08832323.2015.1108280
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Mission-driven expected impact: Assessing
scholarly output for 2013 Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business standards
Laurel R. Goulet, Kevin J. Lopes & John Bryan White
To cite this article: Laurel R. Goulet, Kevin J. Lopes & John Bryan White (2016) Missiondriven expected impact: Assessing scholarly output for 2013 Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business standards, Journal of Education for Business, 91:1, 11-18, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2015.1108280
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1108280
Published online: 23 Nov 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 18
View related articles
View Crossmark data
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], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RA JA ALI HA JI
TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 18:35
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 18:35 11 January 2016
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS
2016, VOL. 91, NO. 1, 11–18
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1108280
Mission-driven expected impact: Assessing scholarly output for 2013 Association
to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business standards
Laurel R. Goulet, Kevin J. Lopes, and John Bryan White
U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London, Connecticut, USA
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
As of the 2016–2017 academic year, all schools undergoing Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business accreditation will be assessed on the new standards that were ratified in 2013,
which include the assessment of the impact of portfolios of intellectual contributions. The authors
discuss key ideas underlying a business school’s research portfolio, its alignment with its mission,
and its expected impact. Next the authors leverage these ideas to develop a model of missionguided expected impact. They then show how the model can be operationalized for the case of an
undergraduate-only business school. The authors conclude with a discussion of the potential
contribution of our model.
AACSB; assessment; scholarly
impact
While many business schools have well-established
quality standards for scholarship, many struggle to
define and assess the impact of that scholarship. It is
important to note that by the academic year 2016–
2017 all schools undergoing Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accreditation
visits should be using the 2013 standards, which
include assessing the impact of faculty scholarship
(AACSB, 2013a).
The role of faculty scholarship in business schools
has followed an evolving path since the creation of the
AACSB in 1916. Faculty scholarship in the accreditation process has changed dramatically over the years
and the phrase publish or perish certainly applied to
business professors. In spite of the changes in faculty
scholarship requirements, one aspect of the accreditation process has remained constant—to ensure that
faculty are qualified to deliver management education
at a high level.
In this study we show how a small, undergraduateonly business program at a public institution devised
such a system. We recently experienced our 2-day team
visit, so this system has been scrutinized in a real-life scenario. Furthermore, our visit team agreed that our
method of scholarship assessment was an appropriate
application of the mandate on scholarship from the
AACSB.
Background
Historically, AACSB standards focused on inputs instead
of outputs when accrediting business schools. The standards assumed that if a business school had sufficient
resources, then its output would be a creditable business
degree. Thus, accreditation standards focused on adequate funding, a suitable library, and an adequate quantity of business faculty members (size of credentialed
faculty). With adequate resources in place, scholarly output was expected to organically emerge and serve as an
engine for the continuous improvement of the business
school’s program(s).
Over time, the standards began to increase the focus
on the quality of inputs. The quality of a business school
faculty was associated with its capacity to generate scholarly output. If enough individual business faculty members had productive research agendas, then their
combined scholarly output was expected to make an
impact underlying continuous improvement. From the
faculty’s perspective, this meant that a terminal degree in
field was no longer a sufficient indicator of their qualification. A terminal degree AND recent scholarly activity
became the keys to maintaining an academically qualified status. At the school level of analysis, the expectation
that scholarly output would result in the desired level of
impact reinforced an accreditation-driven focus on
CONTACT John Bryan White
john.b.white@uscga.edu
U. S. Coast Guard Academy, Department of Management, 27 Mohegan Ave., New London,
CT 063200, USA.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available online at www.tandfonline.con/vjeb.
This article not subject to U.S. copyright law.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 18:35 11 January 2016
12
L. R. GOULET ET AL.
inputs. Individual faculty members were categorized as
either academically qualified (AQ) or professionally
qualified (PQ). AQ faculty had a terminal degree and
adequate research output, while PQ faculty maintained
their relevance through professional activities such as
training or conferences. To earn or maintain accreditation, a school needed a minimum of 50% of its faculty to
be AQ, and 90% to be either AQ or PQ (AACSB, 2009).
Different business schools were recognized to have
different mission characteristics, allowing them to meet
the needs of different stakeholders. Over time a business
school’s mission characteristics should shape its scholarly output, focusing the expected impact in areas that
are aligned with the school’s strategies. From an input
perspective, if individual faculty members participated in
the management and governance of a business school,
then their scholarly output could be assumed to be
aligned with the business school’s mission. To this end,
faculty members were categorized as either participating
faculty or supporting faculty. Participating faculty were
individuals who taught full-time as well as performed
other duties such as advising/mentoring students and
serving on committees. Adjunct faculty members were
the most common example of supporting faculty. A
school had to ensure at least 75% percent of the school’s
teaching (and at least 60% percent of the teaching in
each discipline) was delivered by participating faculty.
The maturation of the AACSB accreditation standards
has resulted in the increased granularity of input measures, as well as a significant shift toward including output
and self-defined mission alignment measures in the
assessment of the business school’s program(s). For
example, current AACSB standards (AACSB, 2013b)
now divide a business school’s qualified faculty into four
categories instead of two: scholarly academic (SA), practice academics (PA), scholarly practitioners (SP), and
instructional practitioners (IP). At least 90% of the faculty must be in one of the four categories. In addition, at
least 40% of the faculty must be SA, and 60% must be
either SA, PA, or SP.
SA and SP faculty members are now required to produce a qualifying level of scholarly output that is
expected to create an impact that is aligned with their
business school’s mission characteristics (AACSB,
2013b). Connecting scholarship, mission, and impact
involves understanding the quantity, purpose, quality,
and impact of scholarly output. AACSB, however, does
not define how such a connection must be established. It
is therefore up to the individual school to develop a systematic connection relating output measures for scholarship to mission characteristics and expected impact.
What follows is how we addressed this issue for our 2014
AACSB accreditation visit.
The context of scholarship impact
The phenomenon of determining the impact of faculty
research is not limited to AACSB International, but it is
a relatively recent occurrence. Conceptually, at least,
impact is generally defined in one of two ways: (a) as the
influence of the research on other academic research
(Engemann & Wall, 2009; Harland, 2013; Lazaroiu,
2009) or (b) as the transfer of knowledge of academic
research results to the field (Agrawal & Henderson,
2002; Wright, Milne, Price, & Tose, 2013). Essentially,
the measure of impact seeks to answer the question:
“Does our research have any impact on other researchers
or on practice in the real world?”
