Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.84.4.219-228

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

An Examination of AACSB Member School
Processes for Evaluating Intellectual Contributions
and Academic and Professional Qualifications of
Faculty
Kenneth J. Smith , G. Timothy Haight & Donald L. Rosenberg
To cite this article: Kenneth J. Smith , G. Timothy Haight & Donald L. Rosenberg (2009) An
Examination of AACSB Member School Processes for Evaluating Intellectual Contributions and
Academic and Professional Qualifications of Faculty, Journal of Education for Business, 84:4,
219-228, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.4.219-228
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.4.219-228

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 26

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]

Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:52

An฀Examination฀of฀AACSB฀Member฀School฀
Processes฀for฀Evaluating฀Intellectual฀
Contributions฀and฀Academic฀and฀
Professional฀Qualifications฀of฀Faculty

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:52 11 January 2016

KENNETH฀J.฀SMITH฀
SALISBURY฀UNIVERSITY฀
SALISBURY,฀MARYLAND฀

DONALD฀L.฀ROSENBERG฀
TOWSON฀UNIVERSITY฀
TOWSON,฀MARYLAND

G.฀TIMOTHY฀HAIGHT฀
MENLO฀COLLEGE฀
ATHERTON,฀CALIFORNIA

ABSTRACT.฀Section฀3,฀Standards฀2฀and฀
10฀of฀the฀Association฀to฀Advance฀Collegiate฀
Schools฀of฀Business฀(AACSB)฀International’s฀(2008)฀revised฀Eligibility฀Procedures฀
and฀Standards฀for฀Business฀Accreditation฀
addressed฀the฀expectations฀regarding฀the฀
intellectual฀contributions฀of฀business฀school฀
faculty฀and฀faculty฀qualifications.฀To฀assess฀
the฀extent฀to฀which฀AACSB฀International฀
member฀schools฀comprehend฀these฀2฀critical฀standards,฀the฀authors฀surveyed฀deans฀
from฀560฀AACSB฀International฀member฀
schools฀in฀the฀United฀States฀regarding฀the฀

expectations฀and฀processes฀in฀place฀at฀their฀
institutions฀to฀ensure฀compliance฀with฀
them.฀The฀authors฀received฀usable฀responses฀from฀177฀(32%)฀people฀of฀those฀surveyed฀in฀the฀allotted฀timeframe.฀The฀results฀
point฀to฀areas฀of฀concern฀with฀respect฀to฀
interpretation฀of฀both฀of฀these฀standards.
Keywords:฀academic฀qualifications,฀Association฀to฀Advance฀Collegiate฀Schools฀
of฀Business฀qualifications,฀professional฀
qualifications
Copyright฀©฀2009฀Heldref฀Publications

฀

S

ection฀ 3฀ of฀ the฀ Association฀ to฀
Advance฀ Collegiate฀ Schools฀ of฀
Business฀ (AACSB)฀ International’s฀
(2008)฀ revised฀ Eligibility฀ Procedures฀
and฀ Standards฀ for฀ Business฀ Accreditation,฀ which฀ is฀ the฀ fifth฀ revision฀ of฀ the฀
new฀ standards฀ initially฀ promulgated฀ on฀

April฀ 25,฀ 2003,฀ addressed฀ the฀ expectations฀ regarding฀ the฀ intellectual฀ contributions฀ (IC)฀ of฀ business฀ school฀ faculty฀
(Standard฀ 2)฀ and฀ faculty฀ qualifications฀
(Standard฀10).฀Both฀standards฀link฀faculty฀ expectations฀ with฀ the฀ academic฀
business฀ unit’s฀ mission,฀ and฀ provide฀
detailed฀ guidelines฀ for฀ evaluation฀ and฀
documentation.฀ However,฀ neither฀ standard฀ provides฀ specific฀ quantitative฀ or฀
qualitative฀ benchmarks,฀ instead฀ leaving฀ this฀ task฀ to฀ the฀ individual฀ member฀
school.฀ Although฀ the฀ omission฀ of฀ specific฀benchmarks฀allows฀each฀school฀to฀
tailor฀ performance฀ expectations฀ to฀ its฀
unique฀ mission,฀ this฀ lack฀ of฀ specificity฀
also฀raises฀questions฀about฀the฀appropriate฀interpretation฀and฀implementation฀of฀
these฀guidelines฀in฀evaluating฀individual฀
faculty,฀ the฀ rigor฀ of฀ established฀ benchmarks,฀and฀the฀like.฀
In฀the฀AACSB฀International’s฀(2008)฀
revised฀Eligibility฀Procedures฀and฀Standards฀ for฀ Business฀ Accreditation,฀ the฀
text฀of฀Section฀3’s฀Standards฀2฀and฀10฀
has฀ evolved฀ after฀ attempts฀ to฀ provide฀
additional฀guidance฀to฀member฀schools฀
struggling฀ to฀ interpret฀ or฀ implement฀
the฀ expectations฀ outlined฀ therein.฀ On-

