Post-Tenure Review the Four Worldviews:

Post-Tenure Review

The Four Worldviews: Perspectives on Current Faculty and Public Attitudes toward Post-Tenure Review Practices

Post-tenure review has become, in the past decade or so, an additional evaluative tool for faculty in higher education. The reason for post-tenure review implementation was the public disappointment with the tenure system, which included the review of tenured faculty in order to define their eligibility and progress and the desire to assist the faculty members and further development. Faculty, administration, students, and the general public all have very different perspectives on the issue of post-tenure review, however, and there is a high level of disagreement on the matter even within these groups on certain issues. A hypothetical discussion of four prevailing worldviews in current education theory in relation to a relatively recent article on the subject can lead to a better understanding of the necessity, if any, and the purpose of current post-tenure review practices.

These four worldviews are post-positivist, constructivist, advocacy/participation, and pragmatism. Postpositivism is most simply understood as the scientific method, with the understanding that all results may be fallible and all theories prone to adjustment based on new information (Creswell 2009, pp. 6). Social constructivism is a method for evaluating qualitative research, positing that subjective meanings and understandings are the only operational and therefore only relevant ones (Creswell 2009, pp. 8). Advocacy operates even more directly in the real and highly subjective real-world, whereas pragmatism simply stresses the consequences and problem solving capabilities of a given theory (Creswell 2009, pp. 9-10).

These four different perspectives all come to very different conclusions in regards to current findings on the perception of post-tenure review. One recent survey of faculty and administration at four institutions within a single state's university system found an overwhelming belief that post-tenure review would have no real impact on the output of tenured faculty (O'Meara 2004). This study also identified four core factors responsible for most beliefs about post-tenure review: "the value of autonomy, the value of collegiality, career stage, [and] institutional context/history" (O'Meara 2004, pp. 195). An application of the four different worldviews described above to the findings of this study provides a more comprehensive analysis of the basic issues in implementing post-tenure review practices.

Postpositivism

Even in more qualitative situations, a postpositivst approach must rely more on discrete and objective quantifiable elements, including the quantification of qualitative data such that probabilities can be derived from it (Creswell 2009, pp. 7). Though the levels of shared beliefs can be quantified, little empirical research was conducted in this study (O'Meara 2004). A postpositivist would attempt to ascertain, through scientific study, if there was indeed any change in faculty performance after the introduction of a post-tenure review process. O'Meara also identifies a general belief amongst faculty and administration that job performance in their particular department "met or exceeded university expectations," conceding that post-tenure review might be useful elsewhere but not in their own institution (O'Meara 2004, pp. 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 (faculty and administration) who in this case were well-aligned in their perspective would necessarily lead to conclusive results according to this worldview. A similar analysis of public and student views on the topic, however, would likely lead to very different results, and this worldview inherently lacks appropriate structures for synthesizing such disparate conclusions in an objective manner.

Advocacy/Participation

This worldview has specific bearings on certain aspects of the study's finding's. O'Meara (2004) specific concerns concerning the effects of post-tenure review on the autonomy and collegiate atmosphere of their position; beliefs that political pressures and suspicion of colleagues would be introduced were a major factor in negative feelings toward the implementation of post-tenure review practices (pp. 196). The advocacy worldview is essentially geared towards rooting out the imbalances that skew knowledge production and acquisition within a society, and this would certainly apply to the faculty's perceived risks in regard to post-tenure review. At the same time, as with the contructivist view, a study involving student populations would yield different results and a different need for advocacy.

Pragmatism