INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC.1:
Faculty members should make intellectual contributions on a continuing basis appropriate to
the school’s mission. The outputs from intellectual contributions should be available for
public scrutiny by academic peers or practitioners.
Intellectual Contributions and Mission
The College’s mission includes an explicit commitment to intellectual contributions. The College views
the faculty’s intellectual contributions as a portfolio supporting the College’s mission. Intellectual
contributions constitute the base upon which we build quality teaching and professional service
programs.
The College has a mix of both undergraduate and graduate programs, but without doctoral programs.
Therefore, the College’s highest emphasis is on teaching, its middle emphasis is on intellectual
contributions, and its lowest priority is on service. The expectations for individual faculty members
depend upon the nature of his or her appointment. The emphasis on intellectual contributions, relative to
teaching and professional service, is consistent with the College’s mission, its mix of masters and
undergraduate programs, and its role in a Carnegie classified Research Intensive University.
The College seeks to produce a portfolio of intellectual contributions that spans across the components of
intellectual contributions (basic, applied and instructional development scholarship), spans across the
various business disciplines, and supports its management of science and technology mission element.
The College supports the faculty making intellectual contributions in the form of basic scholarship,
applied scholarship, and instructional development. The College uses the scholarship definitions that
AACSB adopted on April 23, 1991 in Standards for Accreditation - Business Administration and Accounting
(page 29).
 Basic Scholarship: The creation of new knowledge. Outputs from basic
scholarship activities include publication in refereed journals, research
monographs, scholarly books, chapters in scholarly books, proceedings from
scholarly meetings, papers presented at academic meetings, publicly available
research working papers, and papers presented at faculty research seminars.
 Applied Scholarship: The application, transfer and interpretation of knowledge
to improve management practice and teaching. Outputs from applied
scholarship activities include publication in professional journals, professional
presentations, public/trade journals, in-house journals, book reviews, and papers
presented at faculty workshops.
 Instructional Development: The enhancement of the educational value of
instructional efforts of the institution or discipline. Outputs from instructional
development activities include textbooks, publications in pedagogical journals,
written cases with instructional materials, instructional software, and publicly
available materials describing the design and implementation of new courses.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 1
Of the three types of scholarship, the College emphasizes and encourages work in the area of basic
research. Scholarly activity in the areas of applied research and instructional development are also
valued, but are not emphasized as much as basic research.
Consistent with our mission statement, the College encourages and supports broad based research in
each of the business disciplines, consistent with the norms of academic freedom. The College encourages
collaborative research within and across disciplinary boundaries. Consequently the faculty produces
intellectual contributions representing basic, applied and instructional development scholarship in the
fields of Accounting, Economics, Finance, Management, Management Information Systems, Management
Science, Marketing, and interdisciplinary research including the management of science and technology.
Consistent with the University’s mission, the College is a key participant in one of the nation’s major
international centers for advanced technological research, particularly aerospace and defense research
and development (R&D). The College utilizes its position in this environment to provide an emphasis on
the management of science and technology (MOST). This emphasis encompasses both the management
of R&D and the full range of issues relevant to technology firms and government R&D organizations
operating in this environment.
Portfolio Priorities and Expectations
Component Priorities. Of the three types of scholarship, the College’s first priority is on basic scholarship,
or the creation of new knowledge. The second priority is on applied scholarship, or the application,
transfer and interpretation of knowledge to improve management practice. And the third priority is
instructional development, or the enhancement of the educational value of the instructional efforts of the
discipline. These three areas are prioritized as a function of the College’s mission.
Type of Output Priorities. The College emphasizes contributions that appear in refereed journals, research
monographs, scholarly books, chapters in scholarly books, textbooks, and papers published in
proceedings from scholarly meetings. We refer to these outputs as Type I Intellectual Contributions. We
refer to the other outputs of intellectual contributions identified in the Standards as Type II Intellectual
Contributions.
MOST Research Priorities. The College’s overall research mission includes making contributions in both
the general business disciplines and the interdisciplinary area of management of science and technology
(MOST). Faculty are encouraged to develop research in areas of the business disciplines that addresses
this interdisciplinary area.
