Survey Results
Concerning Post Tenure Review at
A Number of State-supported Universities in Texas
Simple Frequency Distributions: 1998-2001
prepared by
The Sam Houston State University PTR Research Group
Frank Fair, Dennis Longmire, Jo Ann Duffy, Paul Reed,
Laverne Warner, Debra Price, and Bill Fleming
under a grant from
The American Association for Higher Education
New Pathways II Program
General Foreword
Surveying Texas Faculty Opinion about Post Tenure
Review:1998-2001
In the fall of 2000 our
research group received a grant from the American Association for Higher
Education (AAHE), specifically from the New Pathways II Program. In an earlier
study from 1998-2000, we had investigated how post-tenure review (PTR) was
working on six campuses of the Texas State University System (Lamar/Beaumont,
Lamar/Port Arthur, Southwest Texas State, Sam Houston State, Angelo State, and
Sul Ross). The new study in 2000-2001 was to have greater diversity in terms of
the mission, size and location of the institutions studied. The institutions
included Texas A&M at College Station, Texas Tech in Lubbock, the
University of Houston (Main Campus), Stephen F. Austin State University, and
three components of the University of Texas System--UT Arlington, UT Pan
American and UT Tyler.
Our overall goal was
compile useful, comparative information on the PTR process as it is developing
on Texas campuses. The specific
objective was to collect reliable data concerning a number of particular
questions related to PTR so that all participating state universities would
have some benchmarks against which to evaluate their own situation. Our research team conducted the inquiry
through the use of surveys of tenured and tenure-track faculty, as well as
through structured interviews with key stakeholders, including legislators and
university administrators.
This document is a result
of the surveys of tenured and tenure track faculty. We prepared individual statistical reports for each of the
participating campuses, and a general report which contains a summary of the
results derived from pooling the responses from all of the campuses
surveyed--including both those in the 1998-2001 study and those in the
2000-2001 study. The response rates by campus in the 2000-2001 study are UT
Arlington 118/530 = 22.3%, UT Pan American 96/300 =32.0%, UT Tyler 42/140 =
30.0%, U. of Houston (Main) 198/821 = 24.1%, TAMU 362/1782 - 20.3%, Stephen F.
Austin 56/370 = 15.1%, and Texas Tech 182/860 = 21.2%. The overall response rate in the new
study was thus 1054/4803, and, when that is combined with the response rate
from the earlier study of 459/1455, the result is a response rate of 1513/6258
= 24.2% for the total sample. Given this response rate, of course appropriate
caution should be employed in generalizing the findings.
Here are some findings
from the total sample survey results that we thought might be of interest:
a. Tenure continues to be
perceived as the foundation of academic freedom by a great majority of the
respondents (83.7%).
b. In this study a clear
majority of faculty believe that the motive for the implementation of PTR was
to increase faculty accountability and to "weed out the deadwood."
c. Faculty members agreed
that PTR should focus on all three dimensions of the academic role: teaching,
research and service, and 63.1% felt that post-tenure review should only be used
for faculty who fail to meet minimum annual evaluation standards.
d. Responses to questions
about the benefits and problems associated with PTR procedures from the current
study contained a high proportion of "too soon to know," and, where
the respondents did have opinions, their opinions were often that the potential
problems outweighed the potential benefits.
e. 48% of respondents
reported that they did not participate in the development of their department's
PTR standards.
f. Among the responses of those faculty members who had
participated in the PTR process, 72.7% of those who had been reviewed reported
that the process was "fair," but 69.5% also said the process was of
"little value." When those who had been reviewed were asked whether
or not they had been given any feedback about the results of their review,
48.3% reported that they had received no formal feedback, while 80.7% received
no informal feedback.
For further information about the survey, contact Dr Dennis
Longmire. For a copy of
our AAHE report containing recommended improvements in the PTR procedures visit
our web site at http://www.shsu.edu/~icc_drl/AAHE.html
The PTR research team is
located at Sam Houston State University.
