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.
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.