Age characteristics of US and non-US accounting PhD faculty and factors affecting the impact of future faculty retirements

The imbalance between supply and demand for academically qualified accounting PhD faculty has been a concern for the academic profession for decades. Accounting research has documented and forecasted a shortage of PhD-qualified faculty (Boyle et al., 2015; Buchholz et al., 2013; Boyle et al., 2013; Fogarty and Holder, 2012; Plumlee et al., 2006). Prior research has shown that accounting academia may suffer if the decline in PhD qualified faculty results in capacity constraints that lead to increased teaching loads (both in terms of increased sections taught and/or increased preparations); increased class sizes; and decreased time and resources to conduct the research necessary to maintain/enhance the intellectual capacity of the profession and obtain tenure/promotion (Baldwin and Brown, 2010).

The above concerns have been a major focus of past academic research, with much of the research referring to the academic accounting profession as being in “crisis” (Baldwin and Brown, 2010). However, more recent research indicates that the supply of academic accounting faculty may no longer be in such a serious decline. For example, Oler et al. (2021) find that accounting faculty counts increased from 2005 to 2016, partially because of an increase in the proportion of non-tenure-track faculty. Pyzoha and Fogarty (2022) further find that the Accounting Doctoral Scholars (ADSs) program, sponsored by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Foundation, has provided a significant number of new ADS tax and audit professors, and the authors conclude that the ADS years saw a resurgence in the accounting faculty market. However, Cardwell et al. (2019) argue that despite recent efforts by organizations such as the AICPA and Financial Accounting Standards Board to alleviate faculty shortages through funding for accounting doctoral study and bridge programs for holders of PhDs in other fields, a shortage of doctorally qualified accounting faculty persists.

Regardless of whether the supply of accounting faculty remains in crisis or not, one significant factor contributing to any current or projected shortage of PhD-qualified faculty is the documented aging of existing accounting faculty (Hasselback, 2011). Our study examines the “demand side” of the equation and the impact that impending faculty retirements might have on the demand for (and the resulting shortages of) accounting faculty at the college and university level. One purpose of this study is to update the assessment of the average age of current PhD-qualified accounting faculty. More importantly, we refine this question by assessing whether (and how) the age of PhD-qualified faculty members differs across types of programs/institutions. Specifically, we examine whether the age of PhD-qualified accounting faculty differs by nine specific characteristics of the academic program and/or institution. Some of these variables have been assessed from the “supply” side of accounting academics (i.e. whether they are correlated with the number of PhD students produced), but virtually, none of these variables have been investigated from the “demand” side as to whether they are related to the age distribution of existing accounting faculty.

By examining the current age distribution of PhD-qualified accounting faculty, we neither suggest that age has a negative effect on the quality of accounting education nor do we suggest that two schools that differ in the mean age of accounting faculty will, therefore, differ in the quality of accounting education simply because of the difference in faculty age. Rather, we examine differences in the age of accounting faculty to determine the types of schools that may be impacted most by the future retirement of an aging faculty. Our research questions presume that as faculty members age, on average, the probability increases that they will retire within “X” number of years, and therefore, ceteris paribus, their retirement will increase the demand (i.e. the need for replacement) for PhD-qualified faculty. Moreover, if faculty age differs across institutions, then we postulate that there are certain types of institutions that may face more risks related to any potential retirements of PhD-qualified faculty.

Oler et al. (2021) examined accounting faculty data taken from the Hasselback Accounting Faculty Directory from the mid-1970s to 2016 to assess the state of accounting academia and found that the number of accounting faculty declined until approximately 2005. However, they suggest that the total count of accounting faculty increased from around 2005, until their data ended in 2016. However, they do not examine how accounting faculty shortages may differ between schools.

Boyle et al. (2015) report the results of a survey of 800 accounting faculty and administrators on any perceived accounting faculty shortage. They observed that accounting educators generally believed that, at the time of their study, the shortage of doctorally qualified accounting faculty was “moderate” but would become “more pronounced in smaller, public, and non-doctoral institutions” (p. 245). Fogarty and Holder (2012) examined the decline in the number of students in accounting PhD programs between 1989 and 2008 and asserted that “any group that cannot adequately replenish its ranks with dedicated full-time initiates becomes seriously threatened by aging and retirements” (emphasis added, p. 373). Their results indicated that the decline in new students in accounting doctoral programs appeared to be larger “for middle prestige schools, for larger universities, and for public schools.”