In what follows we first discuss key ideas underlying a
business school’s portfolio, its alignment with mission,
and its expected impact. Next we leverage these ideas to
develop a model of mission-guided expected impact. We
then show how the model can be operationalized for the
case of an undergraduate-only business school. We conclude with a discussion of the potential contribution of
our model.
Scholarly output
Scholarly inquiry is a school’s engine for innovation.
While an individual faculty member’s rolling five-year
portfolio of intellectual contributions has routinely been
assessed, the 2013 standards now require the school to
provide an organization-level analysis of scholarly output. A business school’s aggregate portfolio of intellectual
contributions is its scholarly output. How a business
school ought to aggregate and assess its school level portfolio of scholarly output is not entirely clear.
Business schools are well practiced in providing a
portfolio of evidence summarizing an individual’s intellectual contributions over the most recent 5-year review
period. Each individual intellectual contribution has the
potential to advance the theory, practice, and/or the
teaching of business and management. The AACSB
defines corresponding categories of basic or discovery
scholarship, applied or integration/ application scholarship, and teaching and learning scholarship. At the individual level of analysis, each faculty member’s
intellectual contribution is placed in one of these categories. Table 1 displays the categories of scholarly inquiry
and the purpose an intellectual contribution in that
category.
Aggregating all individual faculty contributions into a
single annual table creates an annual portfolio of scholarly output. Sorting this portfolio by intellectual contribution category creates a three-category portfolio that is
aligned with the three major purposes of scholarly
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 18:35 11 January 2016
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS
Table 1. Categories of scholarly output.
Intellectual
contribution
Scholarship of discovery (SoD)
Scholarship of application and
integration (SoAI)
Scholarship of teaching and
learning (SoTL)
13
Expected impact
Purpose
Contributing to the stock of
knowledge of business and
management theory
Synthesize new understandings
or interpretations of
knowledge or technology;
develop new technologies,
processes, tools, or uses; and/
or refine, develop, or advance
new methods based on
existing knowledge
Develop and advance new
understandings, insights, and
teaching content and
methods that impact learning
behavior
inquiry. Leveraging the categories defined by the AACSB
allows a business school to consider whether or not its
scholarly output portfolio is reflective of its mission
characteristics.
Mission characteristics
According to AACSB Standard 1,
The school articulates a clear and distinctive mission, the
expected outcomes this mission implies, and strategies
outlining how these outcomes will be achieved. The
school has a history of achievement and improvement
and specifies future actions for continuous improvement
and innovation consistent with this mission, expected
outcomes, and strategies. (AACSB, 2013b, p. 14)
One of the bases for judgment is “The school’s mission, expected outcomes, and strategies clearly define the
school’s focus on quality intellectual contributions that
advance the knowledge, practice, and teaching/pedagogy
of business and management.” Guidance for documentation includes “Describe how the mission, expected outcomes, and strategies clearly articulate the school’s areas
of focus in regards to educational activities, intellectual
contributions, and other activities.”
Each business school is unique in the role that it plays
in local, national, and global economies. The Impact of
Research Task Force noted that a business school has the
right and responsibility to define its research priorities
(AACSB, 2008). Standard 2 indicates that the overall
impact of intellectual contributions should reflect the
strategic focus identified by the institution’s mission
statement and strategic plan. From this strategic perspective, mission characteristics should guide the expected
impact of scholarship, and therefore be a part of the
model used for assessing the expected impact of scholarly
output.
While every business school is unique, it is helpful to
consider the relationship between mission characteristics
and expected impact. Common areas where business
schools vary include their emphasis on scholarship, their
degree program model, their master’s and doctoral programs, and their emphasis on executive education. The
Impact of Research Task Force (AACSB, 2008) used
these characteristics to identify four common business
school models (A–D). The intended impact of each category of scholarly output—theory, practice or teaching—
was prioritized to align with each model. For example a
small undergraduate-only business school (Model A)
may have intended impact to teaching as its highest priority, to the practice of business and management as a
moderate priority, and to theory development as its lowest priority. Alternatively, a large business school may
have theory development as its top priority, the practice
of business and management as a moderate priority, and
intended impact to teaching as its lowest priority. The
Task Force’s table summarizing this relationship is
reproduced in Table 2.
The purpose of the Task Force’s report was not to
force all business schools into one of four models.
Rather, their goal was that any output metric estimating
expected impact of scholarly output must align with the
mission-driven business model of the individual business
school.
A model for assessing mission directed expected
impact
AACSB’s categorization of all intellectual contributions
into three purpose-driven categories creates an opportunity to capture the alignment of a business school’s
scholarly output and its mission characteristics. Each of
these categories has a different purpose; to generate and
communicate new knowledge or methods, to synthesize
interpretations of knowledge or technologies, or to
develop and advance teaching methods. Impact is concerned with the difference made or innovations fostered
by intellectual contributions (e.g., what has been
changed, accomplished, or improved). Table 3 shows the
categories of intellectual contribution, the purpose of
that category, and the intended impact of that category.
Standard 2 requires schools to produce “high-quality
intellectual contributions that are consistent with its mission, expected outcomes, and strategies that impact the
theory, practice, and teaching of business and management” (AACSB, 2013b). While the unguided portfolio of
scholarly output produced by a business school in any
given year would clearly be expected to make some
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 18:35 11 January 2016
14
L. R. GOULET ET AL.
Table 2. Relationship between mission characteristics and expected impact.
Characteristics
Model A
Scholarship emphasis
Model B
Scholarship emphasizes
Scholarship emphasizes
learning and pedagogical
contributions to practice
research and contributions
and learning and
to practice
pedagogical research
Mix of undergraduate
Mix of undergraduate and
programs that emphasize
master’s programs that
entry-level professional
emphasize professional
preparation
preparation
General model of degree
program emphasis
MBA/specialized master’s
emphasis
No MBA/Master’s programs
Doctoral program emphasis
No doctoral program
Small to medium sized MBA
programs with significant
part- time student and
practitioner focus
No doctoral program
Executive education
emphasis
No or only minimal faculty
deployment to support
executive programs
Teaching: higher
Practice: moderate
Theory: lower
Moderate faculty deployment
to support executive
programs
Practice: higher
Teaching: moderate
Theory: lower
Weighting of impact
expectations
impact, Standard 2 assumes the mission characteristics
and resulting strategies of a business school provide the
conditions for scholarly output development. The interaction between a business school’s scholarly output and
its mission characteristics affects the strength of the relation between scholarly output and expected impact. This
Table 3. Categories of scholarly output.
