Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21 (2010) 5162

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Critical Perspectives on Accounting
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ cpa
Fusion of expertise among accounting faculty: towards an expertise
model for academia in accounting

Jonathan C. Njoku
a,
, Beatrice I.J.M. van der Heijden
b
, Eno L. Inanga
c
a
Kuwait-Maastricht Business School, Kazima Street, Block 3, Dasma, Kuwait
b
Maastricht School of Management, Open University of the Netherlands, University of Twente, The Netherlands
c
Maastricht School of Management, Endepolsdomein 150, 6229 EP Maastricht, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 November 2007
Received in revised form 14 February 2008
Accepted 15 March 2008
Keywords:
Professorship
Expertise
Competence
Accounting education
Fusion
Faculty
Flexpert
Academic accountant
Professional accountant
a b s t r a c t
This paper aims to portray an accounting faculty expert. It is argued that neither the aca-
demic nor the professional orientation alone appears adequate in developing accounting
faculty expertise. The accounting faculty expert is supposed to develop into a so-called
expert (Van der Heijden, 2003) who is able to deploy practical accounting exposure in
teaching and research. This fusion (mix of expertise) resulting from gaining expertise in
quitedifferent occupational areas, is attainableat academic career start levels inaccounting,
where during ones career orientation a professor is both an academic and a professional by
training. Fusion is also attainable in complementary competence building wherein the fac-
ulty member invests in training and development in the non-core competence domain. The
so-called fusion framework that is depicted in this contribution could be usefully applied
in recruitment efforts of business schools in search of a promising accounting professor.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Worldwide, many professions (occupational elds) (see Cruess et al., 2000; Evetts, 2003 for a thorough operational-
ization of the concept), including the academic eld, are changing rapidly as regards the working conditions, terms of
appointment, and remuneration. A growing portion of the academic profession is part-time, and many full-time academics
are not certain anymore of guaranteed full-time tenured positions (Altbach, 2000). Major trends such as accountability,
managerial controls, deteriorating nancial support from public sources, and so on, affect academics across knowl-
edge disciplines. At the same time, job qualications for academic professionals are changing at an ever-increasing
rate.
The situation for accounting faculty is no exception in these. Rather, twin conicting challenges compound the case
of accounting academia. First, in most countries, the professional route is the typical mode of preparation for a career in
accounting, including Britain, United States, and Australia. Yet, academia shows a strong preference for the academically
oriented teaching personnel such as those that hold a PhD in accounting. The reason for the preference is the emphasis
academia places on research. Thus, professionally qualied accounting personnel such as ACAs and CPAs are not necessarily

We are grateful for the comments of the three anonymous reviewers on an earlier draft of this paper, which have helped to improve its quality. We,
however, accept full responsibility for any shortcomings the paper may have and welcome comments from readers.

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Njoku@msm.nl (J.C. Njoku).
1045-2354/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2008.03.001
52 J.C. Njoku et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21 (2010) 5162
regarded as much. As a result, major educational institutions have had difculties employing purely professionally qualied
accountants as professors. Second, professionally qualied accountants show preference for industry. The reason is that
industry generally has a reputation to pay better remuneration compared with academic institutions. These twin problems
create scarcity of accounting faculty members. This scarcity is more pronounced in such countries as Australia where it takes
a combination of academic and professional qualications (PhD, ACA) to secure a faculty position in major universities. This
combination is rare and if not adequately remunerated would imply a growing amount of occupational stress (Wineeld
and Jarrett, 2001; Wineeld et al., 2003), and an increasing loss of attractiveness of the profession (Hugo, 2004).
The result is the global shortage of accountingacademics whichfrequencyof advertisements inacademic andprofessional
journals seems to suggest. Next to a paucity of accounting professors with a PhD in Accounting (AACSB, 2006), academic
institutions showa lack of interest in the professional accountant, who would in any case prefer working in the more paying
industrial sector. Hence, it takes about one year to ll an accounting professor vacancy. This problem generates interest
in developing a framework for an accounting professor prole that effectively reconciles the academic and professional
accounting orientations for faculty roles. This paper is in particular aimed to investigate to what extent degree of faculty
orientation fusion differentiates between accounting professors? It is challenging to present a prole that is sufciently
appealing to academic institutions in order to compel an institutional shift toward competitive remuneration in hiring
accounting faculty professor. This is necessary in order to provide the needed incentives to cushion accompanying stress.
It necessitates a better understanding of the needed expertise base in order to enable accountancy academia the required
institutional shift in the reward system.
This study aims to highlight the plea for a balanced orientation as regards the career development of accounting profes-
sors. Understanding facultys career orientation is necessary in characterizing an accounting professor in terms of critical
competences, and is a prelude to the development of a career model for accounting professors. A framework of accounting
faculty expertise development based on the fusion framework in this article will be invaluable in the light of recruitment
and promotion decisions. After all, it will determine the success of identication of the right accounting faculty staff for busi-
ness schools. Faculty should be someone with outstanding capabilities to both deliver educational coursework, to perform
high-quality research, and to be able to engage in critical political discussions characterized by independence of mind and
erudition (see also Foucault, 1990; Said, 1994; Weber, 1977). In this light, the self-conceited outlook of the pure accounting
professional (Wai and Sinclair, 1994) or the pure accounting academic, should give way to integration in an accounting
faculty.
2. The issue of expertise fusion in accounting academia
Acquisition and maintenance of expertise in accountancy is not an easy task at all.
The potential of accounting faculty to performoptimally in global markets depends on employees capability to develop,
cultivate and maintain domain-specic qualications and competences in the broader context of lived experience (Boyce,
2004; Power, 1991; Schn, 1987), andglobalization(Poullaos, 2004). Recognitionby other people of signicance, particularly
key gures within ones social context, is essential for acknowledgement of ones expertise (Van der Heijden, 1998). This
recognition process and the resulting labeling as an expert would strongly correlate with ones up-to-datedness. It is the
degree of up-to-datedness that ensures that a person gets credibility and is validated by other team members. If an expert
is not noticed by his or her peers (colleagues in the eld), the expertise is short-lived.
More than three decades ago, Sterling (1973) characterized university accounting education in terms of the tendency
to teach what is practiced, and as such preparing students to be able to practice what they have been taught right after
graduation. In the UK, researchers have observed a re-emergence of similar concern, even at the professional level, as
regards the education and training of chartered accountants (Power, 1991). This inclination has led to increased criticisms
of the competence of accounting graduates in the workplace, partly blaming accounting faculty (Thomson, 2004), and has
evoked serious concerns about the adopted approaches by university accounting professors. Demski (2001) would prefer a
centrality of students rather than the requirements of employers. He partly puts the blame on faulty curriculum and partly
on:

Employers whose focus is on immediacy and who tend to expect universities to produce students with well-equipped
skills for employment as professionals.

Administrators and accreditation bodies who respond to employers demands for technical content.

Publishers who only publish books developed with the aid of focus groups and which are compilations of technical
pronouncements.

Academics who, instead of giving intellectual leadership, tend to ask employers what should be included inthe curriculum.
It might be clear that the way the accounting curriculum is organized is not optimal in case an academic career in
accounting is strived for. Both views, that is, job centered and student centered accounting education, should nd relevance
inbalancedorientation. Inspiteof signicant differences betweenacademic workplaces, wecandistill quitesomesimilarities
that span academic workplaces across the US, Europe, Asia, and Australasia (Tinker and Fearfull, 2007). This is especially
relevant in the wake of corporatization of academia (Churchman, 2002), where emphasis appears to be shifting to a so-called
homogenized body of academics with creative adaptive skills.
