36
The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada* JEAN BEDARD Universite Laval COLIN DODDS Saint Mary's University The agetida for universities in Canada and elsewhere in the world is very broad as they face the challenges of accessibility, market forces, fiscal restraint, and the need to be more accountable to governments and the community as a whole (see, for example, Berdahl 1984; Broadhurst 1993; Sibley 1987; and Smith 1991). The increased demand for public accountability has the potential to threaten the traditional autonomy of universities. With rising expectations of the performance of organizations and the quality of products and services in the economy, it is perhaps not surprising that issues of quality and performance measures', application of new technologies, types of research, and determina- tion of the balance to be struck in the allocation of time across teaching, research, and service are all now part of the post-secondary education agenda. At the same time, various reports from many countries, including Canada (see, for example, MacDonald Commission 1985), have recognized the critical importance of universities to the growth of regional and national economies. Furthermore, they have pointed to the need for universities, including their busi- ness schools, to play a more proactive role in this process, including its intema- tional dimensions. In Canada, the university system, and within that the business schools, reflects a diversity of size and range of missions. This, of course, can be a strength to be fostered in the diverse paths to the achievement of excellence. Although there are some national accreditation bodies for various professional programmes, for example, in engineering and medicine, this is not the case in management education, unlike the United States where the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools in Business (AACSB) provides a benchmark against * The authors wish to acknowledge the financial assistance of the Canadian Academic Accounting Association (CAAA) and the comments of David Bateman, David Cooper, Yvon Houle, John Waterhouse, workshop participants at Laval University, and an anonymous asses- sor. The usual rider applies that the views expressed in this paper are those of the authors. Contemporary Accounting Research Special Education Research Issue 1994 pp 75-109 ®CAAA

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The UniversityAccounting Professoriate

in Canada*

JEAN BEDARD Universite Laval

COLIN DODDS Saint Mary's University

The agetida for universities in Canada and elsewhere in the world is very broadas they face the challenges of accessibility, market forces, fiscal restraint, andthe need to be more accountable to governments and the community as a whole(see, for example, Berdahl 1984; Broadhurst 1993; Sibley 1987; and Smith1991). The increased demand for public accountability has the potential tothreaten the traditional autonomy of universities. With rising expectations of theperformance of organizations and the quality of products and services in theeconomy, it is perhaps not surprising that issues of quality and performancemeasures', application of new technologies, types of research, and determina-tion of the balance to be struck in the allocation of time across teaching,research, and service are all now part of the post-secondary education agenda.At the same time, various reports from many countries, including Canada (see,for example, MacDonald Commission 1985), have recognized the criticalimportance of universities to the growth of regional and national economies.Furthermore, they have pointed to the need for universities, including their busi-ness schools, to play a more proactive role in this process, including its intema-tional dimensions.

In Canada, the university system, and within that the business schools,reflects a diversity of size and range of missions. This, of course, can be astrength to be fostered in the diverse paths to the achievement of excellence.Although there are some national accreditation bodies for various professionalprogrammes, for example, in engineering and medicine, this is not the case inmanagement education, unlike the United States where the American Assemblyof Collegiate Schools in Business (AACSB) provides a benchmark against

* The authors wish to acknowledge the financial assistance of the Canadian AcademicAccounting Association (CAAA) and the comments of David Bateman, David Cooper, YvonHoule, John Waterhouse, workshop participants at Laval University, and an anonymous asses-sor. The usual rider applies that the views expressed in this paper are those of the authors.

Contemporary Accounting Research Special Education Research Issue 1994 pp 75-109 ®CAAA

Page 2: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

76 Contemporary Accounting Research

which externally assessed performance measurement can be made, includingrecognition of the diversity of institutions (see AACSB 1991). Later in thispaper we examine some of the AACSB benchmarks in the context of our ownfmdings for the sample of eight universities.

Although there are many issues that are speciftc to tbe accounting disci-pline and its professoriate, it is difftcult to .separate tbese from those that impacton business schools and universities as a whole. The multi-disciplinary natureand increased internationalization of tbe business curricula, the positioning ofbusiness schools within universities, tbeir societal role, and the "markets" andprofessions they seek to serve (see Porter and McKibbin 1988), all provide chal-lenges and opportunities for the professoriate. Tbe increasing role of businesstraining through the private sector and the pace of technological cbange, whichwill increase competition among universities, including the potential forincreased cross-border post-secondary educational provision, particularly fromthe United States, are further indicators ofthe pervasiveness of change.

The purpose of this paper is to be descriptive^ and provide some insightsinto tbe full-time accounting faculty in Canada. Table 1 attempts to provide aconceptual framework for our study. It illustrates the impact of macro-environ-mental forces and the accounting professional bodies on universities; the inter-play of teaching, research (see Boyer 1990), and service within accountingdepartments, business schools, and universities; and the reward systems in placefor faculty. Some of tbese issues are also covered in Etherington and Richardson(1994).

TABLE IThe accounting professoriate and their environment

MACRO-ENVIRONMENT ACCOUNTINGPROFESSIONAL BODIES

FACULTYDemand/supply of

facultyDemographicsFormal educationPractice experienceProfessional

certification

Department/SchoolAJniversityOrganizational context

ACTIVITIESTeachingResearchServiceConsulting

REWARDSSalaryPromotionTenureSabbatical

In the first part of tbe paper we provide an overview of the accounting fac-ulty in Canada and an analysis of tbe imbalance of the supply of and demand for

Page 3: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 77

accounting faculty. Then we provide a detailed analysis of the accounting facul-ty, their activities, and the reward systems, using a questionnaire^ from the eightsample universities that are shared in common with all of the four studies.

The following universities were included in the sample: University ofAlberta (UA), Simon Fraser University (SFU), Saint Mary's University (SMU),Queen's University (QU), University of Toronto (UT), University of Waterloo(UW), Universite Laval (UL), and Universite du Quebec a Montreal (UQAM).

The accounting professoriateFrom a study of the data available from Hasselback (1992) and the CanadianFederation of Deans of Management and Administrative Studies (CFDMAS1993a), it is evident that accounting has had the largest percentage share of fac-ulty within business schools (20 percent) and the lowest percentage of facultywith Ph.D.s (44 percent). The faculty complement has increased since the Scott(1986) study, as has the proportion of Ph.D.s (see Table 2). Though regionalvariations still exist, there are even wider variations among institutions, withsome universities not having a single accounting faculty member with a Ph.D.

TABLE 2Percentage of full-time accounting faculty with a Ph.D.* degree by region for1985 and 1992

1985 1992

Atlantic Canada 13.7 25.0Quebec 20.0 35.8Ontario 37.0 54.0Prairies 39.3 47.7British Columhia 60.0 70.0Canada - Average 32.0 44.4

Total Number of Faculty 473 510

* Including ABDs

Source: Scott (1986); Hasselback (1992); CFDMAS Directory (1993a).

Although the low proportion of Ph.D.s is, in part, a function of the chronicsupply situation, other determinants include the perceived importance of profes-sional accounting qualifications and practice experience. Table 1 illustrates thedifficulties for accounting professoriate of striking a balance between account-ing as an academic discipline within the institutional norms of a university andthe demand for them to be the enabling resource to provide the managers of thefuture and to improve the practice of accounting and management. Concerns

Page 4: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

78 Contemporary Accounting Research

over the need for students and faculty to understand the realities of the practiceenvironment are not specific to Canada (see Arthur Anderson & Co, et al, 1989for the United States), As a result, it is not surprising that there have been manycalls for an increased focus by higher education towards teaching and coursedevelopment (see Accounting Education Change Commission [AECC] 1990;Smith 1991), Such a change may require a major shift in the recruitment, devel-opment, and evaluation of faculty members, including their "training".

The doctoral degree has traditionally been regarded as the entry qualifica-tion to a tenure-track position in a Canadian university, as it is supposed todemonstrate competency in research and confirm knowledge, both of a broadrange of subject matter relevant to a discipline and of a specialized area indepth. The shortage of faculty with doctorates has been well documented forCanadian business schools (see von Zur-Muehlen 1992; for accounting see, forexample, Beechy 1980; Scott 1986)'*, However, support for doctoral studies inCanada in business by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council(SSHRC) has been limited, and in the past 20 years has averaged only 5 percentof the total; in some years it has been as low as 1 percent. For accounting, dataare only available since 1986; they show that at the most nine, and sometimes asfew as four, scholarships were given in each year. With this level of support,doctoral students in business, including accounting, must rely on other sourcesof funding. For accounting, these funds include external fellowships from theprovincial professional institutes of the Chartered Accountants and Society ofManagement Accountants, provincial funding in Quebec, paid study leave fromuniversities, personal funding, and, for some visa students, funding from theCanadian International Development Agency (CIDA).

Table 3 provides data on the number of accounting Ph,D,s from Canadianprogrammes, with a forecast of supply to 1997, The table confirms the comingto maturity of accounting programmes with the potential graduation of over 40new graduates by 1997, It also illustrates that some accounting faculty are grad-uating with doctorates from universities who do not have Ph,D, programmes inaccounting. The new programme recently launched by Manitoba and theplanned programme at Saint Mary's have the potential of contributing to thesupply only towards the end of the century, given the average time to comple-tion in Canada of five years for Ph,D,s in accounting. The potential supply wereport is also subject to slippage. Graduates may choose to accept positions out-side of Canada, given the global shortage of accounting faculty. In addition, ifimmigration requirements are tightened, visa students may not be able to acceptpositions in Canada as easily as in the past.

In comparing Tables 2 and 3, we cannot account for the increase in the pro-portion of Canadian Ph,D,s from Canadian sources. It is not surprising, there-fore, that in Table 4, where we give data for faculty appointments in accountingby source of Ph,D,s, we find a heavy reliance on graduates of foreign Ph.D, pro-grammes. However, data from von Zur-Mueblen (1992) would indicate a largeproportion of these are Canadian citizens.

Page 5: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 79

TABLE 3Nuttiber of accoutiting Ph.D.s* from Canadian programmes (since inception) to30th of June, 1985 and 30th of June, 1992, and potential future supply

University

AlbertaLavalMontreal Consortium**Queen'sWestem

UBCWaterloo

Total

Totalto 1985

051

27

80

23

Totalto 1992

611

26

13160

54

ForecastSupplyto 1997

63584

8

It

45

* There are some universities who do not have a Ph.D. programme in accounting, yet facultyfor these programmes are recruited into accounting positions. These include McMaster (2),Ottawa (1), Simon Fraser (2), Toronto (5), and York (2). In addition, there are a number ofABDs. The figures in parentheses are tbe number of new hires to 1992.** Includes McGill, UQAM, HEC, and Concordia.