Intellectual
contribution
Scholarship of
discovery (SoD)
Scholarship of
application and
integration (SoAI)
Scholarship of
teaching and
learning (SoTL)
Purpose
Generate and
communicate new
knowledge and
understanding and/
or develop new
methods
Synthesize new
understandings or
interpretations of
knowledge or
technology;
develop new
technologies,
processes, tools, or
uses; and/or refine,
develop, or advance
new methods based
on existing
knowledge
Develop and advance
new
understandings,
insights, and
teaching content
and methods that
impact learning
behavior
Intended impact
The theory,
knowledge, and/
or practice of
business and
management
The practice of
business and
management
Model C
Model D
Scholarship emphasizes
Scholarship emphasizes
contributions to practice
discipline-based research
and disciplined-based
and contributions to
scholarship
practice
Mix of master’s programs that Mix of master’s and doctoral
emphasize professional
programs that emphasize
preparation and specialist
professional preparation,
careers
specialist careers, and
research
Medium to large MBA
Large traditional student
programs, including fullMBA, executive MBA,
time MBA and executive
specialized master’s
MBA
programs
Doctoral program that
Large doctoral program
emphasizes practice and/or
placing graduates in
places graduates in
research- focused schools
teaching focused schools or
industry
Moderate faculty deployment Significant faculty
to support executive
deployment to support
programs
executive programs
Practice: higher
Theory: higher
Theory: moderate
Practice: moderate Teaching:
Teaching: lower
lower
systematic connection linking scholarly output, mission
characteristics, and expected impact is graphically represented in Figure 1.
When designing a model for measuring missionguided expected impact, the weighting of the three categories of scholarly output (discovery [SoD], application/
integration [SoAI], and teaching/learning [SoTL]) must
align with individual business school mission characteristics, strategic outcomes, and the resulting prioritization
between goals for developing theory, practice, and teaching. A business school can use its unique mission characteristic weighting of impact expectations to code its
portfolio of scholarship output. The interaction between
the mission of the business school and the composition
of the portfolio of scholarly output can then be assessed.
In order to adequately anticipate and support a portfolio of scholarly output, a business school must use
additional categories and weightings to measure
expected impact. The Impact of Research Task Force
Report (AACSB, 2008) suggests the use of several
The teaching of
business and
management
Figure 1. Linkage between scholarly output and expected
impact.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 18:35 11 January 2016
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS
additional categories and ratings when measuring
expected impact. It states:
For every faculty member with responsibilities to contribute to a school’s portfolio of intellectual contributions (which for accreditation purposes must be a
substantial cross–section of faculty) the school should
understand and track: (a) the focus of the effort (what is
intended to be accomplished); (b) the product form to
be produced (books, articles, sets of speeches involved);
(c) the audience to be influenced by the effort (a discipline academic community, practitioners); and (d) the
appropriate metrics to be used to assess impact on that
audience (what constitutes evidence of “success”).
(AACSB, 2008, p. 32)
The expected impact of a business school’s research is
defined by the focus of the effort, the product form, the
target audience, the scope, and the distribution or adoption of its scholarship outputs.
Focus of effort
At an aggregate level of analysis, a business school provides areas of focus for what is to be accomplished.
While an individual faculty member’s academic freedom
to contribute is in no way limited, providing focal areas
allows a business school the opportunity to coordinate
talent, provide developmental guidance, and tailor
resource support.
Product form
It is important for a business school to understand the
common product forms comprising its scholarly output
portfolio. It can guide faculty development, provide
resources, and solicit opportunities. It can increase the
expected impact of the business school’s scholarly output. The product form of scholarly output may be:
articles, presentations, or other (cases, books, professional magazines).
Target audience
Scholarly output targets one of three different audiences—academics, practitioners, or students. Weighting
the preferred target audiences as high, moderate, or low
provides alignment between the business school’s mission characteristics and the target audience:
Academics: SoD
Discovery
of new knowledge (i.e., original
research)
Practitioners: SoAI
Development of technologies, methods, materials,
applications, or uses that apply current research
and technology
15
Development of new applications for general theories and conceptual frameworks
Integration of existing knowledge, ideas, and
research, leading to a new understanding or comprehensive framework
Students: SoTL
Development of technologies, methods, materials,
applications, or uses that enhance the effectiveness of teaching and learning business and management (AACSB, 2013b, p. 16).
Scope
Intellectual contributions may target change, accomplishment, or improvement across a local, a national, or
often an even wider scope. A contribution that creates an
impact at a local level is narrower in scope than a contribution that is widely applicable across all organizations.
Weighting the following categories of scope as high,
moderate, or low provides alignment between the business school’s mission characteristics and research expectations: global/all organizations, national/governmentwide, and local/narrow.
Distribution and adoption
Business schools strive to grow by promoting, enhancing,
and leveraging scholarly activity. Primary outlets for distribution and adoption of scholarly output where intellectual contributions can consistently create change,
accomplishment or improvement may be selected. However, diverse faculty interests and a relatively broad scope
of academic disciplines are likely to result in the communication of intellectual contributions through various
other outlets. With limited faculty and financial resources
available for research activities, a business school may be
reluctant to identify lists of targeted publications. We
argue that distribution should instead be measured on a
case-by-case basis. Weighting the following categories as
high, moderate, or low provides alignment between the
business school’s mission characteristics and research
expectations for distribution and adoption: known adoption, extended distribution, and local distribution.
Measures have been developed to systematically assess
and optimize the expected impact of a business school’s
scholarly output given its mission characteristics. Next, a
case is presented demonstrating one successful use of
these measures for peer team review under the 2013
AACSB standards.
The case of our institution
Our institution is a small, undergraduate-only, teachingfocused institution. In many cases the business school
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 18:35 11 January 2016
16
L. R. GOULET ET AL.
faculty is one person deep in a discipline (e.g., finance,
human resources, marketing, strategy). Therefore, compiling lists of target journals is not realistic or meaningful
for us. The business school does not offer a master’s or
doctoral program, and does not deploy faculty to support
executive programs.
The business school defines the impact of its research
by the focus of the effort, the product form, the target
audience, the scope, and the distribution or adoption of
its scholarship outputs. In an effort to capitalize on the
different faculty talents, and to provide guidance for
developmental purposes, business school support for
scholarship is generally focused around: leadership and
mentorship, crisis leadership, organizational effectiveness, and scholarship of teaching and learning.