J.C. Njoku et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21 (2010) 5162 53
In order to be able to respond to the increasing rate of changes in the needed domain-specic knowledge and skills in
academic careers, it is of crucial importance to build up a sound competence or expertise base in accounting. However, our
knowledge about the nature of expertise is still in its infancy (see Van der Heijden, 1998 for a thorough conceptualization
on the concept of expertise) let alone domain-specic knowledge about expertise in accounting (Bedard and Chi, 1993).
Moreover, a need to better understand the nature of professional expertise is even more acute in accounting academia, as
many studies within this eld are yet to develop.
A typical accounting faculty member might have begun his or her accounting career purely as an academic. Whereas
he or she could have been an expert researcher, having an academic orientation only would limit opportunities for the
employeetodevelopandtodeploypractical accountingexperience. Textbooks mayplaya major roleinindicatingknowledge
contents covered. Yet, it does not replace the appropriateness of learning experiences. Practical examples would bring the
lesson alive and make the difference between professors that are using the same textbook. Having experienced practical
accounting work offers rich learning experiences for effective classroomencounters, and might lead to even more elaborate
academic discussions. On the other hand, a purely professional accountant might not have experienced a reasonable amount
of academic exposure, and might not have developed thorough research skills needed to function effectively in academia.
Aneglect of either side of the accounting career coinwouldimpose constraints that imply difculty tofunctionadequately
as anaccountingfacultyexpert. Inthecontext of theuniversity-professionlinkinEnglishcharteredaccountancy, fusionof ori-
entation provides balance that benets the quality of accounting professionals and professors alike (Annisette and Kirkham,
2007). Even, those who argue for intellectual dissociation of accounting academic from practice, risking caricature (Walker,
2004) still acknowledge historical inter-connections of accounting practice, education and scholarship (Williams, 2004).
The scenario that has beensketched upto nowleads to the questioning of the feasibility of having anelaborate accounting
faculty expertise base in case of a more or less biased orientation. That is to say, do accounting professors acquire a high
degree of expertise with regard to the domain of accounting education purely as PhDs or as ACAs? Do accounting professors
need to combine both academic and professional orientations? In attempting to answer the above questions, we do not
view academics as specialists who can adapt to any domain of professional accountancy or academic work. This would be
an unrealistic expectation of a Herculean and almost impossible task in todays multi-faceted corporate universities with a
large diversity in disciplines. The knowledge and skills sets and interests that facilitate theoretical research, in practice, may
not be the same as those needed for either high-quality applied research or effective teaching. This implies that the answers
to the above-mentioned questions depend upon both the specic personal competence base, and upon environmental
circumstances.
The global shortage of accounting professors is partly due to the fact that academic wages do not compare favorably with
industry. In recent years, due to higher nancial rewards in industry and an increasing erosion of autonomy in accounting
academia, academic careers are becoming unattractive to accounting professionals, making recruitment into academia dif-
cult. Therefore, increasingly, recruitments accommodate candidates without a professional accounting education. Subject
to the possibility of attaining more balance in the future through complementary competence building, recruitment of sub-
standard faculty (to t poor rewarding systems in academic institutions) does not seem a good strategy for the building
of expertise in any eld. Inbuilt biases on both sides of the accounting career compound the problem. Yet, movements by
accounting educators and standard setters to confront these issues seemslow. Instead, the emphasis appears to be on devel-
oping routines and rules, biased by inbuilt politics, in accounting education. The rich interdisciplinary perspective inherent
in the nature of accounting education should instead offer a healthy platformfor fusion of orientations as a plausible strategy
for raising faculty standards and remuneration.
Thus, fusion of academic and professional orientations should raise the prole of an accounting faculty who can combine
practice and teaching benecially to the employee himor herself, to academia and the industry. In fact, the fusion framework
should offer additional incentives for the recognition and acceptance of accounting faculty personnel by both worlds of
accounting. The wider sphere of operation that is inherent to the broadened expertise base would seem good enough
incentive for the price of acquiring both orientations, provided recognition and reward accompany it. A possible reward
mechanism would include additional opportunity for the accounting faculty expert to engage in active consulting practice
of signicant level, or toretainsignicant a secular positionsuchas serving inone or more boardof directors while engagedin
faculty roles (AACSB, 2006). Tosucceed, the fusionframework will require institutional rethinking inacademic environments
that base promotion solely on publication records. Professional developments should also receive boost.
The politics of the proposed fusion framework is expectedly hot. However, support appears to be growing in line with
the proposal for the deployment of professionally qualied accounting faculty (AACSB, 2006). Shortage of doctoral qualied
faculty is fuelling the growing importance of professionally qualied faculty. Already, AACSB takes the stand that both the
academically qualied and the professionally qualied faculty offer critical support in achieving high academic standards,
and makes a case for the development and deployment of professionally qualied accounting faculty. The status quo ante
is the preference for the academically qualied faculty. Our case for fusion of faculty orientation strengthens this shift and
offers a platform for reconciliation of both political divisions.
In the next section we will review some relevant literature on expertise. Building upon prior research and upon our
own insights and argumentation we will work towards a better understanding of the nature of expertise in accounting
academia. One of the mainobjectives inour paper comprises portraying the neededknowledge andskills inorder to facilitate
identicationof promisingaccountingscholars, andthe impartationof accountingexpertise tonon-experts or novices within
the eld (Bedard and Chi, 1993).
54 J.C. Njoku et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21 (2010) 5162
After a theoretical outline on the concept of expertise, we will go into the key functions of an accounting professorship
in order to understand what critical competencies are needed. Subsequently, we will apply the concept of expertise in
portraying the accounting professor by exploring his or her career orientation (see also Hall and Chandler, 2005), and by
taking into account the gaps in his or knowledge and skills base. The latter is especially relevant as these might bring about
the failure to function at an expert level. We will support the newly conceived fusion framework as a necessary strategy
to overcome career orientation biases that constrain accounting professorship. This contribution ends with a denition of
expertise in academic accounting, and concludes with some recommendations for further research.
3. Accounting faculty expertise base
The search for excellence in accounting education starts with classroom monitoring with the ultimate objective of max-
imizing students competencies (Bryant and Hunton, 2000). The idea stressing the centrality of the student is appropriate
because it is the student that might eventually become an expert who has acquired appropriate and high levels of knowledge
and skills. As Hargadon (2000) indicated, educational institutions provide the base layer of fundamental business training
for prospective students who are like raw materials to be processed for the marketplace. All experts started out as novices
who, in order to become experts, had to learn knowledge and perform years of practice (Bedard and Chi, 1993).
In Anderson (1987)s theory of knowledge compilation, skills acquisition is important for the understanding of the
concept of expertise. According to this theory, the learning process is divided into two major stages: (1) a declarative stage,
and (2) a procedural stage. At the declarative stage, domain-specic knowledge follows problem-solving procedures. But at
the procedural stage, domain-specic knowledge is already in procedural form, and can be directly applied without recourse
to general problem-solving procedures. The process of knowledge compilation achieves transition between the two stages.
Andersons theory further states that the transition process entails both a composition mechanism, which collapses
sequences of general productions intosingle, highlyspecic productions, andaproceduralizationmechanism, whichdeposits
domain-specic knowledge from long-term memory into productions. Once the transition from the declarative to the pro-
cedural stage is complete, the productions are ne-tuned by generalization, discrimination, and strengthening mechanisms.
Anderson (1987)s theory of knowledge compilation implies that experts have reached the level of ne-tuned productions.