Source: Scott (1986); Hasselback (1992); and survey data.

TABLE 4Faculty appointments in accounting by source of Ph.D.s, 1982-92

Total*CanadaPb.D.s ABD Ph

U.D.s

.S.A.ABD

OtherPh.D.s

Total 42 10 67 12 14 218

* All appointments, including term positions

Source: von Zur-Muehlen (1992).

On the demand side, we have a dynamic picture. The post-secondary envi-ronment of the 1990s is substantially different from previous periods. Untilrecently, enrollments of both full- and part-time students continued to grow (seeAmemic and Fortin 1994). Many universities have had unfilled tenure-trackpositions in accounting. However, it is difficult now to be precise about theenrollments of students into business programmes and, within this, into specificdisciplines. If we were in a static equilibrium situation, we could envisage areplacement demand of retirements and mortality, as illustrated in Table 5. The

Page 6: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

1994199519961997199819992000

77131416\518

80 Contemporary Accounting Research

demand for replacement, not including the open positions, would outstrip theforecasted supply of new Ph.D.s from Canadian programmes and, as a result,Canada would have to rely on a continued inflow from the United States andelsewhere. In addition, the smaller universities would continue to have problemsin recruiting Ph.D. faculty, because they tend to be less competitive in salaryand other benefits than their larger counterparts (see Murgatroyd and Dodds1988).

TABLE 5

Anticipated replacement demand for accounting faculty

Retirements* Mortality** Total

3 10

3 103 163 173 193 183 21

* Based on a single-year age structure of 510 in 1992 (see Table 2) and a similar age structureto all management faculty.** 0.5 percent of faculty

Source: Statistics Canada; von Zur-Muehlen (1992)

However, the replacement demand is subject to uncertainty, because theretirement of faculty at age 65 is no longer a requirement in some provinces,and more particularly, if enrollment into business continues to decline, and ifuniversities continue to face fiscal constraints and have to down-size, the effectwill be felt on the replacement of faculty. One further dimension that makesforecasting on the demand side even more problematic is that, if businessschools adopt a more multi-disciplinary and "markets" driven curriculum andresearch, this will lead inevitably to the need for a more flexible and creativerecruitment strategy, leading to a change in the composition of faculties overtime, with perhaps less reliance on graduates from the current doctoral pro-grammes.

The accounting professoriate in the eight sample universitiesThis section provides an analysis of the accounting faculty in Canada, utilizingquestionnaire data from the eight case schools which were derived with aneffective date for 1992. The response rate was 55 percent (see Table 6), a ratefalling within the range found in the other studies of this research project, buthigher than the response rate of 38 percent found in the Schultz (1989) study.

Page 7: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 81

The response rate varied from a low of 31 percent (UQAM) to a high of 93 per-cent (SMU). The low response rate may be attributed to a possibility of identify-ing the faculty from the answers to the questionnaire as well as to a sentimentagainst faculty surveys.

TABLE 6Socio-demographic characteristics - Faculty composition and qualifications(Complete population)

Faculty composition

Academic RankFullAssociateAssistantLecturer

Study leave*

UA

16727

00

SFU

1313630

SMU

144532

0

QU

122541

0

UT

214548

0

UW

267892

0

UL

1754332

UQAM**

49n/an/an/an/a

5

Total

168303236197

% Female 7 23 29 8 48 8 12 29 22

Faculty qualifications

% Doctorate

% Doctorate or ABD% ProfessionalDesignation

Response rate***

Questionnairesdistributed*ReturnedquestionnairesResponse Rate (%)

87

9340

13

10

11

11

11

69

11

6

55

505086

14

13

93

676767

6

3

50

525281

16

7

44

737361

22

17

77

677365

13

7

54

363667

42

13

31

565867

137

76

55

* Faculty members on study leave were excluded from the denominator for these percentages.** UQAM did not have traditional academic ranks.

*** Questionnaires were not distributed to faculty members on study leave, or other leaves ofabsence.

Source: Hasselback (1992); for UQAM, Hasselback (1993)

The facultyAs we indicated earlier in Table 1, faculty composition and qualifications are anessential part of the educational process. In Tables 6 and 7 we give the socio-demographic characteristics for the eight sample universities. Table 6 is basedon Hasselback (1992, 1993) and includes all the faculty members from the eight

Page 8: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

82 Contemporary Accounting Research

sample schools, whereas Table 7 includes data only from the faculty memberswho responded to the questionnaire. We found from our survey that the "typi-cal" university accounting faculty member was a tenured 45-year-old male, bomin Canada, having eight years of practice experience, and holding both a doctor-al degree and a professional designation.

TABLE 7Socio-demographic characteristics - Faculty composition and qualifications(Survey respondents)

UA

Faculty composition**

Age% tenuredCountry of Origin - %Canada

Faculty qualifications

% Doctorate or ABD% Professionaldesignation

Universityexperience (years)Accounting practiceexperience (years)

4880

40

9360

17.8

8.3

SFU

5033

50

10083

8.8

12.5

SMU

4264

62

6285

9.8

8.6

QU

40100

33

33100

11.2

4.3

UT

4571

57

7186

14.6

6.4

UW

4771

94

8282

16.1

6.3

UL

3957

100

10086

9.6

3.5

UQAM*

4592

77

5482

12.5

10

Total

4570

70

7583

12.1

7.8

* UQAM did not have traditional academic rank.** We do not report the gender breakdown by institution because the relatively small numbersin some Universities could lead to a potential breach of confidentiality. The overall percent-age from the questionnaire data was 18 percent.

Source: Hasselback (1992): for UQAM, Hasselhack (1993)

A typical university professor's career has three steps. The first appoint-ment is usually at the rank of assistant professor. Tenure and promotion to asso-ciate professor are contingent upon satisfactory perfonnance and, for individu-als demonstrating superior performance over a period of time, there is theopportunity of promotion to the rank of full professor. This pattern held for allthe case universities except UQAM where there were no traditional academicranks^. Through time, depending on the turnover of faculty, we can exp)ect to seea movement of faculty through the ranks. At the case universities (see Table 6),excluding UQAM, the proportion of faculty at the full professor (30 percent)and associate professor (32 percent) rank were lower than the Canadian averageof 37 percent and 34 percent respectively (see Lennards 1987). The proportion

Page 9: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 83

of assistant professors was correspondingly higher at 36 percent. However, wedid find important differences among the case universities, which may havebeen caused by the period the positions were made available, the creation ofendowed chairs, and the promotion success rate at the various institutions.Another source of variation was that all universities, except Alberta, had full-time lecturers, with Toronto having the most (38 percent of the total accountingfaculty).

Our data (Table 6) indicate that 22 percent of accounting faculty werewomen - slightly higher than the national average of 20 percent. However,women were still greatly under-represented compared with the proportion ofaccounting students who are women (54 percent for the case schools; seeAmernic and Fortin 1994). The proportion of women faculty varied from a lowof 7 percent at Alberta to a high of 48 percent at Toronto, with women concen-trated in the more junior ranks. Our survey also found that fewer women held aPh.D. degree (41 percent for women compared with 61 percent for men).

Turning to faculty qualifications, the AACSB (1991) standards indicate thatthe faculty, in aggregate, should have sufficient academic and professional qual-ifications to accomplish the school's mission. A person is considered academ-ically qualified if he/she holds a doctorate, or in some cases a Master's degreeor some other specialized coursework, and professionally qualified if he/she hasboth relevant academic preparation and relevant professional experience.According to the AACSB standards, at least 50 percent of the minimum full-time equivalent* (MFTE) faculty should be academically qualified and 90 per-cent of the MFTE faculty be either academically or professionally qualified. Inthe fall of 1992, the percentage of the case universities' professors holding adoctoral degree (or ABD) was 58 percent (see Table 6), which was higher thanthe national average for accounting of 44 percent (see Table 2), but lower thanthe Canadian average for all disciplines (68 percent in 1990-91). This was com-parable to the proportion of U.S. accounting professors holding a doctoraldegree of 54 percent (see Schultz 1989). Again, there were large variationsamong the sample institutions. The University of Alberta, which is accredited bythe AACSB, had the highest percentage of faculty holding a doctorate (87 per-cent), while UQAM had the lowest proportion (36 percent). In keeping with theresults presented in Table 4, doctoral studies abroad was a characteristic of thefaculty at the case universities, with 66 percent of the doctoral degrees from for-eign schools. The U.S. schools were the main supplier with 57 percent of thedegrees; Europe was second with 10 percent. As we might expect, francophoneand anglophone universities were dissimilar in this respect. For anglophone uni-versities, 67 percent of faculty with doctoral degrees were from U.S. schoolsand 3 percent were from European schools. Francophone universities were char-acterized by a lower proportion of degrees from U.S. schools (32 percent) and alarger proportion of degrees from European schools (28 percent). The linguisticfactor appears to be a likely candidate to explain those differences.

As Table 3 illustrates, the University of British Columbia has been thelargest supplier of doctoral degrees. This was confirmed for the case schools.

Page 10: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

84 Contemporary Accounting Research

with 11 faculty members holding a degree from that institution. Other majorsuppliers have been Laval (four). Alberta, Queen's and Western Ontario (three),Waterloo and Toronto (two) and Universite de Montreal, Simon Fraser, andUQAM (one). The University of Minnesota (eight), Cornell University (five),and the University of Washington (six) were the most frequent U.S. suppliers.Universite de Grenoble (three) was the most frequent European supplier.

Our questionnaire results (see Table 7) indicate that the median age ofaccounting professors from the case schools was 45, compared with the medianage for Canadian professors of 47 years. By rank, the median age for accountingprofessors was 49, 46, and 38 years for the full, associate, and assistant profes-sor ranks respectively. The age structure, however, indicated a younger faculty,with 32 percent of the professors being under 40 years, 53 percent beingbetween 40 and 54 years, and 16 percent being 55 years or more. These resultscan be compared to the averages of Canadian professors of 23 percent, 55 per-cent and 22 percent respectively. The results are consistent with the higher pro-portion of assistant professors in accounting.

