This annotated bibliography surveys ten scholarly works addressing faculty tenure and post-tenure review in American higher education. The sources span a range of perspectives — from defenses of tenure as essential to academic freedom and faculty productivity, to critiques of the system as a barrier to new talent and educational quality, to neutral empirical assessments of how post-tenure review policies are implemented in practice. Together, the annotations address themes including non-tenure-track employment, political attacks on tenure, economic incentive structures, and the potential for post-tenure review to serve as a tool for professional development rather than punitive oversight.
The following annotated bibliography examines ten scholarly works addressing faculty tenure and post-tenure review in American higher education. The sources represent a range of positions — pro-tenure, critical of tenure, and empirically neutral — and collectively address questions of academic freedom, institutional efficiency, faculty development, and the role of post-tenure review policies.
Baldwin & Chronister. (2001). Teaching Without Tenure: Policies for a New Era. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
The research by Baldwin & Chronister differentiates between instructors who will be granted tenure and those who are hired as non-tenure personnel. The article reviews the various conditions in place to protect such individuals through collective bargaining and, simultaneously, identifies some of the reasons it is appropriate to maintain a staff at least partially comprised of non-tenure educators. The primary causes for maintaining full-time non-tenure personnel relate to efficiency, economic sensibility, and preservation of the proper responsibilities for tenured instructors. The research was conducted through a survey of studied institutions, a consultation of faculty handbooks for those institutions, and interviews with administrators and faculty. This approach revealed a key benefit in maintaining non-tenured personnel as a way of handling responsibilities that may not most optimally use the skills of tenured faculty.
O'Brien. (1998). All Essential Half-Truths About Higher Education. University of Chicago Press.
The article by O'Brien takes practical exception to arguments in favor of universal tenure for veteran educators. The author describes this as something of a paradoxical circumstance where the larger goals of education are concerned. Especially in terms of training PhD candidates to carry on the work of the present generation of graduate professors, there is a contradiction embedded in the outcomes of the current system. O'Brien is troubled by the fact that tenure is awarded with little consideration given to the skill level of existing personnel and the capacity to improve upon that skill level by bringing in new hires. As the article notes, "tenure was first for university professors because they were doing research; tenure was not for college teachers charged with conveying an established culture. Now, almost any faculty member, from the community college on, may hold a tenure appointment and demand 'academic freedom'" (p. 19). The article identifies this as a problematic circumstance that prevents new talent from entering the field.
Alstete. (2000). Post Tenure Faculty Development: Building a System of Faculty Improvement and Appreciation. ERIC Digest.
Alstete's article frames the issue of tenure within the context of the various changes taking place on a broad and systemic level in educational staffing. The thrust of tenure policies has generally been to proliferate the awarding of this security to the extent that retirement ages are rising, professional life spans are lengthening, and instructors are generally older. In the face of information technology advances, the implications of globalization, and generally evolutionary forces in educational theory, it has become increasingly clear that the roughly 51% of higher education instructors holding tenure represent a conflict with respect to educational quality. The capacity of instructors to advance alongside these changes has been hindered in some contexts by the lack of post-tenure review policies that would help such instructors adapt. A consequence of this failure is a growing knowledge gap between instructors and students.
Scheuerman. (1997). Public Higher Ed: Battleground in the Tenure Wars. The NEA Higher Education Journal.
Taking the opposite standpoint from the critical articles above, Scheuerman argues that the attacks registered against tenure for its alleged contribution to lower educational standards and unqualified faculty are misplaced. The assertion made here is that tenure is more often than not a rhetorical victim of political and economic disputes from which educators are most frequently given short shrift. Scheuerman contends that tenure is necessary and valuable for the preservation of educator security, success, and protection from ulterior motives. The author points out that "state legislatures are trying to micromanage public institutions to a degree unequaled by their predecessors" (p. 64). This interest has unraveled into a wholesale attack on the value of tenure, which the article dismisses as misplaced priority and political maneuvering.
Allen. (2000). Tenure: Why Faculty, and the Nation, Need It. NEA Higher Education Journal.
Allen approaches the subject with much the same perspective as Scheuerman, defending tenure as an absolute necessity for allowing instructors to function effectively without fear of intervention, dismissal, or academic restriction. Allen makes the case that tenure functions to improve the quality of higher education and the experience of students. Like Scheuerman, Allen argues that tenure is under attack for reasons other than the perceived erosion of educational quality, but makes a more direct case against administrators and public officials by arguing that tenure is attacked as a matter of posturing for control over instructors' work. Allen notes that, in spite of claims that the academic freedom afforded to instructors is problematic, "the evidence shows that most tenured faculty are more productive than ever in this era of tighter resources" (pp. 95–96). This functions as an effective argument in favor of maintaining and defending the institution of tenure.
Miron. (2001). The Economics of the Tenure System. Library of Economics and Liberty.
Miron's article effectively straddles the middle ground in an often deeply polarized discussion, indicating that although the tenure system is assuredly flawed, it remains a necessary and valuable part of protecting quality teachers from intervention and administrative oversight. Miron indicates that the arguments against tenure are misdirected, inappropriately blaming the concept of tenure when it is, more accurately, the execution of tenure that is so problematic. The central question, this article contends, relates to how great a degree of security is provided to tenured faculty. Miron suggests a need to more critically examine the extent of protections against poor performance or diminishing qualifications imposed by tenure. The article offers moderated approaches to tenure that scale pay with experience and effectiveness rather than with the simple awarding of tenure status.
Aper & Fry. (2003). Post-Tenure Review at Graduate Institutions in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(3), 241–260.
Aper and Fry provide a generally neutral overview of the concept of post-tenure review. The article cites arguments for and against it, couching these arguments within broader pro- and anti-tenure positions. It effectively serves as a foundation for much of the information discussed in greater detail by other articles in this review. Its balance is established by focusing the research on the degree to which post-tenure policies are currently being implemented and the perceptions held at institutions where this has occurred.
Licata & Morreale. (1999). Post-Tenure Review: National Trends, Questions and Concerns. Innovative Higher Education, 24(1).
The article by Licata & Morreale is also a consideration of post-tenure review, adopting a fully neutral approach to examining the unanswered questions prompted by ongoing debate. This is more of a qualitative discussion than the survey-based method employed by Aper & Fry, and as a result it provides a complementary perspective to that research. Remaining neutral, its findings appear to support post-tenure review as a more refined process less connected to penalty and more oriented toward performance incentive.
Johnson & Kelley. (1998). Productivity and Competence: Post-Tenure Review in American Universities. Issues in Accounting Education, 13(3).
The article by Johnson & Kelley provides a useful case against the use of post-tenure review, suggesting that it has been a knee-jerk response to public perceptions that aging and incompetent instructors are a primary cause of diminishing educational standards. The article notes that there has rarely been empirical proof that a review policy of this kind is either necessitated or can be connected to improvements in education. Nonetheless, it acknowledges that with the adoption of such quality-assurance methods, protections must be maintained and professional development improvements sought for instructors.
Plater. (2001). A Profession at Risk. Change.
"Post-tenure review as professional growth rather than punishment"
You’re 88% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.