ALSBTALK:
Prior to being able to take the time to respond, UNO CBA has aborted
both its AQ/PQ/Other standards process and its Code of Conduct process.
Let's do the latter first.
With respect to codes of conduct, AACSB requires a thoughtful process
of adoption. AACSB does not require any specific Code of Conduct. It is
almost certain that your university's governing board has identified two
sets of codes of conduct: academic freedom (dating to about 1920) and
professional conduct (dating to about 1980 re federal grant monies). As a
person who has sat on multiple post-tenure reviews, I strongly suggest that
all AACSB schools do no more than point to those existing institutional
standards. As lawyers we all well know that anything other than
incorporation by reference will create the opportunity for unintended
mischief.
With respect to AQ (i.e., Academically Qualified), PQ (i.e.,
Professionally Qualified), and Other (i.e., neither AQ nor PQ [e.g., AACSB
expressly expects this to only be ABD]), AACSB requires a mission driven
standard. Your mission driven AQ and PQ standard need not be aspirational.
It is almost certain that your school will be better off if its AQ and PQ
standard are not aspirational, but rather focus on defining the minimum
consistent with your mission.
An undergraduate-only school must have no less than 50% of its warm
bodies and its SCH (i.e. student credit hours) be produced by AQ faculty.
The totality of a program must be no less than 90% AQ + PQ.
As the mission includes more graduate course work (e.g., some
graduate course < MBA < Ph.D.) so too must the AQ minimum percent increase.
There is no hard-and-fast rule as to how much an MBA increases the required
AQ above the undergraduate minimum of 50%, but guesses run in the range of
65% AQ if MBA and 80% AQ if Ph.D. It is mission driven. For example, if
your school's mission is practice oriented (definitionally, far more
feasible for an MBA program than for a Ph.D. program) rather than
scholarship oriented, then your school's mission at the graduate level
might require a higher percentage of PQ (e.g., MBA AQ of 55% and PQ of
45%). However, expect AACSB to explore whether actions are implementing a
mission or whether that "too high" percent of PQ merely reflects budget
shortages.
If you pick an aspirational standard of either AQ or PQ, then you
really run the risk of not earning reaffirmation.
Both AQ and PQ must be based upon IC (i.e., Intellectual
Contributions). All faculty (i.e., 100% of warm bodies) must annually
generate IC. IC can be either PRJ (i.e., Peer Reviewed Journals) or OIC
(i.e., Other IC). IC must be categorized as either scholarship (e.g.,
Boyer basic research); or as practice (e..g, Boyer applied research); or as
pedagogy (e.g., Boyer teaching research). Note, I wrote "must" and
followed that with two "or" statements. No IC may be a combination of two:
all IC must only be one type. This is a database issue rather than a
reality issue. All IC must be only one of those three options:
scholarship, practice, or pedagogy. An undergraduate school must have a
mission focused on pedagogy. As a school's mission includes more graduate
course work, then that school's mission and AQ must be based upon an
increasing amount of IC that is scholarship and/or practice (depending upon
the stated mission).
Generically, the minimum expectation for AQ in an MBA program is 2
PRJ IC within the last rolling 5 years. Generically, the minimum
expectation for AQ in a Ph.D. program is 4 PRJ IC within the last rolling 5
years. Those are minimums. As the mission calls for more scholarship so
too must the AQ call both for more PRJ and more PRJ scholarship within
those PRJ IC. It is wise to state a standard above the minimum, and that
is most easily accomplished by focusing upon OIC rather than PRJ. However,
think budget. The budget must be linked to the mission. Do not say 2 PRJ
IC within 5 plus 10 OIC within 5, and then define the only valid OIC as
attending national conferences, unless you got the budget to send 100% of
your warm bodies twice a year to national conferences.
In no way does AACSB require any school to rank PRJ; unless, of
course, that school foolishly has inserted such a PRJ ranking requirement
into your mission.
Re-read all of the above. I used the words "must" and "and" quite
deliberately.
My experience with AACSB deans is rather limited under this mission
driven rubric. UNO CBA has had two deans during this rubric. Neither has
spent the time necessary to grasp either the process requirements or the
budget ramifications of aspirational choices. I have attended two AACSB
conferences populated mostly by deans, and in that context most lacked the
experience base of lawyers with respect to grasping what are the minimums
or anticipating the consequences of their choices beyond the minimums. I
regret to inform you that you will serve yourself well by reading closely
the AACSB documents and actively participating in your school's processes.
Otherwise, your personal inaction is quite likely to result in substantial
wastes of your school's resources and your own time down the road. Oh, by
the way, your legalistic view of strategic management in action are likely
to be received as contributions not entirely consistent with the spirit of
AACSB, but actually will be in complete alignment with AACSB's mission
driven processes.
A link to my home page appears at the bottom of the signature block
of all of my emails. On that home page you can find links to AACSB
documents and UNO CBA documents that you might find useful.
Michael
Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
Finance, Banking, & Law Department Editor, Journal of Legal
Economics
College of Business Administration (402) 554 - 2014 voice fax (402)
554 - 3825
Roskens Hall 502 www.AAEFE.org
University of Nebraska at Omaha www.JournalOfLegalEconomics.com
Omaha NE 68182 http://nbdc.unomaha.edu/aaefe
[log in to unmask]
(402) 554 - 2823 voice fax (402) 554 - 2680
http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm
|
