Paper Authors

Abstract

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Session 1350

POST-TENURE REVIEW APPLICATIONS TO ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

Warren R. Hill Weber State University

Abstract

This paper attempts to take a broad look at post-tenure review by examining why institutions are doing post-tenure review, looking at some different approaches for such reviews and suggesting some different elements of the review process. It is hoped that in doing so, institutions currently doing post-tenure reviews might improve their processes and those who are planning on instituting post-tenure review would have the basic background necessary to develop an appropriate process.

Introduction

Weber State University has recently mandated post-tenure review for all tenured faculty. We in the College of Applied Science and Technology have been struggling with the issue of how to do these reviews such that they will serve the best interests of both the faculty and the institution. The purpose of this paper is to examine some of the whys and wherefores of post-tenure review especially as it might relate to engineering technology faculty. This in turn might provide ways for programs to improve their review processes or provide and approach for starting a post-tenure review process. If an institution is going to do post-tenure review, one of the major concerns is always how to make certain that the process provides the maximum benefit for the least expenditure of time and effort on the part of both the reviewer and the person being reviewed. If an institution is just starting a post-tenure review process, particularly if it is one where only a portion of the faculty get reviewed each year, it may take several years before it can be determined if the process is achieving the desired goals. If modifications are made to the process, it may take several more years to see if such modifications are effective.

Rationale

There are a number of reasons colleges and universities are now doing post-tenure review. In general, these reasons fall into two main categories; either they were mandated to do so by some external agency or they choose to do so themselves and hence it was an internal mandate. At Weber State, we have been required to do post-tenure review by our accrediting agency, the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges. In their Accreditation Handbook, one of the requirements for accreditation as stated in their Policy on Faculty Evaluation $.....is that every faculty member at every institution be subject to some type of substantive performance evaluation and review at least every third year.# The interpretation of this is clearly taken to mean the inclusion of some kind of formal review mechanism even after a faculty member receives tenure.

In addition to accrediting agencies, there has been a push for post-tenure review from a number of quarters typically based upon the $accountability# catchword. Groups calling for accountability

• Citation

• Format
  • APA
  • APA - LaTeX bibitem
  • MLA
  • MLA - LaTeX bibitem
  • Bibtex
  • EndNote - RIS

Hill, W. R. (2000, June), Post Tenure Review: Applications For Engineering Technology Paper presented at 2000 Annual Conference, St. Louis, Missouri. 10.18260/1-2--8629