The MOST Element
In the 1987 National Research Council report Management of Technology: The Hidden Competitive Advantage,
management of science and technology (MOST) was defined as linking “… engineering, science, and
management disciplines to plan, develop, and implement technological capabilities to shape and
accomplish the strategic and operational objectives of an organization” (pg. 9). The College has
developed an operational definition of management of science and technology as the transformation of
knowledge into new products, processes, services and organizational structures.
The 1991 National Research Council report Research on the Management of Technology: Unleashing the
Hidden Competitive Advantage, observed that in conducting MOT research, “management of technology
does not exist as an identifiable management discipline, like accounting or marketing. MOT is only
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 2
partially realized in such recognized fields as management of research and development, engineering,
and management information systems. To some degree, it is also imbedded in all of the functions of any
product- or service-producing organization” (p.16). Technology management can be thought of in five
major categories (p.16-17):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Managing the development of technology. This category includes managing the product
development process throughout the entire life cycle from idea to development, to
engineering, to marketing, to end of life. It also includes managing the overall innovation
process.
Managing technologically complex processes. Managing highly automated factories and
telecommunications networks requires a different kind of management technique than
managing traditional labor-intensive operations.
Using technology for competitive advantage. This includes applications such as the development
and use of airline and hotel reservation systems, computer-aided design and manufacture,
on-line banking systems, expert systems, robotics, automation, or other technologies that give
a firm a competitive edge. These applications attest to the successful integration of
technology and business strategy.
Interactions between technology and the organization. This includes problems with integrating
technology into the operations of the organization and the process of having technological
solutions accepted by an organization.
Social consequences of technology. This category embraces the impact of technology on society
and on mankind.
Intellectual Contributions Portfolio Performance
During the last five years the faculty have produced a portfolio of intellectual contributions consistent
with the College’s goals. The goals for the type of output are based upon the criteria for a faculty
member to be academically qualified for full membership on the graduate faculty. The “Type of Output”
goals for the College’s portfolio of full-time faculty are for their intellectual contributions for the
preceding five-year period to be at least:
 2 refereed journal articles per faculty,
 3 type I publications per faculty, and
 5 intellectual contributions per faculty.
Exhibit IC.1 displays the full-time faculty’s performance against these goals over the last five years. The
faculty have exceeded these goals.
The College also has “Participation” goals for the minimum proportion of the full-time faculty portfolio
who are contributing to each “Type of Output” goal. These participation goals are as follows:
 At least 60% of the faculty produce refereed articles during the previous five-year period.
 At least 75% of the faculty produce Type I publications during the previous five-year period.
 At least 80% of the faculty produce intellectual contributions during the previous five-year
period.
Exhibit IC.2 displays the full-time faculty’s performance against these goals over the last five years. The
faculty exceeded the first and third goals except during the 1999-2000 academic year. The faculty
exceeded the second goal except during 1999-2000 and 2000-01.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 3
Portfolio Composition
The Self Evaluation Report presents the portfolio composition by type of output in Tables IC. 1 and IC.2.
During the five-year period 1998 through 2002 the 32 full-time faculty produced 439 intellectual
contributions. Of these intellectual contributions, 196 were Type I and 243 were Type II contributions.
The Type I contributions consisted of 118 refereed journal articles, 7 scholarly books, 19 chapters in
scholarly books, and 52 published proceedings from scholarly meetings. Type II contributions included
69 papers presented at academic or professional meetings that did not appear in print, plus 90 publicly
available research working papers and 84 other contributions.
The faculty has produced a robust portfolio of intellectual contributions. Table IC.3 presents the number
of faculty intellectual contributions in each of the three component areas of basic, applied and
instructional development scholarship by Type I and II contribution. The 32 faculty produced 439
intellectual contributions consisting of 295 basic, 114 applied and 30 instructional items. While basic
contributions dominate both Type I and II contributions, they constitute a larger proportion of Type I
than Type II contributions, 78 versus 58 percent. We believe basic scholarship, applied scholarship, and
instructional development have an appropriate balance given the College’s mission within a Carnegie
Research Intensive University.
Faculty Participation in the Creation of the Portfolio
The percentage of full-time faculty making various kinds of intellectual contributions is shown in Table
IC.4. Of the 32 full-time faculty 91% produced intellectual contributions during the five-year period, 78%
produced Type I contributions, 91% produced Type II contributions, and 78% produced refereed journal
contributions.