The primary mission of our institution is the development of leaders of character. Thus, leadership and mentoring are seen as central to the mission. Crisis
leadership is a part of our institution’s DNA. As a teaching institution, the SoTL is supportive of our mission.
Intellectual contributions that do not align with our
focus of effort are not mission-related.
Product form
The product form of the intellectual contribution is
important to guiding development and providing resources to support individual or team outputs. The business
school anticipates the following product forms: peerreviewed articles, presentations, and other (cases, books,
professional magazines).
Target audience
Intellectual contributions produced by the business
school are designed to target three different scholarship
discipline categories: SoAI (as our goal is to produce
scholarship that is relevant), SoTL (as we are an undergraduate teaching institution), and SoD (as we remain
open to the idea of helping to address emergent and
unknown needs).
The impact of scholarly output will be measured and
assessed over the next five years at the school-wide level
of analysis to ensure alignment with the strategic focus
of our institution and the business school mission
statement.
The following weighting provides alignment between
our institution’s strategy and the business school’s
research expectations:
Practice (SoAI): higher;
Teaching (SoTL): moderate; and
Theory (SoD): lower.
Scope of impact
The following weighting provides alignment between the
Our Institution’s strategy and the business school’s
research expectations:
Global/all organizations: higher;
National/government-wide: moderate; and
Local/narrow: lower.
Distribution and adoption
Our institution strives to grow as a nationally prominent
intellectual asset by promoting, enhancing, and leveraging scholarly activity. However, the combination of a
small faculty and a relatively broad scope of academic
disciplines results in the communication of intellectual
contributions through various outlets. The following
weighting provides alignment between our institution’s
strategy and the business school’s research expectations:
known adoption: higher, extended distribution: moderate, and local distribution: lower.
Weighted factors representing the target audience,
scope, and distribution and adoption are assigned the
following numerical values: higher D 3, moderate D 2,
and lower D 1.
The numerical values for target audience, scope, and
distribution and adoption are averaged to create an
impact metric for each individual scholarship output.
Our institution’s aggregate scholarly output target is set
Table 4. Department of management quality impact of scholarship example.
Scholarship
output
Focus of
effort
Product
form
Target
audience
Scope
Distribution
and adoption
Prof. A., 2014
Leadership and mentorship
Article
Practice (3)
National (2)
Known adoption (3)
Prof. B., 2014
Crisis leadership
Presentation
Teaching (2)
Global (3)
Extended distribution (2)
Prof. C., 2014
Org effectiveness
Other
Teaching (2)
Local (1)
Known adoption (3)
Impact
metric
(3C2C3)/3 D (2.67)
(2C3C2)/3 D (2.33)
(2C1C3) D (2)
Average annual
impact metric
(2.67C2.33C2)/3 D (2.33)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 18:35 11 January 2016
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS
17
during the annual assessment and planning meeting.
School-wide aggregate scholarly output is measured for
each academic year by averaging the impact metrics
from all scholarship outputs produced by the business
school.
The model demonstrated in Table 4 was also used it
identify alignment with mission focus. During the 2013–
2014 academic year the business school produced 41
intellectual contributions, with 39 of the 41 (95%) tied to
the mission.
Process
Conclusion
Table 4 provides an example of how the missiondriven expected impact of scholarly output from the
business school could be represented for the year
2014. First, intellectual contributions are indexed by
author. Next, each intellectual contribution is categorized in terms of its focus, product form, target audience, scope, and distribution/adoption. Then a
weighted numerical value is assigned to the target
audience, scope, and distribution and adoption categories. An Impact Metric is then calculated for each
scholarly output. Finally, the impact metrics from all
of the scholarly outputs are averaged to attain an
Annual Impact Metric at the school-wide level of analysis. Table 4 demonstrates a school-wide scholarly output portfolio that that has an Annual Impact Metric of
2.33.
Using the analysis model demonstrated in Table 4,
our institution was able to assess its five-year trend in
aggregate expected impact. The following assessment
data was provided to a peer review team evaluating mission alignment and the expected impact of scholarly output. The peer review team found the report to be a
successful way of meeting the new 2013 AACSB
standards.
The business school targeted an aggregate impact
metric of 2.0. The 2013–2014 aggregate impact metric
was 2.08. The five-year results from their school-level
analysis are summarized in Figure 2.
We have reviewed key ideas underlying a business
school’s portfolio, its alignment with mission, and its
expected impact. It leveraged these ideas to develop a
model of mission-guided expected impact. Finally, it
showed how the model has been successfully operationalized for the case of an undergraduate-only business
school.
The model provides a systematic methodology for
addressing the 2013 AACSB Standard 2. Standard 2 presented a new challenge for accreditation; it required a
school-level of analysis that had not been required
before. It required systematic consideration of aggregate
scholarly output, its interaction with mission characteristics, and its expected impact. Our model meets this
standard.
What is known is that one peer review team accepted
the model as a reasonable method of assessing scholarly
impact. Having been validated in a single case, it remains
to be seen if this method can be generalized to other
model A business schools, and beyond. Our hope is to
make the process available to other business schools so it
can be refined, expanded, adapted and improved through
many more peer review team visits.
Figure 2. Five year school-level expected impact trend.
References
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2008). Final report of the AACSB International impact of research task force. Retrieved from http://
www.aacsb.edu/~/media/AACSB/Publications/research-reports/
impact-of-research.ashx
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2009). AQ/PQ status: Establishing criteria
for attainment and maintenance of faculty qualifications:
An interpretation of AACSB accreditation standards.
Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/~/media/AACSB/Publi
cations/white-papers/wp-aq-pq-status.ashx
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2013a). 2003 to 2013 accreditation standards transition timeline. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.
edu/en/accreditation/standards/2013-standards/transitiontimeline.aspx
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2013b). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. Retrieved from
http://www.aacsb.edu/~/media/AACSB/Docs/Accreditation/
Standards/2013-business-standards.ashx
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 18:35 11 January 2016
18
L. R. GOULET ET AL.
Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management
Science, 48, 44–60.
Engemann, K. M., & Wall, H. J. (2009). A journal ranking for
the ambitious economist. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Review, 91, 128–139.
Harland, C. M. (2013). Supply chain management
research impact: An evidence-based perspective. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 18, 483–
496.
Lazaroiu, G. (2009). Constructing journal rankings and
the reliability of prestigious scholarly journals. Economics,
Management and Financial Markets, 4, 111–115.
Wright, D., Milne, R., Price, A., & Tose, N. (2013).