There are at least three characteristics of the academic research referenced above that motivate our present study and lead to the contributions we make to existing scholarship. First, much of the prior research examines the supply side of accounting PhD faculty and the impact that declines in the supply of PhD candidates have had on faculty shortages. Many studies, for example, Trappnell et al. (2009), have offered suggestions on how to increase the supply of accounting PhD faculty. Our current study examines the demand side of the equation, specifically, the existing age distribution and the impact that faculty retirements might have on the demand for (and the resulting shortages of) accounting faculty.

Our study extends prior research that has identified faculty retirement as a cause for concern. For example, Ruff et al. (2009) document that the rate of retirements has been increasing faster than the supply of PhD graduates. Leslie (2008) notes that the number of accounting faculty over 55 years is increasing faster than those under 40 years, and that given the increasing age of faculty, future retirements could have a significant impact on faculty shortages. The AICPA Pathways Report on Accounting in Higher Education (Behn et al., 2012) determined that the shortage documented at that time would continue because of older full-time tenured faculty members nearing retirement. Boyle et al. (2015) conducted a survey in which participants were asked to rate the importance of 13 factors potentially associated with any existing accounting faculty shortage and found that “retirements of existing doctorally qualified accounting faculty” (p. 247) ranked first in order of perceived importance. Brink et al. (2012) find that the majority of AQ faculty members in most accounting departments are retirement-eligible. Finally, Tugend (2020) surveyed 1,122 college professors during the COVID-19 pandemic and found that 73% of tenured professors responded that they had moved up their retirement date because of the pandemic. Almost half said that they planned to retire within two years or less, whereas only 20% said that at the beginning of 2019, they thought they would retire within two years.

Many of the studies cited so far have focused on US faculty and US institutions. However, the concerns of an aging accounting faculty extend globally. Internationally, accounting has been identified as the academic discipline under the “most pressure” from a prevailing academic shortage, partly because of an aging academic workforce (Irvine et al., 2010). According to the authors who examine the “drought” of senior accounting professors in Australian accounting schools, this challenge is expected to increase in the years ahead and to become a “critical issue.” In addition, the “Bradley Report” (Bradley et al., 2008), commissioned by the Australian Government, identified academic retirements in Australia as a significant problem and found that “higher education institutions face their own workforce shortages of major proportions […]. academic staff are approaching retirement age in significant numbers.” (p. 10)

In the UK, replacement of those currently at, or near to, retirement age is an issue of serious concern throughout the academic community. Smith and Urquhart (2018) found evidence of a “disequilibrium” between supply and demand for faculty, partly from an oncoming wave of retirements, and found that an aging population of professors was retiring faster than new PhDs could be trained or hired, leading to staffing shortfalls. Locke and Bennion (2013) found that, as in many other countries, the academic profession in the UK is an aging profession, with the proportion aged over 50 years in England having risen from 34% to 41% in the previous 10 years.

In Canada, Rapoport et al. (2015) find that the end of mandatory retirement at age 65 years (which occurred between 2005 and 2006 at most universities in Canada) is changing the demographics of academic faculty. Furthermore, McDonald and Donahue (2011) discuss current research concerning retirements in Canada and find that the age of retirement is increasing beyond the “normal retirement age” of 65 years.

In their study addressing aging in European higher education, Vasconcelos et al. (2023) find that the aging of faculty has been increasing in Europe. Additionally, they find that the number of professors aged 50 years or over is high in most European countries and the number of professors under 30 years has been decreasing compared to the number of professors over 60 years. In their study, 11 of the 17 countries with age data have 40% or more of their professors 50 years or older. Institutions in Europe are beginning to use different strategies to combat the problem of aging in higher education institutions.

