The Perceptions of Online Professors Regarding Tenure and Post-Tenure Review
Over the course of several months, researchers here have compiled a wealth of resources relating to the subjects of academic tenure and post-tenure review. These resources have served in the preliminary capacity to prepare for a focused scientific inquiry on the subject, producing a full spectrum of opinions and findings relating to the institution of tenure. Among these opinions and findings are those endorsing the importance of tenure; arguing on the behalf of its protection; espousing such imperatives as the need for academic freedom; and responding with defensiveness, resistance and concern over the notion of post-tenure review. Conversely, research has also produced a bevy of opinions and findings to the support of post-tenure review based on the impression that this is necessary to reign in performance shortcomings on the part of tenured instructors; that tenure is a system which is broken and in need of scrutiny and repair; that higher education instructors in particular have used tenure as a way to lapse into dereliction of teaching duties; and that many of the claimed imperatives for the protection of tenure are exaggerated.
O’Meara (2004) presents us with a clear statement of this disagreement. The article reports that “critics argue that post-tenure review ‘dampens creativity and collegial relationships and threatens academic freedom’ (AAUP, 1995, p. 49) while advocates suggest that it enhances faculty performance by guaranteeing systematic, continuous, and comprehensive feedback and opportunities for professional growth.” (O’Meara, 178) This presents researchers with a distinct conflict and demonstrates that there is no consensus in the field. Quite to the contrary, the research discussed hereafter will be based largely on the view that controversy continues to escalate around this issue. Researchers speculate based on much of the research encountered and applied here throughout that of the many reasons why this may have become a prominent issue of late, the political imperative to assign blame for a perceived declination in higher education standards has cast professorship and tenure into doubt. This somewhat speculative hypothesis has helped to invoke an interest in the perspective of higher education instructors, who it may be argued have received the brunt of blame for a shared set of problems and responsibilities. Therefore, the research to be conducted will set its focus on the specifically identified subset of higher education instructors distinguished by those who teach through the online medium.
Under the view that this is a group impacted by the controversy but often not consulted on the subject, it is seen as valuable to proceed with a research investigation that may confirm or refute the speculative assumptions driving this research. Namely, the view that an attack on the tenure system is politically motivated and misdirected contributes to the research assumptions that post-tenure review is a negative force in its current form. The hypothesis is that a scientific inquiry where online professors are concerned will confirm this view.
As is noted here above, the research has been invoked by what may be characterized as a research problem. Where advocates of post-tenure review will characterize tenure as a subject due for scrutiny, critics of post-tenure review will characterize this subject as the ‘problem’ subject. This is the view taken by researchers, who argue here that the central problem of the research is a lack of consensus or empirical certainty concerning the impact which post-tenure review has on the job performance of online university professors. This lack of consensus or empirical certainty is underscored by the point of contradiction between those that do and do not support the practice of post-tenure review. Accordingly, Helms et al. (2001) describe the juxtaposing positions on this subject, reiterating the argument stated by O’Meara in the Introduction section that “critics argue tenured faculty are less productive and the tenure system harbors unproductive faculty, or ‘deadwood’ for years (Conrad and Trosch, 1998). Antony and Raveling (1998) studied the link between tenure and the productivity of college faculty and found no difference in productivity between tenured and non-tenured faculty.” (Helms et al., 6) These two differing viewpoints underscore the primary problem that extends to our understanding of online educators. Therefore, it can be stated that the primary research problem is the impact of post-tenure review according to the perception of online professors.
The purpose of the proposed research is to prove that online professors view post-tenure review as a negative policy which attacks the security provided by tenure without achieving any significant gains in the areas of job performance or quality of education.
The research method is a Quantitative approach facilitated by a structured survey instrument (quantitative) using a basic Likert Scale.