Assessing the international use of health technology
assessments: Exploring the merits of different methods
when applied to the National Institute of Research
Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 29, 192–197.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Mission-driven expected impact: Assessing
scholarly output for 2013 Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business standards
Laurel R. Goulet, Kevin J. Lopes & John Bryan White
To cite this article: Laurel R. Goulet, Kevin J. Lopes & John Bryan White (2016) Missiondriven expected impact: Assessing scholarly output for 2013 Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business standards, Journal of Education for Business, 91:1, 11-18, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2015.1108280
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1108280
Published online: 23 Nov 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 18
View related articles
View Crossmark data
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], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RA JA ALI HA JI
TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 18:35
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 18:35 11 January 2016
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS
2016, VOL. 91, NO. 1, 11–18
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1108280
Mission-driven expected impact: Assessing scholarly output for 2013 Association
to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business standards
Laurel R. Goulet, Kevin J. Lopes, and John Bryan White
U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London, Connecticut, USA
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
As of the 2016–2017 academic year, all schools undergoing Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business accreditation will be assessed on the new standards that were ratified in 2013,
which include the assessment of the impact of portfolios of intellectual contributions. The authors
discuss key ideas underlying a business school’s research portfolio, its alignment with its mission,
and its expected impact. Next the authors leverage these ideas to develop a model of missionguided expected impact. They then show how the model can be operationalized for the case of an
undergraduate-only business school. The authors conclude with a discussion of the potential
contribution of our model.
AACSB; assessment; scholarly
impact
While many business schools have well-established
quality standards for scholarship, many struggle to
define and assess the impact of that scholarship. It is
important to note that by the academic year 2016–
2017 all schools undergoing Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accreditation
visits should be using the 2013 standards, which
include assessing the impact of faculty scholarship
(AACSB, 2013a).
The role of faculty scholarship in business schools
has followed an evolving path since the creation of the
AACSB in 1916. Faculty scholarship in the accreditation process has changed dramatically over the years
and the phrase publish or perish certainly applied to
business professors. In spite of the changes in faculty
scholarship requirements, one aspect of the accreditation process has remained constant—to ensure that
faculty are qualified to deliver management education
at a high level.
In this study we show how a small, undergraduateonly business program at a public institution devised
such a system. We recently experienced our 2-day team
visit, so this system has been scrutinized in a real-life scenario. Furthermore, our visit team agreed that our
method of scholarship assessment was an appropriate
application of the mandate on scholarship from the
AACSB.
Background
Historically, AACSB standards focused on inputs instead
of outputs when accrediting business schools. The standards assumed that if a business school had sufficient
resources, then its output would be a creditable business
degree. Thus, accreditation standards focused on adequate funding, a suitable library, and an adequate quantity of business faculty members (size of credentialed
faculty). With adequate resources in place, scholarly output was expected to organically emerge and serve as an
engine for the continuous improvement of the business
school’s program(s).
Over time, the standards began to increase the focus
on the quality of inputs. The quality of a business school
faculty was associated with its capacity to generate scholarly output. If enough individual business faculty members had productive research agendas, then their
combined scholarly output was expected to make an
impact underlying continuous improvement. From the
faculty’s perspective, this meant that a terminal degree in
field was no longer a sufficient indicator of their qualification. A terminal degree AND recent scholarly activity
became the keys to maintaining an academically qualified status. At the school level of analysis, the expectation
that scholarly output would result in the desired level of
impact reinforced an accreditation-driven focus on
CONTACT John Bryan White
john.b.white@uscga.edu
U. S. Coast Guard Academy, Department of Management, 27 Mohegan Ave., New London,
CT 063200, USA.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available online at www.tandfonline.con/vjeb.
This article not subject to U.S. copyright law.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 18:35 11 January 2016
12
L. R. GOULET ET AL.
inputs. Individual faculty members were categorized as
either academically qualified (AQ) or professionally
qualified (PQ). AQ faculty had a terminal degree and
adequate research output, while PQ faculty maintained
their relevance through professional activities such as
training or conferences. To earn or maintain accreditation, a school needed a minimum of 50% of its faculty to
be AQ, and 90% to be either AQ or PQ (AACSB, 2009).
Different business schools were recognized to have
different mission characteristics, allowing them to meet
the needs of different stakeholders. Over time a business
school’s mission characteristics should shape its scholarly output, focusing the expected impact in areas that
are aligned with the school’s strategies. From an input
perspective, if individual faculty members participated in
the management and governance of a business school,
then their scholarly output could be assumed to be
aligned with the business school’s mission. To this end,
faculty members were categorized as either participating
faculty or supporting faculty. Participating faculty were
individuals who taught full-time as well as performed
other duties such as advising/mentoring students and
serving on committees. Adjunct faculty members were
the most common example of supporting faculty. A
school had to ensure at least 75% percent of the school’s
teaching (and at least 60% percent of the teaching in
each discipline) was delivered by participating faculty.
The maturation of the AACSB accreditation standards
has resulted in the increased granularity of input measures, as well as a significant shift toward including output
and self-defined mission alignment measures in the
assessment of the business school’s program(s). For
example, current AACSB standards (AACSB, 2013b)
now divide a business school’s qualified faculty into four
categories instead of two: scholarly academic (SA), practice academics (PA), scholarly practitioners (SP), and
instructional practitioners (IP). At least 90% of the faculty must be in one of the four categories. In addition, at
least 40% of the faculty must be SA, and 60% must be
either SA, PA, or SP.
SA and SP faculty members are now required to produce a qualifying level of scholarly output that is
expected to create an impact that is aligned with their
business school’s mission characteristics (AACSB,
2013b). Connecting scholarship, mission, and impact
involves understanding the quantity, purpose, quality,
and impact of scholarly output. AACSB, however, does
not define how such a connection must be established. It
is therefore up to the individual school to develop a systematic connection relating output measures for scholarship to mission characteristics and expected impact.
What follows is how we addressed this issue for our 2014
AACSB accreditation visit.
The context of scholarship impact
The phenomenon of determining the impact of faculty
research is not limited to AACSB International, but it is
a relatively recent occurrence. Conceptually, at least,
impact is generally defined in one of two ways: (a) as the
influence of the research on other academic research
(Engemann & Wall, 2009; Harland, 2013; Lazaroiu,
2009) or (b) as the transfer of knowledge of academic
research results to the field (Agrawal & Henderson,
2002; Wright, Milne, Price, & Tose, 2013). Essentially,
the measure of impact seeks to answer the question:
“Does our research have any impact on other researchers
or on practice in the real world?”