going฀AACSB฀International-sponsored฀
workshop฀offerings฀dealing฀with฀issues฀
regarding฀ Standards’฀ 2฀ and฀ 10฀ hint฀ at฀
the฀difficulty฀still฀facing฀many฀schools฀
in฀interpreting฀and฀implementing฀these฀
guidelines.฀ Furthermore,฀ Flaherty฀ and฀
Trapnell฀ (2007)฀ reported฀ that฀ in฀ the฀
last฀ 5฀ years,฀ issues฀ regarding฀ Standards฀ 2฀ and฀ 10฀ have฀ ranked฀ third฀ and฀
first,฀respectively,฀among฀the฀most฀frequently฀cited฀reasons฀that฀schools฀have฀
received฀ a฀ 6th-year฀ review,฀ instead฀ of฀
the฀ desired฀ accreditation฀ maintenance,฀
as฀ the฀ outcome฀ of฀ their฀ accreditation฀
maintenance฀visits.฀This฀fact฀serves฀as฀
additional฀ evidence฀ that฀ an฀ information฀ gap฀ may฀ exist฀ between฀ AACSB฀
International฀expectations฀and฀the฀ability฀ of฀ member฀ schools฀ to฀ interpret฀ or฀
implement฀these฀AACSB฀International฀
standards.฀
The฀ aforementioned฀ difficulties฀
are฀ not฀ ubiquitous฀ because฀ numerous฀ schools฀ have฀ attained฀ accreditation฀ maintenance฀ under฀ the฀ revised฀

standards.฀ Although฀ studies฀ have฀ examined฀ several฀ other฀ AACSB฀ International฀ standards฀ (for฀ a฀ review,฀ see฀
Legorreta,฀Kelley,฀&฀Sablynski,฀2006),฀
valuable฀insights฀may฀be฀gained฀from฀
learning฀what฀successful฀schools฀have฀
done฀to฀comply฀with฀Section฀3,฀Standards฀2฀and฀10.฀These฀insights฀should฀
be฀ particularly฀ beneficial฀ to฀ readers฀
from฀ member฀ schools฀ seeking฀ initial฀ accreditation,฀ accredited฀ schools฀
March/April฀2009฀

219

seeking฀ reaccreditation฀ (i.e.,฀ accreditation฀maintenance)฀under฀the฀revised฀
standards฀for฀the฀first฀time,฀and฀those฀
schools฀ that฀ did฀ not฀ attain฀ accreditation฀ maintenance฀ during฀ their฀ initial฀
site฀visits.฀

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:52 11 January 2016

PURPOSE
The฀purpose฀of฀the฀present฀study฀was฀

twofold.฀ First,฀ we฀ sought฀ to฀ clarify฀ the฀
nature฀of฀business฀school฀administrators’฀
perceptions฀ and฀ expectations฀ regarding฀
compliance฀ with฀ the฀ aforementioned฀
AACSB฀ International฀ (2008)฀ standards฀
regarding฀IC฀and฀academic฀and฀professional฀ qualifications.฀ We฀ examined฀ the฀
responses฀of฀a฀diverse฀group฀of฀AACSB฀
International฀ member฀ school฀ respondents,฀enabling฀us฀to฀determine฀if฀there฀
is฀a฀significant฀information฀gap฀between฀
(a)฀the฀meaning฀and฀intent฀of฀Standards฀
2฀and฀10฀and฀(b)฀respondents’฀apparent฀
comprehension฀ (or฀ lack฀ of฀ comprehension)฀ of฀ these฀ standards.฀ The฀ second฀
focus฀of฀the฀present฀study฀was฀to฀assess฀
whether฀ there฀ are฀ significant฀ differences฀ in฀ the฀ interpretation฀ of฀ these฀ standards฀among฀respondents฀from฀schools฀
accredited฀under฀the฀new฀standards฀(i.e.,฀
those฀ in฀ effect฀ since฀ April฀ 25,฀ 2003),฀
those฀ accredited฀ under฀ the฀ old฀ standards฀ (i.e.,฀ those฀ in฀ effect฀ before฀April฀
25,฀2003;฀AACSB฀International,฀2001),฀
and฀ those฀ from฀ nonaccredited฀ member฀
schools.1฀ This฀ approach฀ should฀ yield฀

