| Abstract: | Many universities use external reviews (ERs) for tenure and promotion decisions yet little has been written about the practice. Therefore, a questionnaire was sent to a sample of full professors and administrators at all AACSB-accredited schools to learn what was being done, i.e., what reviewers were asked to do for other institutions and what was being done at their own schools. The response rate on the survey was 46.4%. Responses were stratified into three categories; Group 1 (the 30 top publishing schools), Group 2 (other doctoral-granting institutions), and Group 3 (non doctoral-granting schools) according to the ‘different schools with different mission’ hypothesis. Results showed that individuals from Group 1 schools were more likely to be chosen to perform ERs, more likely to be asked to evaluate only the research component of faculty performance, and more likely to be chosen for their area of specialization. The results also showed that Group 1 and Group 2 schools were more likely to require external reviews in promotion and tenure decisions. In addition, there was a relative lack of negative reviews across all of the school-type groups. This study shows that if external reviews are requested, it is highly likely that only positive reviews will be received from the reviewers. Finally, the results indicate that the process may not be functioning as anticipated. Besides the general failure of the evaluators to give negative reviews, the respondents apparently did not feel that they received adequate information on the necessary criteria by which to conduct a review. |