Bedard and Chi (1993) state that Anderson (1987)s theory of knowledge compilation has been shown to apply to a wide
variety of expertise domains. One implication of Andersons theory is that learning a skill comprises the development of
new productions based on proceduralization of encoded declarative knowledge. These new productions can be applied in
case familiar problems are detected, thereby producing a working-forward strategy, typical of expert performance. A critical
element of this idea is that transfer of learning is crucial for expertise to develop (see also Ericsson and Lehmann, 1996;
Ericsson et al., 1993; Holyoak and Novick, 1991). Where transfer is not possible, for instance, in case expertise domains are
too different in terms of their arsenal of domain-specic knowledge and skills, expertise might not show. Zahra et al. (1999)
emphasize that new knowledge is often fragmented, vague and widely dispersed, and would, therefore, require careful and
sound integration for competence to result.
The implication for an accounting faculty member implies that expertise is shown by being able to transfer accounting
knowledge into the processes of teaching and academic research. Therefore, the professor faces the challenge of building up
the required competences needed for such a transfer (Larkin, 1983). It takes a lot of practice and effort before one reaches
the level of an expert accounting faculty. In the view of Ericsson and Lehmann (1996), expert and exceptional performance
are mediated by cognitive and perceptual-motor skills, and by domain-specic physiological and anatomical adaptations
and can only be attained after around 10 years of extended, daily amounts of intense deliberate practice activities (see also
Ericsson et al., 1993). That is to say, it is not just the length of time, yet, the quality of time in activities and involvement
are also critical (Chan and Anderson, 1994). It is generally believed that outstanding human achievements are a matter of
balancing between training and experience, on the one hand, and innate differences in capacities and talents on the other
hand (Ericsson and Lehmann, 1996). These would imply that for an accounting faculty member, just alike, it requires long
years of intensive practice to enable the critical competence elements to emerge.
Ericsson and Lehmann (1996), in their research on expertise, refer to the so-called cognitive paradigm and distinguish
between the dimensions of knowledge, meta-cognitive knowledge and skills acquisition. The knowledge dimension pertains
todeclarativeknowledge, procedural knowledge, andconditional knowledge, correspondingtothenotionof what is known,
how to use it, and when and under what conditions to use it. At the meta-cognitive dimension one has developed self-
insight about ones knowledge (gaps). One knows, so to say, what one knows and what needs further development. The
dimension of skill acquisition refers to acquiring the needed skills in order to perform ones professional tasks qualitatively
well.
The three dimensions that have beenexplainedabove imply that the accounting faculty expert shouldhave deepaccount-
ing knowledge together with knowledge on when, how, and under what conditions to employ it in a teaching-learning role.
Knowledge of the subject of accounting alone is not sufcient in order to be a high performer. The accounting faculty expert
must be able to impart the knowledge to the students.
Another important implication of applying this expertise framework to accounting academia is that it excludes faculty
staff that might be teaching accounting at particular levels, yet, who did not build up an earlier career in accounting. Take
for example a situation wherein a faculty member who has obtained a rst degree in engineering, progressed to get an MBA,
and nally managed to get a PhDin accounting. The fact that he or she is currently teaching accounting at some levels within
J.C. Njoku et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21 (2010) 5162 55
the academic world does not necessarily prove accounting faculty expertise. The question is whether this faculty member is
able to demonstrate accounting expertise that has been obtained in different ways, and that is rooted within both academic
efforts as well as in thorough practical experiences.
Though, extensive domain-specic knowledge constitutes a necessary condition for expertise (Shanteau, 1993), other
interactive conditions like psychological traits, cognitive skills, decision strategies, and task characteristics are important
too. Many novices know a great deal, but are not considered experts, because they lack the ability to behave as such. Hence
an accounting academic or a professional accountant with quite a tenure record can still be considered a novice for proving
incompetent in imparting accounting knowledge to students.
Building upontheoretical contributions fromlearning theory, humanresource management and work and organizational
psychology, Van der Heijden (2000) further elaborated on the cognitive paradigmand operationalized the concept of exper-
tise in a multi-dimensional and domain-independent measurement instrument by adding the dimension of acquired social
recognition, and the dimension of growth and exibility, to the so-called knowledge, meta-cognitive knowledge, and skills
dimensions.
In her opinion, hindrances in scientic progression due to the infancy and insufciency of occupational expertise research
within certain professional areas (see Van der Heijden, 2003), and due to differences in approaches and foci (Cheetham and
Chivers, 2000) that haveledtodistinct, but essential elements of expertise, justifyamulti-dimensional approach. Shereferred
to the concept of a so-called expert as someone who is both exible and in possession of domain-specic expertise in
one or more elds (Van der Heijden, 2000). Flexperts are capable of acquiring more than one area of expertise, or they
are the ones who are capable of acquiring a strategy to master a new area of expertise or expert performance in another
territory. Similarly, accounting faculty members could be considered experts in case their domains of functioning prove to
be multi-faceted.
In the area of accounting, neither an academic orientation nor a professional orientation alone appears enough to explain
faculty expertise. The epistemology of reective thinking (Schn, 1983, 1987), relying heavily ontacit knowledge andartistry
as drivers of professional development andpractice, contrasts withtechnical rationalityinwhichtheoryis gainedandapplied.
But neither thepractical orientationimpliedinSchn, nor theacademic orientationappear sufcient tofullyexplainexpertise
(Cheetham and Chivers, 2000). Rather, in order to be successful there is a need for a sound competence base comprising
both professional knowledge and skills, combined with other workplace competences, rational and reective thinking, and
exible and innovative practice (Cheetham and Chivers, 2000; Day et al., 2003).
As the accounting faculty function is multi-dimensional as well, it might be appropriate to evaluate the facultys exper-
tise level and career orientation in order to assess what complementary competences are necessary in order to enable
high performance. We expect that an academic accountant is probably more inclined to research, whereas the professional
accountant is likely to be more inclined to practice. In that case, both of them will require complementary competences in
eachothers domain. Expertise wouldexpectedlygrowif anacademicallyorientedaccountant acquires complementarycom-
petence in the service area. Similarly, expertise would growif a professionally qualied accountant acquires complementary
competence in research.
Expertise is greatly nourished by networking, more specically, through access to other peoples knowledge and skills
(Van der Heijden, 2002), thereby providing opportunities for widening ones professional competence. Accounting faculty
members should belong to, and be active in accounting associations, which offer opportunities for social integration and
interaction. Where knowledge held by professionals fromdifferent domains is combined, a cocktail of professional expertise
can be applied to the day-to-day problem-solving processes (Van der Heijden, 2002).
Moreover, to create opportunities for cooperation between accountants in academia and accountants in practice, we
expect a positive spillover of distinctive competence bases towards both sectors. In addition, the amount of respect for
each others core competences will increase. As such, we conceive accounting faculty expertise in terms of demonstrable
competence in the areas of teaching, practice, and research, as well as in terms of social recognition by important key gures,
such as colleagues and peers in the specic eld.
Gherardi (1999) emphasizes competence as entailing symbolic integration of ideas, projects and emotions within what
she described as a metaphorical map, representing the texture of organizing. That is to say, next to domain-specic knowl-
edge and skills, competence includes organized and integrated fundamental personality characteristics inherent in overt
and covert behaviors in problem-solving situations. It includes values, standards, views on life, and on oneself and others
(Bergenhenegouwen et al., 1997). Therefore, the expertise base of a competent accounting professor usefully integrates
academic and professional orientations.
