The faculty perspective on the impact of AACSB accreditation.
Roberts, Wayne A., Jr. ; Johnson, Roy ; Groesbeck, John 等
ABSTRACT
Obtaining AACSB accreditation is a long, resource consuming
exercise. In this study 221 faculty from 30 schools that received AACSB
accreditation between 1997 and 2001 were surveyed to determine the
impact of accreditation on various stakeholders. Overall, accreditation
was perceived as being beneficial to the business school, students, and
faculty hired since accreditation, and to the employers of students.
Faculty, who were employed at the institution prior to receiving
accreditation, did not perceive accreditation as helping them
personally.
INTRODUCTION
Obtaining AACSB accreditation is a major undertaking. It takes
time, diverts a lot of administrative and faculty time from other
activities, is fraught with uncertainty, and takes money. A fundamental
question is whether or not it is worth the effort and expense.
The purpose of this research was to assess faculty perceptions
regarding the impact, or outcome, of AACSB accreditation. Faculty from
recently accredited schools rated the impact of accreditation on the
business school, faculty who were with the school before accreditation,
faculty hired since accreditation, the programs, and students and
employers of students.
ACCREDITATION COSTS
The direct costs of AACSB candidacy and ultimate accreditation are
non-trivial. At present the candidacy fee is $2,500 per year, along with
an initial application fee of $1,500. At the end of the process, when
the site visit occurs, the additional fee for that visit can exceed
$5,000. These costs are just the beginning.
The AACSB standards require that faculty are knowledgeable and
involved with the process, and evidence of that involvement must be
documented. In fact, accreditation should be a "faculty-driven
process" (Mottilla & Hatfield, 1997). One of the typical ways
to document that involvement is to send faculty members to AACSB
accreditation workshops that range from $1,000 per person and up just
for the attendance fee. All told, the direct costs, conference fees, air
fares, meals, and the ever-present cost of hiring consultants (deans of
schools already accredited), can drive the total cost of the candidacy
process to well over $50,000 if only a modest level of effort is made.
If the school is aggressive, these costs typically approach $100,000.
Even more taxing might be the indirect costs. Faculty must become
involved in committees, developing missions and goals, and documenting
standards and qualifications. While there is value in faculty
involvement, there are also opportunity costs for faculty who could be
doing research, teaching, or service. As Holmes (2001) notes, "This
is a lot of work, and... the already overworked faculty will have to do
most of it." According to Henninger (1998), "Generally,
faculty saw accreditation as unrewarded service work." There are
great costs in faculty resistance and in the perceived changes brought
about by accreditation.
Inevitably, a school in candidacy will have to hire additional
faculty who are able to meet, and maintain, "academically
qualified" status, and those faculty are not cheap. For the sake of
comparison, the average salary of an associate professor at a public
AACSB accredited school was about $85,000 in 2002-03. The average salary
of an associate professor at a non-AACSB accredited school was about
$69,000 for that same year. Hiring a new associate professor with
AACSB-appropriate credentials to anchor an academic program could easily
cost more than $91,000 in that same year, depending on the discipline
(see AACSB International 2002).
Thus, pursuing AACSB creates several problems with existing
faculty, and with sometimes less than enthusiastic university
administrators. Salary gaps between existing business faculty and newly
hired "anchors" can be very large. Worse yet, faculty in other
disciplines outside of business, who do not like the salary gap as it
is, become even more upset when market salaries for new
AACSB-appropriate faculty starts to take place.
In short, pursuing AACSB is not a pleasurable exercise for a
business school from both an internal and external political view. The
annual incremental cost increases for even a small school, including
salary and benefits, can easily exceed $500,000 per year.
VALUE OF ACCREDITATION
While the costs of accreditation are high, these costs must be
compared to the perceived benefits of accreditation. According to AACSB,
accreditation benefits the school, students, employers, and the public
(AACSB International, 2002b). While there is not a great deal of
research examining these results, empirical studies have examined some
of the consequences of accreditation.