The research design is a single trial, non-experimental scientific inquiry. Constructs
The proposed study to examine the impact of post-tenure review on the performance quality of online professors proceeds from a number of measurement bases provided by prior research. The measurement of key variables is initiated by the framework offered in such work as that by Wood & Johnsrud (2005). Here, the authors operationally define post-tenure review as both formative and summative, with the former of these using the review process to help direct future academic and research participation on the part of educators and the latter of these using the review process as a way of cataloguing and assessing the performance of these educator in an ongoing way. Both definitions apply to our intent to operationalization of post-tenure review as the independent variable.
As to operationalizing the dependent variable, the study by Wood & Johnsrud also provides us with a framework for measuring ‘quality of performance’ by offering four categories for evaluation. These, according to the ‘Design of the Study’ are “a) demographic variables; b) institutional contexts; c) value-based constructs; and d) outcome variables.” (Wood & Johnsurd, 397) These items may be used to draw a correlation with what instructors have perceived as the practical impact of post-tenure review on personal performance qualities. These constructs will be examined using a 436 online professors at one university as the non-randomized sample population.
It is believed that one of the key reasons for the lack of resolution on the subject of post-tenure review is the glut of divergent positions which confound the issue. Researchers have tended through the course of the literature which this account has appealed to for foundation to reaffirm the manner in which this din of contrasting viewpoints has undermined the possibility of compromise. For instance, Dnes & Garoupa (2005) take the view that tenure is a valuable and necessary protection for the job security and academic freedom of instructors but that change is needed to ensure the effectiveness of the system. By contrast, such works as that by Roepnack & Lewis (2007) are that claims as to the connection between the protection of tenure and the presence of academic freedom for educators have been exaggerated and tend to prevent effective peer-review. This divide underscores the problem statement guiding the research process as well as the set of research questions which have been developed to help bring to the surface what are here viewed as the issues most essentially to achieving that elusive compromise.
The research process has been engaged with the intent to address the following research questions:
Do you believe that academic freedom/tenure is a sufficient protection?
Does post-tenure review impact teaching, service, and research?
Do you feel that collegiality should be an important factor in making academic tenure decisions?
Does granting tenure enhance organizational effectiveness?
Does tenure destroy mobility in the higher education job market?
Does the post-tenure review model diminish collegiality?
Does the post-tenure review policy have unintended consequences for related campus systems and culture?
The overarching hypothesis is that a consideration of these research questions through the proposed research design will confirm the argument that post-tenure review negatively impacts the performance of online professors.
This is supported by the view that higher education instructors will generally trend to reject the claims driving post-tenure review. So is this denoted in the research by sources connected post-tenure review to an attack on the system of tenure. Zemsky’s (2008) article is instructive in informing this research assumption. Most particularly, the researchers here are motivated by the view that post-tenure review is genuinely attached to a broader movement to dismantle or erode the patterns relating to tenure. Namely, Zemsky reports that “the proportion of university and college faculty members with full academic qualifications — which usually means those with earned doctorates — who either have tenure or are serving a probationary period for tenure has been declining steadily over the last three decades.” (Zemsky, 1)
The null hypothesis of the research endeavor is that online professors will report no perceptible connection between post-tenure review and job performance.
The alternate hypothesis of the research endeavor is that online professors will report that post-tenure review improves job performance.
Nature of the Study
Significance of the Study
The significance of the proposed research is based in the need for greater study of online instruction in higher education with relation to post tenure review. As with all other elements of this research process, we can initiate a discussion on the significance of the research with a reiteration of the fact that amongst educators without classification, the perspective on post-tenure review is generally hostile. This is because tenure is considered by most educators to be an important feature of the profession demanding of protection. To this end, Ceci et al. (2006) indicate that “despite the modest pay and long probationary period, in those countries that still award tenure, once a scholar achieves this rank, his or her professional life can seem to be set. Because such security is uncommon among professionals, those who have tenure jealously guard it against proposals to limit its scope.” (Ceci et al., 553) and yet, the concept remains very much under attack by such policies as post-tenure review, which professors regard as a threat to the stability earned by length of stay.