According to Lennards (1988), 55 percent of Canadian academics werebom in Canada, 15 percent in the United Kingdom, and 11 percent in the UnitedStates. In Quebec, these numbers were different, with 66 percent of facultymembers born in Canada, 7 percent in France, 4 percent in the United Kingdom,and 6 percent in the United States. For the case universities, 70 percent of theaccounting faculty were from Canada and 11 percent from the United States(see Table 7). This high rate of Canadian citizenship was driven by the fran-cophone case universities. At these universities (Laval and UQAM) 85 percentof the faculty members were from Canada, compared with 64 percent at anglo-phone universities. Language barriers, differences in accounting practice, and amore practice-oriented approach found in other French speaking countriesmight explain the higher rate of accounting academics from Canada in fran-cophone universities.

We have already referred to the issue of balancing formal academic rigourwith professional practice. Having knowledgeable, professionally qualified fac-ulty is considered important by the large accounting firms (Arthur Andersen &Co. et al. 1989) and by the AACSB (1991). Accreditation standards state thataccounting faculty "must possess a level of relevant practical experience in busi-ness and accounting and must demonstrate an appropriate level of professionalinteraction consistent with the accounting unit's mission". Two proxies are usedto evaluate the practical knowledge of faculty members: holding a professionaldesignation and the amount of practical accounting experience. As indicated inTable 6, 67 percent of the faculty at the case schools had a professional designa-tion, a proportion higher than in the United States (60 percent) and over theminimum level of 40 percent of the MFTE required by the AACSB for a depart-ment whose mission is to prepare students to enter professional accountingpractice. In general, the proportion of faculty holding a professional designationwas between 60 percent and 70 percent, except for Alberta where it was lower(40 percent), and for Saint Mary's (86 percent) and Toronto (81 percent) where

Page 11: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 85

it was higher. Certificatioti as a public accoutitant (Chartered Accountant) (58percent) and Certified Public Accountant (8 percent) were the most frequentprofessional qualifications, with 83 percent of the respondents holding one ofthose designations. The Certified Management Accountant certification was sec-ond (17 percent), and the Certified General Accountants certification third (5percent).

In addition to professional certification, survey respondents (see Table 7)had accumulated on average 7.8 years of practice experience prior to becomingfull-time professors. Consistent with the certification pattem, auditing was thearea in which accounting faculty had most practice experience (39 percent), fol-lowed by financial accounting, managerial accounting, and tax (see Table 8). Alarge proportion of the experience (19 percent) was in other areas (such as man-agement and consulting)^ Accounting faculty devoted most of their teachingtime to financial accounting (34 percent) and managerial accounting (29 per-cent). The proportion of practice experience in these two areas was smaller;however, the auditing experience may have included work related to financialand managerial accounting.

TABLE 8Relationship between teaching and work experience

AuditingFinancial accountingManagerial accountingAccounting infonnation systemsTaxationGovernmentalAccounting research/metbodologyOtber

Work experience

Montbs

24.715.212.112.44.63.8n/a

20.3

Percent

3914114

112

n/a19

Percentage ofteacbing time

1334293

10I46

Their activitiesThe questionnaire focused on the mix of activities undertaken by an accountingfaculty member. As Table 1 indicates, faculty responsibilities consist of threemain activities: teaching, research, and service, although consulting is anotheractivity open to many business faculty members. Two models of activities havebeen identified in the literature. The traditional Humboldt model suggests thatall university professors are researchers and each professor should be responsi-ble for the three main activities. The second model suggests that the three mainactivites should be carried out by the department, but that they should be distrib-uted among professors according to interests and competencies. To gather infor-

Page 12: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

86 Contemporary Accounting Research

mation on the faculty workweek, professors were asked to provide the percent-age of their working week devoted to more detailed coverage of activities overthe past three years. They were asked to make two judgments: one for the nine-month academic year and one for the traditional summer period. The results, asgiven in Table 9, indicated an average workweek of 50.0 hours for the nine-month academic year and 42.5 hours for the summer period, which is similar tonumbers found in the United States (51.1 and 41.2 hours respectively [Schultz1989]) and in Quebec (50 and 40 hours respectively [Bertrand 1993]). Our sur-vey data suffer from the caveat of being based on self-reports by faculty, and asa result workweeks may be exaggerated (see Boice 1987).

TABLE 9Allocation of time during a typical week

Activities/Hours per week*

Nine-monthacademic

year50.0 hours

Traditionalsummerperiod

42.5 hours

23 h(46%)

3h

(6%)

8h(16%)

4.5 h(9%)

3.5 h(8%)

5.5 h(13%)

14.5 h(34%)

8.5 h(20%)

Teaching—Includes preparation time, grading, and other teach-ing functions, as well as classroom contact time. It alsoincludes dissertation and master's thesis supervision/assistance.

Instructional Development—Activities related to theenhancement of the educational value of instructional efforts.

Basic Scholarship—Activities related to the creation of newknowledge, including activities directly related to the prepara-tion and diffusion of research articles.

Applied Scholarship—Activities related to the application,transfer, and interpretation of knowledge to improve manage-ment practice and teaching. Includes activities directly relatedto the preparation of papers for professional journals, tradejournals, book reviews, and professional presentations.

Service/administration—Includes administrative and quasi-administrative duties and committees within the university andexternally with professional bodies.

Remunerative outside work

Continuing Education—Includes attendance at conferencesand seminars, participation in formal educational classes andinformal activities required to keep current with the accountingand business literature.

8.5 h(17%)

1.5 h(3%)

1.5 h(3%)

6h(14%)

2.5 h(6%)

2h(5%)

• Data are rounded to the nearest 0.5 percent.

Page 13: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 87

A comparison between tenured and non-tenured faculty indicated that dur-ing the academic year their workweek differed by three hours, with tenured fac-ulty reporting working 50.8 hours and non-tenured faculty reporting 47.9 hours.For the summer period, overall the number of hours worked was lower, with atotal of 44.3 hours and 40.0 hours for tenured and non-tenured faculty respec-tively.

The amount of time a faculty member spends on teaching, research, andservice is a function of individual characteristics (faculty member's core valuesand previous socialization), organizational context (institutional factors or poli-cies, values or belief of colleagues in the department), discipline, and academicrank (Finkelstein 1982). The most important factor seems to be the individual'sown professional values, followed by the workload policies of departments.There is no evidence that institutional reward systems significantly motivate fac-ulty to engage in tasks to which they are not already predisposed (Dill 1986).However, research-oriented universities tend to recruit individuals sharing thesame values.

Research on faculty effort indicates that at all institutions, faculty engageprimarily in teaching, with faculty members in Ontario and Quebec spending 50percent of their annual workweek (22.5 hours) on teaching activities (RapportArchambault 1989). In the United States the majority of faculty members spend20 hours or more on teaching activities a week (Finkelstein 1982). Differencesexist among U.S. institutions, with faculty in the so-called research-intensiveuniversities reporting less time on teaching and more on research and graduatetraining. During the nine-month academic year, faculty at U.S. doctoral granting(DG) universities spend 20.9 hours on teaching, whereas their colleagues atnon-doctoral granting universities (NDG) spend 23.5 hours (Schultz 1989). Intbis study, the case schools' faculty reported working 26 hours (52 percent oftheir workweek) on teaching and instructional development during the academicyear and 9.0 hours (21 percent of their workweek) during the summer period(Table 9).

Studies on faculty effort in the United States indicate that 42 percent ofthose at four-year institutions devote fewer than five hours a week to research(Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1984). In accounting,Schultz (1989) indicates that during the nine-month academic year (summerperiod data in parentheses), faculty at DG universities spend 12.9 (18.5) hourson research, whereas faculty at non-doctoral granting universities spend 7.5(9.0) hours on research. In Quebec and Ontario, faculty spend 11 to 13.5 hourson research respectively (Rapport Archambault 1989). In this study, only 11 per-cent of faculty members reported devoting less than five hours a week toresearch activities in both the summer and the nine-month academic year. Onaverage, faculty members devoted 12.5 hours (25 percent of their workweek) toresearch during the academic year and 23 hours (54 percent of their workweek)to research during the summer. It seems that the faculty surveyed at the caseschools spend more time on research than their colleagues in the businessscbools and that a larger proportion of them devote a significant period of time

Page 14: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

88 Contemporary Accounting Research

to research. Results from studies on academic workload suggest that the amountof time involved in research activities may have a positive influence on researchperformance. The relationship, however, is found to be curvilinear, with optimalresearch time around 30 percent (Dill 1986).

The service and administration roles of faculty include university duties(administrative duties, quasi-administrative duties, and committee work) andexternal community and professional services (refereeing publications for jour-nals, reviewing grant proposals, and holding office in professional and academicassociations). Results from previous studies in Canada and the United Statesindicate that faculty spend an average of 12 hours a week on the service andadministration function (Rapport Archambault 1989). The faculty surveyed atthe case universities reported spending 8.5 hours a week during the academicyear and six hours a week during the summer on the service and administrationfunction (Table 9). Although the figures are lower than the average for faculty ingeneral, they are similar to those found for accounting faculty in the UnitedStates, (8 hours and 5.2 hours respectively). To investigate this issue further,particularly in terms of service to the profession, accounting professors wereasked to provide the number of days devoted to service to accounting profes-sional organizations and to academic associations for the three last years. Onaverage, they devoted 6.8 days a year to professional organizations and 3.1 daysa year to academic associations. Those figures correspond to approximately 1.3and 0.6 hours a week devoted to these two types of organizations.

Very often, faculty activities are not limited to teaching, research and ser-vice, but include remunerative outside work. Professors may devote part of theirtime to professional practice or may be solicited for their expertise by firms,professional associations, or the government. Although the issue of outside con-sulting work can be a sensitive one, few data exist on the extent of such work.Lennards' survey (Rapport Archambault 1989), while not providing informationon the time faculty spend on those activities, indicates that 71.1 percent ofCanadian academics receive additional income from outside sources or fromoverload teaching. Results from studies on faculty consulting indicate that facul-ty members who consult are as likely to be involved in teaching and administra-tion than their non-consulting peers, and are more likely to be involved inaccounting networks and publishing (Patton and Marver 1979). Results from thesurvey of U.S. accounting professors indicate that faculty at NDG universitiesspend 70 percent more time on remunerative activity than faculty at DG univer-sities (Schultz 1989). This seems at odds with the previous result because facul-ty at DG universities generally have higher research productivity. Those issueswere not examined in this study and deserve research along with the "optimum"mix of activities. On average, the case universities' accounting faculty membersdevoted a small amount of their time to outside remunerative activities, with 1.5hours a week during the academic year and 2.5 hours a week during the summer(Table 9). Those numbers are 50 percent lower than for faculty at DG universi-ties in the United States.

