>I am curious to learn about the models used by >research universities in evaluating faculty who engage >in both academic research and media production. This is unusual enough that I suspect you will find there are no models, only individual cases. A lot depends on how a position is defined, what language may or may not have been in job descriptions or appointment letters. Some schools simply refuse to count creative work for faculty who are hired in an 'academic' line. The situation is somewhat different at research universities than at 4-year colleges. Large schools tend to define faculty as specialists, which is why people who combine academics/production are especially rare there. The scholars make it as scholars and the artsists as artists, and if you're neither fish noe foul you may be in trouble. This is less true at smaller schools (as where I am) where one is more likely to find a 'generalist' or persons-wearing-more-than-one -hat, but even there it can be a problem as its just not the sort of thing you find in most fields. >(1) what weight is typically given to production and >to publication of traditional research? (For example >is production of a documentary considered the same as >publication of a book? an article? etc.) That would depend on length or substance of the work, assuming any kind of equation is made at all. Most likely for a doc hour plus = book, 1/2 hour and under = essay. >(2) are there any departments/univs. which have >adopted specific guidelines for the evaluation of a >production itself? Now this may be quite a separate question from evaluating a production/scholarship balance. Most universities have artists of some sort on tenure track, even media artists (check in Art, Music, Theater). Institutions have some track record in how they evaluate creative work. The problem is that media forms may not be commensurate to other artistic areas, as these may be exclusively within a 'high-art' rubric. > Is acceptance into festivals >considered peer review? How many published reviews are >needed to make a project valuable in promotion >process? AFAIK, in the world of filmamking-in-the-academy all of these things need to be argued on a case by case basis, by the candidates in their petitions for tenure and by their dept. chairs or whoever else writes the recommendation letter that gets forwarded to the university committee. it doesn't hurt to get external reviewers involved in this process of articulating standards, either. The UFVA document becomes very useful here. While I know of no school that has adopted it as formal policy, internal reviewers (especially those not knowledgable in production) will usually allow it to inform their evaluation informally, once it is called to their attention. Thus, candidates should, with their chairs' assent, attach the document as an appendix to their application for tenure. -- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Prof. David Tetzlaff "The spectacle is the sun which never Connecticut College #5345 sets over the empire of modern 270 Mohegan Ave. passivity. It covers the entire New London, CT 06320 surface of the world and bathes endlessly in its own glory." ---- To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]