Entering into the proposed research, we proceed with the view that the vast majority of traditional educators view post-tenure review negatively, assessing that this policy interferes with creativity, academic freedom and curricular flexibility. The significance of the proposed research would be in determining whether this same consensus exists amongst professors working primarily through the online medium. This is of value because it offers another perspective on an issue which is subject to widespread disagreement and empirical uncertainty. By measuring the perspective of those teaching through online media, we anticipate gaining an alternate educator perspective which yet confirms the sentiment of traditional educators concerning the negative impact of post-tenure review.
As noted by the research proposal, the central problem of the research process is an uncertainty over the impact of post-tenure review on the job performance of online university professors. This problem contributes to the primary purpose of the proposed research, which is to prove that online professors view post-tenure review as a negative policy which attacks the security provided by tenure without achieving any significant gains in the areas of job performance or quality of education. These two statements provide us with a set of key terms which require definition within the specific context of the proposed research. Several biases in defining these terms will be observable and are specific with assumptions made throughout the research process. These biases do not prevent findings of the research from diverging from said assumptions.
Tenure is the status which is rewarded to professional educators once they have achieved a certain length of stay in a position; have marked certain professional qualifications; and have thus been deemed qualified for a condition of long-term job security. Within the context of the study, tenure is seed positively as a necessary feature of the educational professional Helms et al. (2001) contribute to this perspective, noting that “tenure has traditionally been in place to reward senior faculty so they may be innovative, controversial, and use their time to mentor to junior faculty or take an active role in university governance and community initiatives.” (Helms et al., 2001, p. 322) the research proceeds from the view that these are appropriate opportunities to avail to educators as a way of always improving their professional qualifications.
From the perspective of this research, and preceded by the critical article by Buck (2007), post-tenure review is a performance monitoring procedure applied to educators who have earned tenure designed almost explicitly to undermine the values and goals of tenure. The job security, academic freedom and political autonomy afforded by tenure are subverted by a process which is inherently intended to identify negative byproducts of the tenure practice. As a result, post-tenure review is discredited in much research and in the discourse of educational professionals, with both arguing that post-tenure review is simultaneously a threat to academic freedom which damages the flexibility and morale of educators and that the practice leads to a number of negative unintended consequences which suggest that it implementation is flawed.
This refers to Higher Education professionals who engage their subjects through the web-medium. This is not otherwise constrained by any limitations to definition. Such is to say that “teaching, service and scholarship are complex, multidimensional activities. Teaching responsibilities in graduate schools of social work my involve traditional classroom instruction as well as student advising, computerized distance-learning instruction, field instruction, the supervision of independent studies and research projects, and direction of doctoral dissertations.” (Green, 2005, p. 121) From this perspective, the research leaves open the prospect of any such roles as mediated by online learning technologies.
This refers to the primary interest of both those supporting and refuting the value of tenure. Namely, job performance refers to an empirically measured performance amongst educators that can be used to assess any impacts to the benefit or detriment of the quality of education through post-tenure review practices. The research is also geared toward assuring high performance quality, following from the logic provided by Helms et al. that “if quality improvements help organizations increase productivity, reduce costs, boost market share, and ensure business survival and growth, similar results should be possible in the educational environment, providing faculty an opportunity for career redirection and/or professional renewal.” (Helms et al., 2001, p. 325) This priority does not, in the perspective of researchers, comport necessarily with the adoption of post-tenure review as suggested by Helms et al. This leaves the research open to alternative performance review policies which do not inherently attack the tenure institution.
The brief literature review conducted here is intended to validate the selection of online professors as a sample group due for investigation. First, the literature review establishes the critical argument against post-tenure review. Subsequently, the literature addressed here will focus particularly on the relationship between online professors and matter relating to tenure.
