Academic Publication-what is the big deal?

I hope no one calls your research for this degree junk. The fact remains, that the value of the research may or may not be realized TODAY, but can still contribute to the field and be built upon LATER by other studies. I'm not going to go through the zillions of examples, but it's pretty arrogant saying other people's research is pointless, especially when you haven't put your own out there for us to look at. Just sayin.

 

I don't plan on doing any research on how drunk people perceive their own attractiveness or if rats can understand Danish spoken backwards that's for sure. I also don't plan on researching something that's already been researched to death. My research proposal this year actually got a great reception from my classmates and professor. It was on new technology that could actually affect police interaction with the public and privacy policies, but hasn't really been studied on a large scale.

 

Actually, if you are getting paid 150K is because you are most likely working at a research University as a tenured professor. It is extremely difficult to get tenure at a research institution, you need to show that not only you have published in high impact journals (meaning that many people read them and use for their own research) but also show that you research has impact by showing high metrics such as number of citations or H-index factors. There are thousands of institutions that are just happy with any publication at any peer reviewed journals that might have low impact factor but this means that the salary is probably really low (some pay as low as 40K).

In few words, you really need to be good to make this kind of money, you cannot be publishing meaningless research and be making 150K, I am sure that there are some people that the might be fooling the system but not that many.

 

Writing bogus "scholarly papers" isn't as rampant in STEM fields. Attempts to write bogus material tends to get weeded out in a hurry. Once defrocked, few publishers will want to touch you.

 

Rich I have no idea what you mean by 'is this true?' as I did not make a claim there. I said I know the value of the pubs I described. As to 150k- that is in the ballpark of a starting salary for an accounting phd at an RI. Check it out, the salaries are exorbitant, and are kept so by those in the academy creating a wide variety of barriers to entry in that field.

I'll circle back to my original point. It's easy to respond to my question with more questions. That's why this debate is usually circular. Those in the academy circle the wagons to defend the position of status quo...knowledge for its own sake. However, what is the value of these efforts? Value goes far beyond monetary yield. What are students getting for their tuition dollar? Does the research come up in class? The academy needs to take a good look in the mirror on this issue before federal intervention does it for them.

I'm signing off the thread as I have nothing more to add.

 

Oh. "No," I guess.

I'm not in the "academic circle." I think the argument is just hyperbole. The response confirms this.

 

IFRS, GAAP and most accounting theory comes from academic research. Getting a PhD in Accounting from a good AACSB school is not easy. Admission rates are very low, most good business schools have low admission rate and require 5 years full time attendance.
A CPA with a good MSc in Accounting can make easily 120K after 5 years of experience so salaries have to be high to attract enough people into the field. A person that is already good in accounting is not going to go into a PhD unless there is some financial gain (150K plus might do).

There is a huge salary gap between faculty positions at research AACSB accredited institutions and low rated institutions. You can get a PhD at Capella in Accounting for example but you will be lucky if you land a job that pays 60 to 70K as Capella is not AACSB accredited nor a research or ranked institution.

I work in academia and publishing in top journals is not an easy task, to get a 150K job in academia you need to publish at least a couple of articles in FT ranked journals. It takes about 3 years of hard work to publish in any of the FT ranked journals and a lot of brain to achieve this, I would think that someone with this type of brain can easily make more than 150K in industry so for this reason the high salaries.
The same can be said about CEO, CFOs at 500 fortune companies, why are these people getting paid high salaries? It is mainly because finding people qualified for these jobs are not so easy to find, the same stands for academia.

 

Actually Rich your comments warrant a response. You have offered no opinion or value to this thread. They are peanut-gallery style asides. What is your opinion? Where do you stand on this issue? What is the value of academic research? Your responses suggest you know a great deal on this topic, and perhaps more than one line or the odd question would help us all out a bit.

Failing that, I'd characterize your responses as typical of what I've gotten from my academic colleagues on this issue. Not much.

I have no issue with your opinion. Rather, it is the cavalier commentary that I find unwieldy. I would actually prefer a spirited opinion to dismissive posting.

 

Too bad. Sorry to disappoint. Thank you for your feedback, though.

 

You didn't disappoint. Rather, you drove home my point. Academia has no good response to the poster's original question. Thanks to you as well for your "inciteful" comments. Since we're adopting literary terms here I think these comments, collectively, qualify as a red herring..

Thanks to the posters who responded thoughtfully. I think the discussion really extends to other areas as well, beyond academic output. We never really stop and think about accreditation either...for example, what is the point of working to gain AACSB accreditation, or other specialized accreditation? Perspective is important... i.e. the student, the program, the employer. There are a number of wonderful teaching institutions that can't get AACSB accreditation due to lack of terminally-degreed faculty, research output, etc. Yet AACSB is collectively referred to as the "gold standard." Why? Is it really valuable (cost-beneficial) to the institution and the student? It takes a tremendous amount of resources to qualify as AACSB, and at least one institution I know of expended huge amounts of capital ($ and political) to try to attain it. In the end they decided it wasn't in their best interests.

