Interactive Doctoral Dissertation
FOR THOSE OF US AT THE BORDERS:
RECOGNITION AND EVALUATION OF FACULTY WORK
IN THE ACADEMIC FIELD OF FILM AND DIGITAL MEDIA
A dissertation submitted
by
E. ANTHONY COLLINS
to
FIELDING GRADUATE UNIVERSITY
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
This dissertation has been accepted for the faculty of
Fielding Graduate University by:
_____________________________________________
DON FOUR ARROWS JACOBS, Ph.D., Ed.D., Chair
Committee Members:
NORMAN HARRIS, Ph.D., Research Faculty
RODNEY BEAULIEU, Ph.D. Faculty Reader
JOHN M. BRAXTON, Ph.D., External Examiner
JILL SQUIRE, Ed.D. , Student Reader
ABSTRACT
Artistic, scholarly, and professional works by individual faculty members in the field of film and digital media are not being adequately recognized or rewarded as scholarship activity during performance evaluation in institutions of higher learning. Conventional systems for the recognition and evaluation of work prioritize scientism and compel rigid compliance with norms, pitting individual faculty members and their creative works against an institutional model that precludes the possibility that specific and unique aspects of work will be recognized or rewarded.
This dissertation explores appropriate alternatives, and advocates for change, relying upon quantitative and qualitative methods of inquiry, including auto/ethnographic and personalized writing, in the search of greater understanding and solutions to the problem.
This dissertation proffers theoretically grounded recommendations for the recognition and evaluation of faculty work, but it is not intended to be the final word on this topic. This research does not intend to advocate singular or ultimate ways for measuring artistic, scholarly, or professional works, nor has a final solution been discovered through data research.
Instead, this dissertation can serve as a catalyst for institutional change. It challenges the exclusionary and meritocratic nature of systems in higher education that pre-determine internal mobility for faculty members. This study concludes that existing conventions for evaluating faculty scholarship are problematic and not well-suited to the intended purpose; that faculty scholarship in all fields should be recognized and evaluated on the basis of a unique and specific approach--not just upon the artifacts considered in isolation from approach; and that the process of performance evaluation should be designed and conducted from start to finish by informed, sensitized, and relevantly experienced colleagues who possess a deep understanding of the complex, distinct, and diverse range of knowledge and skills that are inherent to a creative or alternative approach in research inquiry.
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to all of the great teachers, friends, and organizations, past
and present, that I continue to learn from on a daily basis (including but not limited to):
Prof. Richard Parker
RL “Bob” Morgan
John Taylor
Dr. Craig Hogan
Dr. Kathleen Hood
Mehli Mehta
Arnold Belnick
Sven Reher
Lou Rashid
Prof. Warren Balfour
UCLA Department of History
UCLA Asian American Studies Center
UCLA School of Film and Television
UCLA School of Law
Dr. Richard Hawkins
Prof. John Boehm
Emanuel Wood and Family
Lonnie Robertson and Family
Cyril Stinnett
Fielding Graduate University, ELC Faculty
Fr. Niall O’Brien
Fr. Vinny Busch
Fr. Michael Martin
Ford Foundation, Manila: Dr. Mary Racelis
Fulbright Senior Scholar Research Grant Program
Dr. Robert Ibsen
Fr. Peter Walpole, S.J.
Dr. Mark Poffenberger
Anthony D. Collins, Jr.
Kacie L. Collins
Niall James Emanuel Collins
Monina D. Collins
Mom, Dad and Rena
a) Scholarship and Faculty Work
b) At the boundaries of contemporary scholarship
c) Pondering “C” Words: Change, Collaboration and Creativity
d) Recognizing and Evaluating Faculty Work in Film and Digital Media
3) Research question: The fundamental lines of inquiry
4) Research methods
5) Central objective and goals
Part 2: Scholarship and Faculty Work
1) Being scholarly: The trilogy and traditional template
2) Concerns, questions and debate
3) The need for a new model
Part 3: Pondering “C” Words---Creativity, collaboration and change
1) Creativity and self in scholarly work
2) Collaboration, self-leadership and systems theory in film and digital media
3) Change and the resistance to change
4) The possibility of change: A matter of approach
Part 4: A new template for work in the field of film and digital media
Part 5: Summary
1) Overview: Reading between the lines
2) The use of literature
3) Sources of literature: An open approach
Part 2: Academic scholarship and performance evaluation of faculty work Terminologies for faculty work and its evaluation
2) Historical and contemporary perspectives about faculty work
1) Determining the worth and merit of faculty work
2) Comparing the process of evaluation in student work and faculty work
3) Intrinsic motivation and the process of evaluation
4) A qualified committee
1) Faculty priorities within each domain are unique
2) Personal leadership
3) Creativity and faculty work in film and digital media
4) The non-teachable nature of creativity and art
1) Challenges and obstacles
2) Institutional change
3) The need for change
4) Court decisions relating to faculty
Part 6: Summary
Part 1: A synthesis of methods
1) Overview
2) Various methods of inquiry
3) Dual roles
4) Qualitative and quantitative methods
5) Methods and the use of literature
6) The survey and the recruitment of participants
7) Borrowing from grounded and action-oriented research methods
1) Curiosity and courage
2) An auto/ethnographic approach to inquiry
3) Doubts about auto/ethnography
4) Reflecting upon auto/ethnography as a method of writing
1) Data Analysis and Synthesis
2) Limitations
3) Future possibilities
Part 4: Summary
Theme 1: Marginalized by a monolith of tradition and convention
Theme 2: The internal mobility of faculty
Theme 3: Attributes of faculty evaluation systems
a) Facilitating intrinsic motivation and thriving on evaluation
b) An inexact process
c) Honesty is the best policy (unless you want to land in court)]]
d) The importance of relevant criteria
e) Criteria and the evaluation committee
f) The role of supervisors and administrators
g) The process of peer review: What is a peer review?
h) The problems with peer review
i) Alternatives to traditional models of peer review
j) The non-teachable and evaluation
a) How a film is made
b) Four aspects, four phases, four domains
c) The role of research in the field of film and digital media
d) Boyer (1990) and faculty work in film and digital media
a) Evidence to be submitted for performance evaluation
b) The professional portfolio
c) The range of work in pre-production
d) Broadcast and distribution of film and digital media
e) Film festivals, competitions, other special events
Theme 6: Post evaluation considerations
Part 4: Other Considerations
Part 5: Summary
Part 1:Rationale
Part 2: From theme to theory
Theory 1: Recognizing difference among the disciplines
Theory 2: Recognizing attributes that are unique and specific to the discipline
Theory 3: Considering the faculty member’s welfare after the evaluation is over
General recommendations
Recommendations #1-8
Recommendations specific to the field of film and digital media
Recommendation #9-13
Recommendations pertaining to scriptwriting in the field of film and digital media
Recommendation #14-1
Recommendations for recognizing and evaluating the dissemination of work
Recommendation #18-28
Recommendations for peer review
Recommendation #29-31
Recommendations for the post evaluation period
Recommendations #31-34
Part 4: Concluding Thoughts