IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/accted/v7y1998i3p225-248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Faculty evaluation as a social dilemma: a game theoretic approach

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Grant
  • Timothy Fogarty

Abstract

This paper considers issues pertaining to accounting faculty performance evaluation as it is generally applied in the United States. How performance is evaluated is a question of interest to all stakeholders in the enterprise of accounting education, particularly in the light of recent changes in the educational environment. Some characteristics of faculty performance evaluation are institutionspecific. For example, the number of years of service required before a tenure decision can vary across universities, and the level of formality in the evaluation process is not uniform. Furthermore, some business schools do not use the separate academic department structure. Regardless of these differences, evaluation is typically a function of the faculty member's research, teaching, and service contributions, and precise expectations are rarely fully specified, leaving open the question of just how any particular contributions are evaluated. We use game theory to create a model of faculty efforts and outcomes within a social dilemma; and we develop interdependent social dilemmas, two social dilemmas played simultaneously. Within accounting academia, these two dilemmas represent the resource allocation among departments within a business school, and the payoff scenarios facing individual faculty within an accounting department. The interdependence arises because the payoffs available in each dilemma simultaneously depend on the outcome of the other. Our model highlights the dependence of group performance and resulting resource availability on the distribution of faculty efforts toward the attainment of personal and collective goals. The results indicate the possibility of increasing the resources available to all by recognizing a broader definition of faculty contribution. Placing faculty evaluation within the social dilemma context can improve both departmental and individual outcomes by encouraging both collective and individual efforts.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Grant & Timothy Fogarty, 1998. "Faculty evaluation as a social dilemma: a game theoretic approach," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(3), pages 225-248.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:accted:v:7:y:1998:i:3:p:225-248
    DOI: 10.1080/096392898331162
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/096392898331162
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kreps, David M. & Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John & Wilson, Robert, 1982. "Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners' dilemma," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 245-252, August.
    2. J. S. Armstrong, 2005. "Business School Prestige ^V Research versus Teaching," General Economics and Teaching 0502009, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Dawes, Robyn M & Thaler, Richard H, 1988. "Anomalies: Cooperation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 187-197, Summer.
    4. Barton Lipman, 1986. "Cooperation among egoists in Prisoners' Dilemma and Chicken games," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 315-331, January.
    5. Bendor, Jonathan & Mookherjee, Dilip, 1987. "Institutional Structure and the Logic of Ongoing Collective Action," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(1), pages 129-154, March.
    6. Telser, L G, 1980. "A Theory of Self-enforcing Agreements," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(1), pages 27-44, January.
    7. Velasquez, Manuel, 1996. "Why Ethics Matters: A Defense of Ethics in Business Organizations," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 201-222, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:accted:v:7:y:1998:i:3:p:225-248. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAED20 .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.