The emails end with
@shsu.edu, and the phone numbers are all 936:
Dr. Frank Fair,
Philosophy, 294-1509, psy_fkf
Dr. Debra Price, Lang.,
Lit., and Special Pop., 294-1135, edu_dpp
Dr. William Fleming,
English, 294-1432, eng_wpf
Dr. Dennis Longmire,
Criminal Justice, 294-1651, icc_drl
Dr. Jo Ann Duffy, Management,
294-1847, mgt_jxd
Dr. Paul Reed, Management,
294-1281, mgt_prr
Dr. Laverne Warner, Lang.,
Lit., and Spec. Pop., 294-1120, edu_lxw
Post-Tenure Review in Texas: Distribution of
Responses to “Postal Survey” of Tenured and Tenure Track Faculty
Employed in 13 Texas State-supported Universities (N = 1,513 out of 6258 =
24.2%)
Date collected by Sam Houston State
University’s PTR Research Group through support from the American
Association of Higher Education’s “New Pathways I and II Mini-Grant
Program
SECTION 1 The
Respondent's View of Tenure
1.1 Tenure amounts
to a lifetime job
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Strongly Agree 1 246 16.3 16.6 16.6
Agree 2 454 30.0 30.6 47.1
Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 270 17.8 18.2 65.3
Disagree 4 354 23.4 23.8 89.1
Strongly Disagree 5 162 10.7 10.9 100.0
Don't Know 8 7 .5 Missing
No Response 9 20 1.3 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1486 Missing cases 27
1.2 Tenure is the
foundation for academic freedom
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Strongly Agree 1 819 54.1 54.8 54.8
Agree 2 433 28.6 29.0 83.7
Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 119 7.9 8.0 91.7
Disagree 4 83 5.5 5.6 97.3
Strongly Disagree 5 41 2.7 2.7 100.0
Don't Know 8 7 .5 Missing
No Response 9 11 .7 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1495 Missing cases 18
1.3 Tenure is outmoded and should be replaced with long-term contracts Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Strongly Agree 1 83 5.5 5.6 5.6
Agree 2 151 10.0 10.3 15.9
Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 157 10.4 10.7 26.6
Disagree 4 426 28.2 29.0 55.6
Strongly Disagree 5 653 43.2 44.4 100.0
Don't Know 8 24 1.6 Missing
No Response 9 19 1.3 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1470 Missing cases 43
1.4 PTR adds important
element to our department's annual review
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Strongly Agree 1 147 9.7 10.2 10.2
Agree 2 435 28.8 30.1 40.3
Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 266 17.6 18.4 58.7
Disagree 4 312 20.6 21.6 80.3
Strongly Disagree 5 284 18.8 19.7 100.0
Don't Know 8 56 3.7 Missing
No Response 9 13 .9 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1444 Missing cases 69
1.5 Concerns about tenure and academic freedom with regard to PTR?
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
No 1 863 57.0 60.9 60.9
Yes 2 553 36.5 39.1 100.0
9 97 6.4 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1416 Missing cases 97
SECTION 2 Perceptions
of the Motives for the Development of PTR
2.1 PTR created due to
pressures to increase accountability
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Strongly Agree 1 551 36.4 38.0 38.0
Agree 2 726 48.0 50.1 88.1
Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 71 4.7 4.9 93.0
Disagree 4 46 3.0 3.2 96.1
Strongly Disagree 5 56 3.7 3.9 100.0
Don't Know 8 52 3.4 Missing
No Response 9 11 .7 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1450 Missing cases 63
2.2 PTR
developed to weed out the "deadwood"
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Strongly Agree 1 267 17.6 18.6 18.6
Agree 2 617 40.8 43.1 61.7
Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 228 15.1 15.9 77.7
Disagree 4 223 14.7 15.6 93.2
Strongly Disagree 5 97 6.4 6.8 100.0
Don't Know 8 62 4.1 Missing
No Response 9 19 1.3 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1432 Missing cases 81
2.3 PTR developed due to
financial pressures
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Strongly Agree 1 176 11.6 13.2 13.2
Agree 2 391 25.8 29.3 42.5
Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 290 19.2 21.7 64.2
Disagree 4 323 21.3 24.2 88.5
Strongly Disagree 5 154 10.2 11.5 100.0
Don't Know 8 159 10.5 Missing
No Response 9 20 1.3 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1334 Missing cases 179
2.4 Additional comments
about tenure and the PTR concept?
