Write a complete 20-page paper. When Quoting and Paraphrasing Use Quotation Marks, Page Number(s), Author(s), and Year. Use Heading for Each Section.
Instructions for the "Quantitative" Concept Paper
Title: The Perceptions of Online Professors Regarding Tenure and Post-tenure Review
Introduction: is introduced in One paragraph, the study topic is briefly described to establish the main ideas and context.
Problem Statement: the problem statement is a brief discussion and documentation of the problem that demonstrates the need for and importance of the study. Describe and document a problem that leads directly to the study purpose.
Purpose Statement: must be a concise paragraph that describes the intent of the study and must flow directly from the problem statement, specifically address the reason for conducting the study and reflect the research questions.
A. Research method is identified as "Quantitative".
B. Research design is clearly stated and is aligned with problem statement.
C. Identification of variables/constructs
Specific population of the proposed study is identified, the number of participants [436 online professors at one university] that will serve as the sample. Do Not describe the sample size determination process within the purpose statement.
Research Questions and for Quantitative Hypotheses
A. Introduction is presented in a discussion [a paragraph], rather than simply stated or listed.
B. Research questions are distinct and answerable, given the identified constructs/phenomenon and population.
7 Research Questions
1. Do you believe that academic freedom/tenure is a sufficient protection?
2. Does post-tenure review impact teaching, service, and research?
3. Do you feel that collegiality should be an important factor in making academic tenure decisions?
4. Does granting tenure enhance organizational effectiveness?
5. Does tenure destroy mobility in the higher education job market?
6. Does the post-tenure review model diminish collegiality?
7. Does the post-tenure review policy have unintended consequences for related campus systems and culture?
1. Research questions are included, and depending on the kind of research design, the questions include proposed hypothesis (es) and the rationale for the hypothesis (es).
2. Research questions and hypothesis (es) are aligned with the problem statement.
3. Both null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis are stated.
Nature of the study: brief overview of the study design, variables/constructs, instruments and analysis [as applicable].
Significance of the study: discussion demonstrates why the study is important and describes the contribution(s) that the completion of the research makes to the field of higher education.
Definitions: given represents key terms or words used in a unique way or that are not commonly used or understood. Definitions might include terms related to research design, Quantitative inquiry, and/or analytical strategies. Definitions are supported with citations and/or noted as being those of the researcher for the study purpose with supporting rationale. It Is Not Appropriate or Necessary to Use Dictionary Definitions.
Literature Review: the literature review should familiarize readers with the state of knowledge base. What is covered in a literature review is guided by the research questions and the variables/concepts that are embedded in the research questions.
1. Discussion begins with a summary of the purpose statement that leads to a brief explanation of the logical organization of the literature review.
2. Conceptual framework(s) related to the study are presented.
3. The discussion has depth and presents a "critical analysis" and "synthesis" of the literature that provides context for the Concept Paper. Discussion of conflicting finding causing intellectual tension, convergence and divergence in the field of higher education is included. Note: 'A literature review is not just a list of mini-books reports nor annotated bibliographies. Do Not Simply Summarize Each Study or Article. Remember that a discussion is comprehensive, organized, and flows logically.'
Research Method and Design
A. The study method and design are described in enough detail so that the study could be replicated.
B. The appropriateness of the method and design (s) are substantiated; this section includes a statement about why the proposed design was/were chosen over others.
C. Elaboration of appropriateness of the research design to respond to study purpose. Elaboration demonstrates why the proposed design will accomplish the study goals and why the design is the optimum choice for the proposed research. Note: 'Discussion Is Not Simply a Listing and Description of Research Designs.'
Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis
In the following sections, the procedures are described in enough detail so that the study could be replicated. Specific details relative to the execution of the design are provided in the corresponding sections.
A. Types of data collected and how it will be processed and analyzed is described.
1. Quantitative, each hypothesis is restated and the analysis strategy used to test the hypothesis is fully described. The argument for why the proposed analytical strategy is valid is presented.
Compliance with the standards for conducting research with human participants is discussed in this section. Describe the informed consent procedures and how confidentiality will be maintained [as appropriate]. Describe how compliance with specific professional regulations and potential conflicts of interest [if any] regarding the protection of human subjects will be addressed.
A. Assurance that formal approval will be obtained is covered in this section.
B. In the proposal, state that Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval will be sought prior to any data collection.
Summary: discussion summarizes key points presented in the Concept Paper. Contradictions and Uncertainties that support the need for the proposed study are highlighted.
Sources To be Used 
Jing (2007): Tenure and asymmetric information
Zemsky (2008): Tenure wild cards
Youn and Price (2009): Learning from the experience of others...
