Higher education system and doctoral programmes: a renewed multi-criteria evaluation model of European Accounting Doctoral Programmes

IF 3.5 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Meditari Accountancy Research Pub Date : 2023-05-24 DOI:10.1108/medar-08-2021-1394
R. Vinciguerra, Francesca Cappellieri, M. Pizzo, Rosa Lombardi
{"title":"Higher education system and doctoral programmes: a renewed multi-criteria evaluation model of European Accounting Doctoral Programmes","authors":"R. Vinciguerra, Francesca Cappellieri, M. Pizzo, Rosa Lombardi","doi":"10.1108/medar-08-2021-1394","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis paper aims to define a hierarchical and multi-criteria framework based on pillars of the Modernization of Higher Education to evaluate European Accounting Doctoral Programmes (EADE-Model).\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe authors applied a quali-quantitative methodology based on the analytic hierarchy process and the survey approach. The authors conducted an extensive literature and regulation review to identify the dimensions affecting the quality of Doctoral Programmes, choosing accounting as the relevant and pivotal field. The authors also used the survey to select the most critical quality dimensions and derive their weight to build EADE Model. The validity of the proposed model has been tested through the application to the Italian scenario.\n\n\nFindings\nThe findings provide a critical extension of accounting ranking studies constructing a multi-criteria, hierarchical and updated evaluation model recognizing the role of doctoral training in the knowledge-based society. The results shed new light on weak areas apt to be improved and propose potential amendments to enhance the quality standard of ADE.\n\n\nPractical implications\nTheoretical and practical implications of this paper are directed to academics, policymakers and PhD programmes administrators.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe research is original in drafting a hierarchical multi-criteria framework for evaluating ADE in the Higher Education System. This model may be extended to other fields.\n","PeriodicalId":18453,"journal":{"name":"Meditari Accountancy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Meditari Accountancy Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/medar-08-2021-1394","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to define a hierarchical and multi-criteria framework based on pillars of the Modernization of Higher Education to evaluate European Accounting Doctoral Programmes (EADE-Model). Design/methodology/approach The authors applied a quali-quantitative methodology based on the analytic hierarchy process and the survey approach. The authors conducted an extensive literature and regulation review to identify the dimensions affecting the quality of Doctoral Programmes, choosing accounting as the relevant and pivotal field. The authors also used the survey to select the most critical quality dimensions and derive their weight to build EADE Model. The validity of the proposed model has been tested through the application to the Italian scenario. Findings The findings provide a critical extension of accounting ranking studies constructing a multi-criteria, hierarchical and updated evaluation model recognizing the role of doctoral training in the knowledge-based society. The results shed new light on weak areas apt to be improved and propose potential amendments to enhance the quality standard of ADE. Practical implications Theoretical and practical implications of this paper are directed to academics, policymakers and PhD programmes administrators. Originality/value The research is original in drafting a hierarchical multi-criteria framework for evaluating ADE in the Higher Education System. This model may be extended to other fields.
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
高等教育体系和博士课程:欧洲会计博士课程的更新多标准评估模型
本文旨在定义一个基于高等教育现代化支柱的分层和多标准框架,以评估欧洲会计博士课程(eade模型)。设计/方法/方法作者采用了基于层次分析法和调查法的定性定量方法。作者进行了广泛的文献和法规审查,以确定影响博士课程质量的维度,选择会计作为相关和关键领域。作者还利用调查的方法选择了最关键的质量维度,并推导了它们的权重,建立了EADE模型。通过对意大利情景的应用,验证了所提出模型的有效性。研究结果为会计排名研究提供了重要的扩展,构建了一个多标准、分层和更新的评估模型,认识到博士培训在知识社会中的作用。研究结果揭示了有待改进的薄弱环节,并提出了可能的修订措施,以提高ADE的质量标准。实践意义本文的理论和实践意义是针对学者,政策制定者和博士课程管理人员。原创性/价值本研究在起草高等教育系统中评估ADE的分层多标准框架方面具有独创性。这个模型可以推广到其他领域。
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
Meditari Accountancy Research
Meditari Accountancy Research BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
66
期刊介绍: Meditari Accountancy Research (MEDAR). MEDAR takes its name from the Latin for constantly pondering, suggesting a journey towards a better understanding of accountancy related matters through research. Innovative and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. The journal is a double blind refereed publication that welcomes manuscripts using diverse research methods that address a wide range of accountancy related topics, where the terms accountancy and accounting are interpreted broadly. Manuscripts should be theoretically underpinned. Topics may include, but are not limited to: Auditing, Financial reporting, Impact of accounting on organizations, Impact of accounting on capital markets, Impact of accounting on individuals, Management accounting, Public sector accounting, Regulation of the profession, Risk management, Social and environmental disclosure, Impact of taxation on society, Accounting education, Accounting ethics.
期刊最新文献
Company reputation and dividend payout Social media usage for sustainability reporting: a study of the Top 50 Australian companies Knowledge equity as social justice in academic publishing and why it matters for accounting research Terror and taxes: how attacks impact corporate tax avoidance Does female board directorship affect the quality of KPI voluntary disclosure? Some evidence from French family firms
×
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