All indications entering into the research endeavor proposed here are that professors, educators and instructors of higher education view post-tenure review as a policy particularly dictated by those outside of the educational profession. This means that research confirms a view that the conflict over post-tenure review is largely a drummed up controversy on the part of those with decidedly political rather than practical interests. According, DeFleur (2007) claims that “such controversies emphasize the necessity of some system to keep critics, politicians, boards of trustees, higher administration, prominent citizens, generous donors, and others in positions of power from dictating what professors should study, be permitted to say in classrooms, or publish concerning their findings and conclusions.” (DeFleur, 108)
This is a view which is further endorsed by research which claims that post-tenure review has in its specific form become a sort of penalty system design to impose unduly upon all professors. In doing so, the policy has become an obstruction to the performance priorities of higher education instructors. So is this supported in the study by Gray, (2005), which remarks on the view of professional teaching associations that “periodic formal institution evaluation of each postprobationary faculty member would bring scant benefit, would incur unacceptable costs, non-only in money and time, but also in dampening of creativity and of collegial relationships, and would threaten academic freedom.” (Gray, 14)
In addition to a discussion on its practical consequences, the research considered here also provided a clear case for the view that post-tenure review strategies are part of a larger effort to erode the system of tenure on the whole. Galambos (2010) remarks on this point that “more and more scholars believe that academic freedom is eroding. Data from an international survey of faculty members indicated that in 2007 just over 59% of U.S. faculty members believed that their college administration strongly supported academic freedom, down from 65% in a comparable survey conducted in 1992.” (Galambos, 2)
This is a pattern which runs inversely to the continuing escalation in the role and visibility of online professors. To this point, Feintuch (2008) helps to elucidate the position of online professors where this subject is concerned, providing a valuable segue into the specific focus of the proposed research. Feintuch quotes one such professor, who reported that “my teaching environment is different than the classroom setting but the goals are the same; maximize the student’s educational experience.” (Feintuch, 26) in Feintuch’s research, there is cause to presume that online professors with access to such status will tend to offer vocal and unwavering support to the institution of tenure. Feintuch’s article identifies the existence of tenure-track programs specialized for the professional development of online professors, taking the view that the need to push forward the evolution of instruction through this medium justifies the adoption of tenure-based strategies. Accordingly, Feintuch reports that “the online-only tenure track program allows us to develop a core group of professors who are experts not only in the discipline they are teaching but also in teaching in the online medium itself,’ says Dr. Mark Griffin, executive director for Georgia Perimeter College online. ‘The tenured professors then can mentor full- and part-time faculty about available resources for online education. It strengthens the overall instruction in the online environment.'” (Feintuch, 26)
Feintuch’s interview subject also provides us with a basis on which to predict the feedback of many of the participants in the proposed research process. Namely, the subject reports that “he feels fortunate to be able to pursue his passion of online teaching on a tenure track that will provide him with longterm job security. He is aware that many online educators work as adjuncts on a part-time or temporary full-time basis with no guarantees beyond the current semester.” (Feintuch, 26)
A stark counterpoint to the research conducted by Feintuch also highlights the core challenge before the researchers. Namely, Good & Peca (2007) present a research article which highlights a wave of professional skepticism concerning the training and qualification of online professors. This denotes that there is concern amongst tenure-qualified instructors regarding the awarding of tenure to online instructors which stands in contrast to some basic assumptions in our research. Namely, this stands as a counterpoint to the view that online professors will reflect many of the same positions as traditional professors. Accordingly, Good & Peca report that “results of a survey sent to education faculty in five state universities in New Mexico indicated that hypocrisy related to faculty offering online coursework and faculty recommending the employment of peers who received their terminal degrees via online coursework does not exist.” (Good & Peca, 267) This, Good & Peca indicate, is justification for further investigation into some of the specificities of professional integrity and ethical behavior relating to online instruction.
