This paper evaluates the survey instrument developed by Wood and Johnsrud (2005) to examine faculty perspectives on post-tenure review in higher education. The paper describes the instrument's two-part structure: a 63-statement Likert-scale questionnaire measuring endorsement or rejection of post-tenure review, and an open-ended qualitative section capturing anecdotal faculty experiences. It also considers the demographic variables collected, the authors' scholarly credentials, and the instrument's reliability and validity as demonstrated through its application at two universities with divergent post-tenure review histories. The paper concludes that the instrument's proven track record mitigates the need for additional pilot testing.
The focus of the present research engagement is the range of perspectives that exist on the subject of post-tenure review. This variety of opinions is a direct function of the continuing debate over tenure itself, with far-ranging views advocating the protection, undermining, or reform of this system in higher education. The study by Wood and Johnsrud (2005) offers a survey-driven methodology intended to catalogue and clarify this array of perspectives on the subject.
When considering the methodology utilized by the authors, it is appropriate to note the design of the study and the particular components incorporated into the survey instrument. Wood and Johnsrud include in their survey design consideration of the demographic variables of respondents, the characteristics defining certain institutional contexts, the value-based constructs driving different post-tenure review processes, and the outcome variables pertaining to the use of post-tenure review processes. These selected components are intended to provide a comprehensive understanding not only of the varying perspectives among responding faculty, but also of the factors that create these variances.
In order to best measure these components, the survey instrument is divided into two sections. The first provides an opportunity for a quantitative examination of respondent perspectives, producing a 63-statement questionnaire predicated on the standard Likert-scale model. This employs a five-point scale on which each respondent is instructed to select the response that most closely identifies his or her sentiment regarding each statement. Responses range from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree," with the former producing a score of -2 and the latter a score of +2. The tally of scores for each respondent is used to produce a measurement of endorsement or rejection of post-tenure review.
The second section of the survey instrument includes two open-ended questions intended to add nuance to the findings produced in the first section. This qualitative section allows individual respondents to share anecdotal experiences with the process of post-tenure review. Finally, the instrument gathers relevant demographic information concerning professional ranking, tenure status, discipline, gender, and ethnicity/race (p. 401).
As highly regarded scholars in the field of tenure and post-tenure review, Wood and Johnsrud are particularly noteworthy for the objectivity with which they have approached this subject. Through numerous research articles and scholarly journal pieces, the authors have established their credentials by producing an exhaustive and multi-dimensional discussion of a highly charged issue. Their qualifications are therefore grounded in an established status as experts in the field and as unbiased contributors to academic discourse.
"Examines internal and external reliability measures"
"Assesses validity strengths and inherent survey flaws"
"Justifies instrument adoption without new pilot test"
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.