Page 15: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 89

Given the diversity of the case schools, it was tiot surprising to find widedifferences in the workweek of faculty among the institutions (Tables 10 [a] and[b]). During the academic year, the allocation of time to teaching activities var-ied from a high of 30.2 hours at Alberta and 28.3 hours at Saint Mary's to a lowof 15.9 hours at UQAM and 16.5 hours at Queen's. During the summer period.Saint Mary's was the highest with 10.8 hours, followed by Toronto with 5.4hours. At all the other universities, faculty devoted less than 3.2 hours a week toteaching activities during the summer period. Faculty at Alberta and Laval

TABLE 10(a) Allocation of time during the nine month academic year (in hours)

Activities

TeachingBasic scholarshipApplied scholarshipInstructional developmentService/administrationRemunerative outside workContinuing education

UA

30.212.82.52.06.30.22.2

SFU

26.29.23.10.97.10.32.4

SMU

28.35.74.02.54.71.30.9

QU

16.510.47.51.67.62.30.8

UT

19.52.94.97.7

9.25.00.8

UW

21.99.13.43.4

10.52.71.4

UL

23.311.12.13.25.60.02.4

UQAM

15.95.57.12.3

12.81.51.4

Total 56.2 49.2 47.4 46.7 50.0 52.4 47.7 46.5

(b) Allocation of time during the traditional summer period (in hours)

Activities

TeachingBasic scholarshipApplied scholarshipInstructional developmentService/administrationRemunerative outside workContinuing education

Total

UA

3.128.4

8.54.42.00.52.3

49.2

SFU

1.019.85.81.31.40.32.9

32.5

SMU

10.88.77.03.62.14.10.7

37.0

QU

1.27.4

13.53.06.73.71.2

36.7

UT

5.411.1

5.89.9

11.24.9

0.3

48.6

UW

1.915.7

7.86.58.93.62.6

47.0

UL

2.320.4

2.38.02.72.02.3

40.0

UQAM

2.66.2

13.86.18.41.11.4

39.6

devoted the most time to basic research, both during the academic year (12.8and 11.1 hours respectively) and the summer period (28.4 and 20.4 hoursrespectively). Faculty members at Queen's and UQAM devoted the most time toapplied scholarship, both during the academic year (7.5 and 7.1 hours respec-tively) and the summer period (13.5 and 13.8 hours respectively).

Toronto, UQAM, and Waterloo ranked high on time devoted to service andadministration, with more than nine hours a week spent on these activities dur-ing the academic year and more than eight hours during the summer. These

Page 16: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

90 Contemporary Accoutiting Research

rankings did not appear to be explained by service to professional and academicorganizations, because these institutions were not among the top for those ser-vices. For example, Toronto was the lowest with less than three days a year. Asa result, an explanation has to be sought from within the institution itself; forexample, in the administrative structure of the departments.

Case universities were aiso grouped according to the allocation of timebetween academic activities, using average linkage cluster analysis. For the aca-demic year, the first cluster to be formed was composed of Alberta, SimonFraser, and Laval. The .second was formed of Queen's, UQAM, and Waterloo.Then Saint Mary's joined the first group, with Toronto forming a cluster initself. For the summer period, there was one cluster formed by Alberta, SimonFraser, Laval, and Waterloo, a second cluster formed by Queen's and UQAM,and two single clusters represented by Saint Mary's and Toronto.

Developmentalists suggest the distribution of effort to teaching, research,and service may vary with academic rank (Baldwin and Blackburn 1981). Otherresearchers criticize this view and suggest that social mechanisms, such as peerexpectations and social reinforcement provided by publications, motivate pro-fessors. To investigate these issues, allocation of time was separated by rank and

TABLE 11(a) Allocation of time by rank and tenure - Academic year

Position

Full

AssociateAssistantLecturerTenuredNon-tenured*

n

2725186

5317

Teaching

21.622.224.829.622.523.2

Basicscholar.

7.14.4**

15.03.56.3***

14.0

Appliedscholar.

6.4

3.82.33.05.22.0

Instr.develop

3.04.01.62.92.23.3

Service/adm.

11.79.7 **3.13.6

10.4**3.7

Out.work

1.52.1

0.73.41.61.2

Cont.Edu.

.1

.81.0.0

.5

.9

(b) Allocation of time by rank and tenure - Summer period

Basic Applied Instr. Service/ Out. Cont.Position n Teaching scholar, scholar, develop adm. work Edu.

FullAssociateAssistantLecturerTenuredNon-tenured*

2524173

2.33.3**4.8

11.82.8***4.8

15.28.7***

24.612.813.919.6

9.99.64.24.49.8**3.6

5.67.53.03.76.23.9

9.65.82.5

.97.33.6

2.04.01.14.72.72.0

1.72.02.20.71.82.3

* Excluding lecturers.* * p < . 0 1 .*** p < .05.

Page 17: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 91

by tenure level (Table 11 [a] and [b]). The data revealed that during the academ-ic year, time allocated to basic scholarship was greater for assistant professorsand non-tenured faculty, whereas time devoted to service/administration wassmaller for these faculty.

During the summer period, we found that non-tenured professors spent sig-nificantly more time on basic research activities than those tenured, whiletenured professors spent more time on applied scholarship. Such results are con-sistent with the theories of developmentalist psychology and with the fact thatrenewal, tenure, and promotion criteria put a strong emphasis on basic researchand research productivity.

Time allocation among teaching, intellectual contribution, and service maybe affected by factors such as normal teaching load, number of sections taughtper term, number of different preparations undertaken, level of course taught,and availability of reduced teaching loads. According to the AACSB, to supporta research contribution, teaching loads should not exceed 12 hours per term and,for schools that place greater emphasis on intellectual contributions, teachingloads should be adjusted downward accordingly. Rapport Archambault (1989)found that 29 percent of Canadian faculty members indicated a normal teachingload of two courses/sections per term and 43 percent indicated a load of two tothree courses/sections per term. Our results were consistent with this. For someuniversities, including UQAM and SMU in our sample, the annual teachingloads are specified in the faculty Collective Agreements.

In Table 12, our data indicated that faculty members at the case universitiestaught an average of 11.7 credit courses (3.9 x three credits sections) per yearover the academic years 1989/90, 1990/91, and 1991/92, which is well belowthe maximum of 12 hours per term required by the AACSB. The numbers variedfrom a low of 9.8 at Queen's to a high of 14.9 at Saint Mary's. On average, fac-ulty members at the case universities did 4.5 course preparations (undergraduate2.9, masters 1.3, doctoral 0.24) over the last three years. Saint Mary's andToronto were the highest, with 7.8 and 6.0 preparations respectively. All theother schools were under five preparafions. To evaluate the impact of the num-ber of secfions taught and the number of different preparations undertaken ontime allocated to teaching activities, the latter was regressed on those two fac-tors. Our results showed that these factors had no significant effect. When thedata for non-tenured faculty were treated separately, we found that, although

TABLE 12Teaching load per year

Normal teaching loadCourse credit taughtCourse preparation

UA

410.44.1

SFU

412.13.7

SMU

614.97.8

QU

49.84.7

UT

610.36.0

UW

411.43.1

UL

410.24.2

UQAM

411.63.0

Total

4.511.74.5

Page 18: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

92 Contemporary Accounting Research

they taught the same number of sections per year, they did fewer course prepa-rations (3.9, compared with an average of 4.7 for tenured faculty).

The practice of giving release time from normal teaching loads may beawarded to compensate for administrative duties and faculty development(instructional development and research). All the universities, except Queen'swhere there is no accounting department chair, reported providing reducedteaching load for the department chair ranging from 33 percent to 50 percent ofthe normal teaching load. Although there are complaints of work overload, highteaching loads, high research expectations, and low support for scholarship,skepticism about the usefulness of release-time programs is emerging. Evidencefrom Boice (1987) indicates that faculty given release time usually persist in thesame work mix; time spent on research did not increase during the semesterwhen the faculty received a one-course release, and new faculty did not showany productivity benefits from a single-course reduction in teaching load.Support to encourage new work habits, establishment of clear goals, and semes-ter course release may help improve the efficiency of such programs.

As we have confirmed earlier, producing intellectual contributions repre-sents a core set of responsibilities of higher education. We have reported fromour survey the proportion of time spent on research (25 percent in the regularacademic term and 54 percent in the summer). AACSB (1991), standard ICl ,requires that "faculty members make intellectual contributions on a continuingbasis appropriate to the school's mission". The three components of intellectualcontributions: basic scholarship, applied scholarship, and instructional develop-ment (referred to in Tables 9 and 10) are identified by the AACSB. The relativeemphases among the types of contribution are determined by the school's mis-sion. The output from intellectual contributions should be available for publicscrutiny by academic peers or practitioners (AACSB 1991).

One approach to measuring productivity in basic scholarship activities is toexamine the publications of faculty in refereed journals. We recognize that per-ceptions of the choice of journals included can vary, particularly on an intema-tional basis (see Beattie and Ryan 1989; Nobes 1985, 1986). This approach hasbeen followed in many countries and has received particular attention in theUnited Kingdom (see, for example, Lyall 1978; Gray, Haslam, and Prodham1987; Nobes 1987; Gee and Gray 1989 for a discussion of accounting facultypublications). A survey of articles published in 10 refereed journals between1976 and 1989 by Canadian academic accountants indicates that a small core ofactive researchers account for a significant portion of publications (Richardsonand Williams 1990). The average for all tenure-track accounting faculty inCanada is approximately one article every 22 years. These results are in linewith previous research in the United States indicating that two-fifths of all acad-emics have never published a journal article (Bayer 1973) and that approximate-ly 10 percent of all scientists produce 90 percent of all published works (Wilson1967).

