Self-Regulation: How It Works
R. K. Mautz*
University of Michigan Member, Public Oversight Board
So that the academics in the audience may have some understanding of the impact of the peer review process when it was rather suddenly self-imposed on the accounting profession, I suggest you stretch your imaginations and consider the following analogy to the peer review process as if it were a reality.
An Analogy to the Peer Review Program
Every three years, your department must engage an accounting department
from another school, or an AAA appointed team, to review your department's quality control system. In preparation for that review, you must first file a quality control document that includes:
1. Factual information about the size of your department, students, and faculty.
2. A statement of the goals of your department and how these reconcile with and are supported by the goals of the college and university.
3. Your department's policies and practices with respect to:
a. Recruiting faculty and students.
b. Faculty promotions, pay, and allocations of other resources.
c. Content of course outlines.
d. Selection of textbooks, including provisions for avoiding any conflicts of interest.
e. Grading practices and provisions for faculty evaluation.
f. Nature, extent, cost, and relevance of research activities of faculty members.
g. Allocation of committee activities and extent of academic community service.
h. Nature and extent of, and rewards for, professional service.
i. Nature and extent of faculty consulting, its relationship to department goals, and controls exercised to prevent excessive consulting.
The purpose of the independent review of your department by your peers is to determine whether these policies and practices provide reasonable
* These remarks represent my personal views and are not offered as necessarily representive of
any official position of the Public Oversight Board.