Barnard, J. W., Wang, W. K. (2008). Post-tenure review as if it mattered. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, 17.
The author contends that post-tenure review is just one of any number of management strategies that a university can use. However, the premise of the article is that the post-tenure review process can be used as a mechanism to achieve specific institutional goals and objectives making for a faculty that is more "engaged, productive, and generative of important and useful ideas."The important concept that the process can be used to enlist employees to work as a team in an ever-changing market of ideas.
Dnes, A., & Garoupa, N. (2005). Academic tenure, post-tenure effort, and contractual damages. Economic Inquiry, 43(4), 831-839. doi:10.1093/ei/cbi061
An article in support of the tenure system, the study conducted by Dnes and Garoupa is designed to identify the incentive properties which connect tenure to high performance indicators in certain categories. Though the study endorses theoretically exploring alternatives to tenure, this is more as a way of revising evaluation strategies that can help to improve the tenure program rather than as a way of discrediting the tenure program.
Green, R. G. (2008). Tenure and promotion decisions: The relative importance of teaching, service, scholarship and service. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(2), 117-127. doi:10.5175/JSWE.2008.200700003
The article is a recurrent one throughout our research that provides the resolution to our study that the best way to support the positive maintenance of the tenure system is through the establishment of clear and reliable performance indicators. Using these to define qualifications for tenure may help to reduce the perceived need for post-tenure review.
Haag, P. (2005). Is collegiality code for hating ethnic, racial, and female faculty at tenure time? Education Digest, 71(1), 57-62.
The author provides some level of support for other research encountered here such as the article by Roepnack and Lewis (2007) who found tenure to have elements of exclusivity to it, which call its legitimacy into question. Using anecdotal evidence, the research here supports this claim by indicating that collegiality is intended as an internal monitoring of the qualifications necessary for receiving tenure; however, this quite often serves as a barrier to women and ethnic or racial minorities.
Johnson, S. W. (2007). Post-tenure review: A university's business guide. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 11(2), 214-220.
Johnson explains that the purpose of this study is to determine the benefits and limitations of the post-tenure review process. The purpose of the post-tenure review process is to ensure that skills and contributions from the faculty continue to develop, even after the faculty member becomes tenured. Johnson is aiming to provide universities with suggestions on how to avoid the downfalls that are often associated with the post-tenure review process. The author finds that the post-tenure review process seems to enhance and support the continued development of the university in incremental stages.
Neumann, A. (2009). Protecting the passion of scholars in times of change. Change, 41(2), 10-15.
The author conducted a study of forty recently tenured professors at four universities, attempting to elicit meaning in their careers. There were questions of why they chose that specific academic career, why they chose the subject areas, what these areas of study meant to them, and how, in their post-tenure lives they had time to work on the things that mattered most to them. All of those interviewed chose their careers because they wanted to understand their subjects of study intellectually and personally. Moreover, the post-tenure review workloads and expectations were often in direct conflict with the professional ideas that they espoused and expected.
O'Meara, K. A. (2003). Believing is seeing: The influence of beliefs and expectations on post-tenure review in one state system. Review of Higher Education, 27(1), 17-43. doi:10.1353/rhe.2003.0041
This research investigates the outcome of first-year implementation of post-tenure review on four campuses in one state system and the process by which beliefs about post-tenure review influence the outcomes. The methods used were case studies and interview methods. The study proved that indeed believing is seeing in the case of the review system. The beliefs and expectations made the faculty, chairs and others involved within the review system defensive. This in turn made the faculty and administration use different methods to protect self, which then resulted in the change of culture and work as members of the academe. The studies conducted by the author are significant in identifying the dynamics of the whole review system. It showed that the effectiveness and/or ineffectiveness of the system are multi-factorial and one of the factors is the preconceived beliefs of the system.