Thus, as existing faculty increase in age, the impact of upcoming accounting faculty retirements, both in the USA and internationally, becomes more critical. Although the prior research referenced above has identified faculty retirements as a significant factor in faculty shortages, these prior studies have not specifically examined the actual age distribution of existing faculty. In this study, we examine not only descriptive characteristics of the age distribution of existing PhD accounting faculty but also how that age distribution varies across institutions and we identify characteristics of schools that will be most impacted by upcoming faculty retirements.

A second motivation (and contribution of the current study) is that age-related data on which prior studies rely are at least five years old, and most studies use age-related data that is at least 10–20 years old. Inquiry into assessing the extent of the shortage of accounting doctoral-qualified faculty should be updated with more recent data regarding the age characteristics of current accounting faculty.

A third motivation, as is apparent by reviewing the research referenced above, is that almost all academic inquiries address the accounting faculty shortage in terms of the decline in students in accounting doctoral programs. With the exception of Boyle et al. (2015), Hasselback (2011) and some older reports by the American Accounting Association (AAA) and AICPA, these studies have largely addressed the supply side of the shortage. Specifically, they address the extent to which there are fewer students enrolled in accounting PhD programs, try to explain why such enrollments are declining and/or offer suggestions to improve accounting doctoral program enrollments.

While we agree that a change in the supply of new accounting faculty is an important issue, we maintain that research should also investigate major demand side forces contributing to the shortage, including demographic characteristics of the present accounting faculty. Such demographics would include the extent to which faculty members are approaching (or are often exceeding) the presumed retirement age. Therefore, this study aims to:

• provide an empirical analysis of the age characteristics of current accounting faculty (i.e. faculty with a PhD in accounting), both in the USA and internationally; and

• examine whether certain types of schools may be impacted more negatively by the aging population of accounting professors and identify school-specific characteristics related to that impact.

Data on current faculty members teaching accounting at the university level were obtained from the Accounting Faculty Database maintained by the AAA. The information contained in the database included, for each faculty member, the faculty member’s name, institution name, college and department name, geographic location, academic rank, teaching area, certifications held, highest degree earned, discipline of highest degree and year of the highest degree. For individual faculty members, certain variables may contain missing information. In total, 11,468 individual faculty members were listed as teaching accounting at the university level. This included faculty members of all listed institutions (both USA and international), all ranks, all levels of the highest degree earned and all disciplines within the highest degree earned. Of the total number of faculty members listed, 8,297 were teaching at institutions located in the USA and 3,171 teaching internationally. In total, 1,070 unique educational institutions were represented with faculty age information available (hereafter referred to as “schools”), 880 of which were located in the USA and 190 internationally. Table 1, Panel A, summarizes the number of faculty members and schools listed in the AAA database.

Additional data on school specific characteristics were obtained from the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accrediting agency and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) website. The variables collected from these sources are discussed in the following sections.

To calculate an estimate of an individual accounting faculty member’s current age, we used as a starting point the year in which the faculty member earned their doctorate degree, as listed in the Accounting Faculty database obtained from the AAA. Based on surveys conducted by the Survey of Earned Doctorates (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2023), the median age of an earned doctorate in all fields of Business Administration and Management has ranged from 33.8 to 37.2 for the years from 2011 to 2022. The mean of this median age at the time of the doctorate earned for the years 2011–2022 is 34.6 years of age. To validate this mean age of 34 years at time of completion of the PhD in accounting, we conducted a validation sample consisting of all accounting PhD faculty members from universities in Texas ^[1]. For each faculty member in our validation sample, we determined the faculty member’s actual current age using publicly available databases such as Intellius, Pipl and White Pages. We then “estimated” their age at the time they earned their doctorate degree by subtracting the number of years since they earned their doctorate degree (as listed in the AAA database) from their actual current age as determined from publicly available sources. Using this method, we calculated a mean age of 34 years when earning a doctorate. Thus, our validation sample is consistent with the results of the Survey of Earned Doctorates. Based on these results, we estimate each faculty member’s age as 34 years plus the number of years since they received their doctorate. Although some faculty may have earned their doctorate at ages less than or greater than 34 years of age, the mean age at time of doctorate is estimated at 34 years. To the extent the estimated age of 34 at time of doctorate is different than the “true” (but unknown) age, certain of our results may be affected. Possible limitations of the use of this estimate are discussed in the limitations section at the end of this paper.