valuable฀insight฀into฀the฀extent฀to฀which฀
the฀purported฀difficulties฀in฀interpreting฀
these฀standards฀is฀a฀function฀of฀familiarity฀ with฀ the฀ standards฀ (with฀ accreditation฀ status฀ serving฀ as฀ the฀ knowledge฀
proxy),฀ as฀ opposed฀ to฀ difficulties฀ more฀
fundamentally฀ related฀ to฀ the฀ standards฀
themselves.฀
IC฀and฀the฀Mission฀Statement
Section฀ 3฀ of฀ AACSB฀ International’s฀
revised฀Eligibility฀Procedures฀and฀Standards฀for฀Business฀Accreditation฀(2008)฀
outlines฀ the฀ standards฀ for฀ business฀
accreditation฀ with฀ interpretative฀ information.฀ Section฀ 3,฀ Standard฀ 2฀ states฀฀
the฀following:฀
The฀school’s฀mission฀statement฀is฀appropriate฀ to฀ higher฀ education฀ for฀ management฀ and฀ consonant฀ with฀ the฀ mission฀ of฀
any฀ institution฀ of฀ which฀ the฀ school฀ is฀ a฀
part.฀The฀mission฀includes฀the฀production฀

220฀

Journal฀of฀Education฀for฀Business

of฀intellectual฀contributions฀that฀advance฀
the฀ knowledge฀ and฀ practice฀ of฀ business฀
and฀management.฀(p.฀21)

Standard฀2฀broadly฀classifies฀IC฀into฀
three฀categories:฀(a)฀learning฀and฀pedagogical฀ research,฀ (b)฀ contributions฀ to฀
practice,฀and฀(c)฀discipline-based฀scholarship฀ (AACSB฀ International,฀ 2008).฀
Although฀noting฀that฀individual฀schools฀
may฀determine฀the฀relative฀emphasis฀of฀
contributions฀from฀each฀category,฀Standard฀ 2฀ specifies฀ that฀ “the฀ portfolio฀ of฀
faculty฀ contributions฀ must฀ fit฀ with฀ the฀
prioritized฀mix฀of฀activities฀as฀stated฀in฀
the฀mission฀statement฀and฀demanded฀by฀
the฀ degree฀ programs฀ and฀ other฀ activities฀ supported฀ by฀ the฀ school”฀ (AACSB฀
International,฀p.฀23).฀The฀highest฀degree฀
offered฀at฀the฀school฀(i.e.,฀baccalaureate,฀
master,฀doctoral)฀is฀often฀determinative฀
of฀the฀relative฀emphasis฀placed฀on฀each฀
category฀of฀scholarship.฀Standard฀2฀further฀states฀that฀although฀not฀every฀faculty฀
member฀must฀contribute฀in฀each฀of฀the฀