We are entering a period where tough questions are going to be asked of higher ed. We should ask them of ourselves first. We ought to know why we need terminal degrees, specialized accreditation, and research output. Perhaps research and terminal degrees mean more at R1's than at teaching colleges. Right now, these two types of institutions are treated the same in the eyes of regional accreditors.

 

I don't see how, since I'm not in academia.

Nothing I've said is "inciteful," despite the pun.

Again, thank you for your feedback. It's been, well, "insightful."

 

Didn't say you were in academia. Anything to score pundit points I guess.

 

I agree that the system is far from being perfect but the reality is that AACSB accredited schools provide value. Most of the top business schools in the world are AACSB accredited. Being a top school requires to show that graduates are actually making more money with an MBA and have better career prospects.

You don't need a terminal degree to become a professor. AACSB requires Professional qualified (PQ) faculty that are professionals that normally hold professional certifications and have years of experience. Academic qualified (AQ) faculty requires a terminal degree and academic research, however, AACSB is planning to modify requirements to make it more flexible for faculty to become AQ. New requirements would also take into consideration things such as industry consultancy, community service, etc.

The bottom line of academic research is to stay current. A full time academic that is away from industry can easily become obsolete. However, there are different ways to show currency such as a professional consultancy practice.

I agree that requires a lot of resources to become accredited. However, the bottom line is that it costs money to produce a good product. I have worked for schools that are run mainly with poorly paid adjuncts with low profile degrees and I can tell you that there is a huge difference in terms of what you get for your money.

One can argue that you don't need faculty with terminal degrees, research profiles or even a lot of money to run a business school, but you also don't need a business degree to make it in the business world.

There is a market for everything, people that go into high profile business schools are looking for something that can boost their careers so they need the prestige of famous faculty, high ranks and AACSB accreditation. But you also have the market of people that already have stable careers and just need the "MBA" letters for ego, self improvement, dress on a CV, etc and can go to any business school and get what they want for little money. Schools that cannot afford expensive faculty and accreditation, just position themselves as the low cost generic school MBA that is there just to sell the 3 letters that can go on a resume but lack the networking, reputation, prestige, high research profile and are run mainly with poorly paid adjuncts that might not have the motivation to give the school what it takes to make it outstanding.

 

Well, I must be mistaken. I guess you were referring to someone else. I am relieved.

I don't know what "pundit points" are. I've been posting on this board since inception. You'd think I'd have some somewhere. Oh, well. Someday perhaps I'll reach 29 posts and receive some of those points.

 

Rich some individuals post to the board with the intent of participating in a discussion. Others participate by poking and prodding without offering anything of value. Remember the two old guys on the Muppet Show? They fall into the second category. Which category do you fall into? Covering sarcasm with the thin veil of a 'thank you' doesn't cut it.

Do you think you can add anything useful to this thread, as opposed to picking at something I've said? Consider it an invitation. I don't think you can do it.

Hopefully your other 9k posts are more substantive.

While we're on the topic? What is your interest in this thread?

 

Rich is not the only one raising objections – four of us have. Here’s mine again: You object that publications have “no value,” and when no-one quantifies that value to your subjective satisfaction, you conclude that:

However, as I suggested, you’re asking the wrong question, or perhaps doing it the wrong way. Look, I have seen research I thought was silly, too, so I have some sympathy, but that doesn’t invalidate the whole enterprise.

So beyond mundane things like demonstrating hiring potential, which I offered to the original poster above, I think we should publish our research findings because it’s the way one influences the interpretation of one’s field, as in Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions. One person who argues their view well can over time massively shift the narrative for “how things really work” or “how things really happened.” It doesn’t matter whether it’s astronomy or history, publishing one’s results is the avenue towards getting your voice out there and possibly winning your peers (current or the next generation) over to your view.

If the topic matters, then this publishing thing is important. If you are the one whose new research is developing an improved understanding, your teaching will have more (qualitative) value than that of someone who is regurgitating old data from textbooks they used in their graduate school days.

 

Agree 100 percent, especially on the teaching comments you made. I think that articulates well key strengths of the research view. I am most interested in the disconnect between research and teaching. I believe there is one. Not everywhere, but in a significant number of institutions. Perhaps heavy research doesn't map well to undergraduate general education? At the end of the day-- do you think there is a disconnect between public expectations (we are hired to teach) versus institutional expectations (we are researchers first)? I think it matters to the extent public institutions rely on aid. Public perception plays a role.

A hypothetical- suppose a management prof gets a hit in an A journal. Pub is read in a small circle of academics due to its specialized nature. It is unlikely any firms would adopt the findings in a practical setting. Professor does not use findings in class. What is the value of this pub? Note: I am not asserting it has no value. Question is-- what is its value, or where does its value lie?

Thanks for your post.

 

This thread is not about me and, despite your efforts, it isn't about you, either. I'm fine with your assessment of my contributions, good or otherwise.

 

Published research, reviewed and accepted by one's academic discipline, is how science is made and advanced. The number of readers is not relevant.

The bookshelves and magazine racks are filled with atheoretical nonsense, along with some good advice and interesting insights. But it doesn't advance the field, merely the practice of it. I realize this distinction is lost on some very vocal people, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

 

...show of hands among members with ACTUAL published research.... nuff said.