Shipley and Johnson (1991) found that, while AACSB accreditation is
not a criterion for admission to graduate schools, it is likely to make
a difference in course requirements. They also found that graduation from an accredited program is significant in placement among employers
who are familiar with AACSB, but that many employers were unaware of the
AACSB. Alexander and Hatfield (1995) surveyed transfer students and
found that "being fully accredited including AACSB accreditation
and the academic reputation" of their school were the leading
reasons students transferred. Levernier and Miles (1992) found both that
there was a difference in faculty salaries between AACSB accredited
schools and non-accredited schools and that the salary differential
across disciplines was greater at the accredited schools.
Traditionally, one of the key consequences of AACSB accreditation
has been an increased focus on research. In fact, Udell, et al. (1995)
note that, "Discussions of the validity and desire for AACSB
accreditation generally become discussions of the seeming dichotomies of
teaching and research." They found that faculty of AACSB accredited
schools had published significantly more journal articles than faculty
of institutions denied accreditation, though there was no difference in
broadly defined "scholarly activities." This focus on research
by the AACSB has been downplayed by new "mission driven"
standards implemented in 1994. Several studies have examined the impact
of these new standards, especially as they concern research
requirements. Ehie and Karanthanos (1994) found that, while overall
emphasis on teaching had grown, "accredited institutions perceive
instructional responsibilities as less important and intellectual
contributions as more important than do nonaccredited
institutions." Henninger (1998) found "only modest changes in
faculty selection and work resulting from the new standards."
Similarly, Jantzen (2000) found that, "The adoption of
'mission-related' standards, by itself, has not resulted in a
change in either the number or character of schools being
accredited." Arlinghaus (2002), in a study of AACSB accounting
programs, found that "the expectation for the volume of publication
has increased at the majority of respondent institutions for both
tenured and untenured faculty." For good or bad, the emphasis on
research appears to remain.
While it seems clear that AACSB accreditation has some impact on
schools, it still is not clear how valuable this impact is. One group
whose responses to accreditation have not been included in prior
research is the faculty themselves. While deans have frequently been
surveyed about the impact of accreditation on the curriculum, tenure,
etc. (see e.g., McKenna et al. 1995; Cotton, et al. 1993; Mayes, et al.
1993), faculty response to the value of accreditation has not been
examined. That is the intent of this study.
DATA AND SAMPLE COLLECTION METHOD
A list of business schools which obtained AACSB accreditation
during the years 1997 through 2001 was obtained, and six United States business schools were randomly chosen for each year, resulting in a
total of 30 schools. Table 1 lists the chosen schools. Email addresses
for business school employees were obtained via the Internet, except for
one university, which graciously agreed to forward our email letter and
questionnaire to their faculty.
Each email address was sent a cover letter with links to
questionnaires on two different occasions. Ten schools were emailed
April 12 and April 29, 2001, and the other 20 schools were surveyed
November 21, 2001 and January 28, 2002. Faulty who were with the
institution prior to receiving AACSB accreditation were requested to
access the questionnaire, the results of which are discussed here.
Non-faculty were asked to reply to our email and indicate such, and
faculty hired since accreditation were given other instructions.
Eliminating those that indicated they were not faculty resulted in
1121 email addresses. Sixty-two respondents indicated they were faculty
hired since accreditation, and 221 respondents were hired prior to
accreditation. Hence, the minimum response rate was 25.25%. Depending on
the number of non-faculty that remained on the list, the response rate
might be considerably higher. It is not, of course, known how the
response rate of those hired since accreditation compares to the
response rate of those hired prior to accreditation.
QUESTIONNAIRE
The questionnaire consisted of 40 Likert statements and 5 questions
regarding the status and history of the respondent. It was developed
using Microsoft Frontpage, and submitted questionnaires were
automatically dumped into an Excel file, thus eliminating input error.
For the purposes of analysis, Likert responses were coded as follows: -2
= strongly disagree, -1=disagree, 0=neither agree nor disagree, 1=agree,
and 2=strongly agree. For some statements respondents were given a
'not applicable' choice, which was treated separately.