Various theories of faculty publishing productivity have been suggested inthe literature. There is agreement across disciplines that ability, graduate pro-

Page 19: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 93

gram quality, early productivity, quality of the first job, and gender are tnajordeterminants of publishing productivity. Rodgers and Maranto (1989) derived atheoretically based best-fit model of productivity in psychology. Their modelshows that ability affects publishing productivity directly and also indirectly, byproviding access to training in prestigious graduate programs. Attending a pres-tigious program indirectly affects productivity by providing access to academicappointments in other prestigious programs. Gender had an effect on publishingquantity, but not quality. In accounting, Maranto and Streuly (1994) found simi-lar results, except that there was no direct link between ability and productivity.In both studies, the results indicated that attending a non-prestigious Ph.D. pro-gram and appointments in non-prestigious programs were an impediment topublishing success.

These results have serious consequences for Canadian academics. FewCanadian schools are classified as prestigious. For example, Brown and Gardner(1985) provided a ranking of schools based on total citations of articles in fouracademic accounting journals, and Mittermaier (1991) provided a ranking basedon the representation on the editorial boards of 13 academic accounting jour-nals. In both studies, the University of British Columbia was the only Canadianschool among the top 20. Not only was there no school offering a degree inFrench, but the survey of Canadian schools by Richardson and Williams (1990)indicated that only Laval ranked among the top 20 Canadian schools. It wouldappear that Canadians who want to maximize their research productivity shouldstudy in the United States for a Ph.D. and once qualified, remain there.Returning to a Canadian university, or, worse still, to a French-Canadian univer-sity could be an impediment to publishing success.

Many different measures have been suggested to assess faculty researchperformance. Most of them are based on the product of research in written form,because that can easily be classified as published or unpublished and can becounted. The Richardson and Williams (1990) study was limited to 10 refereedjournals. Their choice of productivity measure had limitations because it exclud-ed other output from both basic and applied scholarship (for example, output inother refereed journals that were excluded from the sample, research mono-graphs, professional journals, and book reviews), conference presentations, andinstructional development activities (for example, textbooks, cases, and softwareapplications). If more all-embracing coverage is used, different weights can beapplied to compare the various types of publications. Simply counting, with orwithout weights, neglects the content and the quality of the research. One wayto assess this qualitative aspect of research outcome is to use a citation count.Citations are a proxy for the acknowledgment by others of the contribution of anarticle. While we recognize that citations neglect new faculty and have manyother flaws such as self-citations, the evidence suggests that the citation countprovides an objective measure of productivity, significance, quality, and impact(Braxton and Bayer 1986).

Recognizing that intellectual contributions are multi-dimensional, this studyused a number of measures of productivity. In the first place, the Richardson and

Page 20: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

94 Contemporary Accounting Research

TABLE 13Accounting academics - Intellectual contribution of productivitySelected joumals*

Productivity

Publications

1976-89-Total1990-93 -Total

1976-93-Total

UA

15.76.6

22.3- Per capita 0.15

Editorial Board ;

1976-891990-931976-93

years

2624

50

SFU

6.528.50.12

459

SMU

11

20.01

00

0

QU

84.2

12.20.10

137

20

UT

25.85.9

31.7

0.20

168

24

UW

1011.821.80.08

21

2849

UL

1.53.550.02

448

UQAM

0.522.50.00

1

67

Total

6937

1060.06

8582

167

* The ten journals were as follows: Auditing. Accounting Organizations and Society. The

Accounting Review. Contemporary Accounting Research. Journal of Accounting Research,

International Journal of Accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, Abacus,

Accounting Historians Journal, and Journal of Accounting and Puhlic Policy.

Source: Richardson & Williatns (1990); and the authors' own updating

Williams (1990) scoring procedure was used and their results for the caseschools were updated for the years 1990 to 1993 inclusive (Table 13).

All the case universities were represented by articles published in joumalscounted by Richardson and Williams between 1976-1993. Because there havebeen no changes in the classification of the universities since 1989, only theupdated data are discussed. Three groups of universities were identified, basedon per capita productivity: high productivity (Toronto and Alberta), mediumproductivity (Simon Fraser and Waterloo), and low productivity (Laval, SaintMary's, and UQAM). The number of years of editorial board service by facultyassociated with each university suggested two groups: high membership(Alberta, Waterloo, Toronto, and Queen's) and low membership (Laval, SimonFraser, Saint Mary's, and UQAM).

The second measure was also based on outcomes from intellectual contri-butions. It recognized, however, that academic accountants may make their con-tributions available to the profession through writing textbooks, cases, andinstructional software. To obtain information on output from applied scholarshipand instructional development activities, which was not easily available frompublic sources, faculty were asked to provide a list of their publications for thelast five years (1988-1992) and to classify them into the three categories identi-fied earlier of basic scholarship, applied scholarship, and instructional develop-

Page 21: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 95

ment. The authors were aware in devising the questionnaire that this was a sen-sitive question, not least for confidentiality reasons, but we felt that it wasimportant to gather as much information as we could on intellectual develop-ment. The respondents were promised that all the answers to the questionswould stay confidential and that only aggregate results would be published. Inany event, 57 percent of the respondents provided infonnation on this part of thesurvey. The data were coded and classified into the three major categories andsubcategories indicated in Table 14. All types of output were given the sameweight and no adjustment was made for co-authors (unlike the procedure usedby Richardson and Williams [ 1990]).

TABLE 14Intellectual contribution productivity(Questionnaire's responses)

Productivity Total Average

Basic Scholarship 169 3.7Joumal article 111 2.4Research monograph 13 0.3Scholarly book chapter 14 0.3Proceedings 31 0.7

Applied Scholarship 110 2.3Professional joumal 74 1.6Book reviews 21 0.4Other (e.g., chapters, monographs) 15 0.3

Instructional Development 92 2.0Textbooks 21 0.5Cases 41 0.9Other (e.g., articles, software, problems) 30 0.6

The professors who provided a list of publications had a good productivityratio, and perhaps this was an added incentive to respond. Of course, once morethere was the problem of self-selection and bias. On average, professors whoresponded had nine publications in the last five years, covering the three compo-nents of intellectual contribution with 3.7 outputs for basic scholarship, 2.3 forapplied scholarship, and 2.0 for instructional development. The most frequenttypes of output were articles in refereed scholarly journals (2.4) and in profes-sional journals (1.6). Productivity in basic and applied scholarship was positive-ly correlated, and there was a positive but non-significant correlation betweenproductivity in instructional development and the other categories. It appearsthat including only output from basic scholarship underestimated the productivi-ty of Canadian accounting academics. Also, professors who made a contribution

Page 22: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

96 Contemporary Accounting Research

to basic scholarship were not in an ivory tower; they also made a contribution tothe practice of accounting. As indicated in Table 15, all schools made a contri-bution to the three categories of output. At Alberta, Simon Fraser, Queen's,Waterloo, and Laval, the most important relative contribution was in basicscholarship. At Toronto and UQAM, the most important contribution was inapplied scholarship, and at Saint Mary's, it was in instructional development* .̂

TABLE 15Intellectual contribution productivity by university(Questionnaire responses)

Productivity

Basic ScholarshipApplied ScholarshipInstructional development

UA

3.81.61.0

SFU

3.61.60.2

SMU

1.30.62.3

QU

11.35.08.3

UT

3.53.82.0

UW

3.63.31.3

UL

3.81.02.8

UQAM

1.72.62.0

Limited funding for business research is an issue that has been raisedrepeatedly. There have been calls for a separate research granting agency formanagerial education (see D'Cruz 1989). Accounting faculty can apply toSSHRC for research funding. In Table 16 we give data on successful researchapplications; unfortunately the data are not disaggregated to permit a measure ofthe success rate of accounting applicants. The data indicate fairly modestresearch funding, and in the past 10 years accounting has never received morethan 10 percent of the total awarded by the Administrative Studies Committee.By institutions, we found that, of our sample universities. Alberta and Queen'swere frequent recipients. For the strategic research grants, in recent years,Waterloo, Queen's, Laval, and Alberta have been successful.

The relative imbalance of funding from SSHRC is probably more a func-tion of a lack of applications than a failure of applications to meet the fundingcriteria. This may be due to the existence of altemative funding sources fromprofessional bodies and from the foundations of accounting firms. Another pos-sible reason may be that advanced by Paquet (1989), who argued that the disci-pline-orientated norms of SSHRC may not favour the more applied researchundertaken by business professors.

The rewardsThe salient feature of university salary structures is the relatively steep career-eaming profile, defined by low starting salaries and career development incre-ments extending up to retirement (Grant 1993). Universities and professorsenter into long-term employment relationships that shift compensation towardsthe end of an "implicit" contract. Universities are motivated to enter into suchcontracts because it is difficult to monitor a professor's effort, it reducesturnover, and there is asymmetrical information about new faculty members'

Page 23: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 97

TABLE 16SSHRC research grants 1982-92 in accounting(Administrative Studies Committee — Committee 14)

Accounting Funds Awarded Universities/$Number $

1982/831983/841984/851987/881988/89

1989/901990/911991/92

1221

3

1

24

9,10026,65514,69210,00057,182

37,23360,76577,850

1992/93 182,960

UBCToronto (16,875), UBC (9,780)McMaster (4,072), UBC (10,620)OttawaAlberta and Queen's (32,530), UNB (8,100)Windsor (16,552)McMasterAlberta and Queen's (48,900), UNB (11.865)Queen's (35,000), UBC and Alberta (24,950),UNB (8,000), Waterloo (9,900)Dalhousie (38,000), Regina (10,000),Sberbrooke (21,500), UBC (48,000),UNB (28,000), UQAM (19,700),Windsor (17,760)

Note: Tbere were no research grants in 1985/86 or 1986/87. For tbe period 1984-93 tberewere only four research grants awarded in accounting under tbe Strategic Grants Division ofSSHRC. Two awards totaling $16,810 (to UBC and WLU) were made in 1985/86 for tbeManaging tbe Organization in Canada tbeme and in 1992/93 two awards were made in theManaging for Global Competitiveness theme. These totaled $161,500, with $23,500 beingawarded to a joint Waterloo/Queen's project, and $138,000 to Laval. In addition, SSHRC basfinanced several accounting research worksbops, and tbere are projects in tbe business admin-istration categories that have linkages to accounting and are not included in the precedingtable. One major illustration of tbis is in Managing for Global Competitiveness, under which$180,000 was awarded to a study on the Internationalization of Professional Service Firms toresearchers in the University of Alberta.

