Mixed Methods Research Design for Post-Tenure Review Study
This paper proposes a mixed methods research design to investigate the tenure and post-tenure review systems in higher education. It outlines three core research questions addressing the impact of post-tenure review on teaching, research, and service; its effect on collegiality and academic freedom; and its unintended consequences for campus culture. The paper justifies the use of combined qualitative and quantitative methods — including interviews, surveys, and existing institutional data — to explore a topic that remains underexamined empirically. It also discusses participant selection, ethical considerations, and the known limitations of the proposed design, including interviewer bias, participant variables, and response tendencies such as "yea-saying" and "nay-saying."
- Introduction: Tenure and the Post-Tenure Review System: Background debate over tenure and post-tenure review
- Research Problem, Purpose, and Questions: Three research questions guiding the study
- Research Design and Methods: Justification for mixed qualitative and quantitative design
- Research Methods: Participant selection, surveys, and interview procedures
- Limitations of the Chosen Design and Methods: Bias, participant variables, and validity concerns
- Conclusion: Mixed methods as best fit for study goals
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper clearly situates the research problem within existing scholarly debate, citing both critics and proponents of post-tenure review before introducing the proposed study design.
- Each methodological choice is explicitly justified by reference to Creswell (2009) and Cozby (2009), grounding design decisions in established research methodology literature.
- The paper anticipates and addresses limitations honestly, demonstrating methodological self-awareness by proposing mitigating strategies for each weakness identified.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models the technique of methodological triangulation — explaining how qualitative and quantitative methods compensate for each other's weaknesses. Rather than simply selecting one approach, the author systematically evaluates what each method can and cannot do in relation to each research question, showing how the mixed methods design produces a more robust result than either method alone.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a literature-grounded introduction that establishes the controversy surrounding tenure and post-tenure review. It then narrows to a formal research problem and three specific research questions. The methodology section justifies the mixed methods design philosophically and practically, followed by a detailed description of data collection instruments. A dedicated limitations section addresses participant variables, bias, and validity concerns before a brief integrative conclusion.
Introduction: Tenure and the Post-Tenure Review System
The tenure system was initially implemented to ensure that academic institutions retain the research prowess and teaching expertise of their long-term staff. However, the absence of regulation in many cases has caused considerable controversy in both internal and external academic circles. According to Wood and Des Jarlais (2006, p. 566), the tenure system has attracted the close scrutiny of both legislators and funding agents, who regarded tenure as "a free ride designed to protect non-productive faculty members." Proponents of the system, on the other hand, have regarded it as a protection measure for academic freedom. This controversy sparked considerable debate before the implementation of post-tenure review, a system designed to measure the effectiveness of and exercise control over the tenure system.
Post-tenure review itself, however, has sparked new debate and fresh controversy (Wood & Jonsrud, 2005, p. 393). This controversy is centrally connected to the original debate surrounding tenure. Many academic institutions regard post-tenure review as an attack on their professional autonomy and on the tenure system itself. Administrators, on the other hand, believe that post-tenure review is a valuable system for ensuring accountability within academic institutions, guaranteeing both the quality of academic work and the appropriate application of funding. Legislators in turn regard it as a way to improve higher education and ensure the quality of education provided to the public.
O'Meara (2004, p. 178) cites further opinions that expand the reasons given both for and against post-tenure review: "Critics argue that post-tenure review 'dampens creativity and collegial relationships…,' while advocates suggest that it enhances faculty performance by guaranteeing systematic, continuous, and comprehensive feedback and opportunities for professional growth."
The problem, however, is that neither side has much empirical evidence to support their positions (O'Meara, 2004, p. 178). Wood and Johnsrud (2005, p. 394) agree that few empirical studies have addressed the post-tenure issue in great depth. While these authors address the issue from the point of view of those involved in the post-tenure review process, they provide a valuable springboard for further study.
Research Problem, Purpose, and Questions
The research problem revolves around the controversy regarding the tenure system, which in extreme cases has sparked public hostility. Post-tenure review has in turn attracted resistance and hostility from academic institutions and individuals alike.
The purpose of the study is therefore to highlight the issues inherent in both the tenure and post-tenure review systems. This is accomplished by means of three research questions: (1) What is the impact of post-tenure review on teaching, research, and service? (2) Does the post-tenure review policy diminish collegiality and obstruct academic freedom? (3) Does the post-tenure review policy have unintended consequences for related campus systems and culture?
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.