The full-time faculty produced an average of 6.12 Type I intellectual contributions. This included 118
articles published over the five-year period for an average of 3.69 articles per full-time faculty. The
average number of refereed articles published by full-time faculty ranged from a high of 6.75 in
management information systems to a low of 1.67 in accounting. Please refer to Table IC.5.
Intellectual Contributions. The percentage of full-time faculty making intellectual contributions is 91
percent and ranges from 50 percent in accounting to 100 percent in the other disciplines. The percentage
is zero in the area of business legal studies because the College staffs that field with professionally
qualified, participating part-time faculty who hold appointments in the University’s Office of Counsel.
The percentage of full-time faculty making 5 or more intellectual contributions is 75 percent and ranges
from 33 percent in accounting to 100 percent in economics, management, management science and
marketing. Please refer to Table IC.6.
Type I Publications. The percentage of full-time faculty making Type I contributions is 78 percent and
ranges from 33% in accounting to 100% in economics, management, management science and marketing.
The percentage of full-time faculty making 3 or more Type I contributions is 63 percent and ranges from
33% in accounting to 100% in management science and marketing. Please refer to Table IC.6.
Refereed Journal Articles. The percentage of full-time faculty publishing refereed journal articles is 78
percent and ranges from 33 percent in accounting to 100 percent in economics, management,
management science and marketing. The percentage of faculty who have produced two or more refereed
journal articles is 72 percent and ranges from 33 percent in accounting to 100 percent in management,
management science, and marketing. Please refer to Table IC.6.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 4
Evidence That Our Research Portfolio Supports Our Mission
Within the College’s research mission, basic research is given the highest emphasis, followed by applied
research and instructional development. The College’s intellectual contributions match these priorities.
Of the 439 intellectual contributions made by full-time faculty, 67% are classified as basic research, 26%
applied research, and 7% instructional development. Refer to Table IC.3.
The quality of the intellectual contributions may be determined by examining each contribution
individually. A proxy for that analysis is to review the journals in which the articles are published, the
publishing companies for the research monographs, scholarly books and textbooks, and the proceedings
in which the conference papers were published. A review of the journal publications shows that 56% of
the articles were published in journals that have an impact on the discipline as classified by the Institute
for Scientific Information’s Journal Citation Reports Science and Social Science Citation Indexes. Also, 18 of
32 faculty (56%) have published in impact journals. A summary table listing each of the journals is
available upon request.
An important element of the College's research mission includes being a superior center for research in
the management of science and technology. The faculty produced 140 items with this emphasis,
representing 32% of all intellectual contributions. The contributions come from nearly all of the College’s
disciplines and primarily take the form of refereed journal articles and proceedings. The 72 Type I items
(refereed journal articles plus books plus proceedings) represent 37% of all Type I contributions made by
the faculty. Tables with this information and the titles of these contributions, by discipline, are available
upon request.
Processes to Insure That Our Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Process is Consistent with Our
Research Portfolio Expectations
The official process and required documentation for promotion and tenure is detailed in the Faculty
Handbook, Chapter 7: "Faculty Personnel Policies and Procedures". The College views its faculty as a
portfolio or team, a concept that allows us to capitalize on the comparative advantages that arise from
faculty members who possess a variety of interests and capabilities. Our collective goal is to ensure
quality instruction, to make basic research contributions, and to provide applied research or applications
to business.
For junior faculty, our expectation is that they will concentrate on excellent teaching and the pursuit of
basic research questions that lead to publication in high-quality academic journals. Applied research is
not a priority during their probationary period. Focusing on just these two objectives should enhance
their chances of reaching a successful tenure decision. In addition, a post-doctorate period of intense
scholarship centered on basic research and teaching should sharpen their perception and skills, making
their insights into applied research more profound.
