Vol 13, No 1; Fall 2005 FACULTY INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER THE NEW AACSB INTERNATIONAL ACCREDITATION STANDARDS Allan D. Spritzer East Tennessee State University C. David Billings The University of Alabama in Huntsville ABSTRACT In April 2003, AACSB International-The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, for the second time in twelve years, revised its standards for the accreditation of baccalaureate and graduate programs in business administration. Globalization and differences in educational missions, objectives and instructional methodologies have influenced the accreditation standards and the expectations for faculty scholarship among business programs inside and outside the United States. This paper addresses the expectations of the new AACSB International accreditation standards with respect to faculty scholarship and intellectual contributions. Unlike the previous AACSB standards which contained a single standard on intellectual contributions, the subject is now reflected in a number of different standards. The paper analyzes the expectations for intellectual contributions that are contained throughout the new standards. The discussion concludes with some observations regarding the quantity and quality of faculty scholarship that are expected from schools in order to achieve or maintain accreditation by AACSB International. The authors are veteran business school deans who have extensive experience as members of numerous AACSB International accreditation peer review teams, as members and leaders of key AACSB International accreditation-related committees and as advisors to schools seeking accreditation. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND AACSB International-The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business is the premier organization responsible for the accreditation of college and university programs in business administration and accounting (www.aacsb.edu/members/aboutus.asp). Founded in 1916, the first standards for business accreditation were introduced in 1919. The Association s seventeen founding members included six Ivy League institutions, four Big Ten universities and a number of other high quality schools that today continue to be recognized for their academic excellence and doctoral research.
By the 1950 s, about 160 universities had formally organized schools or colleges of business. In addition, more than 400 colleges and universities had departments or divisions of business. Concerned with the quality of business education, the Carnegie Foundation and the Ford Foundation commissioned separate research groups to study American business education. These studies built upon the results of an earlier survey of AACSB member schools (Kozelka, 1954). The independent Ford and Carnegie Foundation studies each found dissatisfaction with the quality of business education (Gordon and Howell, 1959 and Pierson, et al, 1959). In both reports, business departments and divisions were viewed even less favorably. Suggested improvements in curricula were generally associated with a research orientation. In their Ford Foundation report, Gordon and Howell concluded that The business schools need to develop both more pure or fundamental research and, using the best tools now available, more applied research at a high analytical level (p. 382). In the ensuing years, business schools responded by seeking to strengthen their research outputs. Those aspiring to AACSB accreditation hired graduates from the doctoral research schools to produce quality research. Publication of basic or theoretical research in high quality refereed journal articles was the standard by which schools were commonly measured for accreditation purposes. Faculty scholarship appearing in less prestigious academic journals, practitioner journals, papers published in academic proceedings, non-refereed publications such as books, paper presentations and other forms of scholarly outputs were typically viewed less favorably. During the 1960 s, 1970 s and 1980 s, a growing number of business schools sought academic credibility via AACSB accreditation. AACSB standards and their application by visit teams, however, continued to expect that schools achieve a faculty research profile characteristic of the established doctoral institutions, irrespective of the educational missions of individual schools. Thus, the scholarship of faculty at schools with undergraduate and master s degree programs, only, was often expected to emulate the doctoral schools. In a number of cases, this was achieved, though typically the quality and quantity of research were at lower levels. During the period prior to 1991, the AACSB standard on Personnel expressed the need for faculty to produce published basic scholarship (American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business, 1990-1992, p. 27). The research activities of the faculty are important to the maintenance of teaching competence and contribute to the knowledge base of the profession through the creation, codification and dissemination of knowledge. For purposes of this Standard, research activities include work that leads to the expansion of the frontiers of knowledge and applications in management and related disciplines. (Emphasis added) Scholarly productivity includes the quality and extent of research and publication. 47
Spritzer and Billings Not included among the specifically desired forms of research was scholarship related to teaching and instructional methodologies, the primary mission emphasis of virtually all schools. Those with undergraduate degree programs only, with strong teaching missions but without traditional AACSB research and publication expectations for faculty, often were discouraged or unsuccessful in their pursuit of AACSB accreditation. Moreover, many institutions whose business degree programs were housed in departments or divisions of business within broader based colleges or schools were precluded from accreditation eligibility by the Preconditions contained in the pre-1991 AACSB Standards. These required the business unit to be an autonomous degree-recommending school or college reporting to the central administration (p. 22). By the beginning of the 1990 s, two developments influenced a change in AACSB s philosophy toward accreditation, its preconditions for accreditation status, and its standards for research. Both developments had the effect of welcoming into membership and accreditation status a broader array of institutions of diverse missions and a broader array of acceptable forms of scholarship for schools seeking accreditation. The first development was the formation of a rival accrediting organization for business programs, The Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs, ACBSP. The second was a study by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching which published an extensive and widely read report, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (Boyer, 1990). According to its website (www.acbsp.org), ACBSP was founded in Kansas City, Kansas in 1988 to meet the need for business education accreditation based on the mission of the institution and of the respective business unit, an accreditation that acknowledged and emphasized quality in teaching and learning outcomes. At the time, only 260 of the 2400 higher education institutions offering programs in business were accredited by AACSB. Its new rival welcomed into membership and provided accreditation processes for many small, teaching oriented schools and departments of business. The Carnegie Foundation s Boyer Report, Scholarship Reconsidered, sparked national debate on the role of research in higher education. It also helped to change the paradigm for AACSB s philosophy and standards for faculty scholarship. These changes are reflected in the adoption by the AACSB membership of completely new standards for accreditation in 1991 and again in 2003. The Boyer Report proposed that American higher education institutions need a broader approach to the scope of faculty scholarship. It suggested that the new paradigm should view scholarship as having four separate though overlapping dimensions. These are (1) the scholarship of discovery, (2) the scholarship of integration, (3) the scholarship of application and (4) the scholarship of teaching. 48
According to Boyer, the scholarship of discovery comes closest to what is meant when academics speak of research. It demonstrates the commitment to knowledge for its own sake. It contributes to the stock of human knowledge and also to the intellectual climate of a college or university. Its quest fuels intellectual excitement, enlivens faculty and it invigorates higher learning institutions. The discovery of new knowledge is absolutely crucial (Boyer, 1990, pp. 17-18). The scholarship of integration, Boyer suggests, means the serious, disciplined work that seeks to interpret, draw together and bring new insight to bear on original research. By integration, he means making connections across disciplines, placing disciplinary specializations in a larger context and illuminating data in a revealing way. Those engaged in discovery, he suggests, ask, What is to be known, what is yet to be found? Those engaged in integration ask, What do the findings mean? (pp. 18-19). The scholarship of application leads the scholar to ask, How can knowledge be responsibly applied to problems? How can it be helpful to individuals as well as institutions? Can problems themselves define an agenda for scholarly investigation? How can professional schools connect theory and practice? (pp. 21-23). Finally, according to Boyer the scholarship of teaching suggests that the work of the professor becomes consequential only as it is understood by others. As a scholarly enterprise, teaching begins with what the teacher knows. In a Carnegie Foundation sequel to the Boyer Report, Glassik observed that, The challenge to the academic community was and continues to be the need to expand the definition of legitimate faculty work in ways that put research in proper perspective without doing it harm. A broader definition of scholarship sets the stage for giving greater legitimacy to activities in which faculty members already engage. (Glassik, Huber and Maeroff, 1997, p. 11) THE 1991 AACSB ACCREDITATION STANDARDS In 1991, the AACSB membership approved a major revision in the Association s standards for accreditation (AACSB The International Association for Management Education, 2001). These standards were replaced with new standards on April 25, 2003. The 1991 standards, however, remain operative for schools participating in the AACSB Candidacy Program who will be visited for initial accreditation review no later than the 2006-2007 academic year. The 1991 standards contained several important changes. Eligibility for accreditation was extended to business units that were not colleges or schools reporting to the central administration. This opened the door to accreditation for divisions and departments of business administration housed in liberal arts, professional schools and other entities; Emphasis in the standards was shifted from quantitative measurements of resource inputs and outputs to mission based 49
Spritzer and Billings processes and assessments whereby schools with different educational missions would be evaluated on the basis of their successes in achieving their stated missions as well as the expectations of the new standards; In addition to the achievement of overall high quality, the 1991 standards also sought evidence of continuous improvement in a school s processes, programs and productivity; The term research was virtually eliminated from the accreditation standards and was replaced by the term intellectual contributions; A new standard, specifically addressing Intellectual Contributions was added to the standards; Intellectual contributions were broadly defined to more closely reflect Boyer s categorization. The range of acceptable outlets for faculty intellectual contributions was considerably broadened. The preamble to the 1991 Intellectual Contributions Standard provides a helpful understanding of the principles and expectations underlying the role of faculty scholarship in higher education for business (p. 29). These principles and expectations are still largely operative today, even though they are not articulated in the new standards, adopted in April 2003. The Preamble states that, Producing intellectual contributions represents a core set of responsibilities of higher education for business. Such contributions improve management theory and practice, and support the current and future quality of instruction at all institutions. A wide variety of intellectual contributions are appropriate in academic institutions. For purposes of this standard, contributions have been grouped as follows: instructional development, applied scholarship, and basic scholarship. The school s mission influences the relative emphasis among the types of intellectual contributions. The actual 1991 Intellectual Contributions standard is short, only two sentences. Faculty members should make intellectual contributions on a continuing basis appropriate to the school s mission. The outputs from intellectual contributions should be available for public scrutiny by academic peers or practitioners. In the AACSB interpretations of the standard, the components of intellectual contributions are categorized as follows: Instructional Development, The enhancement of the educational value of instructional efforts of the institution or discipline; Applied Scholarship, The application, transfer 50
and interpretation of knowledge to improve management practice and teaching; Basic Scholarship, The creation of new knowledge. The written interpretations and bases for accreditation peer review team judgments in the 1991 standards (AACSB, 2001, pp. 29-30) clarify that scholarly outputs should reflect the educational mission and degree offerings of each school. There is no single model to be universally applied. The concentration and distribution of faculty intellectual activities should be consistent with the school s mission statement and documents used by the school to describe itself to interested constituencies. Generally, schools with greater emphasis on graduate instruction relative to undergraduate instruction should place greater emphasis on basic and applied scholarship. Schools with a strong emphasis on graduate programs, in particular those with a strong commitment to doctoral programs, should have a substantial emphasis on basic scholarship. Schools with a predominant emphasis on undergraduate degree programs might have the emphasis of their intellectual contributions in applied scholarship and instructional development. Schools with a mix of undergraduate and graduate programs but without doctoral programs may have a balance among the basic scholarship, applied scholarship, and instructional development. A broadening of the range of acceptable outlets for faculty scholarship is also made clear by AACSB in its interpretation of the Intellectual Contributions standard. This statement (AACSB, 2001, p. 29) supports the view that many outlets for research and publication are available to provide evidence that faculty members are engaged in appropriate intellectual contribution activity. The many outlets for scholarly outputs go well beyond the publication of refereed journal articles. Outputs from all forms of scholarship activities include publications in refereed journals (academic, professional and pedagogical), research monographs, scholarly books, chapters in scholarly books, textbooks, proceedings from scholarly meetings, papers presented at academic or professional meetings, publicly available research working papers, papers presented at faculty research seminars, publications in trade journals, in-house journals, book reviews, written cases with instructional materials, instructional software and other publicly available materials describing the design and implementation of new curricula or courses. Any of these forms of publication and presentation can support any of the emphases of the unit s mission. According to the Intellectual Contributions standard, the test of whether faculty research, writing and presentations are to be accepted as intellectual contributions is whether the outputs are available for public scrutiny by academic peers and practitioners. The decade of the 1990 s saw substantial growth in the number of schools accredited by AACSB; from under 300 schools at the end of the 1980 s 51
Spritzer and Billings to over 400 at the beginning of the 2000 s. According to the AACSB International website (www.aacsb.edu), at the time of this writing 482 schools are accredited by AACSB, representing 24 nations. An important factor in this growth was the establishment by AACSB of a Candidacy Program to assist schools seeking initial accreditation under the 1991 standards. Close to 200 schools entered this voluntary avenue to accreditation. The program is currently being phased out under the new standards adopted in April 2003 and is replaced by a Pre-Accreditation Program. The Candidacy Program required a strategic plan leading to continuous quality improvement, the mentoring of schools by a pre-candidacy advisor and annual progress reports, reviewed and evaluated by the Candidacy Committee with feedback from the committee. The liberalization of research expectations was also a factor that opened the door to accreditation for a number of business programs whose primary mission emphasis is quality teaching. Pedagogical and applied research have been encouraged as a means of improving instruction and serving the business constituents that business administration programs were designed to serve. The decade of the 1990 s was characterized by continuing concerns that AACSB accreditation was still heavily dependent upon the production of faculty intellectual contributions, particularly publication in refereed journals, and that accreditation was inadequately related to the assessment of learning resulting from the instructional activities of the business faculty. A Blue Ribbon Committee on Accreditation Quality was formed in 2001. It was charged with the responsibility of suggesting appropriate improvements in the accreditation standards. It made sense that AACSB would seriously seek continuous improvement of the accreditation standards, which themselves expected that schools offering degrees in business administration would strive for and achieve continuous improvement of their programs. Another factor influencing the need for change was the increasing interest in AACSB International accreditation by schools outside the United States and an increased interest in the accreditation of non-u.s. schools by the Association. For some of these schools, the AACSB emphasis on scholarship, publication and the production of intellectual contributions was not consistent with school priorities. THE NEW STANDARDS After months of study, meetings, deliberations and exchanges with business school and other constituents, the Blue Ribbon Committee s recommendations for changes in the accreditation standards were adopted on April 25, 2003 at the Association s annual meeting in New Orleans. Borrowing from the language of the previous (1991) standards, the Preamble of the new standards reaffirms that AACSB accreditation requires high quality and continuous improvement in business administration education. The philosophy of business accreditation expressed in the Preamble also recognizes and emphasizes the diverse nature of business programs, their missions and their activities (AACSB International, 2004, p.1-2). 52
Accreditation focuses on the quality of education. Standards set demanding but realistic thresholds, challenge educators to pursue continuous improvement, and guide improvement in educational programs One of accreditation s guiding principles is the acceptance, and even encouragement, of diverse paths to achieving high quality in management education In these activities, each institution must achieve and demonstrate an acceptable level of performance consistent with its mission while satisfying AACSB accreditation standards. Substantial opportunity remains for accredited members to differentiate themselves through a variety of activities No fixed curriculum, specific set of faculty credentials, single type of faculty performance, or approach to instruction will suffice over time. The Preamble to the standards says nothing about faculty research, scholarship, publication or intellectual contributions. The words are absent. Moreover, the new standards have eliminated a single standard for Intellectual Contributions. Does this mean that AACSB is diminishing or abandoning its expectations for faculty scholarship and publication? We do not believe so. References to faculty intellectual contributions and their relationship to various educational processes and accreditation standards are interwoven into several of the new standards and their published interpretative information. The aggregate impact of these statements reaffirms the continuing importance to the accreditation decision of faculty scholarship and the production of published intellectual contributions. The new AACSB International accreditation standards can be found on its website. The document used for the preparation of this paper contains the standards adopted on April 25, 2003 as revised with interpretations on January 1, 2004 (AACSB International, 2004). The new standards are comprised of 21 standards grouped into three categories. These categories are: Strategic Management Standards, Standards 1-5; Participants Standards, Standards 6-14 Assurance of Learning Standards, Standards 15-21. The following discussion will describe how these standards address faculty research and intellectual contributions. STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT STANDARDS AND FACULTY RESEARCH Consideration of faculty research and intellectual contributions is specifically mentioned in two of the Strategic Management Standards; Standard 53
Spritzer and Billings 2, Mission Appropriateness and Standard 5, Financial Strategies. Under the Strategic Management Standards, business schools and programs are required to articulate their mission and action items as a guide to their future and the use of resources. Standard 2, Mission Appropriateness, requires that a business school s mission be appropriate to management education and that it be consistent with the institutional mission. It also requires that specific consideration to faculty scholarship be included in the school s mission (AACSB International, 2004, p. 21ff). 2: The school s mission statement is appropriate to higher education for management and consonant with the mission of any institution of which it is a part. The mission includes the production of intellectual contributions that advance the knowledge and practice of business and management. The interpretive information provided by AACSB goes on to state that a school s mission statement must include a description of the school s emphases regarding the intellectual contributions of faculty members. In this discussion, AACSB identifies the three categories of intellectual contributions as Learning and Pedagogical Research, Contributions to Practice, and Discipline-based Scholarship. These terms replace the terms Instructional Development, Applied Scholarship, and Basic Scholarship found in the 1991 accreditation standards. Learning and pedagogical research is described as contributions that influence the teaching-learning activities of the school. These include preparation of new materials for use in courses, creation of teaching aids, and research on pedagogy. Contributions to practice, according to the AACSB interpretations, influence professional practice in the faculty member s field. Examples include articles in practice-oriented journals, creation and delivery of executive education courses, development of discipline-based practice tools, and published reports on consulting. Discipline-based scholarship is denoted by contributions that add to the theory or knowledge base of the faculty member s field. Published research results and theoretical innovation, states AACSB, qualify in this category. Faculty contributions in the aggregate are expected to reflect the school s mission. For example, the AACSB interpretations indicate that faculty members at schools that award doctoral degrees should produce discipline based scholarship. Those at schools with a mission emphasis on teaching should impact learning and pedagogical research by creating instructional research and instructional materials. Faculty members at schools with a mission focus on application should make contributions to practice by producing materials suitable for practitioners. The interpretations go on to point out that while the link between individual faculty intellectual contributions and a school s mission need not be 54
reflected in the outputs of every faculty member, taken as a whole, the portfolio of faculty contributions over the five-year period that is used for accreditation review should reflect the emphases of the school s mission. The interpretation adds, however, that in no case could a school satisfy the intellectual contributions expectations with only, or predominantly, learning and pedagogical contributions. Borrowing from the Intellectual Contributions requirement of the 1991 standards, the interpretations to the new standards state that Generally, intellectual contributions will exist in a public written form and will be available for scrutiny by academic peers or practitioners. (Emphasis added, AACSB International, 2004, p. 24) The list of appropriate outlets for the publication and other dissemination of intellectual contributions is retained, as listed previously, from the interpretations to the 1991 standards. Standard 5. Financial Strategies (p. 26), requires that: 5: The school has financial strategies to provide the resources appropriate to, and sufficient for, achieving its mission and action items. Thus, a business unit is required to assure, according to this standard s AACSB interpretations, that the school s infrastructure fits its activities, including research. This means that facilities such as faculty offices, computer equipment and other basic facilities are adequate for research activities. Among the bases for the accreditation judgment indicated by AACSB are support for faculty development, sabbatical leaves and professional travel, as well as appropriate technology support to meet faculty intellectual contributions expectations; e.g., data bases and data analysis programs (p. 27). Under the new standards all schools are required, for the first time, to develop a five-year strategic action plan outlining activities needed to accomplish continuous improvement and high quality of its programs. A financial strategies table is also required to identify the planned activities and their costs. Presumably, such plans and strategies will include steps needed and to be taken to assure that individual faculty and the faculty as a whole achieve the intellectual contributions objectives of the school, in accordance with its mission. PARTICIPANTS STANDARDS AND FACULTY RESEARCH The Participants Standards focus on maintaining a mix of student and faculty participants that achieve high quality in the activities that support achievement of a school s mission (AACSB International, 2004, p. 30). The new accreditation standards define faculty as tenured, non-tenured, full-time, parttime, clinical, etc. as appropriate. This is a departure from the previous standards which focused largely upon the qualifications and activities of full-time faculty. Under the previous standards, a school s required minimum full-time equivalent faculty (MFTE faculty), based upon a semester credit hours formula, 55
Spritzer and Billings was a primary determinant of faculty sufficiency and minimum aggregate qualifications. Under the new standards the qualifications of total faculty resources becomes paramount. Also new to the standards is the categorization of faculty as either participating faculty or supporting faculty. These new approaches may raise some questions regarding the intellectual contributions expectations for part-time and supporting faculty. Standard 9. Faculty Sufficiency (p. 34ff), states that: 9: The school maintains a faculty sufficient to provide stability and ongoing quality improvement for the instructional programs offered. The deployment of faculty resources reflects the mission and programs. Students in all programs, majors, areas of emphasis and locations have the opportunity to receive instruction from appropriately qualified faculty. The AACSB written interpretation of this standard states that in making their judgments regarding faculty sufficiency, accreditation peer review team members should consider faculty commitments to all activities, including research. Participating faculty are those who are actively engaged in the activities of the school in matters beyond direct teaching responsibilities. Participating faculty members may be full-time or part-time. Supporting faculty, according to the AACSB standards interpretations, do not as a rule participate in the intellectual or operational life of the school beyond the direct performance of teaching responsibilities. Supporting faculty may be full-time or part-time. Thus, it appears that for accreditation purposes there may be no intellectual contribution expectation for supporting faculty. Does this mean that schools should seek to classify non-researchers as Supporting faculty and limit their responsibilities to instruction only? Probably not. According to the bases for judgment under this standard, normally, Participating faculty will deliver at least 75 percent of the school s teaching and at least 60 percent of the teaching in each degree program and in each discipline. A more extensive discussion of the issues raised by the new Faculty Sufficiency standard has been written by the authors of this paper (Billings and Spritzer, 2004). The interpretations to the Faculty Sufficiency standard go on to indicate that faculty resources and faculty management should be consonant with the school s stated mission and objectives. The implications for research and intellectual contributions are contained in the statement that, Each school recruits, develops, and maintains a faculty to accomplish its mission with respect to learning, practice and scholarship. (AACSB International, 2004, p. 35) Standard 10. Faculty Qualifications and its interpretations (pp. 38ff) provide a number of critical statements underscoring the role of faculty intellectual contributions in AACSB accreditation. The standard states as follows: 56
10: The faculty has, and maintains, intellectual qualifications and current expertise to accomplish the mission and to assure that this occurs, the school has a clearly defined process to evaluate individual faculty member s contributions to the school s mission. Under this standard, at least 50 percent of a school s faculty resources must be academically qualified and at least 90 percent of faculty resources must be either academically qualified or professionally qualified. Other AACSB bases for accreditation judgments or guidance for documentation by schools include the following: In the aggregate, the portfolio of current capabilities for all faculty members is sufficient to support high quality performance of all activities in support of the school s mission. Qualified faculty resources are distributed across programs and disciplines consistent with the school s mission. The school has a clearly defined process by which it evaluates how faculty members contribute to the mission and maintain their qualifications. Maintenance of knowledge and expertise supports faculty performance through an appropriate balance, given the school s mission, through contributions over the past five years in all