Bergenhenegouwenet al. (1997) structuredcompetence intofour levels. The rst was describedas the surface level, which
entails instrumental observable knowledge and skills documented by diplomas and certicates. At a second level, compe-
tence relates to intermediate skills important for the exibility and multi-deployability and applicability in various (voca-
tional) situations. This includes things like social and communicative skills, general technical and vocational insights, organi-
zational qualities, and basic approaches to work and situations. The rst two levels combined were considered to be profes-
sional and vocational competences. Either the academic or the professional orientation can be expected to cover this level.
The third level would consist of the values, standards, ethics and morals of the person concerned, as well as those of the
organization and the (professional) group to which he or she belongs, or to which he or she reports. Added to professional
and vocational competences, these three levels of the human competence structure were referred to as the professional
qualication of the person. Abiased orientation would be problematic at this level. For example, the professional accountant
56 J.C. Njoku et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21 (2010) 5162
pays more allegiance to the professional association conferring the diploma and not necessarily to academia. On the other
hand, the academically qualied faculty may not even belong to any professional association and therefore, may not be
subject to any institutionalized set of values, standards, ethics morals, etc. It means that accounting academia, as it now
stands, may not be professionally regulated. The fusion framework being advocated provides a platform to ll this gap.
In their conceptualization, the fourth level of the human competence structure consists of deeper-lying personal char-
acteristics, such as groundedness, image of self, actual motives, and the source of the enthusiasm and effort that goes into
(professional) actions. A newbody of experts combining accounting academic and professional orientations develops into a
competence structure that is unique for an accounting professor who is neither dressed in the borrowed robe of an account-
ing professional, nor the shallow outlook of an accounting academic. Within the context of the global market, fusion of
accounting orientations brings formality and recognition to the phenomena in some countries (e.g. Australia, UK, and New
Zealand) where accounting academics hold professional as well as academic qualications. Typically, they have worked in
the industrial/commercial world before entering academia. The model of an accounting professor with a fused competence
structure adequately prepares the accounting faculty expert for more productive roles in accounting academia.
4. Major functions of the professorship in accounting
Understanding the functions and responsibilities of a professorship in accounting might help us to increase our insight
as regards the identication of a suitable candidate. While by many teaching and research are seen as the core competences
among academia, service is necessary as well for integrating accounting expertise. According to Frederickson and Pratt
(1995), teaching, research and service can be considered to be the major functions of a professorship. Schroeder (1989),
above these three functions, adds professional certication, which further underscores the need for service orientation
among accounting faculty. Service orientation may be developed by means of complementary competences, even in case
professional certication is not evident.
4.1. Teaching
All faculty members engage in teaching, next to their research and administrative duties (Fess, 1968). The concept of
teaching reects a broad range of activities undertaken by a faculty member, including classroom responsibilities, career
mentoring outside the classroom, coordinating internships, student advising, directed study, and such like (AACSB, 2006).
Sinning and Dykxhoorn (2001) refer to AACSBs (2000) position that the evaluation of faculty will rely heavily on assess-
ments of teaching effectiveness, including tailoring teaching methods to the needs of students (Hargadon, 2000). Since most
accounting professors have not received any formal training in teaching methodology, their teaching skills need to be further
developed and reinforced.
AACSB (1991)s standards (see Shenkir, 1991) require PhD programs to provide orientation to teaching responsibilities
for PhD students that are involved in teaching tasks. Without a proper training program, the PhD candidates might not
possess the capabilities that are required in order to meet graduate students needs. King and Henderson (1991) refer to
graduate students needs for faculty who are qualied and dedicated to teaching, and who have ample time to spend with
their students (Thomson and Bebbington, 2005). Accounting reports educate internal and external users about previously
unknown events and are therefore amenable to pedagogical assessments. Also, training sessions and work reviewprocesses
offer senior professional colleagues opportunities to teach recruits and the less experienced. It means that the professional
accounting faculty tapping into these potentials can enrich teaching ability.
The ability among faculty members to teach accounting inuences the way students and colleagues perceive their exper-
tise. By denition, all accounting professors are, more or less, involved in teaching. On the other hand, not all of them are
as heavily involved in research, and/or in service activities. Therefore, assignments that offer opportunity in research and
service also nourish expertise in both accounting practice and accounting academic.
In many countries, in addition to PhD and/or professional qualications, aspiring academics also need to be certicated
as educators. This typically takes the shape of a Diploma in education or something equivalent. In a certicated society this
may help to legitimize teaching but there is little evidence to showthat those with such qualications are necessarily better
at teaching. In the next section we will go into the issue of research versus practice being functions of a professorship in
accounting.
4.2. Research versus practice
The central issue about research is that it is a systematic investigation of, or enquiry into, a specic phenomenon for
the purpose of discovering new facts, or providing a critical exposition of existing knowledge. It entails serious critical
scholarship, including stringent social praxis in evaluating knowledge claims (Tinker, 2005). Findings that emerge from
accounting research normally contribute to knowledge and should bring about positive change (Inanga and Schneider,
2005). In general, the relationship between research and practice may be considered as complex, yet research and practice
are mutually constitutive and highly dependent upon one another.
For example, many of the ideas about valuationof assets anddiscountedcashowthat emergedfromaccounting research
are nowdeeply embeddedinaccounting practice. Similarly, many concepts andideas incosting andmanagement accounting
J.C. Njoku et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21 (2010) 5162 57
teaching and research have been inuenced signicantly by what is practiced in industry. Notwithstanding the so-called
mutually constitutive relationship, there is still a wide gap between accounting research and accounting practice (Baxter,
1988; Carsberg, 1997).
Collier (1998), within the university context, has identied the following six elements as summarizing the concept of
research: (1) discovery, dissemination and interpretation of new knowledge; (2) reinterpretation of the existing body of
knowledge; (3) the application of principles from the existing body of knowledge to modeling and design; (4) the invention
and generation of ideas, images, performances and artifacts, including design, where these lead to new or substantially
improved insights; (5) reection on current practice by practitioners; and (6) the use of existing knowledge in experimental
development to produce new or substantially improved materials, devices, products or processes, including design and
construction.
Experimental learning usually involves individuals (or teams) who are engaged in research and comprises a process that
translates individual (or team) experiences intoorganizational knowledge(Zahraet al., 1999). Withinacademiaexperimental
learningis amajor approach, and, despitetheimportanceof other learningstrategies, it is obviouslybymeans of experimental
learning that educational activities may have the greatest potential to create or to reinforce competitive advantage (Zahra
et al., 1999). As such, the basis for research lies at an engagement in experimental learning.
For faculty, the general axiomis to publish or perish. Indeed, in academia mainly research productivity is used in order
to discriminate between high and low performers (Dennis, 1991). The implicit assumption is that a faculty member who
publishes a lot is a more valuable member of the intellectual and/or the educational community than one who does not
publish frequently. Just as accounting prot is used to indicate success in business life, recognized published research is
used as the primary indicator of academic quality. Research publications form the best available criterion for evaluating
the quality of individual faculty members, and, aggregated, for the departments and institutions where they are employed
(Hasselback and Reinsten, 1995). That is to say, research plays a powerful role in the classication of faculty and schools. The
challenge is in ensuring wider knowledge dissemination and some relaxation of scientic rigor for scholars to encourage
accounting professionals newly introduced to research (Tinker and Puxty, 2007; Humphrey et al., 1995).
