Tenure and Post Tenure Review

Tenure

The Wood and De Jarlais study of 2006 set out to accomplish three objectives. Those three objectives as stated by the study were to: (1) to provide assurance to the University and its constituents that professional resources and particular areas of expertise are being used to the best advantage; (2) to provide for the systematic recognition of excellence and develop incentives for superior performance; and (3) to provide means for the improvement of performance in furtherance of the University's mission (UH Board of Regents, 1981).

The study was a conducted over a relatively long period of time (10 years) and surveyed over 1000 cases during that time frame. The participants were gathered from the ranks of the professors, department chairs and deans at the University of Hawaii. The stakeholders included the Regents at the University of Hawaii, the participants, the students and the professors, deans and chairs from the various schools and departments at the University.

The study accomplished its stated goals and objectives by using a research design that employed both quantitative and qualitative methodologies; in other words, a mixed-research methodology.

It seems likely that the reason behind the use of mixed research methodology in this specific study is twofold; the study sought to provide hard numbers that are difficult to argue while at the same time presenting the stakeholders with key perceptions and viewpoints that could influence the direction of the post-tenure review process used by the university.

The study accomplished the first by determining a steady improvement in the decreasing numbers of professors exhibiting deficiencies, and accomplished the second by presenting stakeholders with the various specific and an overall perception of the process.

An example of the study's quantitative findings provides evidence of the effectiveness of the methodology. The study found that 92% of the 1,079 cases that were evaluated "were found to have no deficiencies" (Wood, Des Jarlais, 2006, p. 567). Additionally, the qualitative aspects of the study also provided some key observations such as the perceived purposes of the post-tenure review and how the process was viewed by those closest to it, including not only the Deans but the department chairs and of course the many professors that participated in the study.

The second study conducted was one that was also conducted by Wood, but this time her partner was Linda Johnsrud. The purpose behind this particular study was to determine the "range and depth of faculty perceptions regarding post-tenure review and to identify aspects of faculty member's backgrounds and experiences that might account for variations in perceptions of post-tenure review" (Wood, Johnsrud, 2005, p. 394). Additionally, the study determined that it would attempt to answer three basic questions. Those questions include; 1) among faculty, how widely shared are the values and beliefs regarding post-tenure review, 2) what variables and factors contribute to those beliefs and 3) what explains the resistance or receptivity of the faculty regarding post-tenure reviews?

The study was undertaken at two public (but held anonymous) universities located in the Western half of the United States.

The study's authors maintained the university's anonymity by assigning arbitrary names to the two schools. Each school was chosen due to the different manner in which each approached the implementation of the post-tenure review process.

As with the first study, the second study also used a mixed-research design with quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The quantitative side of this study was produced with tools that included surveys that rated the nine study constructs with a Likert Scale data gathering tool. This allowed for qualitative responses to provide a quantitative result. Additionally, the study used a qualitative section to the survey that asked for participant's responses to two open-ended questions concerning thoughts, viewpoints, ideas, and perceptions of post-tenure review.

The study determined that there were a number of wide differences in the beliefs of faculty members on a number of the constructs concerning post-tenure review. In fact, the study found that there was only a slight consensus on three of the constructs, the other six had wide gaps and bi-modally distributed beliefs regarding the overall concept of post-tenure review and its constructs.

In a recent court ruling regarding post-tenure review the court upheld a Colorado State Board of Agriculture post-tenure review policy against a professor that had sued the school because he had been found deficient two years running. The court found "that faculty are always subject to review and discipline" (Euben, 2005, p. 70).

Whether that review and discipline is viewed as necessary by the faculty and administrators (and other stakeholders) matters little to the courts, but touches the individual lives of the professors, chairs and deans who must abide by the reviews, in most cases, if they wish to progress in their chosen field of endeavor.