Over time, senior faculty members tend to develop a mixed portfolio of skills with some putting more
emphasis on teaching, some contributing through their outside activities and interaction with the
business and government communities, some contributing through internal service projects and others
continuing along the more traditional academic research/teaching career path. It is this variety that
allows us to flesh out our portfolio of faculty activities to meet the school's mission. We enact this
philosophy with our reappointment, promotion and tenure processes.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 5
The reappointment process is designed to help junior faculty hone their research and teaching skills so
they can further our mission of being a "superior center for research in business." It is also designed to
help junior faculty members reach a successful tenure decision and further their professional careers. In
this way, the tone and goals for the tenure and promotion process are set in the reappointment process.
Every faculty member coming up for promotion and/or tenure needs to be an excellent teacher, have a
successful academic research record, and have an ongoing active research agenda. High-quality
academic publications are valued, and mere quantity of publications is of lesser value. No one can earn
tenure unless they are an excellent teacher and have successfully published in high-quality academic
journals. The reappointment process reinforces this perspective for untenured assistant professors.
Every reappointment committee critically scrutinizes the teaching and research records and makes
specific suggestions on topic selection, methodology, writing and publishing strategy. This review is
followed up by the chair, who not only conducts an individual assessment of the faculty member’s
performance, but also helps the junior faculty interpret the review committee’s comments and discusses
strategies to act on their suggestions. Finally, the dean reviews the reappointment file, personally
discusses with each faculty member the individualized career development plan, and emphasizes the
importance of the suggestions made by the committee and chair.
Graduate Faculty Qualification Process
The department chair nominates to the graduate faculty those faculty members who meet the graduate
faculty qualifications established by the College. The nomination is forwarded to the dean for review and
approval. The dean forwards nominations to the graduate school. The Credentials Committee of the
University’s Graduate Council reviews the candidates, makes recommendations to the Graduate Dean,
who then makes an official appointment to the Graduate Faculty.
Periodically the standards for qualification to the graduate faculty are reviewed and updated as needed.
Such a revision was undertaken at the University level in the fall of 2000. The College’s Faculty
Composition and Development committee periodically reviews the College's standards. In the spring of
2000 it was determined that the standards could be improved. The College’s Committee completed a
final draft of those revised standards in the fall of 2001. The revised standards were submitted to the
graduate faculty in the spring semester for comment and revision or approval. During 2001-02 the
College’s Committee reviewed the College’s policies on qualifications to teach undergraduate courses as
well as graduate courses and proposed a new policy statement to the faculty. On March 15, 2002 the
faculty adopted a new Policy on Faculty Qualifications that covers undergraduate and graduate courses
and relates the qualifications to promotion and tenure. (Refer to section FD.5.)
To be academically qualified for affiliate membership on the graduate faculty,
1. Instructors must have a Ph.D. (or equivalent terminal degree, e.g. D.B.A., or for business law, the
J.D. will suffice) in the pertinent or closely related field and
2. Have received the qualified terminal degree in the last five years, or
3. Have at least two scholarly contributions in a pertinent field accepted for publication in the last
five years, with at least one being a peer-refereed journal article, scholarly monograph, or chapter
in a scholarly monograph.
To be academically qualified for full membership on the graduate faculty,
1. Instructors must have a Ph.D. (or equivalent terminal degree, e.g. D.B.A., or for business law, the
J.D. will suffice) in the pertinent or closely related field and
2. Have received the Ph.D. degree in the last three years, or
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 6
3.
Have received the Ph.D. degree in the last five years and have at least one scholarly contribution
published in the last five years as a peer-refereed journal article, scholarly monograph, or chapter
in a scholarly monograph.
Of the 32 full-time faculty, 15 were deployed in the graduate program during the period Summer 2002
through Spring 2003 and taught 77 percent of the graduate credit hours. Professionally qualified parttime faculty taught the other 23 percent of the graduate credit hours. The 15 full-time faculty deployed in
the graduate program produced an average of 16.5 intellectual contributions compared to 8.6 for the
faculty not deployed in the graduate program. They produced an average of 9.1 Type I intellectual
contributions compared to 3.5 for faculty not deployed in the graduate program. They produced an
average of 5.5 refereed journal articles compared to 2.0 for faculty not deployed in the graduate program.
Tables with supporting information are available upon request.
Summary of Effectiveness
The College sees high-quality academic research as the foundation of a pyramid upon which faculty can
build and deliver high-quality authoritative teaching and high-quality authoritative consulting to the
business and governmental communities. The faculty’s intellectual contributions have been effective in
accomplishing the College’s mission.