three฀categories,฀the฀faculty฀as฀a฀whole฀
must฀ demonstrate฀ sufficient฀ mission-฀
supporting฀ development฀ over฀ the฀ previous฀ 5-year฀ review฀ period.฀ Thus,฀฀
Standard฀ 2฀ focuses฀ on฀ the฀ body฀ of฀ IC฀
that฀is฀produced฀by฀the฀school’s฀faculty฀
as฀a฀whole.฀As฀part฀of฀the฀accreditation฀
maintenance฀evaluation฀process,฀reviewers฀ examine฀ the฀ school’s฀ portfolio฀ of฀
IC฀ to฀ determine฀ if฀ it฀ is฀ consistent฀ with฀
the฀mission฀and฀involves฀a฀“substantial฀
cross-section฀of฀the฀faculty฀in฀each฀discipline”฀(AACSB฀International,฀p.฀24).฀
Individual฀Faculty฀Qualifications
Although฀Standard฀2฀of฀AACSB฀International’s฀revised฀Eligibility฀Procedures฀
and฀ Standards฀ for฀ Business฀ Accreditation฀ (2008)฀ focuses฀ on฀ the฀ aggregate฀
faculty,฀ the฀ focus฀ of฀ Standard฀ 10฀ is฀ on฀
the฀ academic฀ and฀ professional฀ qualifications฀ of฀ individual฀ faculty฀ members.฀
With฀respect฀to฀academic฀qualification,฀
Standard฀10฀states,฀“Academic฀qualification฀ requires฀ a฀ combination฀ of฀ original฀
academic฀ preparation฀ (degree฀ completion)฀augmented฀by฀subsequent฀activities฀
that฀ maintain฀ or฀ establish฀ preparation฀
for฀ current฀ teaching฀ responsibilities”฀

(AACSB฀International,฀p.฀44).฀
To฀be฀considered฀academically฀qualified฀(AQ),฀an฀individual฀faculty฀member฀
must฀have฀completed฀a฀doctoral฀or฀other฀

terminal฀ degree฀ and฀ be฀ engaged฀ in฀ a฀
series฀of฀activities฀to฀maintain฀currency฀
in฀their฀teaching฀specialty.฀Standard฀10฀
requires฀ additional฀ academic฀ preparation฀ and฀ maintenance฀ activities฀ of฀฀
faculty฀ members฀ whose฀ primary฀ teaching฀ responsibility฀ is฀ in฀ an฀ area฀ that฀
is฀ outside฀ of฀ their฀ original฀ academic฀
preparation.฀The฀ nature฀ and฀ number฀ of฀฀
subsequent฀activities฀necessary฀to฀maintain฀academic฀qualification฀is฀influenced฀
by฀ the฀ program฀ level฀ at฀ which฀ an฀ individual฀teaches.฀As฀an฀alternative฀form฀of฀
faculty฀qualification,฀Standard฀10฀states฀
that฀ academic฀ preparation฀ and฀ relevant฀
professional฀experience฀are฀required฀for฀
a฀faculty฀member฀to฀be฀considered฀professionally฀ qualified฀ (PQ).฀ The฀ normal฀
academic฀ preparation฀ for฀ PQ฀ faculty฀ is฀
a฀master’s฀degree฀in฀a฀field฀related฀to฀the฀
area฀of฀teaching฀responsibility;฀the฀professional฀experience฀must฀be฀related฀to฀
the฀teaching฀assignment฀and฀be฀significant฀in฀duration฀and฀level฀of฀responsibility.฀ Faculty฀ who฀ meet฀ this฀ requirement฀
at฀ the฀ time฀ of฀ initial฀ hire฀ are฀ deemed฀
to฀ be฀ PQ฀ as฀ long฀ as฀ they฀ engage฀ in฀
subsequent฀activities฀that฀maintain฀their฀
qualifications฀in฀their฀teaching฀area.฀The฀
school฀ under฀ review฀ bears฀ the฀ burden฀
of฀ justifying฀ that฀ individual฀ faculty฀ are฀
PQ.฀ Although฀ initial฀ academic฀ or฀ professional฀ qualifications฀ are฀ important,฀
Standard฀10฀specifies฀the฀following:฀
Regardless฀of฀their฀specialty,฀work฀experience,฀or฀graduate฀preparation,฀the฀standard฀
requires฀ that฀ faculty฀ members฀ maintain฀
their฀competence฀through฀efforts฀to฀learn฀
about฀their฀specialty฀and฀how฀it฀is฀applied฀
in฀ practice.฀ Likewise,฀ faculty฀ members฀
must฀engage฀in฀constant฀learning฀activity฀
to฀ maintain฀ currency฀ with฀ their฀ fields’฀
developing฀research฀and฀theory.฀(AACSB฀
International,฀2008,฀p.฀47)

