ISSN: 2225-8329
Open access
Attaining tenure is a goal of every faculty member. Indeed, at the beginning of every faculty member’s career, there is concern regarding the process of earning tenure. Many factors enter into the tenure decision, but most universities place weight on three primary factors: teaching effectiveness, research activity, and demonstration of service to the university and beyond. The relative importance of these three factors varies, but most universities expect “satisfactory” performance in all three areas. One of the historical reasons for faculty tenure is to protect academic freedom. Once tenure was attained, a faculty member’s academic freedom was considered safe. Recent developments in academia, however, are challenging the safety of both tenure and academic freedom. Some universities have implemented a post-tenure review process that subjects a faculty member to continuing, periodic review. Some argue that this process impedes a faculty member’s academic freedom. Since the university is considered “locked” into an agreement to retain a tenured faculty member, the faculty member has been under little obligation for further development, except for a self-imposed or professional obligation. The rationale behind post-tenure review is to demand a continuing responsibility of a faculty member to participate in faculty growth. The paper will gather and analyze accounting faculty perceptions regarding post-tenure.
Altman, E., Pratt A. (1999). “The JAL Guide to the Professional Literature: Higher Education,” Journal of Academic Librarianship, January.
Edwards, R. (1997). “Can Post-Tenure Review Help Save the Tenure System?” Academe, May/June.
Fogg, P. (2003). “Widening the Tenure Track, ”The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 3.
Johnson, Clint, and Michael Kelly, “Productivity and Competence: Post-Tenure Review in American Universities,” Issues in Accounting Education, August, 1998.
Johnson, S. W. (2007). “Post-Tenure Review: A University’s Business Guide,” Academic Exchange Quarterly, summer.
Kaller, B. C. (2000). “University of Missouri Faculty Discuss Possible Reviews of Tenured Professors,” Columbia Daily Tribune, August 30.
Magner, D. K. (1999), “Report Urges Post-Tenure Reviews for Professors and More Pay for Part-Timers,” Chronicle of Higher Education, January 22.
Patriquin, L., Bensimon, E. M., Polkinghorn, D., Bauman, G., Bleza, M. G., Oliverez, P. M., Soto M., (2003). “Posttenure Review: The Disparity between Intent and Implementation,” Review of Higher Education, spring.
Plater, W. M. (2001). “A Profession at Risk: Using Post-Tenure Review to Save Tenure and Create and Intentional Future for Academic Community,” Change, July/August.
Sanders, D. (2001). “Liability Exposures in the Post-Tenure Review Process,” Journal of Employment Discrimination Law, winter.
Shields, P. J. (2000). “University of Missouri-Columbia Faculty Plans Vote on Tenure,” Columbia Daily Tribune, October 18.
“When Is Post-Tenure Review Not Post-Tenure Review?” (2001), Chronicle of Higher Education, August 17.
Wilson, R. (2002). “Court Upholds Kansas State’s Use of Post-Tenure Review to Dismiss Professor,” Chronicle of Higher Education, November 29.
Wilson, R. (2001). “Northeastern Proposal for Post-Tenure Review Goes Too Far, Critics Say,” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 11.
In-Text Citation: (Thompson, 2012)
To Cite this Article: Thompson, J. H. (2012). A Survey of Accounting Faculty Perceptions Regarding Tenure and Post-Tenure Review. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting Finance and Management Sciences, 2(1), 42–55.
Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode