Accounting Department Chairs' Impressions of and Plans for Implementation of the 2013 AACSB Impact of Research Standard

• In Event: Codification and Accreditation

Abstract

Accounting Department chairs’ Impressions Of and Plans for Implementation of the 2013AACSB Impact of Research Standards

Abstract
In 2013, the AACSB unveiled sweeping changes in its accreditation standards for business and accounting. Perhaps the most significant change was the requirement that schools demonstrate the impact of faculty research, not simply that it was being performed, as had previously been the case. Developing a determination of what impact research should have in the context of the program’s mission statement, determining appropriate measurement tools, and documenting the process and its results are expected to be very challenging and time-consuming. A survey was sent to all accounting department chairs at schools holding separate AACSB accounting accreditation. Open-ended questions were used to encourage a variety of answers. Most respondents indicated that the most challenging aspect was developing metrics for impact. Citations were the most widely used metric, but had perceived weaknesses. Journal rankings were also widely used. Direct measures of impact on practice, like testimonies from organizations that had utilized accounting or organizational innovations as promoted by accounting research, were in quite limited use. The level of guidance provided by the AACSB in implementing the impact standards was rated near the midpoint, criticized for vagueness yet praised for flexibility. Most schools felt that the standard would result in more documentation work than actual changes in practices at their school. Nevertheless many felt that global changes in accounting research could result from the impact standard. Many chairs indicated concern about the possibility that AACSB review teams would have difficulties with their reaccreditation reports dealing with impact of faculty research due in part to the newness of the standard and expected subjectivity of review team members. Various other facets of schools’ dealing with the standard were examined. Suggestions for schools and the AACSB are provided in the paper.

Author

• Steven C Hunt, Western Illinois University