First, high quality intellectual contributions have enabled the faculty to teach with authority from firsthand knowledge of their disciplines. We believe this research-based approach to teaching is one of the
reasons the students rank most of the business faculty in the top 30 percent of faculty they have had. We
believe it is one of the reasons employers give the College’s alumnae high performance grades. This
research-based teaching authority approach to teaching enabled the faculty to accomplish its mission to
“meet the educational needs of our students.”
Second, this high-quality research-base approach to education enabled the faculty to establish and sustain
their academic reputation. The National Research Council recognized the College as a pioneer in the
teaching and research of management of science and technology. The faculty won contracts and grants
from the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Education and several corporations.
This emphasis on high-quality research and these prestigious research awards have enabled the College
to accomplish its mission “as a superior center for research in business including management of science
and technology.”
Third, high-quality research forms part of the basis for academic reputation and peer recognition. U.S.
News & World Report has twice ranked the College among the top 10 percent of the nation’s
undergraduate business programs. It is the only business school so ranked in North Alabama; thereby,
accomplishing its mission to be “the premier business school in North Alabama.”
Improvements related to intellectual contributions generally surface in the assessment of institutional data.
Table IC – Summary provides several illustrations of an intellectual contributions problem or issue that was
identified and assessed, leading to an improvement.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 7
Table IC – Summary
Evidence of Continuous Improvement in the Area of Intellectual Contributions
Issue/Assessment(s)
Action Taken
Component and Type of Output Priorities
Uncertainty on the College’s priorities on
Classified intellectual contributions into Type I and Type II
type of output
contributions to recognize the diversity of appropriate high-quality
1. Faculty feedback
intellectual contributions other than refereed journal articles alone,
and to differentiate on what types of intellectual contributions the
faculty should give the higher priority.
Faculty Participation Priorities
Increase and sustain faculty participation in
Initiated Faculty Research Seminar Series, “Brown Bag”
new research streams
1. Intellectual Contribution output declining
trend
2. Participation rate declining trend
Linkage of IC Priorities with the Reappointment and P&T Process
Uncertainty over the P&T process
Enhanced the content and structure of the faculty orientation
1. Faculty feedback
program to reinforce the emphasis on the significance of highquality academic research in the reappointment, promotion and
tenure process.
Graduate Faculty Criteria
Lack of formal standards
Formalized in writing the criteria for academic qualifications for
1. Faculty feedback
full membership on the graduate faculty.
MOST Research Priorities
Decline in focus on management of science
Recruited, selected, and appointed a new eminent scholar of
and technology intellectual contributions
management of science and technology.
1. Decline in MOST contracts and grants
2. Decline in MOST publications
3. Eminent Scholar of management of science
and technology announced intention to retire.
Objectives and Plans for the Next Five-Year Period
The Intellectual Contributions Committee has established the following goals for the next five years:



Continue to meet or exceed the six “Type of Output” and “Participation” goals (Exhibits IC.1 and
IC.2).
Increase the number of accounting faculty producing Type I intellectual contributions.
