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."
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.
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?
A mixed methods research design is proposed to study the issues highlighted above. This means that a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods will be used. According to Creswell (2009, p. 4), qualitative research explores and understands a social or human problem by investigating the meanings that individuals attach to it. Creswell also states that a qualitative approach is best suited for investigating a problem that has not yet been studied in all its aspects and to the full depth of its research potential (Creswell, 2009, p. 18), owing to the exploratory nature of qualitative inquiry.
A qualitative research design lends itself well to this area of study because little research has been conducted on the issue and the relevant variables remain unknown. Qualitative research can generate variables through which to study the phenomenon of tenure and post-tenure review further. This method is particularly useful in addressing Research Question 3, which contains an open-ended result that cannot be easily hypothesized. Qualitative research can also be applied to Questions 1 and 2, although these questions are best explored through a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods.
Because some research has already been conducted on tenure and post-tenure review, it is also useful to incorporate quantitative research methods. While the topic is relatively new to empirical investigation, quantitative methods are necessary to explore the issue fully. Questions 1 and 2 lend themselves well to a combined qualitative and quantitative approach.
According to Creswell (2009, p. 4), quantitative research tests objective theories by means of variables. The relationships between these variables are measured using instruments, after which an analysis can be conducted. Generally, quantitative data are numerical, whereas qualitative data are narrative. In order to test the effectiveness of the tenure and post-tenure review systems, numerical data should be examined alongside verbal and narrative data collected from research participants.
Creswell (2009, p. 4) notes that mixed methods research combines qualitative and quantitative approaches and also incorporates philosophical assumptions. This is relevant to the present research, as tenure and post-tenure review concerns more than data and opinion — it involves an underlying philosophy regarding the purpose of an academic career and the imposition of controls upon such a career. This is, indeed, the very basis of the conflict involved. Creswell notes that the purpose of a mixed methods design is to obtain a result that is greater than either qualitative or quantitative research could achieve independently.
Creswell (2009, p. 14) also describes the sequential mixed methods procedure, in which qualitative and quantitative methods are used in sequence so that the second method elaborates upon and expands the first. However, the sequential approach has been set aside in favor of using both methods concurrently. The rationale is that existing numerical data will be obtained through investigation while interviews and surveys will be used to supplement those data simultaneously. The data will therefore not be treated as sequential. Instead, Questions 1 and 2 will be investigated through a combination of methods applied at the same time.
"Participant selection, surveys, and interview procedures"
"Bias, participant variables, and validity concerns"
In conclusion, it is hoped that the limitations of the study will be mitigated by the mixed methods approach, where the weaknesses of one method of data collection and interpretation will be compensated by another.
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.