Source: SSHRC Annual Reports

future productivity at the time of hiring. A faculty member is interested in suchschemes if there is a financial reward and a long-term commitment from theuniversity. We considered four aspects of compensation in the university: salarystructure, merit pay. response to market, and chair/professorship.

Canadian universities are characterized by the use of salary schedules basedon academic rank with progress-through-the-rank increments. Grant (1993) hascollected data on salary structures for 23 Canadian universities. Table 17 pro-vides a summary of these data for the case universities, to which we have addedthe information for UQAM based on its Collective Agreement. Grant (1993)identifies three rank-salaries models in Canadian schools. A classic model

Page 24: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

98 Contemporary Accounting Research

(Saint Mary's), where there is little salary overlap between the ranks; an over-lapping model (Alberta, Simon Fraser, Laval, and UQAM), where the ceilingfor a rank exceeds the floor of the next rank; and a flexible model (Queen's,Toronto, and Waterloo), without a ceiling at each rank. The more classic themodel, the more impact obtaining promotion has on salaries. For example, atSaint Mary's, an assistant professor can make up to 122 percent of the assistantprofessor salary floor. To obtain a higher salary, he/she needs to be promoted toassociate. At Laval, an assistant professor can make up to 156 percent of theassistant professor salary floor, which is higher than the associate professorsalary floor (109 percent of the assistant professor salary floor). For businessschool professors, and particularly those in accounting, salary scales as given byGrant may not be particularly useful benchmarks. In Table 18 we give datadrawn from a 1992/93 CFDMAS salary survey. A comparison of these numberswith those of Table 17 indicates that the salary ceilings of case schools wereoften lower than the salary paid to a large proportion of Canadian accountingprofessors. From this analysis, it appears that salary schedules defined the mini-mum compensation, and that, in many cases, higher salaries were paid toaccounting professors. These premia may come from merit pay, market supple-ments, higher entry steps or rank, and professorships. Consequently, the assis-tant floor for entry-level faculty was not a realistic measure of new appoint-ments' salaries. According to the CFDMAS salary survey, new doctorates andABDs were paid $65,150 on average, which is higher than the assistant floor atall the case schools.

We recognize that to ensure that salaries respond to market conditions, uni-versities may offer higher entry steps or higher rank, though many smaller uni-versities may not be able to compete. According to Grant (1993), only in rarecases do the Collective Agreements specify where a new member is placed instep/rank according to experience and education. Laval is such a case where theagreement specifies that the step is based on the number of years since theundergraduate degree. Offering higher entry rank distorts the logic of the salaryschedule by compressing salary advancement and impugning the integrity ofcriteria for advancement (Grant 1993). Another way to respond to market condi-tions is to offer a market supplement. This supplement is added to the salarycorresponding to the step and rank, and may be adjusted through time to reflectprevailing hiring conditions.

Merit pay is an award paid in addition to regular career development incre-ments. The objective is to encourage faculty excellence by rewarding more pro-ductive faculty members and by inducing greater scholarly output. The conceptof merit pay has some detractors, who note that it has been tried in many formsbut has failed (Johnson 1984), and that it does not necessarily lead to animprovement in organization performance (Pearce, Stevenson, and Perry 1985).We recognize that merit pay may be counterproductive by discouraging facultycooperation and collegiality and by rewarding only quantified measures of

Page 25: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 99

TABLE 17Salary floors and ceilings

Rank-SalaryModel

Salary floors/ceilings ($)Assistant

Associate

Full

Salary floors/ceilings(%of Asst. floor)Assistant

Associate

Full

Response toMarketHigherstep/rankMarketsupplement

Merit PayTypeMerit/PTR*

Chairs/professorships

SalaryStructure

UA

Overlapping

39,00055,80048,10070,30060,100

100143123181154—

NO

YES

salary10

2

PseudoMerit-ocracy

SFU

Over 1lapping

37,80054,50050,00075,60060,78197,600

100144130200161258

NO

YES

salary30

0

- PseudoMerit-ocracy

SMU

Classic

37,80046,00046,90063,10061,50080,200

100122124167163212

NO

YES

none

0

QU

Flexible

38,000—

44,000—

55,500—

100—116—

146—

NO

YES

salary100

0

- Aristo- Merit-ocracy ocracy

UT

Flexible

36,40061,90044,600

—59,600

100170123—164—

NO

YES

salary100

0

Merit-ocracy

UW

Flexible

38,400—

49,900—

65,200—

100—130—

170—

NO

YES

salary100

5

Merit-ocracy

UL

Overlapping

44,90070,10049,20074,80059,00082,600

100156109169131184

NO

YES

none

0

Arist-ocrac)

UQAM

Overlapping

41,60058,30051,20073,40059,42679,500

100140123176143191

YES

NO

none

0

Arist-1 ocracy

* Size of merit pool as a percentage of the progress through the ranks (PTR) funds.

Source: Grant (1993); UQAM (1990).

Page 26: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

100 Contemporary Accounting Research

TABLE 18Salary structure of Canadian accounting faculty, 1992/93

All accounting facultyFull professorAssociate professorAssistant professorInstructor

New appointmentsFull professorAssociate professorAssistant professorInstructorNew doctorateABD

n

92

11810251

8344

Mean($,000)

85.772.761.552.7

53.643.563.566.8

Range($,000)

48.8-146.244.2-100.430.0-122.029.0-76.2

35.1-66.936.0-54.053.9-72.059.0-70.0

90%

104.286.477.566.8

75%

96.380.470.861.0

59.0

65.070.0

Median

81.672.359.254.2

53.240.063.068.0

25%

73.264.552.443.3

42.4

53.959.0

10%

68.659.846.236.0

Source: Canadian Federation of Deans of Management and Administrative Studies, 1993b.

research publication, to the detriment of scholarship and teaching (Grant 1993).Although criticized, merit pay systems are in place in the majority of Canadianuniversities studied by Grant (1993). All the case schools, except Saint Mary's,Laval, and UQAM, had a merit pay component that was paid in addition tocareer development increments (CDI) or progress through the ranks (PTR).Merit pay amounted to 10 percent of the CDI/PTR funds at Alberta and 30 per-̂cent at Simon Fraser, and at Queen's, Toronto, and Waterloo it replacedCDI/PTR plans.

Another means of rewarding excellence and responding to the labor marketas well as to university constraints is to provide salary stipends in the form ofsponsored chairs and professorships. Data collected by Etherington andRichardson (1994) indicated that only two of the case universities had chairs orprofessorships. Alberta had three chairs in accounting and three named profes-sorships, and Waterloo had two chairs and five named professorships.

Promotion and tenure are further rewards available to faculty. Our question-naire data covered these decisions by reviewing activities rewarded by universi-ties, weight placed on various publications and activities, and success rate.There are very clear limits to these data because they are based on faculty mem-bers' perceptions. In tenure/promotion decisions, the three main activities ofteaching, research, and service that we discussed earlier in terms of time spentform the core criteria for these decisions. In the United States, research is themost important criterion for the tenure/promotion of accounting faculty to theassociate level, with 49 percent of the weight, followed by teaching (42 percent)and by service (8 percent [Schultz 1989]). At DG universities these numbers are

Page 27: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 101

86 percent, 27 percent, and 7 percent respectively. Data collected at the caseuniversities (Table 19) indicated that these universities also emphasizedresearch. On average, for the associate professor rank, 58 percent of the weightwas placed on research, 32 percent on teaching, and 9 percent on service. Therewere substantial inter-university differences in the emphasis placed on these cri-teria. There was, for example, a very strong emphasis on research at Alberta,Simon Fraser, and Toronto, with more than two-thirds of the weight placed onthis activity. Saint Mary's placed the most emphasis on teaching (52 percent).For promotion to the full professor rank, research was the most important activi-ty at all the schools, though interestingly, there were variations among universi-ties. At Alberta and Laval, there was less emphasis on research and moreemphasis on teaching and service. At the other schools, the emphasis on teach-ing was less and there was more emphasis on the other two activities.

TABLE 19Promotion criteria in the case universitiesCurrent importance of teaching, research and service (by percent)

AssociateTeachingResearch

Service/adm.

FullTeachingResearchService/adm.

UA

2473

3

2766

7

SFU

2468

8

187111

SMU

5239

9

414712

QU

335413

236710

UT

2373

4

2074

6

UW

335310

275616

UL

3259

9

394814

UQAM

236215

206515

Total

3258

9

286012

In the United States, Schultz (1989) found greater emphasis on researchand less emphasis on teaching between 1986 and the first three years in a career.In this study, we found contrary results. Between the first three years of theircareer and 1992, faculty members perceived less emphasis on research (-8 per-cent, p<.0\) and a greater emphasis on teaching (+5 percent, p<.Ql) for promo-tion to associate level, and less emphasis on research (-5 percent, p<.Ol) andgreater emphasis on service (-(-8 percent, p<.Ol) for promotion to full professorlevel. This lesser emphasis on research may be the result of all the issues thathave been raised about the importance of teaching.

As indicated before, accounting professors are expected to make intellectu-al contributions through publications. From our survey data, we determined theimportance of selected output for promotion and tenure decisions. Faculty wereasked to rate selected journals' articles, publications, and presentations withrespect to a positive impact on tenure decision. The selection of outlets was not

Page 28: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

102 Contemporary Accounting Re.search

intended to be exhaustive; they were selected to cover the three components ofintellectual contribution (basic, applied, and instructional development) and toinclude journals published in French.

