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...

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…