Search results

This paper aims to define a hierarchical and multi-criteria framework based on pillars of the Modernization of Higher Education to evaluate European Accounting Doctoral Programmes (EADE-Model).

The authors applied a quali-quantitative methodology based on the analytic hierarchy process and the survey approach. The authors conducted an extensive literature and regulation review to identify the dimensions affecting the quality of Doctoral Programmes, choosing accounting as the relevant and pivotal field. The authors also used the survey to select the most critical quality dimensions and derive their weight to build EADE Model. The validity of the proposed model has been tested through the application to the Italian scenario.

The findings provide a critical extension of accounting ranking studies constructing a multi-criteria, hierarchical and updated evaluation model recognizing the role of doctoral training in the knowledge-based society. The results shed new light on weak areas apt to be improved and propose potential amendments to enhance the quality standard of ADE.

Theoretical and practical implications of this paper are directed to academics, policymakers and PhD programmes administrators.

The research is original in drafting a hierarchical multi-criteria framework for evaluating ADE in the Higher Education System. This model may be extended to other fields.

Proposes to evidence the colonization of the accounting knowledge production process by a relatively few élite institutions in the USA. By examining the doctoral origins of the editorial board members of six major accounting research journals between 1963 and 1994, demonstrates the extent of the colonization and its potential to bring closure to the knowledge production process. As such, the results are consistent with previous studies by Lee (1995) and Williams and Rodgers (1995), and improve our understanding of the history of the professionalization of accounting research.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) member schools often compare their faculties’ research records to journal lists of their “peer and aspirational” programs. They often survey faculty and administrators’ perceptions of journal quality; number of Social Sciences Citation Index downloads; or “count” the number of faculty publications – but rarely analyze accounting programs’ actual journal quality lists. To examine this issue, we use a survey of national accounting programs. We identify a set of quality-classified journal lists by sampling 38 programs nationwide, varying by mission (e.g., urban or research), degrees granted (e.g., doctoral degrees in accounting), and national ranking (e.g., classified as a Top 75 Research Program) – from which we derive 1,436 data points that classify 359 journals that appear on these 38 programs’ journal lists. We also describe a case study that an accounting program used to revise its old journal list. We also find that while programs generally use generally accepted “bright lines” among the top three categories (A+, A, A−), they tailor their listings from the wide variety of B or C classified journals to create their own sets of acceptable journals in these categories. The study provides guidance and data for accounting programs who wish to develop or revise their own journal lists. While many studies have examined journal rankings, this is the first study to document the use of journal lists by accounting programs with a wide array of missions.

We examine and compare current practices in teaching preparation in U.S. accounting, finance, management, and economics doctoral programs.

We conduct an anonymous online survey of the pedagogical training practices experienced by Ph.D. students in accounting, finance, management, and economics programs in the United States.

Results indicate that accounting, finance, and management perform similarly with respect to providing doctoral students with first-hand teaching experience and requiring for-credit courses in teacher training. Accounting and management appear to utilize doctoral students as teaching assistants less than the other disciplines. A lower proportion of accounting doctoral students indicate that their program requires proof of English proficiency prior to teaching, and pedagogical mentoring is rare across disciplines. Accounting and management doctoral students feel more prepared to teach undergraduate courses compared to finance and economics students. However, all disciplines indicate a relative lack of perceived preparation to teach graduate courses.

This study provides empirical evidence of the current practices in pedagogical training of accounting, finance, management, and economics doctoral students.

The results highlight several areas where accounting could possibly improve with regard to pedagogical training in doctoral programs. In particular we suggest (1) changes in the teaching evaluation process, (2) development of teaching mentorships, (3) implementing a teaching portfolio requirement, and (4) incorporation of additional methods of assisting non-native English speakers for teaching duties.

The study fills a gap in the literature regarding the pedagogical training in accounting doctoral programs.

To provide potential accounting doctoral students with relevant information on various doctoral program characteristics.

