I. Rationale
All business schools are expected to engage in the creation and dissemination of highquality
impactful knowledge that is aligned with their missions. The outcome sought
from these intellectual contributions is to impact the theory, practice, and/or teaching of
business. The standards seek to elevate impact of intellectual contributions over a
simple count of, for example, peer reviewed journal articles, and we encourage schools
to incorporate a demonstration of impact into their assessments of quality of intellectual
contributions for all faculty. This is the case whether the school is teaching- or researchintensive,
with the difference being the types and volume of intellectual contributions,
the stakeholders for whom they are intended, and the degree of impact that results.
Schools are also expected to have a societal impact through their intellectual
contributions and engagement in thought leadership with external non-academic
stakeholders.
II. Clarifying Guidance
Overview
In this standard the aim is for the school to describe its research strategy, how research
is organized and supported, and the outputs and outcomes that result. Recognizing the
heterogeneity of schools, the importance of alignment of the intellectual portfolio with the
mission, expected outcomes, and strategy of the school is emphasized. The standard
also requires an assessment of the quality and impact of the school’s scholarship,
including societal impact. Schools are also required to outline their area(s) of thought
leadership and how they are progressing against their impact aspiration.
Aspiration
The movement to explicitly focus on thought leadership and societal impact is new in
these standards. Further, schools have different missions, are in different contexts, and
are at different stages in their development. Recognizing these factors, the standards
require the school to identify its thought leadership aspiration appropriate to its mission
and context, to evaluate its progress toward achieving its aspiration, and to identify its
plans in this arena for the next five years. The same guidelines exist for societal impact.
In Standard 1 the school identifies its aspiration for having a positive impact on society.
In this standard the school analyzes and evaluates how it is progressing against the
aspiration through its intellectual contributions, as well as its plans for the next five years.
Completion of Table 8-1
The intention is that, while the school is required to present data based on aggregating
intellectual contributions of individual faculty in Table 8-1 (A), it has the flexibility to
present further information on its intellectual contributions in the manner that best suits
the school and provides the most clarity for a peer review team, accreditation
committee, or other AACSB volunteers involved in accreditation review. As an example,
schools can provide details on intellectual contributions supplied by units within the
school or by the school itself. There may be a situation where a department in the
school runs regional, national, or international academic conferences or
industry/academic colloquiums. The school may produce a peer-reviewed academic
journal or have a case study clearinghouse. These represent intellectual contributions
and can be outlined in a table or narrative format.
Table 8-1 should present the intellectual contributions of faculty for the five years
leading up to and including the self-study year. For example, if School A's visit is in
February 2025 and its normal academic year runs from September to June, Table 8-1
will capture the intellectual contributions of faculty for the period of September 2019 to
June 2024, including and ending with the self-study year. Publications after this date
would be counted in the next accreditation cycle.
In Table 8-1 the school should provide a count of the number of intellectual
contributions produced by the faculty members employed in the most recently
completed regular academic year and aggregated by discipline. The counts in the
“portfolio” section should be the same as the counts in the “types” section of the table.
The number of contributions must represent a non-duplicated count for co-authored
publications. The count identifies the intellectual contributions for the most recently
completed regular accreditation cycle, produced by faculty who were employed in the
most recently completed regular academic year; therefore, as a general rule, it is the
faculty included in Table 3-1 whose intellectual contributions are included in Table 8-1,
with the following notable exceptions, which are not included in Table 8-1:
- Contract lecturers who are employed only to teach; and
- Visiting faculty/adjuncts whose research is designated to and/or resourced by another school.
Table 8-1 (A) Intellectual Contributions
Table 8.1 (A) has three main components for counting intellectual contributions:
category of intellectual contributions, types of intellectual contributions, and percentage
of faculty producing intellectual contributions. All columns for each component are
required to be completed.
- Portfolio of Intellectual Contributions
The school is to categorize intellectual contributions based on whether they are basic or
discovery scholarship, applied or integrative/application scholarship, or teaching and
learning scholarship. This categorization provides summary measures that are useful
for the school when discussing alignment of intellectual contributions with mission,
expected outcomes, and strategy.