One of the main purposes of this study is to examine the relationship between the mean age of a school’s accounting faculty and certain identifying characteristics of that school and to examine the types or categories of schools that may be impacted most by any current or future retirement of an “aging” accounting faculty. Specifically, based on data availability, we calculated the following nine independent identifying characteristics for each school:

1. AACSBACCREDITED = 1 if the school has AACSB Accreditation; 0 otherwise.

2. ACCTACCREDITED = 1 if the school has Additional AACSB Accounting Accreditation; 0 otherwise.

3. PHDINACCT = 1 if the school offers a PhD in Accounting; 0 otherwise.

4. PERCENTSA = percentage of accounting PhD faculty classified as “Scholarly Academic” for AACSB purposes.

5. ISPUBLIC = 1 if the school is a Public Institution; 0 otherwise.

6. UGONLY = 1 if the school has undergraduate students only; 0 otherwise.

7. ISURBAN = 1 if the school is classified by IPEDS as “Urban;” 0 otherwise.

8. TOTALFACULTY = log of the total number of faculty members in the accounting department/unit.

9. ENROLLMENT = log of total full time student enrollment.

The above variables, a through i, were selected to represent a variety of school characteristics (for which data was available) that might be related to the age distribution of accounting faculty. Data for AACSBACCREDITED, ACCTACCREDITED, PHDINACCT, PERCENTSA and UGONLY were obtained from the AACSB database. The ISPUBLIC, ISURBAN and ENROLLMENT variables were obtained from the IPEDS database. Data on TOTALFACULTY (number of faculty members in the accounting department/unit) were obtained from the AAA database.

To examine the relationship between each of these nine school characteristics and the age of the school’s accounting PhD faculty, we calculated the following three age-related variables for each school:

1. the mean age of the school’s faculty with PhDs in accounting;

2. the standard deviation in age of the school’s faculty with PhDs in accounting; and

3. the percentage of the school’s accounting PhD faculty over 65 years of age.

Furthermore, based on the nine calculated independent variables listed above (representing a variety of school characteristics), we develop three categories of research questions:

To empirically address these three research questions, we examine the relationship between: each of the three school-specific measures of faculty age and each of the nine school-specific descriptive characteristics. This results in a total of 27 examined relationships. Prior theory (and prior research studies) does not exist to the extent necessary to develop theoretical “hypotheses” for these relationships. However, the purpose of this paper is not to develop and test theoretical hypotheses on these relationships, but rather to provide a descriptive study of the relationships based on empirical and statistical analysis. Nevertheless, as a starting point and based on logical arguments, we develop “expected” relationships. If the empirical results differ from these expected relationships, then the opportunity exists to develop explanations for the differing results. For each of the three research questions RQ1, RQ2 and RQ3, we develop specific research expectations (identified as “RE”) for the relationship between the related measure of faculty age and each of the nine specific school characteristics. Discussion addressing the three research questions are presented below, with regression results presented in Tables 3–5.

First, we expect that AACSB-accredited schools typically have higher requirements for faculty qualifications, including higher requirements for research, tenure and promotion than non-AACSB-accredited schools. Because of such stricter requirements, faculty turnover is expected to be higher (compared to non-accredited schools), resulting in the periodic replacement of existing faculty with newer and often younger PhD faculty members. Therefore, we expect the following:

RE_1a: AACSB-accredited schools have a significantly lower mean faculty age than non-AACSB-accredited schools do.

For reasons similar to those above, we expect that schools with additional AACSB accounting accreditation will have the same or even higher requirements for faculty qualifications. Therefore, we expect:

RE_1b: Schools with additional AACSB accounting accreditation have a significantly lower mean faculty age than those without additional AACSB accounting accreditation.

Similarly, we expect that schools with a PhD program in accounting will also have higher requirements for faculty qualifications, and therefore, we expect:

RE_1c: Schools that offer a PhD in accounting have a significantly lower mean faculty age than those without a PhD in accounting.