Research Method and Design
The approach taken toward this research is a single-trial survey to 436 online professors from a single university. The study is intended to investigate the relationship between post-tenure review and job performance in online instructors by yielding a set of quantitative data from respondents that is stewarded by a written survey. The written survey would be administered through the online medium using the channels of communication provided by the participating university.
The population which was selected for this study is the online faculty for University X, which would volunteer participation and cooperation for the execution of this study. This is because the university in question offers a tenure track program to some of its online professors and is considering an expansion of this program. Any such expansion must answer to the various claims of systemic failure relating to the subject of tenure. Therefore, for the university in question, the findings are of use as a way of focusing specifically on the view regarding post-tenure review of its own faculty. This would help to facilitate access to the set of instructors which would ultimately be confirmed for participation in the proposed research. The University furnished our research with the necessary contact information and publicly available professional information concerning the selected population.
The researchers would use this information to establish base contact and confirm a willingness to participate amongst online professors. Contact would be established through a form letter emailed to the 623 identified online professors related to the institution. This letter would introduce the nature of the study in question, identify its purpose without indication of the position taken in the research hypothesis and note that the instructor could expect to receive a phone call from researchers during the course of the following week requesting participation.
Phone calls would be made to professor office numbers establishing personal contact and gaining participation consent. Those who consented would be scheduled for participation in a survey to be administered online. In this case, 436 of the respondents would confirm a willingness to participate. Professors would be given a date and time as well as a web address, password and username. A followup email would be sent to remind the professor a week and a day in advance of his or her scheduled survey. Researchers would administer the online survey during the course of a single online session in which respondents are requested to sign into the web address given using the password and username given.
Respondents would be entitled to press the ‘submit’ button before the hour is over. Once the hour is over, all surveys would be automatically submitted and uploaded to the researchers’ server.
Appropriateness of Method
The survey method selected and the use of the electronic medium for administering the research approach are validated by previously conducted research on the subject of post-tenure review. To this end, Wood & Johnsrud provide us with a framework for measuring ‘quality of performance’ by offering four categories for evaluation. These, according to the ‘Design of the Study’ are “a) demographic variables; b) institutional contexts; c) value-based constructs; and d) outcome variables.” (Wood & Johnsurd, 397) These items may be used to draw a correlation with what instructors have perceived as the practical impact of post-tenure review on personal performance qualities.
These so called ‘clusters of features’ are evaluated by way of an instrument designed for the specific study in question but used as a reference point in designing the instrument specific to our research. Accordingly, the research describes a survey instrument similar in structure to that which will be used for our study, containing 64 statements on the subjects of post-tenure review and the practices there related. According to the research, “the items were organized in nine sections around the seven constructs and the two response categories. Respondents rated the items on a LIkert-type five-point scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.'” (Wood & Johnsrud, 300) the authors note that these responses have been coded between -2 and +2, scores which will serve the priority of measurement both in this research and in that which we have proposed.
These findings are used to reinforce the decision to employ a quantitative research method in approaching the research questions proposed. This is a departure from initial projections that the research process would best be facilitated by a Mixed Methods research design. At the outset of this research discussion, the Mixed Methods research design was considered appropriate for the research because it provides a flexibility through which to achieve nuanced and actionable findings. The Mixed Methods approach enables a set of findings that is both empirically reliable and susceptible to descriptive analysis. To the first of these priorities, the survey instrument would be designed to produce a set of numerical indicators denoting the performance quality of instructors in a single university context. This is an aspect of that study approach which has been retained. However, for reasons of feasibility, the study has abandoned the decision to obtain qualitative data as well.
