DEVELOPING YOUR RESEARCH AGENDA The PhD Project Accounting Doctoral Students Association Conference August 2, 2014 Pamela C. Smith, Ph.D. Professor Department.

DEVELOPING YOUR RESEARCH AGENDA

The PhD Project

Accounting Doctoral Students Association Conference

August 2, 2014

Pamela C. Smith, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Accounting

2

3

What is Research Success?• The Accounting Review, JAR, JAE?

• Getting through 3rd year review?

• Tenure at 1st university?

• Becoming an ‘expert’ in your field?

• Conducting research that is interesting?• “Your research has to excite you enough for it to be a treat!”

Dufflo, 2011

4

• “Success” is conditional on many factors• Your personal expectations & goals• Your skill set• Amount of time you are willing to devote

• Research reputation• How will you be known in the field?• Participate in workshops• Volunteer – discussant, moderator, reviewer

• Research self-respect (2000 AAA Doctoral Consortium)• Your research ‘character’ lets you sleep at night

5

“It’s a plan and a focus on issues and ideas in a subset of your field. You cannot study everything in your field during your time in graduate school, so decide what to focus on now, and what to defer until another day.”

Reedy & Murty, May 2009, Inside Higher Ed

What is a Research Agenda?

6

Research Agenda “Workbook”http://mcs.open.ac.uk/mp8/agenda%20workbook.pdf

Three key metrics for research: • - publications• - money {i.e. grants}• - students

Other metrics:

- significant awards and honors

- editorial leadership

- keynote and invited addresses

- external seminars

- organizational activity

What makes an outstanding c.v.?

What else do you think matters?

How does your c.v. stack up against these metrics, and what would you like to improve?

7

Some Questions from the Workbook

• If you could have one research accomplishment to your name, one research ‘claim to fame’ what would it be?

• If you could be editor-in-chief of one journal, which would it be? Why?

• What do you want to accomplish in the next year?

• In the next 5 years?

8

Balance• Self Reflection

• Expectations• Family• University• College• Department

9

Research Expectations

• Dynamic Changes• What does your university consider a ‘top publication’?

• What will you do if expectations change mid-stream?

• What are factors beyond your control?

10

Changing Expectations• Glover, Prawitt, Summers, Wood. 2012. Issues in

Accounting Education. 27(3): 647-670results indicate that, on average, faculty promoted from 2004 to 2009 had more publications in leading accounting journals at the time of promotion than faculty promoted from 1995 to 2003.

• Hasselback, Reinstein, Abdolmohammadi. 2012. Issues in Accounting Education. 27(4): 943-978.• average publication productivity of accounting faculty per year has

steadily increased over the 35 years under study. We present benchmark measures based on faculty productivity in four sets of journals both from 1971–2005 and for each year of 2001–2005. The former shows that a significant proportion of doctoral graduates have never published in any of the 40 journals studied. The latter shows nine years of productivity in the most recent years.

11

Research Pipeline• Projects at various stages• Demonstrates ability to multi-task• Seek advice on proper outlets• A ‘numbers’ game• Projects in first 3 years of career are what will/will not get

you tenure on a 6 year clock

• TIME MANAGEMENT

12

13

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4Year 6(FALL)

Year 5Survive 3rd year review?

Are you carving out

that dissertation?

Do you have numerous projects?

What journals do you target?

Is my CV on target?

14

Practical Issues to Consider

• Co-Authors

• Handling Reviews

• Rejection Letters

• Figuring out Your Road Map

15

Co-Authors

• Senior faculty or other ‘hungry’ junior faculty

• What expertise do you bring to the table?

• Can you ‘sell’ your idea?

• “Good” co-authors improve the quality & quantity of the work

16

Before the Review Stage• How does your paper compare to those published in your

target journal?

• Does your paper match the depth, scope & rigor of the published work?

• Does your paper have the quality of exposition expected in the journal?

• Does your paper follow the journal requirements? (i.e. reference formatting, etc.)

• Proofread {too many cut/paste mistakes}

17

I wish..

18

Reviews – Thick Skin RequiredMotivation• “the paper is unlikely to interest a broad cross-section of

the readership of a general interest journal like xxxx”• “the present motivation is likely too narrow”

Design• “the reviewer expresses fundamental concerns about the

research design”• “the paper would benefit from a firmer conceptual

grounding that drives the details of the analysis”• “the research design is not currently very tight and the

results are open to many different interpretations”

19

Literature Review• “as an exercise in utility modeling, there is nothing wrong

with the paper. But as a contribution to the academic forum, it falls below standards, because of a shocking neglect of what other scholars have written on the topic”

• “nobody should propose a paper on such a topic without overviewing, discussing, citing or challenging the relevant literature”

Writing• “please proofread your paper carefully. I am sure that

Professor XXX would prefer to have his name spelled correctly when he is cited”

20

Rejection ≠ The End of the World• “as a result of the fundamental concerns about the

narrowness of the research questions, as well as the absence of a rigorous conceptual underpinning and analysis, the reviewer recommends that the paper be rejected”

• Your paper will have a home IF you put in the time & effort

21

Strategies• It’s work, not personal

• Do not get defensive

• Reviewers are probably right

• Put review away for a few days – let it sink in• BUT do not let it sit too long

• Respond to what they mean and say• Write a good and thorough response letter

22

My “Road” to a Research Agenda

23

Pre 3rd year review• Glad to have a job• Enjoying my new city

• Carving out dissertation papers

• 1 practitioner piece with dissertation chair

• Felt there was ‘plenty of time’

Post 3rd year review• Reality check

• Sought more collaboration

• Studied Strunk & White The Elements of Style

• Tried to become ‘an expert’ to gain tenure reviewers

24

Post-Tenure Agenda• What is your Goal?

• Full Professor?• Administrator?

Research must continue!

25

My Strategy ≠ Your Strategy

26

Helpful Hints• Grad School Life = Pre Tenure Life

• Stay Focused

• Carve out Writing Time

• Use Summers Wisely

• Slow and steady progress; gives a structure to enforce continuous progress

27

So What Will You Do?