Current doctoral students in accounting, representing 60 different programs in the United States, completed a survey concerning various doctoral program characteristics at their respective doctoral institutions. We examine the survey responses along with program rankings and job placement data.

Doctoral programs in accounting differ on many dimensions such as the structure of the courses and deliverables required, the student cohort profile, student research support, and teaching expectations. In addition, top tier programs differ on a variety of these characteristics from lower tiered programs.

A single student at each doctoral program completed the survey. Doctoral students’ experiences may differ between each other and programs may change. However, we asked students to respond to the survey questions as a “typical student” and as a whole, doctoral programs appear to have remained similar over the past half of century.

The intended audience for this chapter is potential accounting doctoral students. Providing them with an awareness of the different program characteristics should prove to be useful in finding a program with the appropriate fit.

Accounting doctoral programs have been ranked in the past based on publishing productivity and graduate placement. This chapter provides descriptions of accounting doctoral programs on a wider range of characteristics. These results may be particularly useful to doctoral applicants as well as to doctoral program directors, accreditation bodies, and search committees looking to differentiate or benchmark programs. They also provide insight into the current shortage of accounting doctoral graduates and future areas of research.

Doctoral programs can be differentiated on more variables than just research productivity and initial placement. Doctoral programs vary widely with respect to the following characteristics: the rate at which doctorates are conferred on women and minorities, the placement of graduates according to Carnegie classification, AACSB accreditation, the highest degree awarded by employing institution (bachelors, masters, doctorate), the extent to which graduates leave the USA, work in industry, are appointed to administrative positions, and hold endowed positions.

Research readings groups represent a recent innovation in accounting doctoral education that appears to be spreading at research-oriented universities. In this chapter, the authors describe how accounting research readings groups can serve as a mechanism to engage doctoral students in the consumption and discussion of research throughout all phases of the doctoral program. An accounting research readings group supplements the breadth of knowledge gained in doctoral seminars by adding depth of knowledge in a focal research area. The authors offer insights from the educational psychology literature to justify research readings groups as a form of team-based learning and then offer suggestions on the formation and operation of these groups. The authors enumerate the many benefits that these groups afford to both doctoral students and faculty members. The authors also distribute a survey to faculty organizers of the existing accounting research readings groups and share the results of this survey to supplement their advice with firsthand experiences, the authors also share the results of a survey distributed to faculty organizers of existing accounting research readings groups. The authors’ goal is to encourage the use of accounting research readings groups to inspire, foster, and enhance the research culture within accounting departments and doctoral programs.

Each year, hundreds of accounting doctoral students attend doctoral consortia (DC) sponsored by universities and academic organizations. This chapter reports results of a survey of consortium attendees and analysis of related consortium programs. The authors seek a better understanding of the benefits attendees perceive from these consortia, the content attendees found most valuable, and whether these consortia appear to achieve the goals of the sponsoring organizations.

Survey results show that participants perceive significant benefits from consortium activities related to research, networking, and career management. Respondents did not find their consortium experience helpful on teaching-related dimensions; however, their comments suggest a desire for additional teaching coverage. The authors make recommendations to planners of accounting DC and leadership of the American Accounting Association (AAA), a major consortium sponsor, intended first to address respondents’ desire for additional teaching coverage. Second, the authors highlight opportunities to link doctoral education to AAA’s strategic initiatives and its vision to provide global thought leadership in accounting.

This paper ranks university faculties, accounting doctoral programs, individual behavioral accounting researchers, and the most influential articles based on Google Scholar citations to publications in Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research (AABR). All articles published in AABR in its first 15 volumes are included and four citation metrics are used. The paper identifies the articles, authors, faculties, and doctoral programs that made the greatest contribution to the development of AABR. Such an analysis provides a useful basis for understanding the direction the journal has taken and how it has contributed to the literature (Meyer & Rigsby, 2001). The h-index and m-index for AABR indicates it compares favorably among its peers. Potential doctoral students with an interest in behavioral accounting research, “new” accounting faculty with an interest in behavioral accounting research, current behavioral accounting research faculty, department chairs, deans, and other administrators will find these results informative.