Galambos (2007): Academic freedom
Bowden (2009): The post-secondary professoriate
Good and Peca (2007): The hidden hypocrisy
of university faculty regarding online instruction
De Fleur (2007): Raising the question #5
Feintuch (2008): At Georgia Perimeter College, Online teaching has its benefits-tenure
Gray et al (2005): Academic freedom and tenure
Goodman (1990): The review of tenured faculty
Lumpkin (2009): Follow the yellow brick road to a successful professional career...
Roepnack and Lewis (2007): Academic freedom and academic tenure
Rudd et al (2008): Equality and illusion
Green (2008): Tenure and promotion decisions
Dnes and Garoupa (2005): Academic tenure, post-tenure effort, and contractual damages
Wood and Des Jarlais (2006): When post-tenure policy and practice diverge
O'Meara (2004): Beliefs about post-tenure review
Aper and Fry (2003): Post-tenure review at graduate institutions in the U.S.
O'Meara (2003): Believing is seeing
Dilts et al (2007): Economic motivation for post-tenure review in academic...
Wood and Johnsrud (2005): Post-tenure review: What matters to faculty
Schweitzer and Eells (2007): Post-tenure Review at the University of Louisville School of...
Helms et al (2001): TQM principles and their relevance to higher education
Johnson (2007): Post-tenure review: A university's business guide
There are faxes for this order.
[ Order Custom Essay ]
[ View Full Essay ]
Aper, J.P. & Fry, J.E. (2003). Post-Tenure Review at Graduate Institutions in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(3), 241-260.
Bowden, R.G. (2009). The Postsecondary Professoriate: Problems of Tenure, Academic Freedom, and Employment Law. Academic of Educational Leadership Journal, 13(3).
Ceci, S.J.; Williams, W.M. & Mueller-Johnson, K. (2006). Is Tenure Justified? An Experimental Study of Faculty Beliefs About Tenure, Promotion, and Academic Freedom. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 553-594.
DeFleur, M.L. (2007). Raising the Question #5: What is Tenure and How Do I Get it? Communication Education, 56(1), 106-112.
Dilts, D.A.; Samavati, H. & Rahnama-Moghadam, M. (2007). Economic Motivation for Post-Tenure Review in Academic Institutions. Journal of Collective Negotiations, 31(4), 333-341.
Dnes, a. & Garoupa, N. (2005). Academic Tenure, Posttenure Effort, and Contractual Damages. Economic Inquiry, 43(4), 831
Feintuch, H. (2008). At Georgia Perimeter College, Online Teaching Has Its Benefits -- Tenure. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 25(18), 28.
Galambos, C.M. (2010). Academic Freedom: A Right Worth Protecting. Jounral of Social Work Education, 46(1).
Good, K. & Peca, K. (2007). The Hidden Hypocrisy of University Faculty Regarding Online Instruction. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 9(1), 267.
Goodman, M.J. (1990). The Review of Tenured Faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 61(4).
Gray, M.W.; Lawson, W.; Mi, M.K. & Scott, J.W. (2005). Academic Freedom and Tenure. Academe, 91(3), 47.
Green, R.G. (2005). Tenure and Promotion Decisions: The Relative Importance of Teaching, Scholarship and Service. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(2).
Greenberg, G. & Billings, D.K. (2007). In Defense of the Tenure System. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(6).
Helms, M.M.; Williams, a.B. & Nixon, J.C. (2001). TQM Principles and Their Relevance to Higher Education: The Question of Tenure and Post-Tenure Review. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15, 6-7.
Institutional Review Board (IRB). (2009). What is 'Exempt' Research? Towson
Jacobson, a.J. (2007). Tenure and the Political Autonomy of Faculty Inquiry. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(6).
Johnson, S.W. (2007). Post-tenure Review: A University's Business Guide. Academic Exchange.
O'Meara. (2004). Beliefs about Post-tenure Review. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(2).
Roepnack, B.R. & Lewis, C.W. (2007). Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure: Can They Survive in the Market Place of Ideas? Journal of Academic Ethics, 5, 221-232.
Rudd, E.; Morrison, E.; Sadrozinski, R.; Nerad, M. & Cerny, J. (2008). Equality and Illusion: Gender and Tenure in Art History Careers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(1), 228.
Wood, M. & Des Jarlais, C. (2006). When Post-Tenure Review Policy and Practice Diverge: Making the Case for Congruence. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(4),
Wood, M. & Johnsrud, L. (2005). Posture Tenure Review: What Matters to Faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 28(3), 393-420.
Youn, T.I.K. & Price, T.M. (2009). Learning from the Experience of Others: The Evolution of Faculty Tenure and Promotion Rules in Comprehensive Institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(2).
Zemsky, R. (2008). Tenure Wild Cards. Academe, 94(5), 19.