In addition, we expect that schools that have a higher percentage of “scholarly academic” faculty (defined by the AACSB and further defined by the school) will have a higher proportion of younger faculty, and therefore:

RE_1d: Schools with a higher percentage of “scholarly academic” faculty have a significantly lower mean faculty age than schools with a lower percentage of “scholarly academic” faculty.

Prior research has shown that public universities tend to be larger, offer more degree programs, have potentially higher standards to meet the requirements of various accreditation agencies and may also have additional sources of revenue and/or resources compared to their nonpublic counterparts. Similar to the consequences for AACSB-accredited schools, faculty turnover in public universities is expected to be higher, resulting in the periodic replacement of existing faculty with newer and often younger accounting PhD faculty. Thus, we expect:

RE_1e: Public universities have a significantly lower mean faculty age than nonpublic universities do.

In addition, we expect that universities that offer only undergraduate programs may not have as high a requirement for faculty qualifications as universities that offer higher-level graduate programs. Turnover may be lower, resulting in longer-tenured faculty members at institutions offering undergraduate programs only. Therefore, we expect:

RE_1f: Schools that offer only undergraduate programs have a significantly higher mean faculty age than those that offer higher-level graduate programs.

The IPEDS database identifies the geographic status of a school on an “urban” continuum, ranging from “large city” to “rural.” The status is based on a school’s physical location assigned through a methodology developed by the US Census Bureau’s Population Division in 2005. Based on IPED’s classification and for the purposes of this study, a school is defined as “urban” if it is located inside an urbanized area with a population of 100,000 or more. We expect that schools classified as “urban” will, other things equal, have a greater ability to attract and retain younger accounting PhD faculty members over time. Therefore, we expect:

RE_1g: Schools classified as “urban” have a significantly lower mean faculty age than schools classified as non-urban.

Finally, we expect that schools that are larger, other things equal, will potentially offer more degree programs, have potentially higher standards to meet the requirements of various accreditation agencies and may also have additional sources of revenue and/or resources compared to smaller schools. A combination of factors could both require and allow schools to attract and retain highly qualified (often younger) accounting PhD faculty members. Therefore, we expect that larger schools will have younger accounting faculty. We measured school size using the following two variables: the total number of faculty members in the school’s accounting department/unit, a proxy used to measure the size of the accounting program; and total full-time equivalent student enrollment, a proxy used to measure the size of the school as a whole. Thus, we expect:

RE_1h: Schools with a larger total number of accounting faculty have a significantly lower mean faculty age than schools that have a smaller number of faculty members.

RE_1i: Schools with a larger total number of full-time students have a significantly lower mean faculty age than those with a smaller number of full-time students.

The previous discussion dealt with how each of the nine selected school characteristics might be related to the mean age of accounting PhD faculty. We further expect these same school characteristics might also cause the distribution of ages, as measured by the standard deviation of faculty ages, to vary between schools. For example, consider a school with higher standards for faculty qualifications, including higher standards for faculty research, tenure and promotion. Given the higher standards of that school, we previously posited that faculty turnover may be higher, resulting in the periodic replacement of existing faculty with newer, often younger, accounting PhD faculty. This led us to expect that the mean faculty age for that school would be lower than that of schools that do not have such high standards. Further, we now expect that the standard deviation of the ages within that school will actually be higher, as over time, the faculty that remain will continue to age, while replacements of exiting faculty will form a younger pool of faculty. This would form a wider distribution of faculty ages within that school and, thus, a higher standard deviation. Therefore, for each of the nine school characteristics discussed in the previous section, the expected sign of the relationship between each school characteristic and the standard deviation of the faculty ages is opposite to the sign of the relationship between each school characteristic and the mean of the faculty ages. For example, for schools that have AACSB accreditation, we expect that AACSB-accredited schools would have a significantly lower mean faculty age than non-AACSB-accredited schools, but will have a significantly higher standard deviation of faculty ages than non-AACSB-accredited schools. Similar expectations are made for each of the nine school characteristics; the expected sign of the relationship between the standard deviation of faculty ages and each school characteristic will be opposite to the expected sign of the relationship with the mean of the faculty ages.