As part of the development of the next strategic plan, the University may change the composition
of the comparison schools group: competitor, peer, and aspirant schools. If so, the College will
review and revise its intellectual contribution benchmarks accordingly.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 8
Exhibit IC.1
Intellectual Contributions During the Previous Five-Year Period by Type of Output
Year
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
Goal
# of FullTime
Faculty
29
31
31
33
32
# of
Refereed
Articles
105
87
68
75
117
# of
Refereed
Articles
per Faculty
3.62
2.81
2.19
2.27
3.66
2.00
# of Type I
Publications
171
160
113
118
196
# of Type I
Publications
per Faculty
5.90
5.16
3.64
3.58
6.12
3.00
# of ICs
281
346
261
276
439
# of ICs
per
Faculty
9.69
11.16
8.42
8.36
13.72
5.00
4
3
Refereed Articles
Goal
2
1
0
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Type I Pubs
Goal
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
15
10
I.C.s per Faculty
Goal
5
0
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 9
Exhibit IC.2
Production of Intellectual Contributions During the Previous Five-Year Period by Participation
Year
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
Goal
# of
FullTime
Faculty
29
31
31
33
32
# of
Faculty
with
Refereed
Articles
20
18
19
25
25
% of
Faculty
with
Refereed
Articles
69%
58%
61%
76%
78%
60%
# of Faculty
with Type I
Publications
23
21
22
25
25
% of Faculty
with Type I
Publications
79%
68%
71%
76%
78%
75%
# of
Faculty
with ICs
25
24
27
30
29
% of
Faculty
with ICs
86%
77%
87%
91%
91%
80%
100
80
60
Refereed %
Goal
40
20
0
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
80
75
Type I %
Goal
70
65
60
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
95
90
85
I.C. %
Goal
80
75
70
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 10
Table IC.1
Intellectual Contributions, 1998-2002, Type of Output: Type I
Full-Time Faculty 2002-03
Discipline/
Faculty
Refereed
Journal
Articles
Research
Monographs
Scholarly
Books
Chapters in
Scholarly
Books
Textbooks
Proceedings
From Scholarly
Meetings
Total
Type I
Accounting
Bryson*
Geinert
Kile*
Maddocks
Pendley*
Reed*
Subtotal
1
0
0
5
0
6
0
11
2
2
3
1
2
10
16
0
0
3
2
8
13
5
5
10
1
0
0
0
Business Legal Studies (BLS)
0
No Full-Time
Economics
Allen
Schnell
Schoening*
Wilhite*
Subtotal
3
1
2
4
10
Billings
Burnett*
Evans
Hall
Subtotal
3
1
4
8
Bao
Gramm*
Rogers*
Sherman
Weatherly
Subtotal
4
2
3
3
4
16
Floyd*
Gupta*
Knight
Li
Mok*
Reid*
Templeton
Whitten
Subtotal
2
38
0
0
0
Finance
0
Management
1
4
5
0
0
5
1
0
1
0
Management Information Systems (MIS)
6
2
4
5
3
54
4
4
0
6
0
1
2
2
10
7
19
1
1
1
3
4
2
1
10
0
29
9
2
4
6
6
27
2
70
0
6
9
8
4
0
99
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 11
Discipline/
Faculty
Refereed
Journal
Articles
Research
Monographs
Scholarly
Books
Chapters in
Scholarly
Books
Textbooks
Proceedings
From Scholarly
Meetings
Total
Type I
0
1
1
2
3
3
6
0
4
2
2
8
10
6
8
24
52
196
Management Science
Stafford
Tseng
Subtotal
2
2
4
Berkowitz*
Simpson*
Wren
Subtotal
6
4
6
16
1
0
0
0
Marketing
0
0
0
College Total
118
0
7
19
0
Dr. Stafford was on sabbatical during 2002-03.
* Denotes faculty deployed in 600-level graduate courses Summer 2002 through Spring 2003.
1
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 12
Table IC. 2
Intellectual Contributions, 1998-2002, Type of Output: Type II
Full-Time Faculty 2002-03
Discipline/
Faculty
Papers
Presented at
Academic or Publicly
Papers
ProfesAvailable Presented
sional
Research at Faculty
Meetings
Working Research
Not in Print
Papers
Seminars
Publications
in Trade
Journals
InHouse
