Believing is Seeing: The Influence of Beliefs and Expectations on Posttenure Review in One State System

Review of Higher Education

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 17-43

  O'Meara, KerryAnn ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0141941656     PISSN: 01625748     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/rhe.2003.0041     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Alstete, J. W. (2000). Post-tenure faculty development: Building a system of faculty improvement and appreciation. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 27, No. 4, Adrianna J. Kezar, Series Editor.
2. Applegate, J. L., & Nora, L. M. (2002). Post-tenure review in Kentucky: A clash of cultures. In C. M. Licata & J.C. Morreale (Eds.), Post-tenure faculty review and renewal: Experienced voices, (pp. 35-49). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards.
3. Arnold, G. B. (2000). The politics of faculty unionization: The Experience of three New England universities. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
4. Baldwin, R. G. (1990). Faculty career stages and implications for professional development. In J. H. Schuster & D. W. Wheeler (Eds.), Enhancing faculty careers: Strategies for development and renewal, (pp. 20-40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5. Bender, B. W. (1988). Symposium on post-tenure evaluation. Response: Evaluation at the University of Hawaii. Thought and Action, 4, 61-64.
6. Birnbaum, R. (2000, January/February). The life cycle of academic management fads. Journal of Higher Education, 71(1): 1-16.
7. Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1986). Aging and the quality of faculty performance. Review of Education Research, 23(3), 265-290.
8. Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
9. Bland, C. J., & Bergquist, W. H. (1997). The vitality of senior faculty members: Snow on the roof - fire in the furnace. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 25, No. 7. Washington, DC: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
10. Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2000). Retrieved spring 2000 from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classification.
11. Felicetti, D. A. (1989). Post-tenure review as a termination mechanism. Journal for Higher Education Management, 4, 51-65.
12. Gill, J. I., & Saunders, L. (1992). Developing effective policy analysis in higher education. New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 76. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Goodman, M. J. (1990). The review of tenured faculty: A collegial model. Journal of Higher Education, 61(4), 408-424.
14. Goodman, M. J. (1994). The review of tenured faculty at a research university: Outcomes and appraisals. Review of Higher Education, 18(1), 83-94.
15. Harris, B. J. (1996). The relationship between and among policy variables, type of institution, and perceptions of academic administrators with regard to post-tenure review. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University.
16. Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002). Examining the institutional transformation process: The importance of sense-making, interrelated strategies, and balance. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 295-321.
17. Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges and universities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 1. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
18. Lawrence, J. H., & Blackburn, R. T. (1988). Age as a predictor of faculty productivity: Three conceptual approaches. Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 22-38.
19. Licata, C. M. (1986). Post-tenure faculty evaluation: Threat or opportunity. ASHEERIC Higher Education Report, No. 1. Washington DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education-ERIC.
20. Licata, C. M., & Morreale, J. C. (1997). Post-tenure review: Policies, practices, precautions. American Association for Higher Education Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards, New Pathways Project, Inquiry #12. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher education.
21. Licata, C. M., & Morreale, J. C. (1998). Survey instrument on post-tenure review. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education, New Pathways II Project.
22. Licata, C. M., & Morreale, J. C. (2002). Post-tenure faculty review and renewal: Experienced voices. New Pathways Project. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education.
23. Mailloux, S. (1990). Interpretation, in F. Lantricchia & T. McLaughlin (Eds.), Critical terms for literary study (pp. 121-34). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24. Masland, A. T. (1985). Organizational culture in the study of higher education. Review of Higher Education, 8(2), 157-168.
25. McLean, S. V., & Callarman, T. (2002). Tracking evolving meanings: Five years of post-tenure review in Arizona. In C. M. Licata & J. C. Morreale (Eds.), Post-tenure faculty review and renewal: Experienced voices (pp. 50-65). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards.
26. Merton, R. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193-210.
27. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Mills, M., Bettis, P., Miller, J. W., Nolan, R. (2001). Faculty members' experience of academic unit reorganization: Sense-making and identity in organizational change. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, November, Richmond, VA.
29. O'Meara, K. A. (forthcoming). Beliefs about post-tenure review: The influence of autonomy, collegiality, career stage, and institutional context. Accepted for publication, Journal of Higher Education.
30. Patriquin, L., Bensimon, E. Y., Polkinghorne, O. E., Bauman, G., Bleza, M. G., Oliverez, P. M., & Soto, M. (2003). Posttenure review: The disparity between intent and implementation. Review of Higher Education, 26(3): 275-297.
31. Pondy, L. R., & Mitroff, I. I. (1979). Beyond open systems models of organizations. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol 1., pp. 3-39). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
32. Ring, P. S., & Rands, G. P. (1989). Sensemaking, understanding, and committing: Emergent interpersonal transaction processes in the evolution of 3M's microgravity research program. In A. H. Van de Ven, H. L. Angle, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies (pp. 337-366). New York: Ballinger.
33. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34. Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe. Albany: State University of New York Press.
35. Trice, A. G. (2001). Faculty perceptions of graduate international students: The benefits and challenges. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher education, November, Richmond, VA.
36. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
37. Walker, C. J. (2002). Faculty well-being review: An alternative to post-tenure review? In C. M. Licata & J. C. Morreale (Eds.), Post-tenure faculty review and renewal: Experienced voices, (pp. 229-241). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards.
38. Waterman, R. H. (1990). Adhocracy: The power to change. Memphis, TN: WhittleDirect Books.
39. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Wesson, M., & Johnson, S. (1991, May-June). Posttenure review and faculty revitilization. Academe, 77(3), 53-57.
41. Wood, M., & Johnsrud, L. (2001, November). Post-tenure review: What matters to faculty. A paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Conference, Richmond, VA.
42. Yin, R. K. (1994) Case study research: Design and methods. Applied Social Research Methods, Series 5. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.