Search results

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.

Many accounting departments have implemented assurance of learning (AoL) processes in the last few years because accreditation agencies have mandated it. In prior articles, we described an early assessment process (Stivers, Campbell, & Hermanson, 2000), a revised assessment process, and a suggested systems-oriented methodology for implementing an AoL process (Hill & Campbell, 2007). The purpose of this article is to provide the post-implementation review of our revised AoL process. We evaluate whether the AoL process is meeting the users’ goals effectively and efficiently. To do this, we provide the feedback we received from our Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accreditation visit, the results of a faculty survey, and some output from our AoL system. Our review indicates that while the AACSB accreditation team viewed our AoL process as a “best practice,” the faculty members evaluated the process less positively. Faculty members were concerned about the number and clarity of the learning goals, the usefulness of the information generated, and the cost/benefit of the process with respect to the time involved. We conclude that different goals for the AoL process, accountability versus course improvement, drive the difference in opinion between the accreditation team and the faculty. Changes in senior management in the college along with faculty opinions have led to significant changes in the college’s AoL process including changing the name from AoL to TLC (Teaching and Learning Community). The results of this research emphasize the importance of treating the AoL program as a dynamic process that must be periodically evaluated to determine if it is meeting the organizations’ goals for the process. If the AoL program is not meeting goals or costing too much to meet them, then it should be revised and improved.

A framework for developing a multi-course undergraduate research project is presented, which (1) allows students to connect coursework learning with real company data, (2) engages students in relevant critical analysis, and (3) provides meaningful, content-rich learning assessment data that can be used to improve student learning. Sample assignments, an assessment rubric, and sample assessment data reports are also presented to illustrate how diverse assignments, with regard to scope, structure, and accounting skills, can be evaluated and used to improve student learning across the accounting curriculum. Importantly, the process of responding to the assessment data to make improvements to “close the loop” is discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to conduct an assessment of the research productivity of the accounting and finance community in UK higher education institutions (HEIs) during 1991-2010 using 44 high-quality accounting and finance journals.

The authors follow Chan et al. (2011) to use their 22 finance journals. For accounting journals, the paper includes a set of 24 accounting journals that were used in a global accounting ranking study by Chan et al. (2007). The paper uses the number of coauthors (n) and coaffiliations (M) to derive the weighted articles as the measurement metric.

In general, the research output in terms of weighted articles steadily increases during the 20-year period. The University of Manchester, London School of Economics, and London Business School are the top-three HEIs using 44 accounting and finance journals for the full sample. The authors also find that it is a challenge to publish multiple articles. If an author is able to manage five total appearances, he/she is in the top 16 percent among the 1,447 UK authors. Furthermore, the paper finds that many highly productive authors are able to move to different jobs during the 20-year period.

The assessment of research productivity is, unavoidably, based on a set of selected accounting and finance journals. Hence, no matter what journal screening criteria the paper uses, there is always a subjective element in the process. If other journals or more/less journals were to be included in a similar study, different results may emerge. As a way to extend the value of the research, it would be interesting to obtain broader institutional knowledge, such as the tenure requirements of HEIs in UK, and information on the institutions where faculty members obtained their doctoral degrees, so that the authors can better evaluate the research productivity among accounting and finance community in the UK.

The paper conducts an assessment of the research productivity of accounting and finance community in UK HEIs during 1991-2010 using 44 high-quality accounting and finance journals. The study fills the gap of the extant literature to compliment the assessment of the UK accounting and finance departments in RAEs.

This study aims (i) to assess the quest for tax education among working adults that pursuing off‐campus non‐accounting program, (ii) to analyze the level of tax knowledge among the working adults, (iii) to elicit the relevant tax topics to be taught should tax education be integrated into non‐accounting curriculum in higher education. We surveyed 450 working adults pursuing off‐campus non‐accounting program in one Malaysian public university. 190 usable responses were received. The survey found 64 per cent of the respondents were keen to learn taxation, and only 23.7 per cent of the respondents possessed high level of tax knowledge. The topics that they desired to learn the most are basic tax principles, personal taxation, tax planning for individuals and taxation for small business and company. The findings suggest that as we moved into the era of self‐assessment tax system, it is imperative for the accounting academics and the education authorities to seriously consider introducing tax education in non‐accounting curriculum in higher education.