Table 20 provides the significance level (1 = very significant and 7 = notsignificant) for each outlet by order of importance. The Accounting Review wasranked first at all schools, with a score of 1.4, and Contemporary AccountingResearch was fourth (1.9). The last row of Table 21 provides the ratio of thescores for research journals and professional journals. Consistently with anassumption that research is given the highest weight for tenure decisions, facul-

TABLE 20Perceived significance of selected journals' articles, publications, and presenta-tions for tenure

Accounting Review

J. Acct. Research

J. Acct & Economics

ContemporaryAcct. Research

Acct. Organizations& Society

J. Business.Finance & Acct.CAAA MonographsAuditing: J. Practice

& Theor\CGA ResearchMonographsCMA ResearchMonographsCICA ResearchReportsTextbooksCAAA Meeting

PresentationsCasesCAAA MeetingproceedingsRevue Francaisede compt.CA Magazine

CMA JournalFineco

CGA MagazineResearch/professional journals

UA

1.01.1

1.51.7

2.0

3.1

2.93.3

2.8

3.4

3.7

4.24.8

5.35.0

5.3

5.86.25.76.23.1

SFU

1.01.01.4

1.5

2.0

2.2

3.52.4

3.6

4.2

4.8

5.66.0

6.05.4

6.7

5.66.25.76.23.6

SMU

1.31.7

2.01.6

1.9

2.6

1.82.7

2.5

2.5

2.5

3.02.5

3.32.9

3.3

3.33.55.04.11.9

QU

1.31.7

2.73.7

1.7

3.0

3.03.3

3.3

3.0

3.0

3.75.0

4.06.0

6.0

4.74.36.05.01.9

UT

1.01.01.31.2

1.7

2.0

3.11.8

3.1

3.1

3.0

3.94.4

4.14.9

6.5

5.55.37.05.83.9

UW

1.51.61.72.0

2.5

3.2

3.32.9

3.6

3.9

3.7

4.34.8

4.75.4

6.4

5.95.77.06.32.7

UL

1.31.31.72.0

2.0

2.1

2.02.6

2.1

2.3

2.6

3.33.0

4.93.3

4.5

4.95.13.7

5.12.7

UQAM

2.22.02.32.3

2.5

2.7

2.03.1

2.4

2.4

2.8

2.62.7

3.03.6

3.5

3.63.94.04.21.7

Total

1.41.51.81.9

2.1

2.7

2.62.8

2.9

3.1

3.2

3.73.9

4.34.4

4.6

4.85.05.05.32.5

Note: Rank of 1: very significant; rank of 7: not significant.

Page 29: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 103

ty perceived that articles in research journals had twice the impact of articles inprofessional journals on tenure decisions (ratio research/professional journals -2.5). There were, however, marked differences between the schools. Torontoand Simon Fraser had a ratio over 3.5, indicating that research journals were 3.5times more significant than professional journals; Alberta, Waterloo, and Lavalhad a ratio around three. Professional journals had relatively greater significanceat Saint Mary's, Queen's, and UQAM, the ratio being smaller than two.

TABLE 21Promotion/tenure success rate (by percent)

Unit

AccountingBusinessUniversityOverall

UA

63778240

SFU

87

898969

SMU

85888967

QU

8597

8570

UT

7964

6935

UW

84

889671

UL

98959589

UQAM

93938378

Total

86878866

The high weight of publication outlets in English constitutes a handicap forfrancophone faculty. In order to he promoted and recognized in their field, pub-lishing in English is very helpful; thus francophone faculty members need toincur the costs of having their work translated or reviewed for the quality of thelanguage to be accepted in many journals. Contemporary Accounting Researchand the CAAA and Certified General Accountants (CGA) monographs are theonly top ten outlets accepting papers in French. Other outlets such as Finecoand the Revue francaise de comptabilite do not have the prestige of theirEnglish counterparts. Faculty at the francophone universities rated these jour-nals at 3.8 and 3.9 respectively.

Information was gathered on rates of tenure at the case universities.Professors were asked to give their assessments of the success rate for account-ing faculty considered for tenure at three levels: accounting unit, businessschool, and university. Above the accounting unit, they were asked to assumethat the candidate had been recommended for tenure at the lower level(s). FromTable 21 it can be seen that the overall perceived approval rate was 66 percent,with the highest being at Universite Laval (89 percent) and the lowest atUniversity of Toronto (35 percent) and Alberta (40 percent).

At all the case universities, the business school and university units playedan important role in the tenure decisions. That role was the most important atthe University of Toronto, where 44 percent of the candidates being recom-mended for tenure were perceived to be refused at the business school/universitylevel.

Paid sabbatical leave is a special feature of the professorial environment.All the case universities offered paid sabbaticals, though the conditions variedbetween schools. A one-year sabbatical after six years was the norm, withsalaries ranging from a low of 80 percent to a high of 90 percent at Laval (see

Page 30: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

104 Contemporary Accounting Research

Table 22). In addition, there were other variations. For example, at SaintMary's, after the first sabbatical had been taken, a further six-month sabbaticalwas possible after a further three years of service at 75 percent of salary. AtLaval and Toronto it was possible to take a six-month sabbatical at 100 percentof salary.

TABLE 22Sabbatical leaves

UA SFU SMU QU UT UW UL UQAM Total

% of salary 80 80 80 75 82.5 80 90 80 81(I year)

80

2.5

75

2.0

82.5

2.3

80

2.0

90

1.3

80

2.7Importance* 1.6 2.2 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.0 1.3 2.7 2.1

* I = very important; 7 = not very important.

ConclusionIn this paper we have been able to give an overview of the full-time accountingprofessoriate in Canada as well as provide detailed data from the eight case uni-versities. We have indicated that there are many pressures on the professoriate,both internal and external. Some of these are common to all of the universitysystems, yet others are more specific to business schools and to accounting inparticular. We have raised the need for the accounting faculty to strike a balancebetween academic rigor and professional practice.

Our data confirm that there has been a chronic imbalance between the sup-ply and demand for faculty with Ph.D.s. We have shown that in the past,Canadian universities have relied heavily on accounting faculty with Americanqualifications although many unfilled positions remain. Although we have illus-trated that the proportion of Ph.D.s has increased, there are still many universi-ties, particularly the smaller ones, with no doctorally qualified accounting facul-ty members. We have indicated that the future supply of accounting Ph.D.s fromCanadian programmes will continue to grow, but will not match the replacementdemand needs in a static replacement situation. However, we have further illus-trated that the forces impacting on supply and particularly on demand aredynamic and subject to change. Universities face financial constraints, enroll-ments may continue to decline, and enforced retirement is in doubt. If there isan increased pressure for more practical experience in the curricula, then thismay produce a shift in recruitment and in the development and evaluation offaculty.

Our survey data, derived from responses to a questionnaire of the eight caseuniversities, do provide hitherto unavailable information on a number of vari-ables, including the faculty themselves and their perceptions of the reward sys-tem, particularly from the point of view of salary, tenure, promotion, and renew-al. We recognize that the questionnaire has methodological weaknesses, but

Page 31: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 105

nevertheless, we feel that the data provided, when compared with other avail-able data series from the United States, as well as on a more aggregated basis,provide useful insights. Table 23 presents a summary of selected indicators forthe three aspects identified in Table 1; faculty, activities, and rewards. To inves-tigate the similarities among universities, we grouped them on those indicatorsusing the average linkage cluster analysis. Three clusters were identified: a clus-ter of more teaching-oriented schools (SMU, UQAM, and UL), a cluster of oneresearch-oriented school (UA), and a cluster of schools between the two (SFU,UW, QU, and UT). If the number of clusters was decreased to two, UA wasgrouped with SFU, UW, QU, and UT. In general, schools classified as moreresearch oriented had a greater number of faculty holding a doctorate, a higherlevel of research activities as measured by a higher rate of research publications,more faculty on editorial boards, more time spent on research during the sum-mer, and had tenure/promotion procedures that faculty perceived to rewardresearch activities.

TABLE 23Comparison of the case universities: Faculty, activities, and rewards

Faculty*% Doctorate% Professional designation

Activities**Basic research - summer

(hours)Research publications

(nGr canits)

Editorial boards (years)

Rewards***Salary structure (merit pay)Importance of research -

percentage (promotion)Significance of research/

UA

8740

28.4

0.15

50

1

73

3.1professional journals (tenure)

SFU

7769

19.8

0.12

9

1

68

3.6

SMU

5086

8.7

0.01

0

039

1.9

QU

6767

7.4

0.1

20

1

54

1.9

UT

5281

11.1

0.2

24

1

73

3.9

UW

7361

15.7

0.08

49

1

53

2.7

UL

67

65

20.4

0.03

8

059

2.7

UQAM

3667

6.2

0

6

062

1.7

* Using data for the complete population (see Table 6).** Questionnaire data for hours of basic research (Table 10) and for research publications percapita and years of service on Editorial Boards (Table 13).*** See Table 17 for salary structure, where 1 indicates the use of merit pay, 0 does not; Table19 for the perceived importance (percent) of research in promotion decisions; and Table 20 forthe significance level (1 = very significant, 7 = not significant) of research/professional jour-nals for tenure decisions.

Page 32: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

106 Contemporary Accounting Research

There are interesting differences among the eight case universities, whichconfirm the diversity that might be expected when one takes into account size,institutional constraints, and so on. Nevertheless, there are many similarities,which give a richness to the data obtained and suggest avenues for futureresearch.

Endnotes1. For coverage of the issue of performance indicators and measurement of quality on

both the Canadian and intemational basis, see Astin (1982); Bare (1980); Bauer andSizer (1991); Bogue and Sanders (1992); Frackmann (1991); Nadeau, Donald,Konrad, and Tremblay (1990); Nadeau (1992); Nichols and Nichols (1991); andWebster (1990).

2. We recognize that more tbeoretical approaches were possible (see Abbott 1988 andBourdieu 1988) and that, in restricting our analysis to full-time faculty, we are miss-ing the important contribution played by part-time and visiting faculty.

3. A copy of the questionnaire in either English or French is available from the first-named author.

4. This shortage has not been treated as a labour market adjustment issue. However,Employment and Immigration Canada (CEIC) did relax immigration policy in 1981by not requiring a two tier advertising policy for business schools. This has contin-ued after reviews in both 1986 and 1992. Following a study by Murgatroyd andDodds (1988), the CEIC did fmance a study to increase the accessibility to existingPh.D. programmes in Canada, as well as the establishment of an alternative nationalPh.D. programme (see Roskin 1993). For a coverage ofthe shortage in other coun-tries, see, for example, Holland (1991).

5. Categories IV - III - II -1 are used, where IV corresponds to full professor and soon.

6. MFTE = (number of undergraduate credit hours per term / 400 -t- number of under-graduate credit hours per term / 300). Unfortunately, we do not have the data tocompute the MFTE faculty.