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Table 2 summarizes data regarding the respondents. With regard to
rank, 14% were assistant professors, 37.6% were associate professors,
and 39.8% were full professors. With regard to tenure, 58% had tenure
prior to accreditation, 18.6% received tenure after accreditation, and
22.6% were not tenured. With regard to discipline represented, 20% were
from accounting, 10.4% taught economics, 12.2% finance, 10.9%
information systems, 24.4% management, 10.4% marketing, and 6.3%
quantitative methods. There was a reasonable spread with regard to
administrative duties, with 43.3% reporting they had no administrative
duties, to only 3 respondents who report they are currently 100% in
administration. Finally, there was quite a spread regarding years of
experience at the institution prior to accreditation: 7.7% had worked
there 1 year or less, and, at the other end, 48.4% indicated they had
worked at the school for more than 7 years prior to its receiving
accreditation.
Based on these results there is little reason to suspect that the
respondents do not constitute a representative sample of faculty
employed at institutions prior to, and subsequent to, AACSB
accreditation.
RESULTS
The results of the survey are reflected in tables 3 through 6. In
each table, the exact wording of the Likert statements is provided. The
statements have been rearranged for the sake of discussion, and do not
reflect the order in which they appeared on the questionnaire. The main
discrepancy is that the overall assessment questions were asked near the
end of the questionnaire, just before demographic data was collected.
The 2-tailed significance value provided reflects the probability that
you would get the sample mean if the null hypothesis, that the mean
value equals 0, is true. Zero represents the neutral point (neither
agree nor disagree).
With regard to the impact of accreditation on the business school,
respondents, in general, agree with the statement that it has been
positive. As shown in table 3, the mean response for the overall
statement, 1.06, was significantly above zero. Over 83% agreed or
strongly agreed that it was good for the business school, and only 8.6%
disagreed with the statement. The majority of respondents agree that
AACSB accreditation helps the business school compete for financial
resources, students, and faculty. Further, 70% agreed or strongly agreed
that accreditation helps ensure that they have, and will continue to
have, a quality program. Only 16.4% disagreed with that statement.
With regard to the impact of accreditation on the working climate
and on interpersonal working relations, the results are not so positive.
The mean responses to statements regarding faculty-administration
relations, faculty-faculty relations, and the working climate are all
negative. Examining the percentages associated with these three
statements is revealing. The modal response is neutral, suggesting
neither a positive nor negative impact. The percent that strongly agreed
or disagreed are relatively low, suggesting that the impact, in the eyes
of most respondents, was not great.
Table 4 shows how respondents assessed the impact of AACSB
accreditation on themselves. With regard to the overall impact, the mean
response was not significantly different from 0. The percent that agreed
that, overall, they benefited was 22.1%, while 30.1% neither agreed nor
disagreed with the statement, and 27.7% disagreed. With regard to how
accreditation has impacted the allocation of their efforts, the modal
responses for most categories was neutral. The one exception concerns
research, where the modal response indicates that more effort is devoted
to this activity. As the means indicate, more non-neutral respondents
are putting less effort into teaching, working with students, university
and public service, participating in discipline-specific organizations,
upgrading knowledge, and upgrading credentials.
More respondents indicated agreement with the statement regarding
increasing job stress than disagreed. In fact, the modal response for
this category was agreement. The modal responses to statements regarding
how rewarding their jobs are and working relations are neutral. Again,
as indicated by the sample means, non-neutral respondents indicate, on
average, that their jobs are less rewarding, and that they do not have
better working relations with other faculty and administrators as a
result of AACSB accreditation.
Respondents were given a series of statements regarding the impact
of accreditation on faculty employed prior to accreditation. The results
are shown in Table 5. The mean response to the overall impact statement,
-.01, is not significantly different from zero. The percent that agreed
or strongly agreed with this statement is roughly the same as the
percent that neither agreed nor disagreed, and those who disagreed. With
regard to the extent of agreement with the statement that the
productivity of this group has increased, the mean response is, again,
not significantly different from zero. However, note that the modal
response indicates agreement, and that 45.8% either agreed or strongly
agreed while only 31.2% disagreed or strongly disagreed with that
particular statement. The mean responses for all other statements in
this table are significantly different from zero. The modal response
regarding the statement that faculty have become more satisfied with
their work is neutral, at 43.3%, but as the sample mean and percentages
indicate, disagreement with this statement exceeds agreement.
