Allen makes the case that this functions to improve the quality of higher education and the experience had by the student. Like Scheuerman, Allen argues that tenure is under attack for reasons other than the perceived erosion of educational quality, but makes a more direct case against administrators and public officials by arguing that tenure is actually attacked as a matter of posturing for control over the work of instructors. Indeed, Allen notes that in spite of claims that the academic freedom afforded to instructors is problematic, "the evidence shows that most tenured faculty are more productive than ever in this era of tighter resources." (95-96) This functions as an effective argument in favor of maintaining and defending the institution of tenure. Miron. (2001). The Econoimcs of the Tenure System. Library of Economics and Liberty.

Miron's article effectively straddles the middle of the line in an often deeply polarized discussion, indicating that though the tenure system is most assuredly flawed, it remains a necessary and valuable part of protecting quality teachers from intervention and administrative oversight. Miron indicates that the arguments against tenure are indeed misdirected, inappropriately blaming the concept of tenure when it is, more accurately, the execution of tenure which is so problematic. The question at hand, this article contends, relates to how great a degree of security is provided to tenured faculty, suggesting that there is a need to more critically examine the extent of the protections against poor performance or diminishing qualified imposed by tenure. Miron offers moderated approaches to tenure that scale pay with experience and effectiveness rather than with the simple awarding of tenure.

Plater. (2001). A Profession at Risk. Change.

Plater's article defends the importance of tenure while also putting forth arguments in favor of post tenure review. The article takes a relatively distinct path insofar as it discusses post tenure not as an enemy to the concept of tenure -- which is often how this approach is perceived by educators -- and instead as an approach due for refinement. This contributes to the present research the idea that post tenure review can be used not to penalize instructors...

(2003). Post-Tenure Review at Graduate Institutions in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(3), 241-260.
Aper and Fry provide what functions as a generally neutral overview of the concept of post-tenure review. This cites the arguments for and against it, as well as couching these arguments in pro and anti-tenure positions. The article effectively serves as a basis for much of the information which is discussed in greater detail by the articles considered throughout this review. Its balance is established by focusing its research on the degree to which post-tenure policies are currently being implemented and the perception held at the institutions where this has occurred.

Licata & Morreale. (1999). Post-Tenure Review: National Trends, Questions and Concerns. Innovative Higher Education, 24(1).

The article by Licata & Morreale is also a consideration of post-tenure review with a fully neutral approach to examining the unanswered questions prompted by ongoing debate. This is more of a qualitative discussion than that featured in the survey method by Aper & Fry. As a result, it provides a complimentary perspective to the research already encountered, and again, also remains neutral. Its findings, accordingly, seem to support post tenure review as a more refined process less connected to penalty and more based on performance incentive.

Johnson & Kelley. (1998). Productivity and Competence: Post-Tenure Review in American Universities. Issues in Accounting Education, 13(3).

The article by Johnson & Kelly provides a useful case against the use of post tenure review, suggesting that this has been a knee-jerk response to perceptions and public views that aging and incompetent instructors are a primary cause for diminishing educational standards. The article denotes that there has rarely been empirical proof that a review policy such as this is either necessitated or can be connected to improvements in education. Nonetheless, it denotes that with the adoption of such methods of quality assurance, protections must be maintained and professional development improvements sought for instructors.