uthors thn they did to their mle co-uthors. Further, men expected to provide significntly lower psychosocil benefits to their mle co-uthors thn did women to femle co-uthors. This result is consistent with the common ssumption tht femle mentors provide more psychosocil benefits (Rgins nd McFrlin, 1990). There is lso common ssumption tht mle mentors provide more creer development roles thn do femle mentors. However, men responding in this study expected to provide more creer guidnce when their co-uthors were femle thn when they were mle. The study ws not designed to determine whether women cdemicins ctully need more creer guidnce thn their mle counterprts, or whether men believe tht they need tht guidnce. Despite the expecttions, there were few differences mong reserch dyds when selfssessment of benefits ctully provided ws nlyzed. The limittions of our study provide bsis for future reserch recommendtions. There my be self-selection bis towrd successful uthors. Since eighty-two percent of the respondents were tenured, most respondents hd chieved n importnt gol linked to reserch productivity. The

16 34 Welsh nd Bremser questionnire ws nonymous, so we were limited with regrd to non-response procedures. The professors not responding my tend to be less successful reserchers thn the respondents, or they my be very busy people. The respondents to the survey my lso hve hd more successful experiences with reserch collbortions thn the generl popultion of ccounting fculty. Respondents generlly hd worked with the sme co-uthor on number of projects nd hd published frequently, both s single-uthors nd s co-uthors. The reserch ws not designed to determine whether respondents would hve been s successful in their publishing ctivity without the benefit of reserch collbortions. However, reserch on mentoring suggests tht mentors choose protégés who they believe will be successful, nd tht protégés choose mentors with the desired level of expertise (Rgins nd Cotton, 1999; Allen et l., 2000). By extension, fculty who re considering joint reserch projects my select co-uthors whom they believe will contribute to successful project. The questionnire dt re limited becuse they rely on respondents memory bout wht they expected to provide nd receive from collbortive reltionship t the beginning of the reltionship, which is in the pst. Since the respondents were well-estblished reserchers, these experiences probbly occurred long go for most respondents. We lso sked wht benefits they provided nd received, which is more recent, but my still be long go if the co-uthors hve not worked together recently. While the respondents recollection my be blurred, this is wy of sking how they viewed the reltionship in retrospect, nd perceptions re importnt in developing reltionships. We reported tht forty-six percent of the respondents considered the co-uthor tht hd the gretest influence on their creer development to be mentor. This response is perception bout the reltionship nd bout mentorship. Our study provides dditionl insight into the explortory findings on collbortion in ccounting reserch reported by Nthn et l. (1998). This prior study reported tht ccounting fculty members most recent co-uthoring experiences resulting in publiction were extremely positive. Both studies reported on views of successful co-uthors, nd the response rte nd totl number of respondent rticles published or ccepted ws similr. While the Nthn et l. (1998) study sked bout the most recent co-uthor experience (one project), we sked ccounting fculty bout the collbortive reserch reltionship tht hd the gretest influence on their creer development (creer focus). Since 70 percent of our respondents were t the sme institution s their co-uthor when the first project begn nd nother 16 percent hd been t the sme institution with their co-uthor, we gin perspective of the importnce of institutionl ffilition s fctor in creer development. While Nthn et l. (1998) reported tht 52 percent of ll co-uthors were from the sme university, this only reltes to the most recent co-uthoring experience. Since both studies report on mil questionnire surveys, we recommend future reserch on co-uthoring experiences nd support reltionships using other methodologies such s structured interviews. Our study rises other issues for future reserch. The women responding to the survey hd ll developed successful reserch collbortions, the mjority of which were with mle collegues. Yet the women were much less likely to report tht they hd initited the reserch reltionships. Since other studies hve found evidence tht women co-uthor rticles less frequently thn do men, there might be gender brriers in developing reserch collbortions tht hve yet to be identified. Future reserch might focus on the initition stte of the collbortion nd exmine fculty tht hve been successful s well s those tht hve not been successful in estblishing reserch collbortions.