In addition to the mean age (and standard deviation of age) of a school’s accounting PhD faculty, of particular interest is the percentage of that school’s faculty that are nearing retirement age. In other words, schools that have a higher percentage of faculty at or near retirement age would be most impacted by an impending wave of faculty retirements. To examine this impact, we calculated the percentage of accounting PhD faculty members equal to or over 65 years of age for each school. For the full sample of accounting PhD faculty, over 22% are 65 years or older (see descriptive statistics to be discussed in the following section), but we expect that percentage to vary across schools. We expect the percentage of a school’s accounting faculty over the age of 65 years will be related to the school characteristics examined in the same manner as the mean of the faculty age for that school. However, we argue that the percentage of faculty nearing the retirement age for a particular school may be a more critical measure than simply the mean faculty age for that school, as the percentage of faculty over a certain age is more indicative of the impact of faculty retirements within a given “X” number of years. Therefore, we use regression analysis to examine the relationship between the percentage of a school’s faculty over 65 years and the nine identifying variables for that school (As the dependent variable is a percentage and is bounded by 0 and 1, we use a generalized linear model with a logit link and binomial family. This ensures predicted values remain within the 0–1 range). The expected sign of each relationship is the same as the expected sign of the relationship between the identifying school characteristic and the mean faculty age.

Table 1 presents a descriptive analysis and summary of the age characteristics of individual faculty members in the sample. Based on an analysis of the Accounting Faculty database maintained by the American Accounting Association, Table 1 presents, for both US and non-US accounting faculty, the number of faculty and the mean age for the following:

• all faculty members (all degrees, all disciplines);

• all faculty members with PhD or DBA in any discipline;

• all faculty members with PhD in any discipline;

• all faculty members with PhD or DBA in accounting; and

• all faculty members with PhD in accounting.

For faculty members with a PhD in accounting, Table 1 also presents the following:

• percentage of accounting PhD faculty members with age ≥ 55 years;

• percentage of accounting PhD faculty members with age ≥ 60 years;

• percentage of accounting PhD faculty members with age ≥ 65 years; and

• percentage of accounting PhD faculty members with age ≥ 70 years.

The mean age of US faculty with a PhD in accounting was 54.76 years, while for non-US faculty, the mean age was 53.85 years. In addition, almost half of all US faculty members with a PhD in accounting are equal to or over the age of 55 years, and over 35% are equal to or over the age of 60 years. For non-US faculty, the percentages are slightly lower. Assuming an average retirement age of 65 years, over 22% of all US faculty members with a PhD in accounting are past retirement age, while only 13% of non-US faculty are above that age. ^[2]

Figure 1, Panel A, shows a graphical and more detailed analysis of the percentage of faculty members with PhDs in accounting (for both US and non-US faculty) that are equal to or greater than the age of “X.” For example, Figure 1 shows that approximately 36% of US faculty members are greater than or equal to age 60 years (but only 27% for non-US faculty), and approximately 12% of all US faculty greater than or equal to age 70 years (but only 6% for non-US faculty). The analysis in Figure 1 is based on all accounting faculty with PhDs in accounting that are teaching at both US and non-US schools.

There were 880 unique US schools and 190 unique non-US schools in the sample. ^[3]Table 2, Panel A, summarizes the age characteristics of faculty for these 1,070 schools. For each school, the mean age was computed for faculty members with a PhD in accounting. Based on the results, over 21% of all US schools had a mean accounting faculty age greater than or equal to 60 years, with non-US schools at 17%. Approximately 48% of US schools (and 45% of non-US schools) had a mean accounting faculty age greater than or equal to 55 years. Table 2, Panel B, also presents a correlation matrix of the nine variables for the school characteristics.

Regression analysis was used to measure the expected relationship between the mean age of each school’s accounting PhD faculty and each of the nine selected school characteristics described in Section 4. Table 3 presents the results of this analysis. For comparative purposes, the regression model was calculated for the two groups of schools: the 880 schools located in the USA and the 190 schools located internationally.