Interestingly, while 22.2% agreed that there has been salary increases
for this group, 65.7% disagreed with this statement. The mean response,
-.74, suggests that, on average, salary increases have not accompanied
accreditation. The responses to the statement regarding faculty turnover
indicates that not many faculty quit due to accreditation efforts.
Finally, most respondents, 50.4%, indicate that tenure and promotion is
more difficult now that their school is AACSB accredited.
Respondents, on average, feel that new faculty have fared better as
a result of accreditation. As shown in table 5, 72.9% agreed or strongly
agreed that accreditation has benefited new faculty, while only 8.8%
disagreed. Only 16.5% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.
Similarly, 55% agreed that new faculty have better contracts, while only
20.2% disagreed. With regard to the values of new faculty, over 81%
agree that they value research more, which overwhelmed the 5.9% that
disagreed. Results suggest that there is no difference, on average,
between new and other faculty regarding how they value university and
public service.
The responses with regard to students are somewhat perplexing. A
large majority, 68.2%, agreed that AACSB accreditation benefited
students. Yet the mean response to the statement that classroom
instruction is generally better was negative and statistically
significant, with 40.4% disagreeing with that statement. Further, the
mean responses to the statements that coursework is more appropriate,
and that students are getting a better education, are not significantly
different from zero, implying that on average these have not changed
significantly because of accreditation. Responses do indicate that, on
average, students are better able to find appropriate employment, and
while the mean is significantly different from zero, it is not large,
and the modal response to this statement, with a sizable percentage,
41.0%, is the neither agree nor disagree category.
The responses to the overall statement and the specific statements
are not consistent. It may be due to outcomes not explicitly measured in
the questionnaire, such as better resources for students because of
stronger finances, to the enhanced image associated with attending an
AACSB accredited school, to an opening of opportunities for students
(such as graduate school opportunities), or some other outcome.
One statement was included regarding the impact of accreditation on
employers of students. As shown in table 6, 41.1% agreed that
accreditation benefited employers, 40.6% neither agreed nor disagreed,
and 18.3% disagreed. The mean response was significant and positive.
However, if students aren't getting better instruction, more
appropriate coursework, and a better education, it is not clear how
employers are benefiting. Again, it must be due to factors not measured
in the study. Holmes (2001) for example, notes the high costs of
accreditation, but highlights its value both as a learning experience
and in establishing credibility, especially for historically black
colleges and universities.
Table 6 also depicts the responses to two overall assessments. In
both cases the mean values were positive and significant. A clear
majority of respondents, 53.8%, agree that AACSB accreditation has been
worth the effort. Only 13.6% disagree with that statement. A full 65%
would recommend AACSB accreditation to other schools.
THE EMERGING PICTURE
If one assumes that disagreement with a statement, such as "I
am putting more effort into public service," implies that the
respondent is putting less effort into public service, then an
interesting picture emerges.
First, respondents find that the AACSB accreditation helps the
business school compete for finances, students, and faculty, and helps a
school maintain a quality program.
With regard to students, results indicate accreditation helps
students and their employers. However, results indicate that classroom
instruction is worse, and that students are neither getting a better or
worse education. Further, faculty hired prior to accreditation are
putting less effort into teaching and working with students. It is,
therefore, not clear how accreditation helps students. It could be the
impact of image, or the ability to hire appropriate faculty (faculty, by
the way, that value teaching less and research more), or obtain other
useful resources.
Regarding the reallocation of faculty efforts, less effort is
allocated to teaching, working with students, public and university
efforts, and involvement with discipline-specific organizations, and
more effort is allocated to research. This is consonant with the
literature (e.g., Ehie & Karanthanos, 1994; Jantzen, 2000;
Arlinghaus, 2002) and calls into question the real application of
mission-driven standards.
It does not appear that AACSB accreditation has any beneficial
impact, overall, with regard to the working climate or the desirability
of the job. Results indicate faculty, on average, find their job is more
stressful and less satisfying, and they certainly do not believe that
faculty-faculty or faculty-administration relations have improved. Of
course, working relations may have been very positive prior to seeking
accreditation.
