If the tutor or teaching assistant is the primary person to whom a student has access, and the tutor is responsible for grading, assessment, or other activities central to the course delivery or student learning, they may need to be included in the tables. A peer review team and committee members will look closely at the tutor or facilitator’s activities, and if the student-faculty interaction is primarily with the facilitator or tutor, and the facilitator or tutor is also responsible for other teaching activities as mentioned above, a team or committee would ask for the faculty members in question to be included. While each situation is unique, and each case will be looked at individually, we encourage schools to research comparable schools that may have implemented a faculty model similar to your school.
Data should be presented in table 15-2 by individual degree program, and not aggregated by degree level. If the school has multiple postgraduate programs, each program should be listed separately in table 15-2.
For table 15-2, bachelor’s degrees can be aggregated to the degree level. However, we suggest “breaking out” master’s degrees programs in order to show how faculty are deployed across both research and professionally oriented master’s programs since there are inherent differences between these programs and the faculty required to teach in them.
AACSB standards do not specify faculty teaching loads. A peer review team and committee will often use the school’s peer school list to benchmark whether the school’s teaching expectations are reasonable. For example, if the peer schools expect a 3-3 teaching load and the school being reviewed has a 5-4, this may be deemed to be too high. Also, during a peer review team visit the team will visit with the faculty and will ask questions to try and get a sense of whether they have the time to devote to their responsibilities such as research and advising.
Generally speaking with cross-disciplinary programs, schools are not expected to document the qualifications of faculty teaching outside of the business discipline. If it were to be determined that the content of their courses held traditional business content, it could be challenged that the faculty should be included.
AACSB business accreditation standard 5 states: Normally, the school considers participating faculty members to be long-term members of the faculty regardless of whether or not their appointments are of a full-time or part-time nature, whether or not their position with the school is considered the faculty member’s principal employment, and whether or not the school has tenure policies. A supporting faculty member does not, as a rule, participate in the intellectual or operational life of the school beyond the direct performance of teaching responsibilities. Usually, a supporting faculty member does not have deliberative or involvement rights on faculty issues, membership on faculty committees, or assigned responsibilities beyond direct teaching functions (e.g., classroom and office hours). Normally, a supporting faculty member’s appointment is on an ad-hoc basis—for one term or one academic year without the expectation of continuation—and is exclusively for teaching responsibilities. AACSB is not prescriptive and therefore provides guidance but does not provide exact criteria regarding the classification of faculty as part-time or full-time.
The school can define ABD in a manner that makes sense for the particular type of program, duration, etc. in question. Normally individuals are classified as ABD after passing their comprehensive or qualifying exams.
The faculty member of record should be included on the tables. Unless the research assistant has substantial teaching responsibilities for a specific course, this assistant is not included on the table.
The faculty member’s intellectual contributions should be included on Table 2-1. The faculty member should be included on Table 15-1 for faculty qualifications. This person should not be included in the participating or supporting numbers as this classification is based on the actual teaching a faculty member does.
The school applies its own definitions for faculty and ensures that the definitions are aligned with the mission statement. A person cannot be double counted and has to be qualified under one classification.
According to standard 15, “Individuals with a graduate degree in law will be considered SA or PA for teaching business law and legal environment of business, subject to ongoing, sustained, and substantive academic and/or professional engagement activities demonstrating currency and relevance related to the teaching field.” As we understand this language, if your LLM faculty member is engaged in ongoing, sustained, and substantive academic activities such as scholarly research and other scholarly activities, they can be classified as SA. If they remain current through sustained activities related to practicing law or other related activities, they should be classified as PA.
"Percent of time devoted to mission” is intended to broadly represent and encompass all professional responsibilities of each faculty member, including teaching, research, and other professional responsibilities that may be assigned. Table 15-1 should not be developed using a metric that only captures teaching. Clearly, for full-time faculty members including those holding administrative roles within the business school/accounting program that also are full time, the “percent of time devoted to mission” is 100 percent. For part-time faculty members, something less than 100 percent should be specified.
For part-time faculty members, something less than 100 percent should be specified. If the school uses a full-time equivalent (FTE) model for its human resource system, then FTE may be a reasonable approximation of “percent of time devoted to mission.” However, in the absence of an FTE model, the school will need to have a rational way of assigning the percentage to part-time faculty.
Faculty members who are on sabbatical leave during periods in which accreditation reports on faculty must be filed should be included in the tables because they are part of “total faculty resources.” Since faculty on sabbatical leave do not normally teach, schools should include them in table 15-1 but clearly identify them as on sabbatical leave either in a footnote or other materials that support the data included in the tables. Their intellectual contributions would also be reflected on table 2-1. The same guidelines apply for faculty members who are visiting at other schools, are on sick leave, Fulbright fellowships, etc.
Business communication faculty may normally be excluded from these analyses to the extent they are teaching business communications classes in writing and speaking. The same applies to faculty in the business unit teaching general education classes. If these faculty members teach traditional business subjects (see part 2, section 2 under eligibility criteria for a list of traditional business subjects), they would be included in standard 5 and 15 analyses to the extent of this teaching. Clear disclosure of the treatment of such faculty housed in the business school should be provided.
Standard 15 provides a non-exhaustive list of activities normally expected of SA, PA, and SP status. While the standard does not specifically require publication of peer- or editorial-reviewed journal articles, schools normally are expected to have guidelines and criteria consistent with their mission and their peers. A peer review team may question a school’s criteria if it appears the criteria are not in alignment with the school’s mission and peer institutions. Note that standard 2 does require that “The portfolio of intellectual contributions includes contributions from a substantial cross section of the faculty in each discipline. Normally, a significant level of the contributions in the portfolio must be in the form of peer-reviewed journal articles or the equivalent.”
“Peer reviewed journal” articles (including equivalents as scholarly books, research monographs, or sections/chapters of such publications subject to peer review) have traditionally been the most respected form of research and publication outcomes across the academic community. Business schools/accounting programs traditionally grant the most credit in faculty performance reviews to such research outcomes in recognition of the quality that result from an independent review of the work of individual or groups of faculty.