- Types of Intellectual Contributions
The standard requires intellectual contributions to also be categorized according to level
of peer review or subject matter expert review that occurs for the given item. A wide
variety of examples exist and could include, but are not limited to, the following (note
that these are shown alphabetically, not in order of importance):
- articles in newspapers;
- articles in peer-reviewed journals;
- articles in professional publications;
- books;
- case studies;
- competitive research grant awards;
- contributions arising from membership of review panels for national or
-nternational research organizations;
- contributions as an editorial board member;
- editorial contributions;
- invited presentations;
- invited showcase or keynote;
- oversight contributions for discipline or professional organizations;
- peer-reviewed academic proceedings;
- peer-reviewed professional proceedings;
- policy documents;
- practitioner books;
- reports from consulting and projects;
- research grants;
- scholarly books;
- technologies for utilization; and/or
- textbooks.
- Percentage of Faculty Producing Intellectual Contributions
The final two columns of Table 8-1 provide measures of the degree to which
participating and full-time equivalent (FTE) faculty are involved in the production of
intellectual contributions. The first is the percentage of participating faculty producing
intellectual contributions. This is measured as a percentage of head count. The second
is the percentage of total FTE producing intellectual contributions. Both columns must
be completed.
Table 8-1 (B) Alignment with Mission
The school should describe how its intellectual contributions connect to and support the
mission of the school. For example, a school with a very applied mission may produce a
large quantity of white papers that are of value for business or policymakers. Here the
school may also identify intellectual contributions produced by units within the school or
by the school itself.
Table 8-1 (C) Quality of Intellectual Contributions
The school should describe and justify the measures it uses to analyze the quality of its
intellectual contributions. These can be quantitative measures (e.g., number or
percentage of publications in highly ranked journals or number of opinion pieces in
high-quality newspapers or social media outlets) and can incorporate trend analysis as
well as overall measures. There can also be qualitative measures that identify some
significant exemplars of quality from within the portfolio. Validation of the quality of
intellectual contributions includes the traditional academic or professional prepublication
peer review, but may also encompass other forms of validation, such as
online post-publication peer reviews, ratings, surveys of or feedback from users,
research or publication awards, fellowships, media citations, etc. A school is expected
to have quality intellectual contributions produced by all of its disciplines. The school
should evaluate to what extent the quality of the portfolio is at the level it seeks and
identify the plans in place for developing or augmenting the quality of the portfolio in the
next five years.
Table 8.1 (D) Impact of Intellectual Contributions
The impact of intellectual contributions is separated into two parts.
The first part (i) of impact is concerned with the difference made or innovations fostered
by intellectual contributions, for example what has been changed, accomplished, or
improved relative to the theory, practice and/or teaching of business. The school should
describe and justify the measures that it uses to analyze the impact of its intellectual
contributions. These should be both quantitative and qualitative to provide the peer
review team with evidence of the impact. Impact may be demonstrated by, but is not
limited to, the following:
- Peer recognition of the originality, scope, and/or significance of intellectual
contributions; - Editorial board recognition of the originality, scope, and/or significance of the
work; - The applicability and benefits of the new knowledge to the theory, practice,
and/or teaching of business; - Evidence of the influence of the intellectual contribution on professional
practice, professional standards, legislative processes, and outcomes or public
policy; - The usefulness and/or originality of new or different understandings,
applications, and insights resulting from the creative work; - The breadth, value, and persistence of the use and impact of the creative work;
- The originality and significance of the creative work to learning, including the
depth and duration of usefulness; - Research awards and recognition (e.g., selection as a fellow of an academic
society); - Adoptions and citations of the creative work, including its impact on the
creative and intellectual work of others; and/or - Evidence in the work of leadership and team-based contributions to the
advancement of knowledge.
The second area (ii) of impact is exemplars of the societal impact of a school’s
intellectual contributions. Possible impacts from these include:
- Contributions to major world issues, such as those identified by the U.N.
Sustainable Development Goals; - Effects on business development;
- Improved financial performance of organizations;
- Contribution to business creation;
- Improved health and safety outcomes;
- Improvement in the brand and/or image of an organization, industry, or
profession; - Examples of co-creation of knowledge with external stakeholders;
- Examples of commercialization outcomes;
- Examples of involvement in new venture creation;
- Contributions through membership on boards and government bodies;
- Examples of shaping community debate on issues of importance;
- Examples of contributions to policy development for local, regional, national, or
international public-sector organizations; - Outline of “pathways to impact” developed and the anticipated results from
these; - Projects initiated or leading with external non-academic stakeholders;
- Contract research or consultancy projects with private and public sector;
- Examples of changes to business practice arising from thought leadership
engagement; and/or - Examples of public-sector policy changed or impacted by engagement with the
school.
