Information Needs in Higher Education Institutions: Stock Valuation or Decision-Making?

IF 1.7 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Higher Education Policy Pub Date : 2022-04-01 DOI:10.1057/s41307-022-00269-x
Paulo Alexandre Monteiro Gouveia Sanches, Belén Fernández-Feijoo Souto, Susana Gago-Rodríguez
{"title":"Information Needs in Higher Education Institutions: Stock Valuation or Decision-Making?","authors":"Paulo Alexandre Monteiro Gouveia Sanches, Belén Fernández-Feijoo Souto, Susana Gago-Rodríguez","doi":"10.1057/s41307-022-00269-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Numerous higher education institutions apply a full costing system in their accounting model due to the imposition of formal agents (governments/funding institutions), or by suggestion of informal agents (associations). This paper analyzes whether the rationale applied by these agents to justify the use of the full costing rather than the direct/variable system is consistent with the theoretical bases underlying both costing systems. Methodologically, we review the mainstream literature that explores the links between the management accounting model and the use of its informative outcomes for the decision-making in higher education institutions. We conclude that there exists a gap between the theory-based statements and the information needs of these institutions. Remarkably, the full costing system falls short of adequateness for these institutions, which need information for their managerial decision-making process rather than for other industries' decisions such as stock valuation. Thus, this paper contributes to a critical view on the use of full costing systems and calls for redirecting current practices towards other more effective partial costing systems. Our findings have implications for academic, managers and policymakers interested on the implementation and improvement of managerial accounting in public higher education institutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47327,"journal":{"name":"Higher Education Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8972685/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Higher Education Policy","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-022-00269-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Numerous higher education institutions apply a full costing system in their accounting model due to the imposition of formal agents (governments/funding institutions), or by suggestion of informal agents (associations). This paper analyzes whether the rationale applied by these agents to justify the use of the full costing rather than the direct/variable system is consistent with the theoretical bases underlying both costing systems. Methodologically, we review the mainstream literature that explores the links between the management accounting model and the use of its informative outcomes for the decision-making in higher education institutions. We conclude that there exists a gap between the theory-based statements and the information needs of these institutions. Remarkably, the full costing system falls short of adequateness for these institutions, which need information for their managerial decision-making process rather than for other industries' decisions such as stock valuation. Thus, this paper contributes to a critical view on the use of full costing systems and calls for redirecting current practices towards other more effective partial costing systems. Our findings have implications for academic, managers and policymakers interested on the implementation and improvement of managerial accounting in public higher education institutions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
高等教育机构的信息需求:股票估值还是决策?
许多高等教育机构由于正式机构(政府/资助机构)的强制要求或非正式机构(协会)的建议,在其会计模式中采用了完全成本计算系统。本文分析了这些机构为证明使用完全成本核算系统而非直接/可变成本核算系统的合理性而提出的理由是否符合这两种成本核算系统的理论基础。在方法论上,我们回顾了主流文献,这些文献探讨了管理会计模式与利用其信息结果进行高等院校决策之间的联系。我们的结论是,基于理论的报表与这些机构的信息需求之间存在差距。值得注意的是,完全成本核算系统并不适合这些院校,因为它们需要的是管理决策过程中的信息,而不是股票估值等其他行业的决策信息。因此,本文有助于对全部成本计算系统的使用提出批评意见,并呼吁将目前的做法转向其他更有效的部分成本计算系统。我们的研究结果对学术界、管理者和对公立高等教育机构实施和改进管理会计感兴趣的政策制定者都有启发意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Higher Education Policy
Higher Education Policy EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Higher Education Policy is an international peer-reviewed and SSCI-indexed academic journal focusing on higher education policy in a broad sense. The journal considers submissions that discuss national and supra-national higher education policies and/or analyse their impacts on higher education institutions or the academic community: leadership, faculty, staff and students, but also considers papers that deal with governance and policy issues at the level of higher education institutions. Critical analyses, empirical investigations (either qualitative or quantitative), and theoretical-conceptual contributions are equally welcome, but for all submissions the requirement is that papers be embedded in the relevant academic literature and contribute to furthering our understanding of policy. The journal has a preference for papers that are written from a disciplinary or interdisciplinary perspective. In the past, contributors have relied on perspectives from public administration, political science, sociology, history, economics and law, but also from philosophy, psychology and anthropology. Articles devoted to systems of higher education that are less well-known or less often analysed are particularly welcome. Given the international scope of the journal, articles should be written for and be understood by an international audience, consisting of researchers in higher education, disciplinary researchers, and policy-makers, administrators, managers and practitioners in higher education. Contributions should not normally exceed 7,000 words (excluding references). Peer reviewAll submissions to the journal will undergo rigorous peer review (anonymous referees) after an initial editorial screening on quality and fit with the journal''s aims.Special issues The journal welcomes proposals for special issues. The journal archive contains several examples of special issues. Such proposals, to be sent to the editor, should set out the theme of the special issue and include the names of the (proposed) contributors and summaries of the envisaged contributions. Forum section Occasionally, the journal publishes contributions – in its Forum section – based on personal viewpoints and/or experiences with the intent to stimulate discussion and reflection, or to challenge established thinking in the field of higher education.
期刊最新文献
The Third Space in Higher Education: A Scoping Review A Question of (Academic) Honour? Motivations for Member Participation in Advisory Boards in the German Science System Women’s Leadership Dilemma: Why Ethiopian Women in Academia Prefer to Stay away from Decision-Making? Beyond the Bench: The Professional Identity of Research Management and Administration The ‘Problem’ of University-Industry Linkages: Insights from Australia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1