The฀standard฀premises฀this฀requirement฀ on฀ the฀ rapid฀ changes฀ in฀ the฀
world฀ of฀ business฀ and฀ the฀ need฀ for฀
faculty฀ to฀ stay฀ up-to-date฀ throughout฀
their฀careers.฀
Standard฀ 10฀ of฀ AACSB฀ International’s฀ revised฀ Eligibility฀ Procedures฀
and฀ Standards฀ for฀ Business฀ Accreditation฀ (2008)฀ does฀ allow฀ flexibility฀ with฀
respect฀ to฀ the฀ activities฀ in฀ which฀ individual฀faculty฀members฀may฀engage฀to฀
maintain฀their฀academic฀or฀professional฀
qualifications.฀ In฀ fact,฀ it฀ illustrates฀ a฀
number฀ of฀ activities฀ that฀ may฀ be฀ used฀
to฀justify฀the฀maintenance฀of฀AQ฀or฀PQ฀

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:52 11 January 2016

status฀and฀even฀states฀that฀the฀activities฀
faculty฀ choose฀ to฀ stay฀ up-to-date฀ may฀
change฀ as฀ their฀ careers฀ progress.฀ The฀
illustrated฀activities฀are฀not฀intended฀to฀
be฀exhaustive,฀and฀the฀standard฀assumes฀
that฀ most฀ faculty฀ members฀ engage฀ in฀
multiple฀activities.฀
It฀ is฀ arguable฀ that฀ the฀ most฀ misunderstood฀aspect฀of฀these฀two฀standards฀
is฀ the฀ relation฀ between฀ IC฀ and฀ faculty฀
qualifications.฀ Although฀ Standard฀ 10฀
of฀AACSB฀ International’s฀ revised฀ Eligibility฀ Procedures฀ and฀ Standards฀ for฀
Business฀ Accreditation฀ (2008)฀ allows฀
faculty฀members฀to฀engage฀in฀a฀variety฀
of฀activities฀to฀demonstrate฀their฀maintenance฀of฀AQ฀or฀PQ฀status,฀it฀specifies฀
that฀ a฀ school’s฀ portfolio฀ of฀ IC฀ “must฀
emanate฀ from฀ a฀ substantial฀ cross-฀
section฀ of฀ faculty฀ in฀ each฀ discipline”฀
(p.฀ 48).฀ Thus,฀ although฀ some฀ faculty฀
may฀ maintain฀ their฀ qualifications฀ by฀
means฀ other฀ than฀ publishing฀ missionsupporting฀ IC,฀ a฀ substantial฀ cross-section฀ of฀ faculty฀ members฀ are฀ expected฀
to฀maintain฀their฀qualifications฀by฀producing฀ IC฀ as฀ specified฀ in฀ Standard฀ 2฀
and฀ defined฀ in฀ the฀ policies฀ of฀ their฀
school.฀A฀school฀must฀justify฀the฀qualifications฀of฀its฀faculty.฀
Again,฀ the฀ impetus฀ for฀ the฀ present฀
investigation฀ was฀ in฀ the฀ apparent฀ difficulty฀facing฀AACSB฀International฀member฀ schools฀ in฀ their฀ efforts฀ to฀ interpret,฀
implement,฀ and฀ comply฀ with฀ Section฀
3,฀ Standards฀ 2฀ and฀ 10฀ (AACSB฀ International,฀2008)฀guidelines.
METHOD
Participants
Deans฀ from฀ the฀ 560฀ U.S.-based฀
AACSB฀ International฀ member฀ schools,฀
as฀ reported฀ in฀ the฀ AACSB฀ International฀ 2005–2006฀ Membership฀ Directory฀
(2005),฀ provided฀ the฀ target฀ sample฀ for฀
the฀ present฀ study.2฀We฀ sent฀ a฀ questionnaire฀ package฀ to฀ the฀ deans฀ of฀ these฀
560฀ institutions,฀ and฀ after฀ 3฀ weeks,฀ we฀
sent฀ e-mail฀ reminder฀ messages฀ with฀
questionnaires฀ attached฀ to฀ all฀ nonrespondents.฀ At฀ 4฀ weeks,฀ we฀ sent฀ a฀
final฀ request฀ for฀ survey฀ completion฀ to฀
all฀nonrespondents.฀We฀included฀in฀the฀
study฀ those฀ surveys฀ that฀ we฀ received฀
within฀10฀weeks฀of฀the฀original฀mailing,฀
yielding฀ 177฀ usable฀ responses฀ (32%).3฀
฀