In what follows we first discuss key ideas underlying a
business school’s portfolio, its alignment with mission,
and its expected impact. Next we leverage these ideas to
develop a model of mission-guided expected impact. We
then show how the model can be operationalized for the
case of an undergraduate-only business school. We conclude with a discussion of the potential contribution of
our model.
Scholarly output
Scholarly inquiry is a school’s engine for innovation.
While an individual faculty member’s rolling five-year
portfolio of intellectual contributions has routinely been
assessed, the 2013 standards now require the school to
provide an organization-level analysis of scholarly output. A business school’s aggregate portfolio of intellectual
contributions is its scholarly output. How a business
school ought to aggregate and assess its school level portfolio of scholarly output is not entirely clear.
Business schools are well practiced in providing a
portfolio of evidence summarizing an individual’s intellectual contributions over the most recent 5-year review
period. Each individual intellectual contribution has the
potential to advance the theory, practice, and/or the
teaching of business and management. The AACSB
defines corresponding categories of basic or discovery
scholarship, applied or integration/ application scholarship, and teaching and learning scholarship. At the individual level of analysis, each faculty member’s
intellectual contribution is placed in one of these categories. Table 1 displays the categories of scholarly inquiry
and the purpose an intellectual contribution in that
category.
Aggregating all individual faculty contributions into a
single annual table creates an annual portfolio of scholarly output. Sorting this portfolio by intellectual contribution category creates a three-category portfolio that is
aligned with the three major purposes of scholarly
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 18:35 11 January 2016
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS
Table 1. Categories of scholarly output.
Intellectual
contribution
Scholarship of discovery (SoD)
Scholarship of application and
integration (SoAI)
Scholarship of teaching and
learning (SoTL)
13
Expected impact
Purpose
Contributing to the stock of
knowledge of business and
management theory
Synthesize new understandings
or interpretations of
knowledge or technology;
develop new technologies,
processes, tools, or uses; and/
or refine, develop, or advance
new methods based on
existing knowledge
Develop and advance new
understandings, insights, and
teaching content and
methods that impact learning
behavior
inquiry. Leveraging the categories defined by the AACSB
allows a business school to consider whether or not its
scholarly output portfolio is reflective of its mission
characteristics.
Mission characteristics
According to AACSB Standard 1,
The school articulates a clear and distinctive mission, the
expected outcomes this mission implies, and strategies
outlining how these outcomes will be achieved. The
school has a history of achievement and improvement
and specifies future actions for continuous improvement
and innovation consistent with this mission, expected
outcomes, and strategies. (AACSB, 2013b, p. 14)
One of the bases for judgment is “The school’s mission, expected outcomes, and strategies clearly define the
school’s focus on quality intellectual contributions that
advance the knowledge, practice, and teaching/pedagogy
of business and management.” Guidance for documentation includes “Describe how the mission, expected outcomes, and strategies clearly articulate the school’s areas
of focus in regards to educational activities, intellectual
contributions, and other activities.”
Each business school is unique in the role that it plays
in local, national, and global economies. The Impact of
Research Task Force noted that a business school has the
right and responsibility to define its research priorities
(AACSB, 2008). Standard 2 indicates that the overall
impact of intellectual contributions should reflect the
strategic focus identified by the institution’s mission
statement and strategic plan. From this strategic perspective, mission characteristics should guide the expected
impact of scholarship, and therefore be a part of the
model used for assessing the expected impact of scholarly
output.
While every business school is unique, it is helpful to
consider the relationship between mission characteristics
and expected impact. Common areas where business
schools vary include their emphasis on scholarship, their
degree program model, their master’s and doctoral programs, and their emphasis on executive education. The
Impact of Research Task Force (AACSB, 2008) used
these characteristics to identify four common business
school models (A–D). The intended impact of each category of scholarly output—theory, practice or teaching—
was prioritized to align with each model. For example a
small undergraduate-only business school (Model A)
may have intended impact to teaching as its highest priority, to the practice of business and management as a
moderate priority, and to theory development as its lowest priority. Alternatively, a large business school may
have theory development as its top priority, the practice
of business and management as a moderate priority, and
intended impact to teaching as its lowest priority. The
Task Force’s table summarizing this relationship is
reproduced in Table 2.
The purpose of the Task Force’s report was not to
force all business schools into one of four models.
Rather, their goal was that any output metric estimating
expected impact of scholarly output must align with the
mission-driven business model of the individual business
school.
A model for assessing mission directed expected
impact
AACSB’s categorization of all intellectual contributions
into three purpose-driven categories creates an opportunity to capture the alignment of a business school’s
scholarly output and its mission characteristics. Each of
these categories has a different purpose; to generate and
communicate new knowledge or methods, to synthesize
interpretations of knowledge or technologies, or to
develop and advance teaching methods. Impact is concerned with the difference made or innovations fostered
by intellectual contributions (e.g., what has been
changed, accomplished, or improved). Table 3 shows the
categories of intellectual contribution, the purpose of
that category, and the intended impact of that category.
Standard 2 requires schools to produce “high-quality
intellectual contributions that are consistent with its mission, expected outcomes, and strategies that impact the
theory, practice, and teaching of business and management” (AACSB, 2013b). While the unguided portfolio of
scholarly output produced by a business school in any
given year would clearly be expected to make some
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 18:35 11 January 2016
14
L. R. GOULET ET AL.
Table 2. Relationship between mission characteristics and expected impact.
Characteristics
Model A
Scholarship emphasis
Model B
Scholarship emphasizes
Scholarship emphasizes
learning and pedagogical
contributions to practice
research and contributions
and learning and
to practice
pedagogical research
Mix of undergraduate
Mix of undergraduate and
programs that emphasize
master’s programs that
entry-level professional
emphasize professional
preparation
preparation
General model of degree
program emphasis
MBA/specialized master’s
emphasis
No MBA/Master’s programs
Doctoral program emphasis
No doctoral program
Small to medium sized MBA
programs with significant
part- time student and
practitioner focus
No doctoral program
Executive education
emphasis
No or only minimal faculty
deployment to support
executive programs
Teaching: higher
Practice: moderate
Theory: lower
Moderate faculty deployment
to support executive
programs
Practice: higher
Teaching: moderate
Theory: lower
Weighting of impact
expectations
impact, Standard 2 assumes the mission characteristics
and resulting strategies of a business school provide the
conditions for scholarly output development. The interaction between a business school’s scholarly output and
its mission characteristics affects the strength of the relation between scholarly output and expected impact. This
Table 3. Categories of scholarly output.