of the following areas: Learning and pedagogical research Contributions to practice Discipline-based research The school has a clearly defined process by which it evaluates how faculty members contribute to the mission and maintain their qualifications. Documentation must clearly identify which of the three areas of contributions is represented in each faculty member s development activities. The school should provide an aggregated summary of the qualifications and development contributions brought to the educational programs by the faculty members. The terms academically qualified and professionally qualified faculty in the new standards have been carried forward from the 1991 standards. Academic qualification requires a combination of original academic preparation (degree completion) augmented by subsequent activities that maintain or establish preparation for current teaching responsibilities (p. 39). Professional qualification requires relevant academic preparation and relevant professional experience. Normally, states the AACSB interpretation, the academic preparation should consist of a master s degree in a field related to the area of teaching. Normally, the professional experience should be relevant to the faculty member s teaching assignment, significant in duration and level of responsibility, and current at the time of hiring (p.41). The new standards contain a noteworthy modification in their description of the meaning of academic qualification. This change denotes a greater concern for the research expertise of the academically qualified faculty. The first 57
Spritzer and Billings category of academically qualified faculty described in the AACSB interpretations, Category One, includes faculty members who hold a doctoral degree in the area in which the individual teaches. Under the 1991 standards, the interpretative statement only affirmed the academic qualifications of holders of the JD degree who teach business law or legal environment and individuals who teach taxation holding the LLM in taxation or the JD with an accounting master s degree (AACSB -The International Association for Management Education, 2001. p.14). Under the new standards, the description of Category One, holders of a doctoral degree in the teaching field, has been changed. The change emphasizes the importance of research in faculty doctoral training and in faculty performance. It states a strong preference for doctoral training in basic or discipline-based research and it stresses that irrespective of the degree, a current research record in the field of teaching will be evidence of academic qualification. The new language is as follows: 1. A doctoral degree in the area in which the individual teaches. For purposes of these standards the term doctoral degree means completion of a degree program intended to produce scholars capable of creating original scholarly contributions through advances in research or theory. In some cases programs with the word doctorate (or equivalent) in the title do not have the aim to produce scholars who make original intellectual contributions. Those would not be deemed to be doctoral degrees in the sense required in the accreditation review process. Such non-research doctorates might be deemed academically qualified per category six below. Since the intent of academic qualifications is to assure that faculty members have research competence in their primary field of teaching, the existence of a current research record in the teaching field will be accepted as prima facie evidence of academic qualifications, regardless of credentials. Consistent with the above statement, the AACSB interpretations of the new standards places faculty with non-research doctorates in the same category with individuals who possess no doctoral degrees. The latter faculty members, under the 1991 standards could be classified under Category Five as academically qualified based upon a specialized master s degree in a businessrelated field and the completion of some doctoral coursework. This category has been replaced by a new Category Six which added the word research before doctoral degree. This guidance for determining faculty qualifications states as follows: 6. Substantial specialized coursework in the field of primary teaching responsibilities, but no research doctoral degree. (Emphasis added, AACSB International, 2002, p. 41) Individuals meeting this condition may constitute specialized instructional resources for the school. Such a faculty member may have a specialized 58
master s degree in a business-related field and have completed some coursework in a business doctoral program, or currently may be a student in a business doctoral program. As noted in category one above, non-research doctorates may fit this category. These individuals are considered to be academically qualified, but their number should be limited. A school should not be predominantly dependent in any discipline on persons with these qualifications. The AACSB interpretations state that normally, the proportion of nonresearch doctoral faculty described in Category Six should not exceed ten percent of the total faculty resources (p. 42). Other expectations of Standard 10 also reaffirm the importance of research and intellectual contributions as they relate to the maintenance of faculty academic qualifications. For example, Classification as academically or professionally qualified may be lost if there is inadequate evidence of contributions in the last five years through learning and pedagogical research, contributions to practice, or disciplinebased scholarship. All faculty members are expected to demonstrate activities that maintain the currency and relevance of their instruction. Faculty members can maintain qualifications through a variety of efforts including production of intellectual contributions, professional development, and current professional experience. The choice of activities to maintain currency and relevance may change at different times during a faculty member s career. Expectations of the school, as well as individual characteristics and circumstances, will guide the choice of maintenance efforts. The portfolio of intellectual contributions (Standard 2) is expected to emanate from a substantial cross-section of faculty in each discipline, and the school should have established clear expectations for the intellectual contributions responsibility of individual faculty