Despite this shift from teaching to research, and the increased job
stress, and no positive impact on teaching, the respondents, on average,
indicated strongly that accreditation was worth the effort.
CONCLUSIONS AND COMMENTS
Faculty who have been through the AACSB accreditation process are,
in general, positive about the outcomes. It appears that faculty present
prior to accreditation is the one group that does not, on average,
significantly benefit. Regardless, they do believe that accreditation is
worth the effort and recommend it to other schools.
While AACSB has moved to a mission-driven standard, it appears that
the nature of a university still changes as a result of accreditation.
Public and university service, involvement in discipline-specific
organizations, and teaching efforts give way to increased research
efforts. It is not known to what extent this is a positive, negative, or
neutral outcome. Further, it is not clear whether this is a consequence
of AACSB values or values held by faculty.
The discussion here has to a significant extent been guided by
statement mean values, and for different institutions the expected
outcomes might be significantly different. For example, in some
institutions salaries of existing faculty might be significantly
increased, or significant numbers of faculty might decide to pursue
careers elsewhere. Therefore, in interpreting the results of the study
it is important to go beyond the mean and examine the distribution of
responses, which reflect different situations for individual schools and
faculty. For example, while on average it appears that salary increases
do not accrue to faculty who must suffer through the accreditation
process, 22.2% of the respondents imply that there were salary
adjustments. As other examples, while on average it appears that faculty
are suffering more stress and find their jobs less rewarding, 22.4%
disagree that their jobs are more stressful, and 23.3% agree that their
work is more rewarding. Consequently, any school contemplating seeking
AACSB accreditation needs to evaluate the results in light of their
idiosyncratic circumstances.
One additional caveat must be mentioned. All respondents were from
schools that were successful in achieving accreditation. When weighing the possible consequences of pursuing accreditation it is necessary to
consider the possibility of never achieving it.
REFERENCES
AACSB International (2002), 2001-2003 Salary Survey Report, St.
Louis: Knowledge Services.
AACSB International (2002). Publications--Value of Accreditation
brochure, retrieved January 30, 2002, from
http://www.aacsb.edu/brochure.html.
Alexander, R. P. & D. Hatfield (1995). Does AACSB accreditation
impact enrollment? The Coastal Business Journal, 1(1), 47-52.
Arlinghaus, B. P. (2002). The environment for professional
interaction and relevant practical experience in AACSB-accredited
accounting programs. Journal of Education for Business, 77(4), 38-45.
Cotton, C.C., J. F. McKenna, S. Van Auken & R.A. Yeider (1993).
Mission orientations and deans' perceptions: implications for the
new AACSB accreditation standards. Journal of Organizational Change,
6(1), 17-27.
Ehie, I. C. & D. Karathanos (1994). Business faculty
performance evaluation based on the new AACSB accreditation standards.
Journal of Education for Business, 69(5), 257-263.
Jantzen, R. H. (2000). AACSB mission-linked standards: effects on
the accreditation process. Journal of Education for Business, 75(6),
343-48.
Henninger, E. A. (1998). Dean's role in change: the case of
professional accreditation reform of American collegiate business
education. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 20(2),
203-214.
Henninger, E. A. (1998). Perceptions of the impact of the new AACSB
standards on faculty qualifications. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 11(5), 407-424.
Holmes, L. (2001). Seeking accreditation is well worth the work.
Black Issues in Higher Education, 18(20), 152-153.
Levernier, W. & M. Miles. (1992). Effects of AACSB
accreditation on academic salaries. Journal of Education for Business,
68(1), 55-61.
McKenna, J.F., C.C. Cotton & S. Van Auken. (1995). Business
school emphasis on teaching, research and service to industry: does
where you sit determine where you stand? Journal of Organizational
Change, 8(2), 3-16.
Mayes, B.T., D. Heide & E. Smith. (1993). Anticipated changes
in the business school curriculum: a survey of deans in AACSB accredited
and non-accredited schools. Journal of Organizational Change, 6(1),
54-63.
Motilla, D.T. & L. Hatfield. (1997). The view from the
trenches: a steering committee's retrospective on implementing the
new AACSB accreditation standards. Journal of Education for Business,
72(5), 289-293.