7. New faculty members with less than five years of university experience appeared tohave less professional qualifications (71 percent) and practice experience (5.92years) than their more experienced counterparts (86 percent were certified with 8.25years of practice experience). The differences, however, were not statistically signif-icant.

8. Recognizing the limits of the sample, the impact of three determinants of productiv-ity was examined using regression analysis: time allocated to an activity, the impor-tance of that activity for tenure/promotion, and the prestige of the graduate program.Once examined, there was no significant relationship for instructional developmentproductivity. Basic scholarship productivity was positively related to the amount oftime spent on this activity during the academic year (p=.O3) and to the perceivedweight placed on research for promotion to Full Professor (p=.O3). Applied scholar-ship was positively related to the amount of time spent on this activity during theacademic year (p=.O8) and to the perceived weight placed on research for promotionto Associate Professor (p=.OS). Prestige of the graduate program had no effect onproductivity.

Page 33: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 107

ReferencesAbbott, A. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Export Labor.

University of Chicago Press, 1988.Accounting Education Change Commission. AECC Urges Priority for Teaching in

Higher Education. Issues in Accounting Education (Fall 1990), 330-331.American Assetnbly of Collegiate Schools of Business. Standards for Business and

Accounting Accreditation. AACSB, 1991.Arthur Andersen & Co., Arthur Young, Coopers & Lybrand, Deloitte Haskins & Sells,

Ernst & Whinney, Peat Marwick Main & Co., Price Waterhouse, and Touche Ross.Perspectives on Education: Capabilities for Success in the Accounting Profession.1989.

Astin, A.W. Why Not Try Some New Ways of Measuring Quality? Educational Record(Spring 1982), 10-15.

Baldwin, R.G., and R.T. Blackburn. The Academic Career as a Developmental Process:Implications for Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education 52 (1981). 598-614.

Bare, A.C. The Study of Academic Department Performance. Research in HigherEducation 12 (1980), 3-22.

Bauer, M., and J. Sizer. Performance Indicators in Government-Higher InstitutionsRelationships. Paper presented at the 13th Intemational Forum of the EuropeanAssociation for Institutional Research. Edinburgh, Scotland, 1991.

Bayer, A.E. Teaching Faculty in Academe: 1972-73. ACE Research Reports 2 (1973).Beattie, V. A., and R.J. Ryan. Performance Indices and Related Measures of Journal

Reputation in Accounting. British Accounting Review 21 (1989), 267-278.Beechy, T.H. University Accounting Programmes in Canada: Inventory and Analysis.

The Canadian Academic Accounting Association, 1980.Berdahl, R. Universities and Society: Mutual Obligations. Proceedings ofa Conference

on Ontario Universities: Access, Operations and Funding. Ontario EconomicCouncil, 1984.

Bertrand, D. Le travail professoral demystifie. Presses de l'Universite du Quebec, 1993.Bogue, E.G. and R.L. Sanders. The Evidence for Quality: Strengthening the Tests of

Academic and Administrative Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass, 1992.Boice, R. Release time an effective component of faculty development programs?

Research in Higher Education 26, no.3 (1987), 311-327.Bourdieu, P. Homo Academicus. Stanford University Press, 1988.Boyer, E.L. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities ofthe Professoriate. Carnegie

Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990.Braxton, J.M., and A.E. Bayer. Assessing Faculty Scholarly Performance. In Measuring

Faculty Research Performance, New Directions for Institutional Research 50(1986), 25-42.

Broadhurst, W.H. University Accountability: A Strengthened Framework. Task Force onUniversity Accountability, 1993.

Brown, L.D., and J.C. Gardner. Applying Citation Analysis to Evaluate the ResearchContributions of Accounting Faculty and Doctoral Programs. Accounting Review(April 1985), 262-277.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. National Survey of Faculty. TheFoundation, 1984.

Canadian Federation of Deans of Management and Administrative Studies. Directory ofFull-Time Faculty Members in Management and Administrative Studies atCanadian Universities. CFDMAS, 1993a.

. Salary Survey. CFDMAS, 1993b.D'Cruz, J.R. Blueprint for a Management Research Council. Chapter 7 in Edging

Toward the Year 2000: Management Research and Education in Canada, ed. G.Paquet and M. von Zur-Muehlen. CFDMAS, 1989.

Page 34: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

108 Contemporary Accounting Research

Dill, D.D. Research as a Scholarly Activity: Context and Culture. In Measuring FacultyResearch Performance, ed. J.W. Creswell. New Directions for Institutional Research50(1986), 7-23.

Etherington, L., and A. Richardson. Institutional Pressures on University AccountingEducation in Canada. Contemporary Accounting Research (Special EducationResearch Issue 1994), 141-162.

Finkelstein, M. The American Academic Profession: A Synthesis of Social ScientificInquiry since World War II. Ohio State University Press, 1982.

Fortin, A., and J. Amernic. A Descriptive Profile of Intermediate Accounting Students.Contemporary Accounting Research (Special Education Research Issue 1994),21-74.

Frackmann, E. Quality Assurance in German Higher Education. HIS Hochschul-Information-Sy stems, 1991.

Gee, K.P., and R.H. Gray. Consistency and Stability of U.K. Academic PublicationOutput Criteria in Accounting. British Accounting Review 21 (1989), 43-54.

Grant, H. Salary Structures in Canadian Universities: Working Paper. University ofWinnipeg, 1993.

Gray, R.H., J. Haslam, and B.K. Prodham. Academic Departments of Accounting in theU.K.: A Note on Publication Output. British Accounting Review 19 (1987), 53-7L

Hasselback, J.R. Accounting Faculty Directory . Prentice Hall, 1992; 1993.Holland, K. Recruitment by Accounting Departments in the Higher Education Sector: An

Analysis of Recent Appointees. British Accounting Review 23 (1991), 49-66.Johnson, S. Merit Pay for Teachers: A Poor Prescription for Reform. Harvard

Educational Review 54 (1984), 500-513.Lennards, J.L. The Academic Profession in Canada: Working paper. Glendale College,

York University, 1988.Lyall, D. U.K. University Accounting Departments: Journal Output Performance, 1972-

76. British Accounting Review 10 (1978), 22-25.MacDonald Commission. Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development

Prospects for Canada. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1985.Maranto, C.L., and C. A. Streuly. The Detenninants of Individuals' Publishing

Productivity: The Early Career. Contemporary Accounting Research (Spring 1994),387-408.

Mittermaier, L.J. Representation on the Editorial Boards of Academic AccountingJournals: An Analysis of Accounting Faculties and Doctoral Programs. Issues inAccounting Education (Fall 1991), 221-238.

Murgatroyd, S., and J.C. Dodds. A Ph.D. Development Program for SmallerUniversities: A Proposal. CFDMAS, 1988.

Nadeau, G.G. The Use of Quality and Excellence Indicators in Post-secondaryEducation. Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education (CSSHE)Professional File 10 (1992).

Nadeau, G.G., J. Donald, A. Konrad, and L. Tremblay. Criteria and Indicators of Qualityand Excellence in Canadian Colleges and Universities: Results of the First PhaseDelphi. Paper presented at the Learned Societies Meetings Annual Conference ofthe Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education. Victoria, B.C., 1990.

Nichols, J.O., and K.W. Nichols. Means of Quality Assurance of the Public: EducationalProcess or Results (Outcomes)? Paper presented at the 13th Forum of the EuropeanAssociation for Institutional Research. Edinburgh, 1991.

Nobes, C.W. International Variations in Perceptions of Accounting Journals. AccountingReview LX (1985), 702-705.

. Academic Perceptions of Accounting Journals in the English-speaking World.British Accounting Review 18 (1986), 7-16.

-. Publication Output and Assessment of Departments: A Note. BritishAccounting Review 19 (1987), 289-290.

Page 35: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada

The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada 109

Patton, C.V. and J.D. Marver. Paid Consulting by American Academics. EducationalRecord (1919), 175-184.

Paquet, G. On Delta Knowledge. In Edging Toward the Year 2000: ManagementResearch and Education in Canada, ed. G. Paquet and M. von Zur-Muehlen. CFD-MAS, 1989.

Pearce, J., W. Stevenson, and J. Perry. Managerial Compensation Based onOrganizational Performance: A Time Series Analysis of the Effects on Merit Pay.Academy of Management Journal 28 (1985), 261-278.

Porter, L.W., and L.E. McKibbin. Management Education and Development: Drift orThrust into the 21st Century? McGraw-Hill, 1988.

Rapport Archambault. Rapport du groupe ministeriel de travail sur la tdche du pro-fesseur d'universite. Les tdches du professeur d'universite au Quebec. 1989.

Richardson, A.J., and J.J. Williams. Canadian Academic Accountants' Productivity: ASurvey of lORefereed Publications, 1976-1989. Contemporary AccountingResearch (Fall 1990), 278-294.

Rodgers, R.C., and C.L. Maranto. Casual Models of Publishing Productivity inPsychology. Journal of Applied Psychology 74, no.4 (1989), 636-649.

Roskin, R. Investigating Business Ph.D. Models: A Survey of Prospective TargetPreferences. CEIC in Cooperation with CFDMAS, ASAC, and CAAA, 1993.

Schultz, J.J., ed. Reorienting Accounting Education: Reports on the Environment,Professoriate, and Curriculum of Accounting. Accounting Education Monograph 10(1989).

Scott, W.R. Report on Demand and Supply Survey of Canadian Ph.D.s in Accounting,1985. Canadian Accounting Education and Research News (Supplement, April1986).

Sibley, W. Managing Universities. Chapter V in Education Canada: Higher Educationon the Brink, ed. G. Paquet and M. von Zur-Muehlen. Canadian Higher EducationResearch Network, 1987.

Smith, S.L. Report: Commission of Inquiry on Canadian University Education.Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 1991.

Universite du Quebec a Montreal. Connention collective. Universite du Quebec aMontreal et Syndicat des professeurs et professeures de T Universite du Quebec aMontreal, 1990.

von Zur-Muehlen, M. Doctoral Education at Canadian Management and AdministrativeStudies Faculties. CFDMAS. 1992.

Webster, W.G. Quality Assurance: A Framework for Canadian Universities. CanadianJournal of Higher Education XX-1 (1990), 75-85.

Wilson, L. The Professor and His Roles. In Improving College Teaching, ed. C. Lee.American Council on Education, 1967.

Page 36: The University Accounting Professoriate in Canada