A฀ few฀ surveys฀ were฀ returned฀ incomplete,฀with฀notes฀that฀indicated฀that฀the฀
respondent฀ was฀ too฀ busy฀ to฀ complete฀
the฀package.฀
Of฀the฀177฀respondents,฀145฀(81.9%)฀
were฀ from฀ AACSB฀ Internationalaccredited฀ institutions฀ and฀ 32฀ (18.1%)฀
were฀from฀nonaccredited฀AACSB฀International฀ member฀ schools.฀A฀ chi-square฀
test฀ that฀ we฀ performed฀ to฀ compare฀ the฀
ratio฀ of฀ accredited฀ schools฀ with฀ total฀
schools฀in฀the฀final฀sample,฀in฀comparison฀with฀that฀of฀the฀underlying฀AACSB฀
International฀ member฀ school฀ population,฀did฀not฀reveal฀a฀significant฀difference,฀χ2(1,฀N฀=฀177)฀=฀0.04,฀p฀=฀.84.
Among฀the฀accredited฀school฀responses,฀ 103฀ came฀ from฀ schools฀ accredited฀
under฀the฀old฀standards฀(AACSB฀International,฀2001)฀and฀42฀came฀from฀those฀
accredited฀ under฀ the฀ new฀ standards.฀
A฀ chi-square฀ test฀ performed฀ to฀ compare฀ the฀ ratio฀ of฀ those฀ schools฀ accredited฀under฀the฀new฀standards฀with฀total฀
accredited฀ schools฀ in฀ the฀ final฀ sample,฀
with฀the฀ratio฀of฀the฀underlying฀AACSB฀
International฀member฀school฀population฀
(–92฀ and฀ 457,฀ respectively),฀ did฀ not฀
reveal฀ a฀ significant฀ difference,฀ χ2(1,฀ N฀
=฀145)฀=฀2.68,฀p฀=฀.1.฀This฀finding฀and฀
that฀reported฀in฀the฀previous฀paragraph฀
supported฀our฀assumption฀that฀the฀final฀
sample฀was฀representative฀of฀the฀underlying฀ population฀ in฀ terms฀ of฀ AACSB฀
International฀reporting฀status.

our฀preparatory฀work฀for฀AACSB฀International฀ accreditation฀ at฀ our฀ respective฀
schools,฀ and฀ (c)฀ anecdotal฀ evidence฀
from฀discussions฀with฀members฀of฀other฀
AACSB฀International฀member฀schools.
The฀face฀validity฀of฀the฀research฀questionnaire฀was฀assessed฀by฀submitting฀it฀
to฀deans฀from฀12฀AACSB฀International฀
member฀ schools.฀ They฀ were฀ asked฀ to฀
evaluate฀ the฀ instrument฀ for฀ clarity฀ and฀
comprehensiveness.฀ As฀ a฀ result฀ of฀ the฀
pretesting,฀ additional฀ questions฀ were฀
added,฀ wording฀ was฀ modified,฀ and฀ the฀
survey฀ was฀ resubmitted฀ for฀ review.฀
Pretest฀ respondents฀ indicated฀ that฀ the฀
revised฀ version฀ was฀ more฀ comprehensive฀and฀easier฀to฀understand.
We฀used฀Oppenheim’s฀(1966)฀early–
late฀ hypothesis฀ to฀ test฀ for฀ nonresponse฀
bias,฀ which฀ is฀ premised฀ on฀ the฀ notion฀
that฀ late฀ respondents฀ serve฀ as฀ a฀ proxy฀
for฀ nonrespondents.฀ Specifically,฀ we฀
conducted฀a฀series฀of฀chi-square฀analyses฀to฀assess฀the฀significance฀of฀the฀distributional฀differences฀between฀the฀first฀
25฀respondents฀and฀the฀final฀25฀respondents฀ on฀ each฀ of฀ the฀ key฀ demographic฀
categories฀and฀measures฀(reported฀in฀the฀
Results฀ section).฀ We฀ measured฀ no฀ significant฀ distributional฀ differences฀ from฀
these฀ comparisons฀ (p฀