ALSBTALK:
UNO CBA has completed its (first iteration of its) AQ and PQ
definitions. As always, a bunch of useful AACSB links can be found on my
home page. That home page is at the bottom of every posting I make.
The UNO CBA AQ/PQ classification criteria are at this link.
http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/AQPQfinal04-20-07.pdf
The Excel spreadsheet for reporting intellectual contributions to
support a claim of AQ or PQ is at this link. Note that this spreadsheet
file has three worksheets (see tabs at bottom).
http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/UNOCBA_AQPQ_Claim_Form_4_20_07.xls
This link is to the Standards with staff interpretation circa January
31, 2007. The Standards are authorized by the Deans and rarely change.
The changes in the staff's interpretation of the Standards are reported to
the Deans each year. The AACSB web site (www.aacsb.edu) has the most
current Standards under the "Accreditation" tab.
http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/AACSBstand_01_31_07.pdf
For those that need a reminder on AQ and PQ, please keep reading.
UNO CBA is AACSB accredited, and it is through that lens that we view
the world. An accredited school's mission drives all. Each institution
has the duty to define its mission as well as to define mission relevant
tasks and achievements.
AACSB keys on "intellectual contributions" (IC). The default AACSB
definition of intellectual contributions is so broad that only confidential
outputs (e.g., classified or trade secret) are definitionally excluded.
That breadth is intentionally over broad. AACSB's intent is to compel (by
embarrassment?) each accredited school to select a narrower definition
consistent with that school's mission.
AACSB requires 100% of the faculty in front of a classroom to be
engaged in mission relevant intellectual contributions (IC). All adjuncts
MUST be involved in intellectual contributions, as MUST all tenure track
faculty. If a school picks a definition of "intellectual contributions"
that does not describe what its faculty actually do, then the school will
fail to satisfy the accreditation criteria.
In addition to requiring 100% of teaching faculty to generate
intellectual contributions, AACSB requires that no fewer than 50% of the
faculty (both warm bodies and SCH) MUST be Academically Qualified (AQ).
The balance ought to be Professionally Qualified (PQ). Those faculty that
are Other (i.e., neither AQ nor PQ) MUST not exceed 10% and routinely ought
to be a much lower percentage.
The IC are further divided into Peer Review Journals (PRJ) and Other
Intellectual Contributions (OIC). The mission of the school determines
what is a "good" mix of PRJ and OIC for that schools' annual and rolling
five year output of IC.
The PRJ issue is the sticking point for law reviews. No one contests
that law reviews are IC. The question is whether law reviews are PRJ or
OIC. Any person who states that AACSB requires law review articles to be
counted as OIC or requires that law reviews can not be counted as PRJ
either is ignorant or is lying.
I have encountered this bias. It is not a bias found in the AACSB
Standards. It is a bias found in the hearts of colleagues, however. Since
that bias might spring from ignorance, I suggest you bring a paper copy of
the AACSB Standards (see link above) to every meeting. Hand it to any such
"ignorant" person had demand that that person read aloud footnote 5 on
Table 10-1 on PDF page 53 of 81. Then ask that person to identify in what
way AACSB has ruled that law reviews are not PRJ. And, of course, also
invite that person to find that conclusion of AACSB elsewhere in that
document, for example on PDF page 28 of 81. That is the only method that I
have found to be effective in extinguishing repeated displays of this
particular "ignorance".
That footnote 5 reads, in total, as follows.
"5 The number of intellectual contributions should be listed in these
columns. The peer reviewed journal columns marked “PRJ” should
enumerate all of those intellectual contributions that have appeared in
journal article form reviewed by academic and practitioner colleagues.
The other intellectual contributions columns marked “OIC” should
enumerate all other intellectual contributions regardless of the form of
the contributions, including (but not limited to) research monographs,
scholarly books, chapters in scholarly books, textbooks, proceedings
from scholarly meetings, papers presented at academic or professional
meetings, publicly available research working papers, papers presented
at faculty research seminars, publications in trade journals, in-house
journals, book reviews, written cases with instructional materials,
instructional software, and other publicly available materials
describing the design and implementation of new curricula or courses.
Generally, intellectual contributions will exist in a publicly written
form and will be available for scrutiny by academic peers and
professionals, i.e., proprietary and confidential research and
consulting reports do not qualify as intellectual contributions."
Even more to the point, ask that ignorant person to read the first
bullet on PDF page 28 of 81. To wit: "Peer reviewed journal articles
(discipline based scholarship, contributions to practice, and/or learning
and pedagogical research);". Ask whether
accounting/economics/finance/management/marketing faculty are best
positioned to determined what is peer reviewed in law given AACSB's
definition of "peer review"? (Actually, if find it best to use an example
of the ignorant person's field reviewed by the field of another listener in
the room other than law.) Then ask the person to read, also on that PDF
page 28 of 81, the first full paragraph to wit:
"Peer review is defined as a process of independent review prior to
publication of a faculty member’s work by an editorial board/committee
widely acknowledged as possessing expertise in the field. The peer
review should be independent; provide for critical but constructive
feedback; demonstrate a mastery and expertise of the subject matter; and
be undertaken through a transparent process notwithstanding that the
individuals involved may be anonymous. Such a review ensures the work
is subjected to the expected “scrutiny by academic peers or
practitioners prior to publication.” Peer review is one important way
in which the individual and institution can demonstrate overall quality
of intellectual contributions."
Specifically ask for a repeat of the "notwithstanding" clause. AACSB
expressly DOES reject the requirement of double blind to be "peer
reviewed".
It is very important to note that AACSB does neither bars law reviews
as PRJs nor sanctions law reviews as PRJ. That is a decision of each
school's mission. Therefore, play nice while ripping out their hearts
least your "ignorant" colleague develops the courage to mount a frontal
attack on the IC of lawyers as not consistent with the mission of the
school.
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
|