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
No 1 1065 70.4 76.5 76.5
Yes 2 326 21.5 23.4 99.9
3 1 .1 .1 100.0
9 121 8.0 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1392 Missing cases 121
SECTION 3 Opinions
about an Ideal PTR Process
3.1 PTR should be
initiated only for those tenured faculty who fail an annual evaluation
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Strongly Agree 1 461 30.5 31.4 31.4
Agree 2 465 30.7 31.7 63.1
Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 89 5.9 6.1 69.1
Disagree 4 289 19.1 19.7 88.8
Strongly Disagree 5 163 10.8 11.1 99.9
Don't Know 8 12 .8 Missing
No Response 9 33 2.2 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1468 Missing cases 45
3.2 PTR should focus on all
activities
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Strongly Agree 1 627 41.4 42.6 42.7
Agree 2 617 40.8 41.9 84.6
Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 71 4.7 4.8 89.5
Disagree 4 82 5.4 5.6 95.0
Strongly Disagree 5 73 4.8 5.0 100.0
Don't Know 8 8 .5 Missing
No Response 9 34 2.2 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1471 Missing cases 42
3.3 PTR should primarily focus
on teaching
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Strongly Agree 1 187 12.4 13.2 13.2
Agree 2 217 14.3 15.3 28.5
Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 183 12.1 12.9 41.5
Disagree 4 491 32.5 34.7 76.1
Strongly Disagree 5 338 22.3 23.9 100.0
Don't Know 8 23 1.5 Missing
No Response 9 74 4.9 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1416 Missing cases 97
3.4 PTR should primarily focus
on research
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Strongly Agree 1 42 2.8 3.0 3.0
Agree 2 119 7.9 8.5 11.5
Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 225 14.9 16.0 27.5
Disagree 4 585 38.7 41.6 69.1
Strongly Disagree 5 435 28.8 30.9 100.0
Don't Know 8 25 1.7 Missing
No Response 9 82 5.4 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1406 Missing cases 107
3.5 PTR should primarily focus
on service
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Strongly Agree 1 38 2.5 2.7 2.7
Agree 2 89 5.9 6.3 9.1
Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 220 14.5 15.7 24.7
Disagree 4 588 38.9 41.9 66.6
Strongly Disagree 5 468 30.9 33.4 100.0
Don't Know 8 24 1.6 Missing
No Response 9 86 5.7 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1403 Missing cases 110
3.6 Additional comments in regard to PTR operation?
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
No 1 1050 69.4 78.2 78.2
Yes 2 292 19.3 21.8 100.0
9 171 11.3 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1342 Missing cases 171
SECTION 4 How Respondents
View Their Department's PTR Procedure
Questions 4.1-4.14
concern possible benefits of PTR
4.1 PTR stimulates
improved teaching
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Major Benefit 1 82 5.4 5.5 5.5
Minor Benefit 2 263 17.4 17.8 23.3
No Benefit 3 687 45.4 46.4 69.7
Too Soon To Know 4 448 29.6 30.3 100.0
No Response 9 33 2.2 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1480 Missing cases 33
4.2 PTR stimulates improved research
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Major Benefit 1 84 5.6 5.7 5.7
Minor Benefit 2 285 18.8 19.3 24.9
No Benefit 3 671 44.3 45.4 70.3
Too Soon To Know 4 439 29.0 29.7 100.0
No Response 9 34 2.2 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1479 Missing cases 34
4.3 PTR stimulates improved
service and outreach
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Major Benefit 1 48 3.2 3.3 3.3
Minor Benefit 2 245 16.2 16.6 19.9
No Benefit 3 747 49.4 50.6 70.5
Too Soon To Know 4 436 28.8 29.5 100.0
No Response 9 37 2.4 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1476 Missing cases 37
4.4 PTR acts as a safeguard to tenure
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Major Benefit 1 89 5.9 6.1 6.1
Minor Benefit 2 251 16.6 17.2 23.3
No Benefit 3 647 42.8 44.3 67.6
Too Soon To Know 4 473 31.3 32.4 100.0
No Response 9 53 3.5 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1460 Missing cases 53
4.5 PTR increases faculty accountability
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Major Benefit 1 186 12.3 12.6 12.6
Minor Benefit 2 470 31.1 31.9 44.5
No Benefit 3 467 30.9 31.7 76.2
Too Soon To Know 4 351 23.2 23.8 100.0
No Response 9 39 2.6 Missing
------- ------- -------
Total 1513 100.0 100.0
Valid cases 1474 Missing cases 39
4.6 PTR helps sustain senior faculty vitality
Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Major Benefit 1 99 6.5 6.7 6.7
Minor Benefit 2 303 20.0 20.6 27.3
No Benefit 3 663 43.8 45.1 72.4
Too Soon To Know 4 405 26.8 27.6 100.0<