I'd like to pose the following questions with respect to outlets for FP research:
1.) Exactly what is required for a financial planning publication to find its way onto a University’s “approved” list for tenure credit? The requirements are either not universal or the assessments are not consistent, since, for example, the JFP is on some University’s approved list and not others.
2.) What would it take for the JFP to be more widely approved for tenure credit?
3.) What other publications are appropriate/acceptable destinations for financial planning research in terms of tenure credit? Obviously, the Academy of Financial Services Review is one (although I think I heard one of you academics utter the word “barely” on one of our calls).
4.) Is there any virtue in building a database of which schools credit publication in which FP journals? It strikes me that the fact that a given publication was on the approved list at Universities X, Y, and Z, could be used as leverage with one’s own department in getting said journal on the approved list.
If we succeed in fostering more research in financial planning, through more robust practitioner/academic partnerships, expanded funding sources, and whatever other means we devise, there will need to be appropriate outlets for publishing that research. I believe we need to identify those outlets now available, work to enhance them where appropriate, and work to foster the emergence of new ones.
I had a conversation with Som Basu a few years ago on this topic and one of the problems he pointed to in the JFP was that the peer-reviews are invariably conducted by a mix of academics and practitioners. He suggested that a system where submissions by academics were peer-reviewed by academics and submissions by practitioners were peer-reviewed by the traditional blend, would greatly enhance the attractiveness of the JFP as a destination for research. When the results of my own doctoral research was submitted to the JFP last year, it was clear that my reviewers consisted of two practitioners and an academic. Speaking frankly, the practitioner feedback was of no value to me whatsoever. The academic’s feedback, on the other hand, was quite useful and clarifying (although unnecessarily cruel, in my opinion) J which I think goes to Som’s point. I do think that practitioner feedback is critical to ensure relevance, but it may be that the practitioner role is more appropriate at the front end, helping to identify relevant questions, rather than at the back end, evaluating the actual research into said questions.
Anyway, my next question is this: does this topic properly live within the mandate of one of our existing committees, or does it deserve its own?
As a reminder of our current four committees, here’s the list:
1.) Positive outreach to foster new research
2.) Developing educational resources for registered programs
3.) Facilitating connections between students and the profession
4.) Research Center Team: vetting outside research proposals (just expanded to include vetting some internal research initiatives as well)
Please jump in with any and all comments!