Interactive Doctoral Dissertation




A dissertation submitted




in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of


This dissertation has been accepted for the faculty of
Fielding Graduate University by:
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



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.


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

Part 1: Description of project

1) Overview

2) Research problem and its four underlying issues

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

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

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

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.