Post Tenure Review the Issue

¶ … Post Tenure Review

The issue of post-tenure review gives rise to a wide divergence of perspectives. As a measure designed to prevent the abuses of the tenure system that are alleged to protect professors who are inherently lazy, unmotivated and declining in capability with age, it is widely debated both on the grounds of its philosophical imperative and its practicality. With both of these called into question be a collective faculty class which viewed post-tenure review as an attack on academic freedom and earned job security, the proposed study here would proceed to engage the thesis that there is little evidence to suggest that post-tenure review is effective at improving the educational conditions which it is intended to address. Indeed, "institutions have had to respond to those outside academia, particularly legislators and other funders of higher education, who think that tenure is a free ride designed to protect non-productive faculty members. Rather than viewing tenure as 'mere job security', academics understand tenure to be the fundamental premise assuring their academic freedom." (Wood & Des Jarlais, 561)

In response to the fact that there are a number of competing interests and opinions effecting the discourse over post-tenure review, the research here will use the Mixed Methods research model. By allowing us to consider separately and in convergence with one another both quantitative and qualitative finding, this method will promote the opportunity to observe otherwise obscured relations between variables.

Quantitative Data Analysis:

The text by Creswell & Plano-Clark (2007) provides us with a basic understanding for how to constructively approach a quantitative set of questions. In this instance, the text advises that "sometimes quantitative information is found in documents such as census records or attendance records. The analysis consists of statistically analyzing scores collected on instruments, checklists, or public documents to answer research questions or test hypotheses." (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 6)

This directs our attention to the assessment of academic performance as it occurs in contexts both where post-tenure review is applied and where it is absent. This might occur through an assessment of Grade Point Average, standardized testing performance, attendance and student evaluation of instructors (which typically occurs at the end of many university semesters). Using these various quantifiable indicators as yielded from courses instructed by tenured professors, it might be possible to establish a performance basis for assessing contexts both where post-tenure review is conducted and where it is not.

Qualitative Data Analysis:

The study by O'Meara provides us with something of a template for understanding the qualitative variables which can be identified and addressed. O'Meara's study recognizes the demand for a collection of thick descriptive data based on the experiences of those who face the subject on a first-hand basis. The study points to several key pedagogic and tenure-related issues in which the gathering of first-person accounts may provide us with a greater depth of insight into the primary research imperative. Accordingly, O'Meara reports that the study "explored beliefs held by faculty and administrators about post-tenure review and the factors that influenced beliefs within one state system. Values of autonomy and collegiality, career stage, and institutional history and context were found to influence beliefs about the purposes, processes, and outcomes of post-tenure review." (O'Meara, 178)

This promotes the use of an open-ended interview method, perhaps best executed as a case study contextualized by one or a few educational institutions. By focusing on one university and gathering interviews with professors, administrators and even with students, it will be possible to build a substantial body of qualitative data on how post-tenure review is experienced. By drawing a focus in the structure of the interview to such subjects as the values cited in the O'Meara study, it is possible to compile some understanding of values upon which there is consensus and values upon which there is division. This should help to reveal some distinction between the myths and truths of post-tenure review.