On this point, O’Meara’s (2004) study would recognize the demand for a collection of thick descriptive data based on the experiences of those who face the subject on a first-hand basis. Outlining first-hand accounts on the subject, O’Meara indicates that conditions varied significantly from one university context to another, making anecdotal findings important for assessing not just the nature of tenure programs, but even further, the way that organizational and professional culture in a university will tend to impact these conditions. While these remain valuable interests, the lack of an experimental framework for the research makes this less appropriate. The study in question is not framed by a control and experimental group, and therefore seems to serve best as a preliminary investigation on the select population in question. The speculation entitled by a qualitative aspect such as that explicated by O’Meara would only further obfuscate the need to gain some consensus on the subject.
Data Collection, Processing and Analysis:
Achieving external validity for a study on a contained educational context, the article by Green notes, will be fraught with challenges which the author attributes to the highly variable nature of the approach taken toward tenure and post-tenure review strategies across different universities. It is thus that the author provides a point of comparison by which this validity can be deduced, indicating that “chi-square tests of independence were calculated to understand a) national norms and trends in tenure and promotion priorities among graduate facilities.” (Green, 122)
The Green article also denotes that it had drawn on research methods employed by other research studies on the same subject — selecting four of these in particular — modified them according to their own internal critique, and implemented them prior to implementing his own study. This would be done to ascertain the reliability of the findings which would be used in order to inform his research and his own research design. This is a premise which may be instructive to achieving reliability in the current research design. By drawing on, and replicating, prior studies which have been used to inform the assumptions driving this research, it may be possible to determine the degree to which previous claims in the field have been tested using valid and experimentally controlled methods. Moreover, it is from here that the research instruments, data collection methods and statistical analysis may achieve validity.
In addition, the study by Green (2007) offers some suggestions on how to refine the instrument for practical usability. Green reports that in order “to achieve a larger and more representative sample than the earlier studies, I conducted the present survey electronically, kept the questionnaire purposefully brief, and used extensive follow-up techniques.” (Green, 124) These are suggestions that will be of value as we proceed to design the instrument in question.
With respect to the design of a survey instrument, it is understood that there are distinct limitations in the reliability of this data. Greenberg & Billings (2007) warn that “surveys, although valid, do not always mirror real world events.” (578) This is to suggest that inherent biases in a survey instrument have the potential to drive responses, or a desire on the part of respondents to represent a certain point-of-view. Thus, the data collection instrument which will be designed uniquely for this study will be constructed according to the points highlighted in the study by Wood & Johnsrud the would be engaged in a pilot test.
Here, the survey instrument would be submitted to 10 traditional professors with areas of specialty in education labor and the theory of education. The selected review panel would help to whittle a preliminary survey instrument of 60 Likert Scale ranked items to 40 Likert Scale ranked items by providing commentary and ranking on the value of survey items.
The final survey instrument would be used as the primary data-collection instrument and would be administered through the online medium.
Informed Consent Procedures
Once an agreement to participate has been gained by telephone, subjects are mailed a statement of intent and a self-addressed stamped envelope. Respondents are simply required to review that statement of intent, sign and date the statement and return it in the envelope provided. The statement of intent would indicate the research problem, reiterating the concern that little research has been conducted on the impact of post-tenure review on the job performance of online professors . Using some background information concerning the reigning debate on the subject, this statement would explain the purpose of the research without expressing the hypothesis. This is done to prevent the creation of bias in respondents who might then be encouraged to respond in such a matter as to please researchers.
This statement would also state the privacy policies governing the protection of survey information. This would include an ethical assurance that no research information would be released to viewers outside of the researchers, that this information would only be used for the purposes of extrapolating research conclusions and that no reference would be made to individuals or private biographical information in the final published report. Signature would grant consent to use the data gained for these purposes.
Institutional Review Board
Amongst the various considerations that are approached by the Institutional Review Board with respect to the research process when assigned its category, the inclusion of human participants is significant. In this regard, the Exempt category appears to initially apply given the intention to conduct the study through an educational medium. This comports with the Review Board’s own policy, which denotes that “research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as:
(i) research on regular and special education instructional strategies, or (ii) (ii) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods.” (IRB, 1)
Contradictions and Uncertainties
The greatest concern relating to the validity of the proposed research is the determination to frame the sample population in the context of a single university. Indeed, this may prevent an external validity which could provide the general discourse on the subject with some valuable findings. That said, the approach would produce findings that could be a useful starting point for more scientifically grounded research specific to the online educational context.
