Tenure in Academic Institutions: Aper,

Tenure in Academic Institutions:

Aper, J.P. & Fry, J.E. (2003, May/June). Post-Tenure Review at Graduate Institutions in the United States. Journal of Higher Education. 74.3, pp. 241-254.

In their discussion of post-tenure review, Aper and Fry (2003) present the different sides of the argument regarding the appropriateness of this institution. Some argue that it is necessary for performance reasons, while others contend that it inappropriate and a threat to academic freedom. The article discusses the importance of the AAUP in such matters, and reports the results of a study comparing the post-tenure review process in several graduate organizations that had received a post tenure review policy recommendation from the AAUP. The study reports that post-tenure review is becoming more popular in institutions, as well as discussing the characterizations of the review processes.

Bess, J.L. (1998, January/February). Contract Systems, Bureaucracies, and Faculty

Motivation: The Probable Effects of No-Tenure Policy. Journal of Higher Education. 69.1, pp. 1-17.

Arguing that the replacement of tenure with short-term contracts would do more harm than good in institutions of academic learning, Bess (1998) advocates the continued use of the tenure system. Focusing on the link between tenure and the motivation of faculty to perform exceptionally, Bess (1998) argues that problems in this area are a result of organizational structures. Changing these structures, and thereby perfecting the already positive tenure system, is superior to creating a new tenure system, according to Bess.

Fairweather, J.S. (2002, January/February). The Mythologies of Faculty Productivity:

Implications for Institutional Policy and Decision Making. The Journal of Higher Education. 73.1, pp. 27-45.

In this study, Fiarweather (2002) asserts that decisions regarding tenure reflect, better than other measures, a university's values. That is, whether or not a professor is making a contribution to the university is considered during the decision to award tenure. As such, tenure is a good measure of whether a university praises tenure, research, or both. Fairweather (2002) advocates the well-rounded professor who is a master of both teaching and research. In his study, Fairweather (2002) found that the emphasis on research vs. teaching varies significantly based on the type of institution. Further, the researcher found that a very small number of faculty members were able to achieve both teaching and research excellence, and that being in the classroom positively affected both variables.

Miron, J.A. (2001, September 24). The economics of the Tenure System. Retrieved July

19, 2009, from Library of Economics and Liberty Web Site: www.econlib.org/library/columins/mirontenure.html

Discussing the modern controversy over the tenure system, Miron (2001) presents both sides, in addition an alternate view. He shows that critics of tenure see the practice as offering overcompensation for the amount of work performed by academics. Further, he writes that those who commend tenure suggest it allows for academic freedom. Arguing that the current arguments against tenure include fallacies and those for tenure are too weak, Miron (2001) suggests that tenure is necessary because it weeds out the mediocre scholars.

Tierney, W.G. (1997, January/February). Organizational Socialization in Higher

Education. Journal of Higher Education. 68.1, pp. 1-14.