Shipley, M. F. & M. Johnson. (1991). Employment and academic
opportunities for graduates of AACSB-accredited schools. Journal of
Education for Business, 66(4), 235-240.
Udell, G.G., S. Parker & C. Pettijohn. (1995). An examination
of the research productivity of marketing faculty atnewly minted AACSB
schools. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 3(2), 106-113.
Wayne A. Roberts, Jr., Southern Utah University
Roy Johnson, Southern Utah University
John Groesbeck, Southern Utah University
Table 1. Recently AACSB Accredited Schools Selected for Study
St. Mary's University The U. of Tampa
Marshall University Illinois Institute of Tech.
SW Texas State Chapman University
Fairfield University Seattle Pacific U.
New Jersey Institute of Tech U. of Mass.--Dartmouth
Pace University Iona College
Jacksonville State U. Niagara U.
Henderson State U. Winston-Salem State U.
Rice University No. Carolina St. U.
Longwood College Indiana University Kokomo
Coastal Carolina U. Fairleigh Dickinson U.
The College of NJ U. of Mass.--Boston
Quinnipiac University Michigan Tech. U.
Truman State Long Island U.
St. Joseph's U. No. Dakota State University
Table 2. Selected Respondent Characteristics
Number of Respondents by Year
Accredited Areas of Teaching Responsibility
Year Number Discipline Number
1997 82 Accounting 44
1998 31 Economics 23
1999 30 Finance 27
2000 36 Information systems 24
2001 42 Management 54
TOTAL 221 Marketing 23
Quantitative methods 14
Respondent Tenure Status Other response 11
Tenured prior to 128 TOTAL 221
accreditation
Tenured after accreditation 41
Not tenured 50
Missing 2
TOTAL 221
Years working for School Prior to
Accreditation Faculty Rank
1 year or less 17 Instructor 10
More than 1 to 3 38 Assistant Professor 31
More than 3 to 5 32 Associate Professor 83
More than 5 to 7 25 Full Professor 88
More than 7 107 Other 5
Missing 2 Missing 4
TOTAL 221 TOTAL 221
Table 3. AACSB accreditation impact on the business school.
Mean
(Standard SA
deviation) Sig. (b) (a) A
Likert Statement (n) (a) (2-tailed) (+2) (+1)
Overall, AACSB 1.06 (.94) .000 33.9% 49.3%
accreditation has been
good for the business
school. (221)
AACSB accreditation has helped our business school compete for ...
financial resources. (219) .73 (1.04) .000 23.3 42.5
... students. (218) .83 (.92) .000 19.7 56.0
... what I consider to be .77 (.99) .000 22.6 46.5
appropriate faculty. (217)
Going through the AACSB .72 (1.10) .000 23.6 46.4
accreditation process has
helped ensure that we
have, and will continue to
have, a quality program.
(220)
Because of AACSB accreditation ...
... faculty-administration -.23 (1.03) .001 5.1 16.6
relationships are better.
(217)
... faculty-faculty -.13 (1.00) .050 5.1 20.8
relationships within the
business school are
better. (216)
... the overall working -.23 (1.03) .001 2.3 25.5
climate among faculty has
improved. (216)
N D SD
Likert Statement (n) (0) (-1) (-2)
Overall, AACSB 8.1% 6.3% 2.3%
accreditation has been
good for the business
school. (221)
AACSB accreditation has helped our business school compete for ...
financial resources. (219) 21.9 8.2 4.1
... students. (218) 13.8 8.3 2.3
... what I consider to be 19.4 8.8 2.8
appropriate faculty. (217)
Going through the AACSB 13.6 11.4 5.0
accreditation process has
helped ensure that we
have, and will continue to
have, a quality program.
(220)
Because of AACSB accreditation ...
... faculty-administration 40.6 25.8 12.0
relationships are better.
(217)
... faculty-faculty 37.5 28.7 7.9
relationships within the
business school are
better. (216)
... the overall working 31.0 29.6 11.6
climate among faculty has
improved. (216)
(a) 5-point scale where +2 = strongly agree (SA), +1 = agree (A),
0 = neither agree nor disagree (N), -1 = disagree (D),
and -2 = strongly disagree (SD).