Journals
Book
Reviews
Written
Cases
with
Instructional
Materials
Instructional
Software
Other
Publicly
Available
Materials
Describing
the Design
and
Implementation of New
Curricula and
Courses
Total
Type II
Accounting
Bryson
Geinert
Kile
Maddocks
Pendley
Reed
Subtotal
3
3
1
2
1
5
4
3
1
5
1
0
0
0
Business Legal Studies (BLS)
0
0
1
0
0
8
0
6
1
15
No Full-Time
Economics
Allen
6
4
1
11
Schnell
5
2
7
Schoening
13
13
Wilhite
4
3
2
9
Subtotal
15
9
3
13
0
0
0
0
0
40
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 13
Discipline/
Faculty
Papers
Presented at
Academic or Publicly
Papers
ProfesAvailable Presented
sional
Research at Faculty
Meetings
Working Research
Not in Print
Papers
Seminars
Publications
in Trade
Journals
InHouse
Journals
Book
Reviews
Written
Cases
with
Instructional
Materials
Instructional
Software
Other
Publicly
Available
Materials
Describing
the Design
and
Implementation of New
Curricula and
Courses
Total
Type II
0
7
1
5
19
32
Finance
Billings
Burnett
Evans
Hall
Subtotal
7
1
1
2
11
3
1
4
1
6
7
Bao
Gramm
Rogers
Sherman
Weatherly
Subtotal
2
4
3
1
3
13
6
3
6
5
1
21
4
2
10
1
19
3
4
2
3
2
4
3
Floyd
Gupta
Knight
Li
Mok
23
4
0
10
10
Management
1
0
1
0
1
1
Management Information Systems (MIS)
0
0
5
5
1
0
1
13
7
20
6
6
52
1
45
5
8
5
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 14
Discipline/
Faculty
Reid
Templeton
Whitten
Subtotal
Stafford1
Tseng
Subtotal
Berkowitz
Simpson
Wren
Subtotal
1
Papers
Presented at
Academic or Publicly
Papers
ProfesAvailable Presented
sional
Research at Faculty
Meetings
Working Research
Not in Print
Papers
Seminars
2
8
2
2
2
18
23
39
1
2
1
4
2
6
1
1
1
5
1
1
7
2
Publications
in Trade
Journals
InHouse
Journals
Book
Reviews
0
0
Management Science
0
0
Marketing
0
0
Written
Cases
with
Instructional
Materials
0
0
Instructional
Software
0
0
Other
Publicly
Available
Materials
Describing
the Design
and
Implementation of New
Curricula and
Courses
Total
Type II
0
4
10
2
80
0
7
2
9
1
1
2
1
1
0
College Total
69
90
47
Dr. Stafford was on sabbatical during 2002-03.
14
11
0
3
3
0
1
7
1
7
15
1
8
0
3
243
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 15
Table IC.3
Intellectual Contributions, 1998-2002
Type of Output: Basic, Applied, Instructional2
Full-Time Faculty 2002-03
Type I
Discipline/
Faculty
Bryson
Geinert
Kile
Maddocks
Pendley
Reed
Subtotal
Instructional
Applied
4
4
0
8
Type II
Basic
Total
Instructional
Applied
Accounting
0
0
1
5
1
0
2
6
0
3
11
1
Business Legal Studies (BLS)
6
6
1
13
Basic
Total
Grand
Total
1
0
0
8
1
6
1
15
0
0
13
0
12
1
26
9
27
11
7
13
9
40
14
8
15
19
56
1
5
7
13
7
1
5
19
32
7
4
7
27
45
11
7
10
3
6
37
13
7
20
6
6
52
22
9
24
12
12
79
1
45
5
8
5
4
10
2
80
3
115
5
14
14
12
14
2
179
No Full-Time
Allen
Schnell
Schoening
Wilhite
Subtotal
Billings
Burnett
Evans
Hall
Subtotal
Bao
Gramm
Rogers
Sherman
Weatherly
Subtotal
Floyd
Gupta
Knight
Li
Mok
Reid
Templeton
Whitten
Subtotal
0
0
0
6
1
1
8
Economics
3
1
2
10
0
16
0
Finance
0
3
3
2
2
1
7
8
1
12
13
0
Management
9
9
1
2
2
4
4
6
1
5
6
6
6
1
26
27
7
Management Information Systems (MIS)
2
2
1
9
55
70
5
0
1
5
6
7
1
9
5
2
8
1
1
3
4
0
2
25
66
99
9
3
1
2
10
16
11
7
13
13
7
12
19
1
4
3
8
8
5
1
32
1
4
7
5
2
6
19
52
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 16
Type I
Discipline/
Faculty
Stafford1
Tseng
Subtotal
Berkowitz
Simpson
Wren
Subtotal
Instructional
0
0
Applied
0
0
Type II
Basic
Total
Instructional
Applied
Basic
Total
Grand
Total
0
7
2
9
7
2
9
10
5
15
1
1
1
3
7
1
7
15
17
7
15
39
Management Science
3
3
3
3
6
6
0
Marketing
10
10
1
6
6
8
8
4
24
24
5
5
2
7
College Total
8
35
153
196
22
79
142
243
439
Dr. Stafford was on sabbatical during 2002-03.