Bedard and Dodds (1994) classied schools as more research-oriented in case of a higher number of faculties holding a
PhD, and in case of a higher prevalence of research activities. Applied to accounting this refers to accounting faculty with a
pure academic orientation, and to professors with a PhD degree who are highly skilled in research, yet, who would require
complementary competence in the area of service. The latter would broaden their expertise and would equip them better
for the more applied research that is relevant to accounting practice.
At the other extreme are the faculty members with a pure practice orientation. Atypical professor fromthis domain holds
an ACA or equivalent, and is highly involved in practice, usually with no research records, yet who is at most engaged in
writing professional reports. He or she would require complementary competence in research in order to broaden expertise,
and to be better equipped for applied research. As such, the practice experience can be usefully demonstrated in applied
research. It is, therefore, conceivable that faculty orientation (research versus practice) may converge in applied research, as
a bridge between pure research of the academic, and pure service of the practitioner. Correspondingly, given the character
of the discipline, Read et al. (1998) argue in favor of more emphasis on teaching and applied professional research, with less
emphasis on academic research. They advocate that the performance of accounting faculty experts should be evaluated in
terms of applied research output. And to make it more relevant to practice, new ideas should be allowed time to develop
before imposing rigor (Verstegen, 2004).
Our argument is that the skill set and interests of accounting faculty members, that facilitate both theoretical and applied
research, are enhanced in case they are exposed to both academic and practice experiences. In general, the relationship
between research and practice may be considered as complex, yet, mutually constitutive and highly dependent upon one
another.
4.3. The interrelatedness between teaching and research
A strong link exists between high quality teaching and sound and relevant research (Collier, 1998). Apart fromdeepening
the teachers knowledge of the subject, a combination of teaching and research provides opportunities to pass on new
information, and reinforces the intrinsic value of enquiry. The student also benets from the teachers enhanced ability.
Fusion of research and practice should positively reinforce teaching ability.
Educational institutions array themselves on a continuumof teaching/research combinations (Dennis, 1991), with differ-
ing claims on the relative importance of teaching and research. According to King and Henderson (1991), individual faculty
might emphasize teaching next to their research activities, but accreditation and organizational promotion policies and
tenure only emphasize research. Read et al. (1998) observe the dominance of research publications, whereas Fess (1968)
argues that teaching is actually the profession. Faculty is employed and paid basically to teach (PIC, 1995). The argument
has no end.
What is important is the recognition that the faculty member is supposed to be a competent teacher who, in order to
successfully climb the career ladder, must attach importance to research as well. That is to say, teaching, research and service
should be inextricably fused. Fess (1968) refers to the need for a balance between teaching and research in two challenges:
(1) the recognition that effective teaching and research do not come about by chance; and (2) the ability to implement a
plan aimed at achieving both effective teaching and research. He grouped faculties into four types of individuals: (1) good
58 J.C. Njoku et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21 (2010) 5162
teachers; (2) good researchers; (3) those that are adept in both teaching and research; and (4) those who are neither adept
in teaching nor in research. All groups have something to gain from fusion of academic and professional orientations.
Based upon the outline given above, we expect that the demonstration of a high ability in both teaching and applied
research will positively predict the recognition of the accounting professor by important key gures (Van der Heijden,
1998). It also follows that service skills should integrate with academic skills to equip an accounting professor in the task
of helping students to develop life-long learning skills, such as problem-solving skills, and to understand the organizational
and societal context in which decisions are made (Maher, 2000). Employers increasingly ask for graduates that are able to
add value to organizations, not for graduates that just work competently on projects that superiors assign to them (see also
Frank et al., 2002).
5. Summary portrait of the accounting professorship
An expert is identiable by his or her knowledge and skills base (Shanteau et al., 2002). The accounting faculty expert
demonstrates core accounting knowledge and skills (PIC, 1995). For the academically oriented, it is typically reected by
means of the PhD in accounting, with strong research skills. Formal training or experience in teaching, as well as practice
exposure in service are desirable complementary competencies (Frank et al., 2002). They feature largely at accredited and
doctoral granting programs (GibsonandSchroeder, 1995). For the professionally orientedcounterpart, it is typically reected
by means of the professional certication in Accounting with strong practice skill. Formal training or experience in teach-
ing and research are desirable complementary competencies. Where professional and academic accounting orientations
converge, the amount of expertise of the accounting professor is enhanced.
Originating fromprofessional education, accounting professorship later became more academic, in line with other disci-
plines, and grew by 1970 into the practice of using better research tools (Horngren, 1971), through tenure-track positions,
into research enabling doctoral degrees (Bedard and Dodds, 1994). Notwithstanding the trend toward academic rigor, the
accounting practitioners still have the best credibility for bringing the business world into academia (Gibson and Schroeder,
1995). Therefore, both the academic and professional orientations usefully combine to paint the portrait of the accounting
faculty expert.
After obtaining a rst degree, a student who eventually becomes anaccounting faculty member couldhave pursuedeither
or both of two career paths, i.e. an academic path, or a professional path. Within the academic path the student may obtain a
Masters degree and/or a PhD in accounting, implying the characterization of an academic accountant. The alternative path
comprises a professional certication such as Associate of the Institute of Chartered Accountants (ACA), progressing to the
rank of a Fellow(FCA). Holding the rst degree in accounting constant, the dominant engagement in research versus practice
should explain the difference between both orientation emphases.
The accounting expert, whether academic or practitioner, has a vast amount of accounting knowledge (Thibodeau, 2003),
to the level necessary for expertise to develop (Bedard and Chi, 1993), and consistent with the knowledge dimensions of the
multi-dimensional operationalization of the concept of professional expertise (Van der Heijden, 2000). Thus, the accounting
faculty expert demonstrates both domain-specic knowledge as well as meta-cognitive knowledge, skills, growth potential,
and has required huge amounts of social recognition.
Specically, the academic has enough accounting knowledge to conduct research, while the professional has enough
accounting knowledge to engage in accounting practice. In addition, the faculty expert demonstrates the ability to impart
learning of accounting in theory and practice. Inability to play this role distracts the faculty member fromsound accounting
professorship. As such, both the academic and the professional build up complementary accounting competences, to be able
to performfaculty roles at expertise level. Overt behavior of an accounting faculty expert shows his or her ability to perform
qualitatively well in the accounting domain (Van der Heijden, 2002). Though the academic accountant is more adapted to
research, whereas the professional accountant is more inclined to practice, yet, at faculty level, they can both be expected
to perform equally well in imparting accounting knowledge in case they have to switch roles.
The accounting faculty expert combines the ne skills of boththe academic andthe professional accountants toeffectively
transfer learning and bring about balanced learner outcome. Reinforced by the complementary competence structure, his or
her expertise demonstrates familiarity with the real business environment, and is useful in preparing students for practice
as well as research skills in exploring accountancy. This expertise develops out of building up core problem-solving skills
Bedard and Chi (1993), through a thorough integration of theory and practice (Zahra et al., 1999) in order to permit transfer
between domains (Bedard and Chi, 1993), and enables exploitation of research and practice skills for richer classroom
learning (Thibodeau, 2003). The expertise harnesses identical elements (Thorndyke and Woodworth, 1901) from the sound
knowledge base shared by the accounting academic and accounting practitioner to effectively organize theory and practice
for effective transfer across domains.
Professional accountants acquire much of their knowledge about a task through practice and feedback, while academic
accountants obtain much of theirs through reading and research. Thus, accounting knowledge for professional accountants
clusters more around practice problems, in contrast with research problems for the academic. It means that no particular
orientation or career path in itself is adequate in satisfying all three faculty functions of teaching, service and research.
