Understanding Faculty Classification Categories
AACSB categorizes faculty into four qualification groups based on their academic preparation and professional engagement: Scholarly Academic (SA), Practice Academic (PA), Scholarly Practitioner (SP), and Instructional Practitioner (IP). These classifications replaced the older AQ/PQ system and reflect a more nuanced view of how different types of expertise contribute to business education quality.
Getting these classifications right is critical. AACSB expects at least 40% of faculty teaching hours to be delivered by SA-qualified faculty, with at least 60% by SA or PA combined, and at least 90% by all four categories combined. Falling short on these thresholds can trigger concerns during a peer review visit, so maintaining accurate and up-to-date qualification records is essential.
Building a Robust Qualification Tracking System
Effective faculty qualification tracking starts with comprehensive data collection. For each faculty member, institutions should maintain records of terminal degrees, professional certifications, recent publications, conference presentations, professional development activities, and relevant industry experience. This data forms the basis for initial classification and ongoing status maintenance.
- SA Faculty: Must hold a terminal degree in a field related to their teaching area and demonstrate sustained academic engagement through peer-reviewed publications, funded research, or equivalent scholarly activities.
- PA Faculty: Hold a terminal degree but maintain their currency primarily through professional engagement such as consulting, board service, or applied research rather than traditional academic publication.
- SP Faculty: May not hold a terminal degree but bring significant professional experience and maintain scholarly engagement through publications, presentations, or research activities.
- IP Faculty: Bring professional expertise to the classroom through substantial industry experience, professional certifications, or ongoing professional engagement.
Common Documentation Pitfalls
One of the most frequent issues accreditation coordinators encounter is qualification currency. A faculty member who earned their PhD twenty years ago and has not published recently may not meet SA criteria without documented sustained intellectual contributions. Institutions must establish clear policies that define what constitutes sufficient scholarly activity for maintaining SA status and communicate these expectations to faculty.
Another common pitfall is incomplete evidence trails. When a peer review team examines faculty qualifications, they expect to see clear documentation linking each classification decision to specific evidence. Simply listing publications is insufficient; institutions should show how each faculty member's portfolio of activities meets the criteria defined in their qualification policy. Any manual overrides or exceptions should include written justification.
Leveraging Technology for Ongoing Maintenance
Rather than treating faculty qualification documentation as a periodic accreditation exercise, leading institutions build it into their regular operations. Automated CV parsing can extract relevant data points from faculty submissions, flagging changes in publication records or professional activities that might affect classification status. Dashboard views give department chairs visibility into qualification distributions across their units, enabling proactive management rather than last-minute scrambles.
When qualification data is maintained continuously, generating the AACSB Table 3-1 (Faculty Sufficiency) and Table 3-2 (Deployment of Qualified Faculty) becomes a straightforward export rather than a months-long data collection project. This approach not only reduces stress but also produces more accurate tables that withstand scrutiny during peer review.