According to this survey by the American Historical Association, historians pursuing tenure and promotion at bachelor's institutions are judged very heavily on scholarship and "research output."
87% of the 2440 full and associate history professors at baccalaureate colleges surveyed said that teaching was "highly valued." 28.8% of history professors at research universities said that teaching was "highly valued." This, of course, should be expected. Faculty at research universities have lighter teaching loads and are required to produce original research, while historians at teaching institutions need to be able to teach effectively.
In the same survey, 84.6% of research university professors said that print monographs were "highly valued," but so did 61.1% of history professors at bachelor's institutions.
On average, research universities require 1.3 monographs and 7.3 peer reviewed articles for promotion to associate professor. Bachelor's institutions require 1 monograph and 3.8 peer-reviewed articles for promotion to associate professor.
What does this mean? It would appear that baccalaureate institutions place more demands on their faculty. They have to be effective teachers and produce a significant amount of scholarship.
Check out yesterday's Inside Higher Ed for a full report on this AHA survey. It also has some revealing things to say about digital history and the job market.