Intellectual
contribution
Scholarship of
discovery (SoD)
Scholarship of
application and
integration (SoAI)
Scholarship of
teaching and
learning (SoTL)
Purpose
Generate and
communicate new
knowledge and
understanding and/
or develop new
methods
Synthesize new
understandings or
interpretations of
knowledge or
technology;
develop new
technologies,
processes, tools, or
uses; and/or refine,
develop, or advance
new methods based
on existing
knowledge
Develop and advance
new
understandings,
insights, and
teaching content
and methods that
impact learning
behavior
Intended impact
The theory,
knowledge, and/
or practice of
business and
management
The practice of
business and
management
Model C
Model D
Scholarship emphasizes
Scholarship emphasizes
contributions to practice
discipline-based research
and disciplined-based
and contributions to
scholarship
practice
Mix of master’s programs that Mix of master’s and doctoral
emphasize professional
programs that emphasize
preparation and specialist
professional preparation,
careers
specialist careers, and
research
Medium to large MBA
Large traditional student
programs, including fullMBA, executive MBA,
time MBA and executive
specialized master’s
MBA
programs
Doctoral program that
Large doctoral program
emphasizes practice and/or
placing graduates in
places graduates in
research- focused schools
teaching focused schools or
industry
Moderate faculty deployment Significant faculty
to support executive
deployment to support
programs
executive programs
Practice: higher
Theory: higher
Theory: moderate
Practice: moderate Teaching:
Teaching: lower
lower
systematic connection linking scholarly output, mission
characteristics, and expected impact is graphically represented in Figure 1.
When designing a model for measuring missionguided expected impact, the weighting of the three categories of scholarly output (discovery [SoD], application/
integration [SoAI], and teaching/learning [SoTL]) must
align with individual business school mission characteristics, strategic outcomes, and the resulting prioritization
between goals for developing theory, practice, and teaching. A business school can use its unique mission characteristic weighting of impact expectations to code its
portfolio of scholarship output. The interaction between
the mission of the business school and the composition
of the portfolio of scholarly output can then be assessed.
In order to adequately anticipate and support a portfolio of scholarly output, a business school must use
additional categories and weightings to measure
expected impact. The Impact of Research Task Force
Report (AACSB, 2008) suggests the use of several
The teaching of
business and
management
Figure 1. Linkage between scholarly output and expected
impact.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 18:35 11 January 2016
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS
additional categories and ratings when measuring
expected impact. It states:
For every faculty member with responsibilities to contribute to a school’s portfolio of intellectual contributions (which for accreditation purposes must be a
substantial cross–section of faculty) the school should
understand and track: (a) the focus of the effort (what is
intended to be accomplished); (b) the product form to
be produced (books, articles, sets of speeches involved);
(c) the audience to be influenced by the effort (a discipline academic community, practitioners); and (d) the
appropriate metrics to be used to assess impact on that
audience (what constitutes evidence of “success”).
(AACSB, 2008, p. 32)
The expected impact of a business school’s research is
defined by the focus of the effort, the product form, the
target audience, the scope, and the distribution or adoption of its scholarship outputs.
Focus of effort
At an aggregate level of analysis, a business school provides areas of focus for what is to be accomplished.
While an individual faculty member’s academic freedom
to contribute is in no way limited, providing focal areas
allows a business school the opportunity to coordinate
talent, provide developmental guidance, and tailor
resource support.
Product form
It is important for a business school to understand the
common product forms comprising its scholarly output
portfolio. It can guide faculty development, provide
resources, and solicit opportunities. It can increase the
expected impact of the business school’s scholarly output. The product form of scholarly output may be:
articles, presentations, or other (cases, books, professional magazines).
Target audience
Scholarly output targets one of three different audiences—academics, practitioners, or students. Weighting
the preferred target audiences as high, moderate, or low
provides alignment between the business school’s mission characteristics and the target audience:
Academics: SoD
Discovery
of new knowledge (i.e., original
research)
Practitioners: SoAI
Development of technologies, methods, materials,
applications, or uses that apply current research
and technology
15
Development of new applications for general theories and conceptual frameworks
Integration of existing knowledge, ideas, and
research, leading to a new understanding or comprehensive framework
Students: SoTL
Development of technologies, methods, materials,
applications, or uses that enhance the effectiveness of teaching and learning business and management (AACSB, 2013b, p. 16).
Scope
Intellectual contributions may target change, accomplishment, or improvement across a local, a national, or
often an even wider scope. A contribution that creates an
impact at a local level is narrower in scope than a contribution that is widely applicable across all organizations.
Weighting the following categories of scope as high,
moderate, or low provides alignment between the business school’s mission characteristics and research expectations: global/all organizations, national/governmentwide, and local/narrow.
Distribution and adoption
Business schools strive to grow by promoting, enhancing,
and leveraging scholarly activity. Primary outlets for distribution and adoption of scholarly output where intellectual contributions can consistently create change,
accomplishment or improvement may be selected. However, diverse faculty interests and a relatively broad scope
of academic disciplines are likely to result in the communication of intellectual contributions through various
other outlets. With limited faculty and financial resources
available for research activities, a business school may be
reluctant to identify lists of targeted publications. We
argue that distribution should instead be measured on a
case-by-case basis. Weighting the following categories as
high, moderate, or low provides alignment between the
business school’s mission characteristics and research
expectations for distribution and adoption: known adoption, extended distribution, and local distribution.
Measures have been developed to systematically assess
and optimize the expected impact of a business school’s
scholarly output given its mission characteristics. Next, a
case is presented demonstrating one successful use of
these measures for peer team review under the 2013
AACSB standards.
The case of our institution
Our institution is a small, undergraduate-only, teachingfocused institution. In many cases the business school
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 18:35 11 January 2016
16
L. R. GOULET ET AL.
faculty is one person deep in a discipline (e.g., finance,
human resources, marketing, strategy). Therefore, compiling lists of target journals is not realistic or meaningful
for us. The business school does not offer a master’s or
doctoral program, and does not deploy faculty to support
executive programs.
The business school defines the impact of its research
by the focus of the effort, the product form, the target
audience, the scope, and the distribution or adoption of
its scholarship outputs. In an effort to capitalize on the
different faculty talents, and to provide guidance for
developmental purposes, business school support for
scholarship is generally focused around: leadership and
mentorship, crisis leadership, organizational effectiveness, and scholarship of teaching and learning.
The primary mission of our institution is the development of leaders of character. Thus, leadership and mentoring are seen as central to the mission. Crisis
leadership is a part of our institution’s DNA. As a teaching institution, the SoTL is supportive of our mission.
