Accounting faculty’s pursuit of professional certifications: Pre- and post-terminal degree comparison

Q1 Social Sciences Journal of Accounting Education Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jaccedu.2022.100798
Jason Bergner, Yining Chen, Melloney Simerly
{"title":"Accounting faculty’s pursuit of professional certifications: Pre- and post-terminal degree comparison","authors":"Jason Bergner,&nbsp;Yining Chen,&nbsp;Melloney Simerly","doi":"10.1016/j.jaccedu.2022.100798","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Using survey data collected from 536 U.S. accounting faculty, this study applies theories of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to investigate the differences of two terminally degreed faculty groups <em>(PreCerts v. PostCerts)</em> in their motivations, perceived obstacles, and perceived benefits of pursuing a professional accounting certification. Among our findings, we find that faculty receiving a certification before their terminal degree (<em>PreCert</em>s) chose extrinsic factors more often than their <em>PostCert</em> counterparts. For example, <em>PreCerts chose</em> a job requirement as a motivation for obtaining a professional certification significantly more often. On the other hand, faculty who obtained their professional certification after their terminal degree <em>(PostCerts)</em> tended to choose more intrinsic-motivating items. With a trend of increasing non-certified Ph.D. faculty, we believe these results not only shed light on differing motivations for the two groups but can also serve current accounting departments in encouraging non-certified faculty to pursue a professional certification.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":35578,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Accounting Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074857512200032X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Using survey data collected from 536 U.S. accounting faculty, this study applies theories of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to investigate the differences of two terminally degreed faculty groups (PreCerts v. PostCerts) in their motivations, perceived obstacles, and perceived benefits of pursuing a professional accounting certification. Among our findings, we find that faculty receiving a certification before their terminal degree (PreCerts) chose extrinsic factors more often than their PostCert counterparts. For example, PreCerts chose a job requirement as a motivation for obtaining a professional certification significantly more often. On the other hand, faculty who obtained their professional certification after their terminal degree (PostCerts) tended to choose more intrinsic-motivating items. With a trend of increasing non-certified Ph.D. faculty, we believe these results not only shed light on differing motivations for the two groups but can also serve current accounting departments in encouraging non-certified faculty to pursue a professional certification.

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
会计教师对职业证书的追求:前后学位比较
利用从536名美国会计教师收集的调查数据,本研究应用外在动机和内在动机理论来调查两个最终学位教师群体(PreCerts和PostCerts)在追求专业会计认证的动机、感知障碍和感知利益方面的差异。在我们的研究结果中,我们发现在获得最终学位(PreCerts)之前获得认证的教师比他们的PostCert同行更多地选择外部因素。例如,PreCerts更频繁地选择工作要求作为获得专业认证的动机。另一方面,在获得最终学位后获得专业认证的教师倾向于选择更多的内在激励项目。随着非认证博士教师的增加,我们相信这些结果不仅揭示了这两个群体的不同动机,而且可以为当前的会计部门提供鼓励非认证教师追求专业认证的服务。
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
Journal of Accounting Education
Journal of Accounting Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: The Journal of Accounting Education (JAEd) is a refereed journal dedicated to promoting and publishing research on accounting education issues and to improving the quality of accounting education worldwide. The Journal provides a vehicle for making results of empirical studies available to educators and for exchanging ideas, instructional resources, and best practices that help improve accounting education. The Journal includes four sections: a Main Articles Section, a Teaching and Educational Notes Section, an Educational Case Section, and a Best Practices Section. Manuscripts published in the Main Articles Section generally present results of empirical studies, although non-empirical papers (such as policy-related or essay papers) are sometimes published in this section. Papers published in the Teaching and Educational Notes Section include short empirical pieces (e.g., replications) as well as instructional resources that are not properly categorized as cases, which are published in a separate Case Section. Note: as part of the Teaching Note accompany educational cases, authors must include implementation guidance (based on actual case usage) and evidence regarding the efficacy of the case vis-a-vis a listing of educational objectives associated with the case. To meet the efficacy requirement, authors must include direct assessment (e.g grades by case requirement/objective or pre-post tests). Although interesting and encouraged, student perceptions (surveys) are considered indirect assessment and do not meet the efficacy requirement. The case must have been used more than once in a course to avoid potential anomalies and to vet the case before submission. Authors may be asked to collect additional data, depending on course size/circumstances.
期刊最新文献
How a color-based teaching method has lifted grades for first-year accounting students Workbook design and controls: A framework Examining the contribution of diverse feedback perspectives during a work-integrated learning intervention Teaching accounting in the era of ChatGPT – The student perspective Key factors affecting faculty commitment toward accounting curriculum change: Differences between UAE and UK AACSB-accredited universities
×
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