Aper, J.P. & Fry, J.E. (2003). Post-Tenure Review at Graduate Institutions in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(3), 241-260.
Bowden, R.G. (2009). The Postsecondary Professoriate: Problems of Tenure, Academic Freedom, and Employment Law. Academic of Educational Leadership Journal, 13(3).
Ceci, S.J.; Williams, W.M. & Mueller-Johnson, K. (2006). Is Tenure Justified? An Experimental Study of Faculty Beliefs About Tenure, Promotion, and Academic Freedom. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 553-594.
DeFleur, M.L. (2007). Raising the Question #5: What is Tenure and How Do I Get it? Communication Education, 56(1), 106-112.
Dilts, D.A.; Samavati, H. & Rahnama-Moghadam, M. (2007). Economic Motivation for Post-Tenure Review in Academic Institutions. Journal of Collective Negotiations, 31(4), 333-341.
Dnes, a. & Garoupa, N. (2005). Academic Tenure, Posttenure Effort, and Contractual Damages. Economic Inquiry, 43(4), 831
Feintuch, H. (2008). At Georgia Perimeter College, Online Teaching Has Its Benefits — Tenure. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 25(18), 28.
Galambos, C.M. (2010). Academic Freedom: A Right Worth Protecting. Jounral of Social Work Education, 46(1).
Good, K. & Peca, K. (2007). The Hidden Hypocrisy of University Faculty Regarding Online Instruction. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 9(1), 267.
Goodman, M.J. (1990). The Review of Tenured Faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 61(4).
Gray, M.W.; Lawson, W.; Mi, M.K. & Scott, J.W. (2005). Academic Freedom and Tenure. Academe, 91(3), 47.
Green, R.G. (2005). Tenure and Promotion Decisions: The Relative Importance of Teaching, Scholarship and Service. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(2).
Greenberg, G. & Billings, D.K. (2007). In Defense of the Tenure System. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(6).
Helms, M.M.; Williams, a.B. & Nixon, J.C. (2001). TQM Principles and Their Relevance to Higher Education: The Question of Tenure and Post-Tenure Review. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15, 6-7.
Institutional Review Board (IRB). (2009). What is ‘Exempt’ Research? Towson
Jacobson, a.J. (2007). Tenure and the Political Autonomy of Faculty Inquiry. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(6).
Johnson, S.W. (2007). Post-tenure Review: A University’s Business Guide. Academic Exchange.
O’Meara. (2004). Beliefs about Post-tenure Review. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(2).
Roepnack, B.R. & Lewis, C.W. (2007). Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure: Can They Survive in the Market Place of Ideas? Journal of Academic Ethics, 5, 221-232.
Rudd, E.; Morrison, E.; Sadrozinski, R.; Nerad, M. & Cerny, J. (2008). Equality and Illusion: Gender and Tenure in Art History Careers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(1), 228.
Wood, M. & Des Jarlais, C. (2006). When Post-Tenure Review Policy and Practice Diverge: Making the Case for Congruence. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(4), 562-588.
Wood, M. & Johnsrud, L. (2005). Posture Tenure Review: What Matters to Faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 28(3), 393-420.
Youn, T.I.K. & Price, T.M. (2009). Learning from the Experience of Others: The Evolution of Faculty Tenure and Promotion Rules in Comprehensive Institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(2).
Zemsky, R. (2008). Tenure Wild Cards. Academe, 94(5), 19.
Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?
Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.
Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.
Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.
While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.
Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.
In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.
Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.
We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!
We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.
Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.
We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.
Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.
There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.
Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.
We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.
You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.
We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.
You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.
Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.
You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.
The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more