Therefore, the accounting faculty expert must emerge by fusing the ne elements of the respective orientations into a
unique expertise, sound enough to impart accountancy knowledge. We assume that a combination of both orientations
facilitates balanced learning of a faculty member that might grow into an accounting expert.
J.C. Njoku et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21 (2010) 5162 59
Our view is shared by Annisette and Kirkham (2007) who advocate a closer link between academia and the practice
profession, similar to the English example where a thorough collaboration has been established between the University and
the EnglishChartered Accountancy professionto the mutual benets of both. Suchcollaborationyields a fusionof accounting
expertise in one professional person, i.e. the accounting faculty expert.
The need for fusion becomes further evident from concerns that schools and other external vocational training courses
are increasingly less able to turnout effective andproductive professional practitioners at the outset (Vander Heijden, 2002).
The expectations of employers fromaccounting graduates are high(GiffordandRichard, 2004), andshouldprompt educators
to establish working relationships with accounting professionals in both industry and practice. According to Kramer et al.
(2005), the professional accountant needs a way to bridge the worlds of academia and practice, and should gain a much
broader range of competencies than before (see also Schelthaudt and Crittenden, 2005). For Mukherji (1998) education is
about creativity and ideas, and about transferring and producing knowledge.
A talented accounting professor should show a high amount of adaptability or expertise (Van der Heijden, 1998) and
should be able to integrate teaching, research, and service. That is to say, the combination of a PhD degree in accounting
with a professional certication favors a candidate in recruitment and selection processes (Gibson and Schroeder, 1995).
As an applied science, Accounting requires a better understanding and appreciation by the faculty staff of the functioning
of accounting systems, andof the nature of the problems andchallenges facedwithinthe profession(PIC, 1995). For example,
this world in which management accounting operates is changing dramatically. Boer (2000) admits the need to develop
courses that address the strategic issues company managers are facing instead of creating courses that accountants nd
interesting. He laments an apparent disconnection between what academia does, as evident fromcontents tables in current
management accounting texts, and what modern managers need. For example, accountants compute product costs, but
managers work to evaluate customer selection and customer value. Moreover, accountants do cost allocations, yet managers
worry about competitive strategies. Accountants develop budget and cost variances, but managers struggle to modernize
and streamline operations, and so on.
One should have had some exposure to practice inorder to appreciate the outline givenabove. This level of understanding
is important in order to effectively communicate to students a full and complete view of the world of accounting. For this
reason, it is desirable for accounting faculty members to have worked in accounting practice, to have engaged in consulting
activities, to have served on technical committees of professional organizations, or otherwise, to have developed a base of
professional accounting experience. Heagy and McMickle (1988) observed that practitioners rst-hand experience with the
expanding professional practice gives thema plausible perspective fromwhichtomake recommendations for improvements
in accounting systems education. Also, Bomeli (1979) argued that, for faculty to function qualitatively well, professional
experience is required above the PhD degree preparation.
According to Hargadon (2000), the combination of knowledge and skills, provided by teams consisting of both practi-
tioners and faculty staff, increases the chance for the development of contemporary and relevant courses, and might lead
to an enriched learning experience for students including ethical accountability (Saravanamuthu, 2004). In different ways,
researchers have emphasized this need for fusion between the academic accountant and the professional accountant for
productive functioning (Chan and Anderson, 1994; Cheney, 1999; Kilcourse, 1994; Miller, 1965). Students rate accounting
professors possessing relevant practical experience higher than professors lacking it (Mounce and Braun, 2004). Hence,
Juniper (2002) asserted that outstanding scholarship within the university sector will continue to rely on a smooth inte-
gration between teaching, industry collaboration, and research. In this sense, Miller (1965) compared the following three
biographical sketches of hypothetical accounting professors:
Sketch 1: The professor is a CPA as well as a PhD, has recent experience in public accounting, and is active in the affairs of
the AICPA and/or in a state CPA society as a committee member, program participant, or ofcer.
Sketch 2: The professor is a CPA as well as a PhD, but has no recent experience in public accounting, and is not active in the
affairs of the accounting profession.
Sketch 3: The professor is not a CPA, and has no experience in public accounting.
Millers research (1965) led to the conclusion that there is much in favor of the rst sketch. This corresponds to our
case of so-called fusion of faculty orientation. A distinguishing mark between sketch one and two lies in the prevalence
of experience. In our view, an accounting faculty expert should be able to prove recent public accounting experience in
applied research. As distinct from pure research, applied research draws heavily from recent public accounting experience.
What is more, the modern day expectation for faculty is to possess knowledge and skills necessary to address the needs of
students, employers, as well as the academic institutions where one is employed. Given the huge shortage of accounting
academia, one is even expected to teach in adjacent areas such as management control systems, just to give an example,
next to ones heavy research load. Hence, the fusion of faculty orientation gives birth to a unique expert, who has his or her
own professional identity which is different from either the purely academic or professional accountant.
Accordingly, ways must be found to foster fusion of expertise in accounting academia. Gifford and Richard (2004) sug-
gests that accounting faculty should engage in exploring the practice environment to determine what professional skills
are demanded, and how they are being addressed in curricula. Moreover, accounting advisory councils, faculty extern-
ships/professional training, and involvement in professional organizations are needed. Mounce and Braun (2004) ask for
participation in additional programactivities for faculty who do not have relevant practical experience. For example, by pro-
60 J.C. Njoku et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21 (2010) 5162
viding paid sabbaticals or by providing faculty with opportunities for internships in the business or accounting community
in order to gain needed experience.
In the view of Sinning and Dykxhoorn (2001), accounting units will have to put processes in place to ensure that the fac-
ulty staff hired is appropriate and has both research and teaching subject experience. Besides, they stress the need for faculty
to continue to develop their competence base as educational programs and professional markets change. Facultypartnering
arrangements with accounting service rms could be another helpful way. According to Hargadon (2000), these arrange-
ments with rms in public accounting and industry will enable both parties to capitalize on mutual expertise. In particular,
faculty without fusion in expertise will nd a good opportunity in internship arrangements to make up for possible lacks.
According to Hargadon (2000), faculty internships signicantly increase their knowledge base, and provide the practical
experience needed to enrich the quality of instruction and research. Similarly, practitioners may reciprocate by establishing
working relationships with academic faculty members at nearby universities and colleges (Schmutte and Michael, 1990).
Such fusion puts the accounting faculty in a strong position to discharge positive social responsibility (Oliverio, 2004).
A common social responsibility question is in reconciling academics with the real world of practice. A practical question
that may arise is the moral role of the accounting academics with regards to the challenges faced by accountants in practice,
and howto reconcile the competing focus. For example, tax avoidance schemes constitute sales point for many practitioners,
thereby shifting tax burdens from corporations and the well-off to labor and consumption. An ethical question is whether
the expert should perpetuate practitioners appetite for tax avoidance schemes in designs, or whether he or she should
expose such practices. In the post-Enron era, the fusion of orientation would equip the faculty with positive contributions
such as highlighting moral hazards challenges for the public good (Gray and Collison, 2002). The accounting faculty expert
can easily t into such roles as post-audit reviews.
By and large, the stress accompanying the steps needed to achieve integration of orientations in accounting academia
poses a major barrier. To become either academically qualied or professionally qualied already entails enough hard work
in itself. The extra pill needed to attain complementary competence might not be easy to swallow in terms of opportunity
costs. These costs may be taken into account in several ways. First, the degree of fusion attainment could provide credits
in terms of promotion and tenure decisions, similar to research. Second, attainment of fusion could deliver higher rankings
in the professoriate compared with biased orientations. Third, nancial rewards should be attached to the attainment of
expertise. Fourth, a expert should enjoy freedom to function in the broadened expertise base, including involvement
in professional practice while playing faculty roles. The success of the reward scheme would, however, hinge partly on the
institutional shift away from the current emphases on research at the expense of practice. We have advocated the need for
institutional rethinking toward reward systems in favor of expertise.