One can examine Table 3 for more detailed points, but a few summary observations can be made. The results indicate that the coefficient for US AACSB-accredited schools (AACSBACCREDITED) has a significant and negative relationship with mean faculty age (i.e. the regression coefficient of −1.6086 indicates that AACSB-accredited schools have a significantly lower mean faculty age than non-AACSB-accredited schools), as indicated in RE_1a. This is consistent with our expectation that AACSB-accredited schools would have a lower mean faculty age. Thus, non-AACSB accredited schools, having a higher mean faculty age, could potentially be impacted more negatively, given that their faculty members, on average, are older and closer to retirement age. Other things being equal, as time passes and the population of US accounting PhD faculty ages, non-AACSB accredited schools will be impacted more negatively. For non-US schools, the conclusion was similar, but slightly under significance at the 0.05 level.

The variables for ACCTACCREDITED, PHDINACCT and PERCENTSA are not individually significant in the regression model when regressed against the mean age of the accounting PhD faculty at that school. As indicated in RE_1e, the coefficient for public status (ISPUBLIC) has a significant and negative relationship with mean faculty age for US schools (i.e. public schools have a significantly lower mean faculty age than nonpublic schools) but is insignificant for non-US schools. The coefficient for ENROLLMENT is also significant, with the mean age of accounting PhD faculty members negatively related to school size, that is, larger schools have a significantly lower mean faculty age than smaller schools, as indicated in RE_1i.

Table 4 presents regression results measuring the expected relationships between the standard deviation of the age of each school’s accounting PhD faculty and each of the nine selected school characteristics. For comparative purposes, the regression model was again calculated for two groups:

1. the 880 US schools; and

2. the 190 non-US schools.

All the variables (for which information is available) have the expected signs. For US schools, the coefficients for PERCNTSA and ENROLLMENT are significant at the 0.05 level; however, none of the other variables are significant for US or non-US schools.

Finally, regression analysis was used to measure the expected relationship between the percentage of each school’s accounting PhD faculty greater than or equal to 65 years and each of the nine selected school characteristics described in Section 4. ^[4]Table 5 presents the results of this analysis. Again, for comparative purposes, the regression model was calculated for two groups:

1. the 880 US schools; and

2. the 190 non-US schools.

For US schools, results indicate that the coefficients for AACSBACCREDITED, ACCTACCREDITED, ISPUBLIC, UGONLY, ISURBAN, TOTALFACULTY and ENROLLMENT all have the expected sign and are all significant at the 0.05 level. For example, schools that are AACSB-accredited have a significantly lower percentage of accounting PhD faculty that are greater than or equal to age 65 years compared to non-AACSB-accredited schools. In addition, for AACSB-accredited schools, schools that have additional accounting accreditation have a significantly lower percentage of accounting PhD faculty greater than or equal to age 65 years compared to their AACSB non-accounting-accredited counterparts. Public universities, urban universities and larger universities in terms of both size of accounting faculty and total enrollment also have a lower percentage of accounting PhD faculty greater than or equal to 65 years. For non-US schools, the signs of the coefficients are consistent, and ISPUBLIC is significant.

For decades, the accounting profession has expressed concern about a potentially increasing shortage of accounting faculty, particularly faculty members with a PhD in Accounting. Concerns have been expressed about the effect of future faculty retirements on this shortage. This study conducted a descriptive analysis of the age distribution of individual faculty members with a PhD in accounting, with analysis of faculty at both US and non-US institutions, and a regression analysis examining the relationship between the age of each school’s accounting PhD faculty and selected school characteristics.

We examined three age-related variables for each school:

1. the mean age of the school’s faculty with a PhD in accounting;

2. the standard deviation in the age of the school’s faculty with a PhD in accounting; and

3. the percentage of the school’s accounting PhD faculty over 65 years of age.

Using data from the American Accounting Association on the current population of faculty teaching accounting, our analysis provides a description of the age distribution of faculty with a PhD in accounting.

More importantly, we examine how this age distribution varies across schools and statistically measure the relationship between faculty age and nine selected school characteristics. In examining the percentage of accounting faculty for each school that are greater than or equal to 65 years of age, we find that schools that could be impacted most negatively by expected retirements of accounting PhD faculty are:

• non-AACSB-accredited universities;

• non-public (private) universities;

• universities that offer undergraduate degrees only;

• rural and non-urban universities; and

• smaller universities.