members. The importance of high quality research and publication under the new AACSB accreditation standards is further reflected in the nature and manner in which individual and discipline based faculty information is requested and reported for accreditation purposes. In the interpretive materials developed for Standard 10, Faculty Qualifications, AACSB has constructed a table to be completed by schools (AACSB International, 2004, p. 47). The title of this table is, Table II: Summary of Faculty Intellectual Contributions and Qualifications (Re: Standards 2, 9, and 10). This table requests information on the teaching field, degree preparation and intellectual contributions of full-time and part-time faculty members during the five-year period of accreditation review. It also requires the school to indicate for each faculty member whether the individual is academically qualified and/or professionally qualified or Other, i.e., neither academically nor professionally qualified. The information is reported for each faculty member, by academic discipline. 59
Spritzer and Billings TABLE II: Summary of Faculty Intellectual Contributions and Qualifications (Re : Standards 2, 9, & 10) Name Highest Earned Degree & Year Percent of Fulltime Dedicated to Teaching Acad Qual Prof Qual Other Learning & Pedagogical S cholarship Contributions during the last five years Contributions to Practice Discipline-Based Scholarship PRJ OIC PRJ OIC PRJ OIC That the quantity and quality of individual intellectual contribution productivity is important to the accreditation review process is indicated by the fact that Table II requests summary information for each faculty member, by teaching field, on the number of peer reviewed journal publications, as well as other intellectual contributions, produced during the past five years. These totals are reported by individual for each of the three categories of learning and pedagogical research, contributions to practice and discipline-based scholarship. Requesting and reporting faculty peer reviewed journal publication activity sends the message that the quantity and quality scholarship has a role to play in the accreditation review of all schools. EMERGING DIRECTIONS With renewed emphasis on research and intellectual contributions has come increased interest in measuring scholarly achievement through publication in peer reviewed journals. We can see emerging directions of business school management that address enhancing intellectual contributions through four standards: Standard 2. Mission Appropriateness; Standard 5. Financial Strategies; Standard 10. Faculty Qualifications; as well as Standard 11. Faculty Management and Support. With regard to Mission Appropriateness [Standard 2], one section of the strategic plan should be devoted to encouraging and supporting intellectual contributions. While some schools may seek to increase the quantity of intellectual contributions, many schools are also addressing the quality of their intellectual contributions. One test of research quality is the quality of the journal in which the research is published. Information on the quality of journals is available in Cabell s Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Business: Accounting, Economics and Finance, Management, and Marketing. Some business schools have adopted strategic management performance indicators related to the acceptance rate of a journal as published in Cabell s. Another test of research quality is the impact of the research on the discipline. Information on journals which have an impact on disciplines is available in The Institute for Scientific Information s Journal Citation Reports, Social Science Index and Science Citation Index (www.isinet.com). Some 60
schools have adopted strategic management performance indicators related to the journal lists published by the Institute for Scientific Information. Another test of research quality is the ranking of journals by faculty within a discipline. Researchers in business disciplines have published articles ranking journals in specific disciplines. In addition, the Financial Times and Business Week have begun publishing lists of top journals. Some schools have adopted strategic management performance indicators related to publishing in the top journals reported in these disciplinary journals. Other schools have developed their own lists of journal rankings for their faculty to target. Some schools have targeted the Financial Times and/or Business Week journal lists. The business press such as Business Week, The Financial Times, U.S. News and World Report, and The Wall Street Journal, have published their rankings of business schools. These rankings include a component of academic reputation or intellectual capital which is related to research output and its quality. Some schools have adopted strategic management performance indicators related to placement in these rankings. The Business Research Project (www.businessresearch.ca) provides a more comprehensive and more flexible assessment of research rankings than has previously been made available. The website user may create a ranking of schools by selecting a set of journals, a particular time period, a discipline, and a region of the world, say, the U.S. Some schools have used this tool to evaluate the accomplishments of their various departmental faculties. Whether a school is strategically addressing the quantity or the quality or the ranking of its intellectual contributions, we expect that its strategic plan will include a research plan. The research plan should outline business unit and individual faculty intellectual contributions objectives, actions to be undertaken, time frame, responsible persons, resources needed, funding sources, and measurable results to be achieved. With regard to Financial Strategies [Standard 5], schools should identify financial strategies to provide resources to support faculty research action items. Examples of resource needs requiring financial strategies include reassigned time for research, graduate assistants, research seminars, offices suitable for research, research mentoring, travel support for data collection and paper presentations, communications hardware and software, high quality computing hardware and software resources, databases, data analysis software programs, laboratories, sabbatical leaves, summer research stipends, and research awards. Under Faculty Qualifications [Standard 10], schools will have to answer at least three questions. First, what are the intellectual contributions criteria the school uses to classify its faculty as academically qualified? Second, do these criteria and the associated expectations for individual faculty academic qualifications also meet the expectations of the AACSB standards for intellectual contribution productivity for schools with similar educational missions? Third, are these criteria and results consistent with those of comparison schools? 61