O'Meara, K. A. (2004). Beliefs about post-tenure review: The influence of autonomy, collegiality, career stage, and institutional context. Journal of Higher Education, 75(2), 178-202. doi:10.1353/jhe.2004.0004
O'Meara points out several pertinent facts as to the limitations of the review system. Most importantly the author has enumerative the negative impacts of the review system to the University education system and dynamics. One particularly illuminating example of the author was its effect to the mid career and late career faculty members. The article is well balanced although the general view of post-tenure review from the perspective of the faculty is negative.
Patriquin-Esmaili, L. M. (2000). Situating post-tenure review: Case studies department to practice of post-tenure review (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Patriquin-Esmaili explains that the post-tenure review originated as a means to address the criticism that faculty members were more concerned with their research than they were about teaching undergraduate students. This study seeks to answer the question of whether or not faculty members change their work habits because of post-tenure review. This study observer' what the faculty members have to say about the collective practice of the post-tenure review within departments and how it may or may not change the quality of teaching. Moreover, the research shows that tenured faculty members admit that post-tenure review is effective when they can connect meaningful reflection on their work in tangible outcomes.
Roepnack, B. R., & Lewis, C. W. (2007). Academic freedom and academic tenure: Can they survive in the market place of ideas? Journal of Academic Ethics, 5(2-4), 221-232. doi:10.1007/s10805-007-9032-x
The study by Roepnack and Lewis provides a history of the tenure policy and thereafter assesses this policy according to the previously validated 'Stone's Policy Analysis Format.' This helps the research to find that there is a need to address certain failures of the tenure system. Namely, the article reinforces the claim that there is only a limited connection between academic freedom and possession of tenure, and also suggests that tenure is a somewhat exclusive status that promotes classicism between professors. The research endorses the resolution that if educators do not institute a meaningful peer review approach to preventing abuses of the system, a post-tenure review policy would be the most economically expedient resolution.
Rudd, E., Morrison, E., Sadrozinski, R., Nerad, M., & Cerny, J. (2008). Equality and illusion: Gender and tenure in art history careers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(1), 228-238.
This study employs a survey of the experiences of 508 instructors in the discipline of art history. Researchers indicate that this sample has been selected as a way to distill gender implications to the acquisition as a function of gender, noting this to be the discipline with the higher proportion of female instructor. A compelling finding supporting the claim that tenure acquisition may be a factor of gender is that matrimony tends to increase male chances of tenure and decrease female chances of tenure, though both conditions existed with significant patterned evidence of possible departure.
Schweitzer, L., & Eells, T. D. (2007). Post-tenure review at the University of Louisville school of medicine: A faculty development and revitalization tool. Academic Medicine, 82(7), 713-717. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3180674990
The purpose of Schweitzer and Eells study is to examine the post-tenure review process at the University local School of Medicine in 2004 in comparison to the initial process in 1994. One of the key findings was that many of the faculty members retire early in order to avoid the post-tenure review process. This is seen as a common practice in higher education institutions in order for the professor to keep his or her academic career from tarnishing. However, many instructors have regarded the post-tenure review approach as a negative development, which robs academic professionals of the security implied by tenure while simultaneously forcing faculty to appeal to specific expectations while pursuing their professional goals.
Wood, M., & Des Jarlais, C. (2006). When post-tenure review policy and practice diverge: Making the case for congruence. Journal of Higher Education, 77(4), 566-588. doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.0036
Wood and Des Jarlais examined the first decade of the implementation of the post-tenure review system by interviewing faculty members of the University of Hawaii at Manoa. The university is one of the first universities that adopted the policy. The findings of the study showed that many faculty members opted to retire because of this policy. They also found that the review was not in concurrence with the mission and goals of the university. Moreover, as the policy was implemented, over the years, it deviated from the main objectives of the policy in terms of accountability and productivity of the faculty. The study was an actual account and observation of the policy and practice, the study identified the ineffectiveness and incompleteness of the review, such as the lack of checks and balances reported directly by the practitioners and respondents.