(b) 2-tailed significance associated with H: mean = 0
Table 4: AACSB accreditation impact on respondents.
Mean
(Standard SA
deviation) Sig. (b) (a) A
Likert Statement (n) (a) (2-tailed) (+2) (+1)
Overall, AACSB .13 (1.17) .116 10.2% 31.9%
accreditation has
benefitted me. (216)
Because of AACSB accreditation, I'm putting more effort into ...
... the courses I teach. -.31 (1.06) .000 4.8 16.3
(209)
...working with students. -.40 (.95) .000 2.4 11.6
(207)
... research. (206) .51 (1.16) .000 21.4 35.0
... university service. -.35 (.95) .000 3.8 10.6
(208)
... helping members of -.46 (.89) .000 1.4 8.6
the public (such as
businesses and civic
groups). (209)
... becoming involved -.20 (1.07) .007 7.2 15.8
with discipline-specific
academic organizations.
(209)
... upgrading my -.15 (1.14) .060 7.2 22.0
knowledge in my
discipline. (209)
... upgrading my -.22 (1.09) .003 4.8 21.1
credentials. (209)
As a result of AACSB accreditation, ...
... my job is more .44 (1.13) .000 18.3 25.6
stressful. (219)
... my work is more -.29 (.98) .000 1.4 21.9
rewarding. (219)
... I have better working -.21 (.86) .000 1.4 16.9
relations with other
faculty. (219)
... I have better working -.28 (.95) .000 1.8 17.8
relations with
administrators. (219)
N D SD
Likert Statement (n) (0) (-1) (-2)
Overall, AACSB 30.1% 15.7% 12.0%
accreditation has
benefitted me. (216)
Because of AACSB accreditation, I'm putting more effort into ...
... the courses I teach. 36.4 28.2 14.4
(209)
...working with students. 43.5 28.5 14.0
(207)
... research. (206) 24.8 11.7 7.3
... university service. 43.3 31.3 11.1
(208)
... helping members of 45.9 30.1 13.9
the public (such as
businesses and civic
groups). (209)
... becoming involved 38.3 27.3 11.5
with discipline-specific
academic organizations.
(209)
... upgrading my 34.0 22.5 14.4
knowledge in my
discipline. (209)
... upgrading my 36.4 22.5 15.3
credentials. (209)
As a result of AACSB accreditation, ...
... my job is more 23.7 16.9 5.5
stressful. (219)
... my work is more 35.2 29.7 11.9
rewarding. (219)
... I have better working 48.9 25.1 7.8
relations with other
faculty. (219)
... I have better working 42.5 26.0 11.9
relations with
administrators. (219)
(a) 5-point scale where +2 = strongly agree (SA), +1 = agree (A),
0 = neither agree nor disagree (N), -1 = disagree (D),
and -2 = strongly disagree (SD).
b 2-tailed significance associated with H: mean = 0
Table 5. AACSB accreditation impact on faculty.
Mean SA
(Standard (a)
deviation) Sig. (b) (+2) A
Likert Statement (n) (a) (2-tailed) (+1)
Faculty hired prior to accreditation
Overall, AACSB -.01 (1.04) .845 4.5% 30.5%
accreditation has
benefited faculty who
were here prior to
accreditation. (220)
Faculty who were here prior to AACSB accreditation ...
... have become more .10 (1.10) .176 5.0 40.8
productive. (218)
... have become more -.46 (.83) .000 .9 9.2
satisfied with their
work. (217)
... have seen salary -.74 (1.21) .000 3.7 18.5
increases due to AACSB
accreditation. (216)
Some faculty quit because -.53 (1.15) .000 4.6 17.0
of AACSB accreditation or
accreditation efforts.
(218)
It is more difficult to .35 (1.19) .000 18.3 32.1
receive tenure and
promotions now that we
are AACSB accredited.
(218)
Faculty hired since accreditation Overall, AACSB
accreditation has .79 (.89) .000 16.5 56.4
benefitted new faculty.