Periodically, there may be macro-environmental events that may affect the age distribution of a given workforce. While it may be too soon to determine the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the population of academic accounting professionals, research indicates it may exacerbate any potential shortage of accounting faculty. For education in general, Dickler (2021) notes that a significant number of educators plan to either retire or change careers because of the stress placed on them by the pandemic. In a report published by The Chronicle of Higher Education, survey results indicate that the majority of university faculty have considered retiring or making a career change as a result of the pandemic (Tugend, 2020; Nietzel, 2021). Another study by Yakoboski and Fuesting (2021) reported survey results indicating mixed potential effects of the pandemic on university faculty numbers. Among results potentially relevant to our study are that a significant number of faculty members in their 50s may retire later than they previously expected, while older faculty members (60 years and older) may be more likely to retire earlier. While it is too early following the pandemic to investigate its effects on our results directly, readers should consider the potential effects that COVID-19 may have on accounting academia when interpreting the results of our study and considering their potential implications. As discussed in the following section, one area of future study would be to examine, when sufficient longitudinal data becomes available, the age distribution of accounting PhD faculty before and after COVID to determine any effects caused by the pandemic.

Another potential limitation of the study is the need to estimate the current age of existing faculty members. Although the AAA database indicates the year the faculty member received their PhD, it does not indicate the faculty member’s exact current age. As discussed in Section 4, we estimate the mean age at time of receiving the PhD and extrapolate to the current year to determine the faculty member’s current age. Our estimate is consistent with both a validation sample of faculty members where we determined exact age based on publicly available databases and surveys conducted by the Survey of Earned Doctorates (Link to Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED)Link to the cited article.). To the extent our estimate of mean faculty age is different than the “true,” but unknown age, the descriptive statistics may have differed. However, the regression results (presented in Tables 3–5) would be unaffected by any error in our estimate of mean faculty age. Given that the age variable is used as the dependent variable in each of the three regression models, if the estimate of mean age is slightly off, then it would affect the intercept of the regression results, but the slope coefficient would remain the same. Therefore, the conclusions drawn on the relationships between faculty age and each of the school characteristics (i.e. based on the regression slope coefficients) would remain unchanged.

Our study provides an initial analysis related to the age distribution of accounting PhD faculty and how that distribution varies across schools. Areas for expanded future research could include: continued updates on the current age distributions of accounting PhD faculty, using updated faculty data from the AAA database over time; more specific analysis of the age of actual accounting faculty retirements, including research as to why certain accounting faculty continue to work past normal retirement years; more detailed analysis of the age distributions of various areas or teaching fields within accounting academics, such as potential differences among the fields of financial, managerial, auditing, tax, etc.; the potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the accounting academic profession, including changes in age distribution of accounting faculty before versus after COVID; any changes in the demand for accounting faculty caused by potential changes in the enrollment trends of students in undergraduate education and in accounting programs specifically; and changes in demand for accounting faculty within certain areas based on the CPA Exam subcomponents from the CPA Exam evolution. For example, future research could more specifically examine whether certain areas of accounting faculty (i.e. financial, managerial, tax, auditing, systems, etc.) would be impacted more negatively or less negatively by upcoming faculty retirements.

In addition to the suggestions above, which focus primarily on certain macro-factors affecting the age distribution of faculty members, future research could also examine differences in age distributions based on certain demographics of individual faculty members. For example, Tharapos et al. (2025) examine factors that affect women’s career journeys in the profession and find that there are fewer women in upper levels of accounting academia. Given this finding, universities should be interested in differences in the age distribution between men and women and the resulting impact on future retirements.

Another suggestion for future research is to identify underlying motivations for the variation in retirement ages across faculty, that is, to understand the influences on faculty decisions to retire at various ages. Such information could be obtained through faculty interviews for different subsections of faculty members. Finally, future research could also extend the selection of identifying school characteristics (subject to data availability) and extend analysis to accounting educators other than PhD level faculty. The results of such future research will be helpful in developing plans to alleviate the negative impact of any existing and continuing accounting faculty shortage.