Intellectual contributions that do not align with our
focus of effort are not mission-related.
Product form
The product form of the intellectual contribution is
important to guiding development and providing resources to support individual or team outputs. The business
school anticipates the following product forms: peerreviewed articles, presentations, and other (cases, books,
professional magazines).
Target audience
Intellectual contributions produced by the business
school are designed to target three different scholarship
discipline categories: SoAI (as our goal is to produce
scholarship that is relevant), SoTL (as we are an undergraduate teaching institution), and SoD (as we remain
open to the idea of helping to address emergent and
unknown needs).
The impact of scholarly output will be measured and
assessed over the next five years at the school-wide level
of analysis to ensure alignment with the strategic focus
of our institution and the business school mission
statement.
The following weighting provides alignment between
our institution’s strategy and the business school’s
research expectations:
Practice (SoAI): higher;
Teaching (SoTL): moderate; and
Theory (SoD): lower.
Scope of impact
The following weighting provides alignment between the
Our Institution’s strategy and the business school’s
research expectations:
Global/all organizations: higher;
National/government-wide: moderate; and
Local/narrow: lower.
Distribution and adoption
Our institution strives to grow as a nationally prominent
intellectual asset by promoting, enhancing, and leveraging scholarly activity. However, the combination of a
small faculty and a relatively broad scope of academic
disciplines results in the communication of intellectual
contributions through various outlets. The following
weighting provides alignment between our institution’s
strategy and the business school’s research expectations:
known adoption: higher, extended distribution: moderate, and local distribution: lower.
Weighted factors representing the target audience,
scope, and distribution and adoption are assigned the
following numerical values: higher D 3, moderate D 2,
and lower D 1.
The numerical values for target audience, scope, and
distribution and adoption are averaged to create an
impact metric for each individual scholarship output.
Our institution’s aggregate scholarly output target is set
Table 4. Department of management quality impact of scholarship example.
Scholarship
output
Focus of
effort
Product
form
Target
audience
Scope
Distribution
and adoption
Prof. A., 2014
Leadership and mentorship
Article
Practice (3)
National (2)
Known adoption (3)
Prof. B., 2014
Crisis leadership
Presentation
Teaching (2)
Global (3)
Extended distribution (2)
Prof. C., 2014
Org effectiveness
Other
Teaching (2)
Local (1)
Known adoption (3)
Impact
metric
(3C2C3)/3 D (2.67)
(2C3C2)/3 D (2.33)
(2C1C3) D (2)
Average annual
impact metric
(2.67C2.33C2)/3 D (2.33)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 18:35 11 January 2016
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS
17
during the annual assessment and planning meeting.
School-wide aggregate scholarly output is measured for
each academic year by averaging the impact metrics
from all scholarship outputs produced by the business
school.
The model demonstrated in Table 4 was also used it
identify alignment with mission focus. During the 2013–
2014 academic year the business school produced 41
intellectual contributions, with 39 of the 41 (95%) tied to
the mission.
Process
Conclusion
Table 4 provides an example of how the missiondriven expected impact of scholarly output from the
business school could be represented for the year
2014. First, intellectual contributions are indexed by
author. Next, each intellectual contribution is categorized in terms of its focus, product form, target audience, scope, and distribution/adoption. Then a
weighted numerical value is assigned to the target
audience, scope, and distribution and adoption categories. An Impact Metric is then calculated for each
scholarly output. Finally, the impact metrics from all
of the scholarly outputs are averaged to attain an
Annual Impact Metric at the school-wide level of analysis. Table 4 demonstrates a school-wide scholarly output portfolio that that has an Annual Impact Metric of
2.33.
Using the analysis model demonstrated in Table 4,
our institution was able to assess its five-year trend in
aggregate expected impact. The following assessment
data was provided to a peer review team evaluating mission alignment and the expected impact of scholarly output. The peer review team found the report to be a
successful way of meeting the new 2013 AACSB
standards.
The business school targeted an aggregate impact
metric of 2.0. The 2013–2014 aggregate impact metric
was 2.08. The five-year results from their school-level
analysis are summarized in Figure 2.
We have reviewed key ideas underlying a business
school’s portfolio, its alignment with mission, and its
expected impact. It leveraged these ideas to develop a
model of mission-guided expected impact. Finally, it
showed how the model has been successfully operationalized for the case of an undergraduate-only business
school.
The model provides a systematic methodology for
addressing the 2013 AACSB Standard 2. Standard 2 presented a new challenge for accreditation; it required a
school-level of analysis that had not been required
before. It required systematic consideration of aggregate
scholarly output, its interaction with mission characteristics, and its expected impact. Our model meets this
standard.
What is known is that one peer review team accepted
the model as a reasonable method of assessing scholarly
impact. Having been validated in a single case, it remains
to be seen if this method can be generalized to other
model A business schools, and beyond. Our hope is to
make the process available to other business schools so it
can be refined, expanded, adapted and improved through
many more peer review team visits.
Figure 2. Five year school-level expected impact trend.
References
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2008). Final report of the AACSB International impact of research task force. Retrieved from http://
www.aacsb.edu/~/media/AACSB/Publications/research-reports/
impact-of-research.ashx
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2009). AQ/PQ status: Establishing criteria
for attainment and maintenance of faculty qualifications:
An interpretation of AACSB accreditation standards.
Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/~/media/AACSB/Publi
cations/white-papers/wp-aq-pq-status.ashx
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2013a). 2003 to 2013 accreditation standards transition timeline. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.
edu/en/accreditation/standards/2013-standards/transitiontimeline.aspx
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2013b). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. Retrieved from
http://www.aacsb.edu/~/media/AACSB/Docs/Accreditation/
Standards/2013-business-standards.ashx
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 18:35 11 January 2016
18
L. R. GOULET ET AL.
Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management
Science, 48, 44–60.
Engemann, K. M., & Wall, H. J. (2009). A journal ranking for
the ambitious economist. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Review, 91, 128–139.
Harland, C. M. (2013). Supply chain management
research impact: An evidence-based perspective. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 18, 483–
496.
Lazaroiu, G. (2009). Constructing journal rankings and
the reliability of prestigious scholarly journals. Economics,
Management and Financial Markets, 4, 111–115.
Wright, D., Milne, R., Price, A., & Tose, N. (2013).
Assessing the international use of health technology
assessments: Exploring the merits of different methods
when applied to the National Institute of Research
Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 29, 192–197.