2 The definition of the components of intellectual contributions is taken from the AACSB Standards for Accreditation,
April 23, 1991, page 29.
1
COLLEGE SUMMARY, 1998-2002
Full-Time Faculty 2002-03
Instructional
Applied
Basic
TOTAL
Type I
8
35
153
196
Type II
22
79
142
243
TOTAL
30
114
295
439
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 17
Table IC.4
Intellectual Contributions, 1998-2002
Portfolio of Intellectual Contributions by Type of Output
Full-Time Faculty 2002-03
Number of Faculty
Making This Type of
Intellectual Contribution
Percentage of Faculty
Making This Type of
Intellectual Contribution
25
0
3
6
0
16
25
78%
0%
9%
19%
0%
50%
78%
17
53%
24
75%
20
63%
2
2
1
2
6%
6%
3%
6%
0
3
0%
9%
29
91%
Total Faculty with Type I or II Output
29
91%
Total Number of Faculty
32
100%
Type I
Refereed Journal Articles
Research Monographs
Scholarly Books
Chapters in Scholarly Books
Textbooks
Proceedings From Scholarly Meetings
Total Faculty with Type I Output
Type II
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
Other Publicly Available Materials
Describing the Design and
Implementation of New Curriculum and
Courses
Total Faculty with Type II Output
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 18
Table IC.5
Type I Intellectual Contributions by Discipline, 1998-2002
Full-Time Faculty 2002-03
Discipline
Accounting
BLS
Economics
Finance
Management
MIS
Mgmt. Science
Marketing
Total
Number of
Faculty
Refereed
Journal Articles
6
0
4
4
5
8
2
3
32
10
10
8
16
54
4
16
118
Research
Monographs
Scholarly
Books
Chapters in
Scholarly
Books
Textbooks
Proceedings
From Scholarly
Meetings
1
0
10
29
2
8
52
11
0
16
13
27
99
6
24
196
Textbooks
Proceedings
From Scholarly
Meetings
Total
Type I
Average
0.17
1.83
0.00
4.00
3.25
5.40
12.38
3.00
8.00
6.12
4
5
0
1
6
10
7
19
Total
Type I
2
Per Faculty Average Type I Output
Discipline
Accounting
BLS
Economics
Finance
Management
MIS
Mgmt. Science
Marketing
Total
Number of
Faculty
Refereed
Journal Articles
6
0
4
4
5
8
2
3
32
1.67
2.50
2.00
3.20
6.75
2.00
5.33
3.69
Research
Monographs
Scholarly
Books
Chapters in
Scholarly
Books
1.00
1.25
0.00
0.20
0.75
1.25
0.22
0.59
0.50
0.00
2.00
3.62
1.00
2.67
1.62
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 19
Table IC.6
Cross-Section of Faculty Engaged in Research and Publication, 1998-2003
Full-Time Faculty 2002-2003
Faculty who
Faculty who have
have 2 or more
Refereed Journal
Refereed Journal
Articles
Articles
Discipline
Accounting
BLS
Economics
Finance
Management
MIS
Management
Science
Marketing
Total
Number of
Full-Time
Faculty
6
0
4
4
5
8
2
Faculty who
have Type I
Publications
Faculty who
have 3 or more
Type I
Publications
Faculty who
have Produced
Intellectual
Contributions
Faculty who
have at least 5
Intellectual
Contributions
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
2
-4
3
5
6
2
33%
-100%
75%
100%
75%
100%
2
-3
2
5
6
2
33%
-75%
50%
100%
75%
100%
2
-4
3
5
6
2
33%
-100%
75%
100%
75%
100%
2
-2
2
4
5
2
33%
-50%
50%
80%
62%
100%
3
-4
4
5
8
2
50%
-100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2
-4
3
5
5
2
33%
-100%
75%
100%
62%
100%
3
3
100%
3
100%
3
100%
3
100%
3
100%
3
100%
32
25
78%
23
72%
25
78%
20
63%
29
91%
24
75%
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
AACSB SELF-EVALUATION REPORT – INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
IC - 20