It is important to note that, while addressing societal issues can be achieved by business
school researchers alone, there are also many occasions where impact in this area results
from collaboration between business researchers and those from other disciplines. This
interdisciplinary work is highly encouraged and should be reported, with the contribution of
the business school, and/or its researchers, clearly identified.
The school makes explicit the connection between an intellectual contribution, or a set of
intellectual contributions, and the impact that activity has on society. This requires
presentation of exemplars demonstrating the impact of specific contributions or groups of
contributions. The school also undertakes an evaluation of progress over the previous five
years against its aspiration for societal impact to date and its plans for the next five years.
Thought Leadership
Below are some examples of the thought leadership orientation of business schools. They
are drawn from each of the three AACSB regions—Americas; Asia Pacific (AP); and
Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA)—but are not intended to be representative. The
names of the schools have been removed, and a brief comment on the type of institution
each is in as well as their general location is provided. These examples are not intended to
be followed or copied by schools; rather, they provide insight as to what “thought
leadership” for a business school may entail.
1. Top-ranked European business school with undergraduate, postgraduate, and doctoral
offerings and a global-scale focus (EMEA)
While the school has many research centers, there are two areas of thought
leadership that stand out. The first area is “customer insight,” where the school
focuses on purchasing behavior and purchasing decisions. Topics range from
behavioral branding, design, and product development to brand and emotion. The
second area is “entrepreneurship and innovation,” where the school researches and
provides advice to firms on managing the corporate cycle from startup to business
model development and innovation, as well as succession planning and corporate exit.
2. Graduate School in Asia with a strong Asian focus (AP)
“Analytics, computing, and complex systems” is a key area of thought leadership for
the school. The focus is on helping industry, government, and business innovate by
providing capabilities in artificial intelligence and complex systems modeling in various
research and development models. This is facilitated by bringing together crossdisciplinary
teams of data scientists and data engineers alongside business
academics.
3. A medium-sized business school, drawing students from throughout the U.S., with an
equal emphasis on teaching and research built on a foundation of experiential learning
(Americas)
The school’s main area of thought leadership expertise is “launching, supporting, and
growing small business.” It is sought after by business, the local community, and local
government, and contributes research in the startup and entrepreneurship areas.
4. A school in a research-intensive comprehensive university with undergraduate,
postgraduate, and doctoral offerings (AP)
The school has two key areas of thought leadership. The first is “predictive analytics”
to inform social policy. The emphasis here is on using data to provide insights and
recommendations for policymakers and policy implementers around the world. The
second is “work and the future of work,” which focuses on high-quality research and
consultancy with policymakers, business, and employee groups mainly at the local,
regional, and national level, utilizing cross-disciplinary teams of academics.
5. The school is in a faith-based comprehensive private university with a liberal arts core
and emphasizes developing principled business leaders (Americas)
The school’s areas of thought leadership are “sustainable communities” and
“addressing social inequities.” There are many projects, initiatives, and funded
research opportunities that the school uses to make a difference in these areas.
6. A medium-sized business school in a comprehensive public university with
undergraduate and postgraduate offerings (Americas)
The school’s thought leadership expertise, “innovation and entrepreneurship,” aligns
with the bent of the university as a whole. The focus is on creation and development of
sustainable social and commercial small ventures and the associated pedagogy.
“Predatory” Journals
Journals in which publication prioritizes self-interest above quality scholarship practices
and/or aim to mislead and provide false information are often referred to as “predatory
journals” due to their perceived exploitative nature. Online resources are available to
assist schools in identifying potential predatory journals. AACSB does not endorse or
validate any such journal list. It is the school’s responsibility to identify journals that may be
considered exploitative or predatory in nature, and to have processes in place to
safeguard against publication in such journals.
Future Direction
The school evaluates the overall success of its scholarship. This may require the school to
develop policies, practices, and/or guidance for faculty that target outlets aligned with the
school’s strategies for intellectual contributions and encourage high quality.
Not Intended by the Standard
It is noteworthy that in the standard AACSB does not specify:
- A prescribed distribution of intellectual contributions across the categories. This is not
the case, as the actual distribution will depend on the mission of the school.
- A prescribed percentage of intellectual contributions in peer-reviewed journals either
by individual or by discipline. This is not the case. The types of intellectual
contributions and the percentage that are in peer-reviewed journals are decided by
the school based on its mission, strategies and expected outcomes, and overall
academic portfolio.
- A required set of measures of quality or impact of intellectual contributions. This is
not the case. A range of measures exist for both quality and impact, and schools
identify the ones that are appropriate for them based on their mission.
III. Sample Table (Part A Only)