Spritzer and Billings Answering these questions will require schools to address the requirements for academic qualifications of faculty. A minimum level of intellectual contributions is required for faculty to be considered academically qualified at all schools. In addition, faculty members must engage in constant learning activity to maintain currency with their fields developing research and theory. Written faculty development plans should be prepared for those whose academic qualifications may be questionable. The expectations for faculty qualifications and intellectual contributions are greater for faculty who teach at the master s or doctoral levels than for those who teach at the undergraduate level only. Schools with graduate programs will have to address graduate faculty issues. What are the criteria to teach graduate courses? Are these criteria consistent with those of comparison schools? What percentage of the graduate student credit hours are taught by qualified graduate faculty? Schools will address faculty deployment issues related to the intellectual contributions portfolio of individual faculty members. What are the different expectations for intellectual contributions of faculty (a) who teach undergraduate courses, (b) who teach master s or doctoral level courses, (c) who conduct doctoral seminars and/or - who supervise dissertations? The new standards emphasis on the school s intellectual contributions portfolio impacts the school s Faculty Management and Support system [Standard 11]. This standard expects well-documented and communicated processes in place to manage and support faculty members over the progression of their careers, including the determination of intellectual expectations and workloads. The school s faculty resource plan s recruitment and selection criteria will seek new faculty who have the background, training, and interest to produce intellectual contributions that reflect the school s mission. Within the constraints of offering the needed courses, assignment of faculty responsibilities should include teaching assignments made to provide blocks of time for faculty research. Enhanced communication of performance expectations should include systematic orientation of new faculty members to intellectual contribution expectations. The reappointment, promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review processes should include a minimum level (quantity and quality) of peer reviewed journal articles and other publicly available intellectual contributions expected for promotion and tenure. The annual reward process should incorporate intellectual contributions as one of the major criteria for annual performance review and a major basis for awarding merit pay increases when they are available. CONCLUSION The new AACSB standards for business accreditation continue to reaffirm the desire for diversity among schools in a system driven by mission priorities and the need to foster excellence in student learning. Change is an evolutionary process. Realistically, the impact of the new standards on faculty 62
research and intellectual activities and productivity will not be known until the new standards are operative for a number of years. At least as important as the wording of the standards, themselves, will be the judgments made by the members of the peer review teams who will be asked to apply the standards in their assessment of each applicant for initial accreditation or maintenance of accreditation. From our analysis of the role of intellectual contributions under the new standards it is apparent that expectations of quality in faculty research, scholarship and publication have not been abandoned. We are therefore, at least for the present time, in agreement with Hazeldine and Munilla (2004) whose recent study of the new AACSB standards concludes that, The old adage the more things change, the more they stay the same appears to hold true for business school accreditation. REFERENCES AACSB -The International Association for Management Education (2001). Achieving Quality and Continuous Improvement through Self-Evaluation and Peer Review. St. Louis, MO. http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business/business Standards2000.pdf AACSB International The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (2004). Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation. Tampa, FL http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business/standards01-01-04.pdf American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (1990-1992). AACSB Accreditation Council Policies, Procedures and Standards. St. Louis, MO: AACSB, 50 pp. Billings, C.D., & Spritzer, A.D. (2004). An Analysis of Faculty Sufficiency Under the New AACSB Accreditation Standards. Proceedings of the American Society of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 11, 122-128. Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 147pp. Cabell, David W.E., Editor (2004). Cabell s Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Business: Accounting, Economics and Finance, Management, and Marketing, Ninth Edition, 2004-2005. Beaumont, Texas. Cabell Publishing Co. 63
Spritzer and Billings Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., & Maeroff, G.I. (1997). Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers, 130pp. Gordon, R.A. & Howell, J.E. (1959). Higher Education for Business. New York City: Columbia University Press, 491pp. Hazeldine, M.F. & Munilla, L.S. (2004). The 2003 AACSB Accreditation Standards and Implications for Business Faculty: A Short Note. Journal of Education for Business, 80, 29-34. Kozelka, R.L. (1954). Professional Education for Business. Minneapolis, MN: American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business. Pierson, F.C., et. al. (1959). The Education of American Businessmen. New York City: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 64