>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]