(214)
Compared to faculty who worked here prior to AACSB accreditation
efforts, new faculty ...
... generally value 1.04 (.84) .000 28.2 53.2
research more. (217)
... generally value -.32 (1.00) .000 4.6 13.2
teaching more. (217)
... generally value .09 (.96) .158 5.9 27.1
university/public service
less. (215)
... have better .48 (1.08) .000 15.6 39.4
contracts . (211)
N D SD
Likert Statement (n) (0) (-1) (-2)
Faculty hired prior to accreditation
Overall, AACSB 32.7% 23.6% 8.6%
accreditation has
benefited faculty who
were here prior to
accreditation. (220)
Faculty who were here prior to AACSB accreditation ...
... have become more 22.9 21.6 9.6
productive. (218)
... have become more 43.3 36.4 10.1
satisfied with their
work. (217)
... have seen salary 12.0 31.9 33.8
increases due to AACSB
accreditation. (216)
Some faculty quit because 22.0 33.5 22.9
of AACSB accreditation or
accreditation efforts.
(218)
It is more difficult to 22.5 20.2 6.9
receive tenure and
promotions now that we
are AACSB accredited.
(218)
Faculty hired since accreditation Overall, AACSB
accreditation has 16.5 6.0 2.8
benefitted new faculty.
(214)
Compared to faculty who worked here prior to AACSB accreditation
efforts, new faculty ...
... generally value 11.4 4.5 1.4
research more. (217)
... generally value 38.4 31.5 11.4
teaching more. (217)
... generally value 39.4 19.9 5.0
university/public service
less. (215)
... have better 21.6 16.1 4.1
contracts . (211)
(a) 5-point scale where +2 = strongly agree (SA), +1 = agree (A),
0 = neither agree nor disagree (N), -1 = disagree (D),
and -2 = strongly disagree (SD).
(b) 2-tailed significance associated with H:mean=0
Table 6. AACSB accreditation impact on students, employers,
and overall assessment.
Mean
(Standard SA
deviation) Sig. (b) (a) A
Likert Statement (n) (a) (2-tailed) (+2) (+1)
Students and employers
Overall, AACSB .60 (1.01) .000 13.2% 55.0%
accreditation has
benefitted students.
(220)
Overall, AACSB .24 (.89) .000 4.6 36.5
accreditation has
benefitted the employers
of our students. (219)
Because of AACSB accreditation, ...
... classroom instruction -.25 (1.03) .000 1.8 24.8
is generally better.
(218)
... coursework is more -.05 (1.06) .522 3.7 32.1
appropriate. (218)
...students are getting a .02 (1.06) .799 5.1 32.7
better education. (217)
... students are better .18 (.99) .010 8.3 28.6
able to find appropriate
employment. (217)
Overall assessment and recommendation
Overall, AACSB .78 (1.08) .000 24.0 29.8
accreditation has been
worth the effort to
obtain it. (221)
Overall, AACSB .66 (1.08) .000 21.4 43.6
accreditation is
something I would
recommend to other
schools. (220)
N D SD
Likert Statement (n) (0) (-1) (-2)
Students and employers
Overall, AACSB 15.9% 10.9% 5.0%
accreditation has
benefitted students.
(220)
Overall, AACSB 40.6 14.6 3.7
accreditation has
benefitted the employers
of our students. (219)
Because of AACSB accreditation, ...
... classroom instruction 33.0 27.1 13.3
is generally better.
(218)
... coursework is more 30.3 23.9 10.1
appropriate. (218)
...students are getting a 30.4 22.6 9.2
better education. (217)
... students are better 41.0 16.6 5.5
able to find appropriate
employment. (217)
Overall assessment and recommendation
Overall, AACSB 12.7 7.7 5.9
accreditation has been
worth the effort to
obtain it. (221)
Overall, AACSB 20.5 9.1 5.5
accreditation is
something I would
recommend to other
schools. (220)
(a) 5-point scale where +2 = strongly agree (SA), +1 = agree (A),
0 = neither agree nor disagree (N), -1 = disagree (D),
and -2 = strongly disagree (SD).
(b) 2-tailed significance associated with H:mean=0