Post Tenure Review in the Texas University System
American Association for Higher Education New Pathways II Project*





*With the exception of the items included in Sections 4 and 6 of this instrument, the wording of all other items are the "copy written property" of the parties listed below as contact  members.Prior to the replication of items for use in additionalsurveys  investigators must first receive written consent from Dr. Frank Fair at the address listed below.)

Introduction and General Instructions:

This project is funded in part by the American Association for Higher Education New Pathways II Project and is designed to compile useful, comparative information on the Post Tenure Review (PTR) process as it is developing on the various campuses of the Texas State University System.  The information focuses on both general perceptions about the idea of PTR as well as on specific perceptions about the particular PTR process that has been developed in your department and/or university.  There are five different sections included in the survey, each of which includes both “forced choice” questions as well as “open-ended” questions that will provide you with an opportunity to explain your particular feelings concerning the issues we are addressing.  We also ask for a variety of “demographic” information that will enable us to see whether particular groups of respondents have unique experiences and/or ideas about PTR. The tabulation of results will not be presented in any way that might result in the identification of any particular respondent.

The survey should take you no more than 15 minutes to complete and your responseswill be totally anonymous.
 
 

Please respond to each of following questions and return your completedquestionnaire through campus mail to Dennis Longmire at the College of Criminal Justice by Friday April 30.  You can do so by simply folding this questionaire in half and stapeling it together.  We’ve already addressed it for you.  If you need additional space to elaborate on “open-ended” responses, please feel free to attach additional pages as needed.
 
 

Your participation in this project is greatly appreciated.
 
 

If you have any questions about the project, please feel free to contact any of the following members of the New Pathways II Project:

Jo Ann M. Duffy (Management) 936.294.1847, mgt_jxd@shsu.edu
Frank Fair (Philosophy)  936.294.1509  psy_fkf@shsu.edu
Bill Fleming (English) 936.294.1432   eng_wpf@shsu.edu
Dennis Longmire (Criminal Justice)  936.294.1651  icc_drl@shsu.edu
Debra Price (Lang. Lit. and Special Populations) 936.294.1135  edu_dpp@shsu.edu
Laverne Warner (Lang. Lit. and Special Populations) 936.294.1120  edu_lxw@shsu.edu
 

The research protocol for this project has been approved by Sam Houston State
University’s Human Subjects Review Committee (phone 936.294.3621).

SECTION 1

First  we would like to find out about what you think about tenure and your
department’s annual review process.  Please read each of the following statements
and indicate how strongly you agree or disagree by checking the response that
most closely reflects your position. (Response options included SA; A; N; D; SD; DK)

(Throughout the survey:  SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; N = Neither Agree nor
Disagree; D = Disagree; SD = Strongly Disagree; DK = Don’t Know)

1.1  Tenure amounts to a lifetime job.
1.2  Tenure is the foundation for academic freedom.
1.3 Tenure is an outmoded practice which should be replaced with long-term,
      renewable contracts.
1.4  Post Tenure Review adds an important element to our department’s routine process of annual
      review.
1.5  Do you have any lingering concerns about tenure and academic freedom?
(Check the appropriate response.)

• No
• Yes  Please elaborate:
 
 
 

SECTION 2

The following questions focus on your  perceptions about the motivations of those
who established the requirement that we develop a PTR process.
Again, please check the response most closely reflecting your position on each of
the following statements (Response options included SA; A; N; D; SD; DK)

2.1  PTR was created in response to pressures to increase accountability of university faculty
       members.
2.2  PTR was developed as a process to “weed out the deadwood.”
2.3  The development of PTR was the result of financial pressures facing universities.
2.4  Do you have any additional comments or issues you would like to discuss re the concept of tenure and PTR in general? (Check the appropriate response.)

•  No
•  Yes   Please elaborate:
 

SECTION 3

Now we would like to ask about how you think the PTR process should operate.
The following questions are designed to get your opinions about the “ideal”
PTR process, not necessarily the one your department has initiated.
Again, please check the response most closely reflecting your position on each of
the following statements.(Response options included SA; A; N; D; SD; DK)

3.1  PTR should be initiated only for those tenured faculty who fail to perform at minimally
      acceptable levels during routine annual evaluations.
3.2  PTR should focus on all dimensions of a faculty member’s activities (teaching, research and
      service).
3.3  PTR should primarily focus on teaching.
3.4  PTR should primarily focus on research.
3.5  PTR should primarily focus on service.

3.6  Do you have any general comments you would like to make about the way PTR
      should operate?

•  No
•  Yes   Please specify:
 
 
 

SECTION 4

Now we would like to shift focus toward the “actual” PTR procedures your department
has developed.  When reflecting on the following questions, please focus on your
department’s specific PTR procedures.

In your opinion, have any of the following benefits been associated with your
PTR policy?  Please check the box that most closely reflects your response to each
statement.(Response options included: Major Benefit; Benefit; Minor Benefit; No
Benefit; Too Soon to Know)

      PTR . . .
4.1  stimulates improved performance in teaching
4.2  stimulates improved performance in research
4.3  stimulates improved performance in service and outreach.
4.4  acts as a safeguard to tenure.
4.5  increases faculty accountability.
4.6  helps sustain senior faculty vitality.
4.7  increases opportunities for mid and late career transition and retirement planning.
4.8  establishes development as a continual expectation for all faculty.
4.9   improves collegiality.
4.10 increases involvement of peers in departmental planning and outcomes.
4.11 links departmental goals with personal professional plans.
4.12 focuses attention and rigor on annual review procedures.
4.13 increases public confidence in higher education.
4.14 forestalls further external interference.

