Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Through a bevy of research articles and scholarly journal research pieces, the authors of the present survey instrument have established their credentials by producing an exhaustive and multi-dimensional discussion on a highly-charged issue. Their qualifications are therefore preceded by an established status as experts in the field and as unbiased sources for discourse.
It is thus that the survey instrument produced here is used to measure responses in two participating universities. Its reliability is ensured by the objective phrasing of questions and by the selection of two universities with historically divergent patterns of perspective on post-tenure review. This denotes both an internal reliability based on the carefully structured phrasing of unbiased statements and an external reliability based on the comparative nature of the study. Researchers note that they "selected these institutions, both in the western United States, because they have had many years of experience conducting systematic evaluations of tenured faculty; however, they differed in that one campus has had a contentious history of implementation while the other simply incorporated mandatory time frames into its existing merit review system for tenured faculty." (p. 401)
This approach denotes that the survey instrument was designed to approach two distinct sample groups with an equally objective...
Where validity is concerned, the survey is characterized by many of the same flaws inherent to survey methodologies in general. Most notably, the quantitative nature of the Likert-scale approach is superficial at best and does not suggest some of the mathematical precision that might be necessary for a study that is more scientific in nature. In this case, validity is strengthened somewhat by the use of qualitative questioning in the 2nd section insofar as this at least allows for a broader array of potential responses. That said, any degree to which this survey instrument lacks internal validity is intended to be compensated for by the objective reliability of the instrument across multiple sample demographics such as measured in the study by Wood & Johnsrud.
The success of the study reported by Wood & Johnsrud helps to warrant the use of the present survey instrument or one modeled according to the characteristics of the present survey instrument. This mitigates the need for a pilot test on the part of the research for the present study, with the trials engaged by Wood & Johnsrud providing a proven template for examining the study subject with both reliability and qualitative nuance.
Works Cited:
Wood, M. & Johnsrud, L. (2005). Post-Tenure Review: What Matters to Faculty. Review of Higher Education, 28(3), 393.
Works Cited:
Wood, M. & Johnsrud, L. (2005). Post-Tenure Review: What Matters to Faculty. Review of Higher Education, 28(3), 393.
This wide array of data strands could then be manipulated to measure the veracity of the philosophical claims informing our qualitative argument. Envisioned Analysis: The analysis which is envisioned as a way to address the available datasets is provided for by Creswell & Plano-Clark (2007), who denote that data-mixing is a valuable way to determine whether or not variables possess meaningful relationships with one another. According to the text by Creswell
For each selected school, there will be three groups of which quota sampling will be employed to achieve equal number of respondents. The three groups would be the faculty members, student administrators, and students. Respondents will once again be randomly-selected from the list that we shall be acquiring from the university. Instrumentation A questionnaire shall be devised by the researcher in order to gather opinion and understand attitudes on 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
Indeed, regardless of how the discussion is framed, this power struggle between administrators and educators remains a constant and relevant force. Still, some research comes to support this idea that tenure helps to promote inequality across certain lines. For instance, Evans et al. (2008) remark on the gender and race lines that permeate the educational hierarchy. According to Evans et al., "sixteen percent of faculty in undergraduate and graduate
192). This begs for an empirical objective analysis of performance. Constructivism In a constructivist approach, which was essentially that used by O'Meara (2004), the more open-ended and subject-driven the research is, the better (Creswell 2009, pp. 8). This approach leads to very clear results given the scope of questioning and sampling used by O'Meara (2004); focusing on the perceived benefits of post-tenure review on faculty performance amongst a group of individuals
The consolidated data are envisioned to provide a generally unbiased view of the various opinions and issues raised. Internet surveys, as discussed by Cozby (2009, p. 132) will not be administered. The reason for this is that the scope of Internet surveys are far greater than that required for this research. These type of surveys are generally administered when a wide variety of data are required from a large amount