6. Conclusion
One cannot claimexpertise in accounting academia, if one, in ones role as university professor, cannot handle accounting
problems in teaching, in research, and in practice, altogether. Irrespective of ones orientation, accounting professors are
expected to require complementary competence within the accounting domain. The academic accountant should comple-
ment his knowledge or skills base with basic practice exposure, while the professional accountant should complement this
with applied research exposure.
This so-called fusion of expertise can be perceived at the orientation stage where a professor is both an academic (PhD)
anda professional by training (CPA). However, we think that fusionis also to be achievedincomplementary service. Here, the
academic accountant gets accounting practice exposure, while the professional accountant gets applied researchexperience.
Thus, complementary competence is demonstrable in both research and practice orientations and in service.
Only incase knowledgeable people ina particular domainof expertise acknowledge anemployee as anexpert, and incase
he or she is able to determine what is needed to stay employable in the long run (Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden, 2006),
can career success be achieved. In this sense, an accounting professor should possess a considerable amount of accounting
expertise. Besides skills that enable integrating the knowledge of accounting at a professional level, social intelligence and
strong communication skills are needed in order to obtain career growth.
Also, the accounting professor is supposed to acquire expertise in more than one area and to exibly combine teaching,
accountancy and research in a socially recognized setting. Nowadays jobs are changing at an ever-increasing rate (Van der
Heijden, 2005). Schnabel (2000), from a sociological point of view, mentions the ve big Is in order to characterize the
21st century: (1) internationalization; (2) individualization; (3) normalization; (4) normalization; and (5) intensication.
Characteristic of these changes is that not only do they produce new expertise needs but also, at the same time, they create
new opportunities for learning. The qualications that are required for a job are becoming increasingly complex while,
simultaneously, the half life of these qualications is becoming increasingly shorter.
Employees whoareabletosurviveandsatisfythecurrent needs aretheones withnot onlythemost up-to-dateknowledge
and skills, but also the capability to continuously build up the new expertise requirements. As it is hard to predict changing
labor market requirements, achieving exibility seems to be the key criterion that enables an employee to stay in the race
(Van der Heijden, 2005).
Our denition of the exemplary accounting faculty member can be summarized as a professor who demonstrates highly
qualied knowledge and skills pertaining to both research and practice, who is recognized as an expert by important key
gures in his or her eld, and who is able to adapt to adjacent or new expertise domains by means of building up transfer-
J.C. Njoku et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21 (2010) 5162 61
able knowledge and skills within applied research and within practice. Although some pilot approaches that are currently
undertakenlead us to conclude that the ve distinguished dimensions inthe domain-independent operationalizationby Van
der Heijden (2000) are highly applicable to the domain of accountancy, further research is needed wherein the operational-
ization of accountancy expertise in measurement instruments is validated. Expertise in understanding what distinguishes
high and low performers among accountancy faculty is necessary in order to maintain the quality of education within the
eld and may contribute to a sustainable accountancy workforce.
References
AACSB International. Deploying professionally qualied faculty: an Interpretation of AACSB standards. Florida: The Association to Advance Collegiate of
Business Schools; 2006, AACSB White Paper.
Altbach PG. The changing academic workforce: comparative perspectives. Massachussets: Center for International Higher Education, School of Education,
Boston College; 2000.
Anderson JR. Skill acquisition: compilation of weak-method problem solutions. Psychological Review 1987;94(2):192210.
Annisette M, Kirkham LM. The advantages of separateness explaining the unusual profession-university link in England and Wales. Critical Perspectives
on Accounting 2007;18(January (1)):130.
Baxter WT. Accounting researchacademic trends versus practical needs. Scotland: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland; 1988.
Bedard J, Chi M. Expertise in auditing. A Journal of Practice and Theory 1993;12(2):2145.
Bedard J, Dodds C. The university accounting professoriate in Canada. Contemporary Accounting Research 1994(Special Issue):75109.
Bergenhenegouwen GJ, Horn HF, Mooijman EA. Competence development: a challenge for HR professionals. Industrial and Commercial Training
1997;29(2):5562.
Boer GB. Management accounting education: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Issues in Accounting Education 2000;15(2):31334.
Bomeli E. Retreading accounting faculty members. Journal of Accountancy 1979;147(5):915.
Boyce G. Critical accounting education: teaching and learning outside the circle. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2004;15(4/5):56586.
Bryant SM, Hunton JE. The use of technology in the delivery of instruction: implications for accounting educators and education researchers. Issues in
Accounting Education 2000;15(1):12962.
Carsberg BV. Foreword. In: Cooke T, Nobes C, editors. The Festschrift in honour of R.H. Parker. London: Routledge; 1997.
Chan KC, Anderson GC. Academia-industry fussion: an action learning for teaching enterprise. Industrial and Commercial Training 1994;26(4):2832.
Cheetham G, Chivers G. A new look at competent professional practice. Journal of European Industrial Training 2000;24(6/7):37483.
Cheney GA. Accountants in academia. Journal of Accountancy 1999;172(4):40.
Churchman D. Voices of the academy: academics responses to the corporatizing of academia. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2002;13(5/6):64356.
Collier P. Teaching and research; 1998, accessed 25.10.07 at http://www.ex.ac.uk/admin/academic/tls/tqa/teachres.htm.
Cruess RL, Cruess SR, Johnston SE. Professionalism: an ideal to be sustained. The Lancet 2000;356(9224):1569.
Day M, Mary K, Ronald P. Reexivity in learning critical accounting: implications for teaching and its research nexus. Critical Perspectives on Accounting
2003;14(5):597614.
Demski JS. Some thoughts on accounting scholarship. Presidential Address; 2001, 22 August.
Dennis EL. COMMENT: some observations on the signicance of the research requirements in academia. Financial Practice and Education 1991;1(1):136.
Ericsson KA, Lehmann AC. Expert and exceptional performance: evidence of maximal adaptation of task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology
1996;47:273305.
Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Rmer C. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review1993;100:363406.
Evetts J. The sociological analysis of professionalism. International Sociology 2003;18(2):395415.
Fess PE. Teaching and/or research. The Journal of Accountancy 1968;125(3):847.
Foucault M. Politics, philosophy, culture. interviews and other writings 19771984. London: Routledge; 1990.
Frank K, Lowe D, Smedley G. Stakeholders perspectives of accounting faculty time allocations. Journal of Applied Business Research 2002;18(1):110.
Frederickson JR, Pratt J. A model of the accounting education process. Issues in Accounting Education 1995;10(2):22946.
Gherardi S. A symbolic approach to competence development. Human Resource Development International 1999;2(4):31334.
Gibson C, Schroeder N. Ohio accounting faculty: are they up to the challenge? Ohio CPA Journal 1995;54(1):159.
Gifford J, Richard H. Reach out to profession to keep teaching fresh. Pennsylvania CPA Journal 2004;75(3):12.
Gray R, Collison D. Cant see the wood for the trees, cant see the trees for the numbers? Accounting education, sustainability and the public interest. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting 2002;13(5/6):797836.
Hall DT, Chandler DE. Psychological success: when the career is a calling. Journal of Organizational Behaviour 2005;26(2):15576.