In your opinion, have any of the following problems been associated with the
implementation of PTR within your department?  Again, please check the box that
most closely reflects your response to each statement. (Response options included:
Major Problem; Minor Problem; No Problem; Too Soon to Know)

     PTR problems include: . . .
4.15 invasion of professional autonomy.
4.16 processes viewed as a threat to tenure.
4.17 excessive paperwork.
4.18 excessive time.
4.19 erosion of collegiality.
4.20 negative effect on risk-taking and scholarly pursuit of controversial areas of inquiry
       (academic freedom).
4.21 unevenness in application of criteria and standards.
4.22 unreasonable demands placed on university to support faculty improvement plans.
4.23 no positive change noted in performance over the long term.
4.24 insufficient funds to support faculty development initiatives.
4.25 insufficient training for peers, chairs, and deans.
4.26 reduction of academic professionalism.
4.27 forcing early retirement of senior faculty.

4.28 Do you have any additional comments you would like to make about the
consequences of the PTR process?

•  No
•  Yes  Please elaborate:
 

SECTION 5

Finally, we would like to learn about your actual experiences with the PTR process.

5.1  Have  you contemplated retirement rather than going through the PTR?

ƒ No
ƒ Yes

5.2  Have you contemplated seeking employment at another institution instead of
participating in your PTR process?

ƒ No
ƒ Yes

5.3.  Have you changed your professorial habits in anticipation of the PTR?

• No (GO DIRECTLY TO QUESTION 5.4)
• Yes (Please indicate whether the PTR process has caused you to change the
          attention you give to teaching, research, service, or other activities by circling
          the response best characterizing your position on each of the following statements.)

5.3.1  I have (• Not altered; • Increased; • Decreased) the attention I give to teaching.

5.3.2 I have (• Not altered; • Increased; • Decreased) the attention I give to RESEARCH activities.
5.3.3 I have (• Not altered; • Increased; • Decreased) the attention I give to SERVICE activities.

5.3.4 I have (• Not altered; • Increased; • Decreased) the attention I give to OTHER activities.
        Please specify “OTHER” activities:
 
 

5.4  How active were you in the development of the PTR standards?

• I was very active in the development of the standards
• I was moderately active in the development of the standards
• I only became involved in the development of the standards after they had been pretty much
  decided upon by the people developing them.
• I did not participate in the development of the standards at all (SKIP TO QUESTION 5.6)

 5.5.  During the development of our departmental PTR standards, we had a
        thoughtful discussion of the tenure system.  Please mark the most appropriate
        response. (Response options included SA; A; N; D; SD; DK)

5.6  Have you been evaluated by your department’s PTR?

•  No  (SKIP TO QUESTION 5.7)
•  Yes  (Please circle the response most closely reflecting your response
    to each of the following questions.Response options SA; A; N; D; SD; DK)

5.6.1  The process was fair.
5.6.2  The process was of little value.
5.6.3  The process helped me become more aware of my strengths.
5.6.4  The process helped me identify areas of my professional role that I need to strengthen.
 

5.6.5  Have you received any formal feedback following the review process?
•  No
•  Yes     (What was the feedback and how was it provided?)
 
 

5.6.6  Have you received any informal feedback following the review process?
•  No
•  Yes     (What was the feedback and how was it provided?)
 

 5.7  Have you participated in the review of others who have gone through your
       departments PTR?

•  No  (SKIP TO SECTION 6)
•  Yes  (Please circle the response most closely reflecting your response
           to each of the following questions.Response options SA; A; N; D; SD; DK))

5.7.1  The process was fair.
5.7.2  The process increased knowledge of and appreciation for work of colleagues
5.7.3  The process helped me identify areas of my professional role that I need to strengthen.

5.8  Do you have any additional comments you would like to share about your
experiences with your PTR process either as a person who was reviewed or as someone who has participated as a reviewer?

•  No
•  Yes  Please elaborate on your experiences as:

5.8.1  Someone who has been reviewed:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

5.8.2  Someone who has participated as a reviewer:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

5.9  Do you have any other comments about the issues raised in this survey that
      you would like to share?  Please specify:
 
 
 
 
 
 

(continue to SECTION 6)

SECTION 6

Please provide the following information concerning your “demographic” status:
 

6.1  How long have you been on the faculty?

           Specify number of years:   ________

6.2  What is your current academic teaching load?

           Specify number of credit hours you are teaching:  _______

6.3  Are you actively involved in graduate level instruction?

•  No  [SKIP TO QUESTION 6.4]
•  Yes [PLEASE ANSWER QUESTION 6.3.1]
6.3.1  Are you involved in doctoral level instruction?

•  No
•  Yes

6.4  Have you received tenure at SHSU?

•  No
•  Yes

6.5  What is your current academic rank?

•  Instructor/Non-tenure track/Pool faculty
•  Assistant Professor
•  Associate Professor
•  Full Professor

6.6  In which academic unit do/would you hold/compete for tenure?

•  College of Arts and Sciences
•  College of Education and Applied Sciences
•  College of Business Administration
•  College of Criminal Justice
•  Newton Gresham Library
•  Joint Appointment across units (Please specify which Colleges ________  )

6.7  What is your gender?
•  Female
•  Male

6.8  Which of the following best represents your race/ethnicity?
       (This item will only be used for system-wide analysis.)

• White
• Black/African American
• Hispanic/Mexican American
• Asian American
• Other (Please specify __________________ )

THANKS!
 

We greatly appreciate your time and assistance.  Once the data for this project have been accumulated and analyzed, we will post the results on the WWW and will eagerly engage in continued discussion about the findings.

Again, thanks!