17 Accounting Fculty Reserch Collbortion 35 While we surveyed smple of ccounting fculty, future reserch might show tht there re reserch reltionship differences mong disciplines in business schools. Streuly nd Mrnto (1994) nd Dwyer (1994) reported tht women in ll disciplines published significntly fewer rticles thn men, but our more recent study results for ccounting fculty suggests more comprble publiction frequency. This suggests the need for broder study of gender nd publiction frequency. REFERENCES Allen, T.D., M.L. Poteet, nd J. E. A. Russell Protégé Selection by Mentors: Wht Mkes the Difference? Journl of Orgniztionl Behvior (Vol. 21, No. 3) Assocition of Americn Colleges Acdemic Mentoring for Women Students nd Fculty: A New Look t n Old Wy to Get Ahed. (Wshington, D.C.: Assocition of Americn Colleges). Blckburn, R. T., D. W. Chpmn, nd S. M. Cmeron Cloning in Acdeme: Mentorship nd Acdemic Creers. Reserch in Higher Eduction (Vol. 15) Bremser, W. G., nd M. J. Welsh Accounting Fculty Co-uthorship s Indictors of Mentoring Reltionships: A Study of Gender Influences. Pper presented t the 21st Annul Congress of the Europen Accounting Assocition (Antwerp, Belgium), April Burke, R. J., C. A. McKeen, nd C. McKenn Sex Differences nd Cross-sex Effects on Mentoring: Some Preliminry Dt. Psychologicl Reports (Vol. 67, No. 3) ,, nd Benefits of Mentoring in Orgniztions: The Mentor s Perspective. Journl of Mngeril Psychology (Vol. 9, No. 3) Crgile, B.R., nd B. Bublitz Fctors Contributing to Published Reserch by Accounting Fculties. The Accounting Review (Vol. 61, No. 1) Crolfi, I. A., J. R. Hsselbck, nd C. M. Pillsbury The Hiring of Women in Accounting Acdemi. Journl of Eduction for Business (Vol. 71, No. 3) Dwyer, P. D Gender Differences in the Scholrly Activities of Accounting Acdemics: An Empiricl Investigtion. Issues in Accounting Eduction (Vol. 9, No. 2) Englebrecht, T. D., G. S. Iyer, nd D. M. Ptterson An Empiricl Investigtion of the Publiction Productivity of Promoted Accounting Fculty. Accounting Horizons (Vol. 8, No. 1) Green, S. G., G. Buer, nd N. Tly Supervisory Mentoring by Advisers: Reltionships with Doctorl Student Potentil, Productivity, nd Commitment. Personnel Psychology (Vol. 48, No. 3) Hgermn, R.L., nd C. M. Hgermn Reserch Promotion Stndrds t Selected Accounting Progrms. Issues in Accounting Eduction (Vol. 4, No. 2) Hsselbck, J. R Accounting Fculty Directory. (New Jersey, Prentice-Hll)., A. Reinstein, nd E.S. Schwn Benchmrks for Evluting the Reserch Productivity of Accounting Fculty. Journl of Accounting Eduction (Vol. 18, No. 2) ,, nd Prolific Authors of Accounting Literture. Advnces in Accounting (Vol. 20) Heck, J. L., nd W. G. Bremser Six Decdes of The Accounting Review: A Summry of Author nd Institutionl Contributions. The Accounting Review (Vol. 61, No. 4)

18 36 Welsh nd Bremser Krm, K. E Mentoring t Work: Developmentl Reltionships in Orgniztionl Life. (Glenview, Illinois, Scott, Foresmn)., nd Isbell, L Mentoring Alterntives: The Role of Peer Reltionships in Creer Development. Acdemy of Mngement Journl (Vol. 28, No. 1) McDowell, J. M., nd J. K. Smith The Effect of Gender Sorting on Propensity to Co-uthor: Implictions for Acdemic Promotion. Economic Inquiry (Vol. 30, No. 1) Nthn, S., D. R. Hermnson, nd R. H. Hermnson Co-uthoring in Refereed Journls: Views of Accounting Fculty nd Deprtment Chirs. Issues in Accounting Eduction (Vol. 13, No. 1) Noe, R. A Women nd Mentoring: A Review nd Reserch Agend. Acdemy of Mngement Review (Vol. 13, No. 1) Rgins, B. R Brriers to Mentoring: The Femle Mnger s Dilemm. Humn Reltions (Vol. 42, No. 1) 1-22., nd J. L. Cotton Esier Sid Thn Done: Gender Differences in Perceived Brriers to Gining Mentor. Acdemy of Mngement Journl (Vol. 34, No. 4) , nd Gender nd Willingness to Mentor in Orgniztions. Journl of Mngement (Vol. 19, No. 1) , nd Mentor Functions nd Outcomes: A Comprison of Men nd Women in Forml nd Informl Mentoring Reltionships. Journl of Applied Psychology (Vol. 84, No. 4): , nd D. B. McFrlin Perceptions of Mentor Roles in Cross-Gender Mentoring Reltionships. Journl of Voctionl Behvior (Vol. 37) , nd T. A. Scndur Gender Differences in Expected Outcomes of Mentoring Reltionships. Acdemy of Mngement Journl (Vol. 37, No. 4) Snds, R. G., L. A. Prson, nd J. Dune Fculty Mentoring Fculty in Public University. Journl of Higher Eduction (Vol. 62, No. 2) Syre, T. L., S. A. Holmes, J. R. Hsslebck, R. H. Strwser, nd B. J. Rowe The Assocition of Gender with Acdemic Accountnt Slries. Journl of Accounting Eduction (Vol. 18, No. 3) Scndur, T. A., nd R. E. Vitor Mentoring in Public Accounting Firms: An Anlysis of Mentor-Protégé Reltionships, Mentorship Functions nd Protégé Turnover Intentions. Accounting, Orgniztions nd Society (Vol. 19, No. 8) Schultz, J. J., Jr., J. A. Mede, nd I. Khurn The Chnging Roles of Teching, Reserch, nd Service in the Promotion nd Tenure Decisions for Accounting Fculty. Issues in Accounting Eduction (Vol. 4, No. 1) Streuly, C. A. nd C. L. Mrnto Accounting Fculty Reserch Productivity nd Cittions: Are There Gender Differences? Issues in Accounting Eduction (Vol. 9, No. 2) Turbn, D. B., nd T. W. Dougherty Role of Protégé Personlity in Receipt of Mentoring nd Creer Success. Acdemy of Mngement Journl (Vol. 37, No. 3) Urbncic, F The Extent of Collbortion in the Production of Accounting Reserch. Accounting Eductors Journl (Vol. 4, No. 2) Zivney, T. L., W. J. Bertin, nd T. A. Gvin A Comprehensive Exmintion of Accounting Fculty Publishing. Issues in Accounting Eduction (Vol. 10, No. 1) 1-25.