Hargadon J. Accounting education: the challenges ahead. Pennsylvania CPA Journal 2000;70(4):IVVII.
Hasselback JR, Reinsten A. A proposal for measuring scholarly productivity of accounting faculty. Issues in Accounting Education 1995;10(2):269306.
Heagy C, McMickle P. An empirical investigation of the accounting systems course: academic practice versus practitioner needs. Issues in Accounting
Education 1988;3(1):96107.
Holyoak KJ, Novick LR. Mathematical problem solving by analogy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
1991;17(3):398415.
Horngren CT. The accounting discipline in 1999. The Accounting Review 1971;XLVI(1):111.
Hugo G. The demography of Australias academic workforce: patterns, problems and policy implications. In: Presentationto the MonashSeminars onHigher
Education; 2004.
Humphrey C, Moizer P, Owen D. Questioning the value of the research selectivity process in British university accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Account-
ability Journal 1995;8(3):14164.
Inanga EL, Schneider WB. The failure of accounting research to improve accounting practice: a problem of theory and lack of communication. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting 2005;16:22748.
Juniper J. Universities and collaboration within complex, uncertain knowledge-based economies. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2002;13(5/6):74778.
Kilcourse T. Developing competent managers. Journal of European Industrial Training 1994;18(2):126.
King JG, Henderson JR. Faculty research from the perspective of accounting academicians. Journal of Education for Business 1991;66(4):2037.
Kramer B, Johnson C, Crain G, Miller S. The practitionerprofessor link. The Journal of Accountancy 2005;199(6):7780.
LarkinJ. What kindof knowledge transfers? In: Besnick L, editor. Knowing, learning, andinstruction: essays inhonor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum;
1983. p. 283305.
Maher MW. Management accounting education at the millennium. Issues in Accounting Education 2000;15(2):33546.
Miller HE. Education and training: the environment of the accounting profession. The Journal of Accountancy 1965;119(1):803.
Mounce PH, Braun RL. The importance of relevant practical experience among accounting faculty: an empirical analysis of students perceptions. Issues in
Accounting Education 2004;19(4):399411.
Mukherji A. Hiring faculty: The Best Fit or Best Athlete. Issues in Accounting Education 1998;13(3):7213.
Oliverio M. What societal responsibility should accounting faculty assume? Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2004;15(4/5):45360.
62 J.C. Njoku et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21 (2010) 5162
Practice Involvement Committee of the Administrators of Accounting Programs Group(PIC). Accounting faculty/practitioners partnershipto address mutual
education concerns. Issues in Accounting Education 1995;10(1):197206.
Poullaos C. Globalisation, accounting critique and the university. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2004;15(4/5):71530.
Power M. Educating accountants: towards a critical ethnography. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1991;16(4):33353.
Read W, Rama D, Raghunandan K. Are publication requirements for accounting faculty promotions still increasing? Issues in Accounting Education
1998;13(2):32739.
Said E. Representations of the intellectual. London: Vintage; 1994.
Saravanamuthu K. Gold-collarism in the academy: the dilemma in transforming bean-counters into knowledge consultants. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting 2004;15(4/5):587607.
Schelthaudt K, Crittenden V. Specialist or generalist: views from academia and industry. Journal of Business Research 2005;58(7):94654.
Schmutte J, Michael P. Accounting professors: a valuable resource. Journal of Accountancy 1990;170(4):13840.
Schnabel P. Maatschappij in beweging [Society in movement]. In: Herijken achter de dijken, verslag van het jubilieumcongres van de Sociaal-Economische
Raad, 11 Oktober. The Hague, The Netherlands: Sociaal-Economische Raad; 2000.
Schn DA. The reective practitioner: how professionals think in action. London: Maurice Temple Smith; 1983.
Schn DA. Educating the reective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1987.
Schroeder NW. Accounting faculty promotions at quality institutions. Issues in Accounting Education 1989;4(2):25264.
Shanteau J. Discussion on expertise in auditing. Auditing 1993 Supplement 1993;12(2):516.
Shanteau J, Weiss D, Thomas R, Pounds J. Performance-based assessment of expertise: how to decide if someone is an expert or not. European Journal of
Operational Research 2002;136(2):25363.
Shenkir WG. New standards for accreditation. Journal of Accountancy 1991;172(4):40.
SinningKE, DykxhoornHJ. Processes implementedfor AACSBaccountingaccreditationandthedegreeof facultyinvolvement. Issues inAccountingEducation
2001;16(2):181204.
Sterling RR. Accounting research, education and practice. Journal of Accountancy (pre-1986) 1973;136(000003):4452.
Thibodeau JC. The development and transferability of task knowledge. Auditing 2003;22(1):4767.
Thomson I. It doesnt matter what you teach? Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2004;15(4/5):60928.
Thomson I, Bebbington J. Social and environmental reporting in the UK: a pedagogic evaluation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2005;16(5):50733.
Thorndyke E, Woodworth R. The inuence of improvement in one mental function upon the efciency of other functions. Psychological Review
1901;8:24761.
Tinker T. The withering of criticism: a review of professional, Foucauldian, ethnographic, and epistemic studies in accounting. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal 2005;18(1):10035.
Tinker T, Fearfull A. The workplace politics of U.S. accounting: race, class and gender discrimination at Baruch College. Critical Perspectives on Accounting
2007;18(1):12338.
Tinker T, Puxty A. Policing accounting knowledge: the market for excuses affair. Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener; 2007.
Van der Heijden BIJM. The measurement and development of professional expertise throughout the career. A retrospective study among higher level Dutch
professionals. Enschede, PhD thesis. The Netherlands: University of Twente; 1998.
Van der Heijden BIJM. The development and psychometric evaluation of a multi-dimensional measurement instrument of professional expertise. The
Journal of the European Council for High Ability 2000;11(1):939.
Vander HeijdenBIJM. Individual career initiatives andtheir inuence uponprofessional expertise development throughout the career. International Journal
of Training and Development 2002;6(2):5479.
Van der Heijden BIJM. Organizational inuences upon the development of occupational expertise throughout the career. International Journal of Training
& Development 2003;7(3):14265.
Van der Heijden, BIJM. No one has ever promised you a rose garden On shared responsibility and employability enhancing strategies throughout careers
(Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands, 2005, Inaugural address delivered in abridged form on the occasion of the public acceptance of the
professorship in Strategic HRM, in particular aimed at the dynamics of individuals career development at the Open University of the Netherlands,
Assen: Van Gorcum).
Van der Heijde CM, Van der Heijden BIJM. A competence-based and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability. Human
Resource Management 2006;45(3):44976.
Verstegen B. What is benecial for the scientist will that be benecial for us? Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2004;15(4/5):697700.
Wai FA, Sinclair A. Interests and the profession-state dynamic: explaining the emergence of the Australian public sector accounting standards board. Journal
of Business Finance & Accounting 1994;21(5):669705.
Walker M. Recovering accounting: an economic perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2004;15(4/5):51927.
Weber M. An intellectual portrait. University of Berkeley Press: Berkeley, CA; 1977.
Williams PF. Recovering accounting as a worthy endeavor. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2004;15(4/5):5137.
Wineeld AH, Jarrett R. Occupational stress in university staff. International Journal of Stress Management 2001;8(4):28598.
Wineeld AH, Gillespie NA, Stough C, Dua J, Hapuarachi J, Boyd C. Occupational stress in Australian university staff: results from a national survey.
International Journal of Stress Management 2003;10:5163.
Zahra S, Nielsen A, Bogner W. Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and competence development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
1999;23(3):16989.