Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup
Published on May 09, 2018

NEH Grant Draft

Published onMay 09, 2018
NEH Grant Draft
·

Background

DH Advancement Grant Guidelines:

digital-humanities-advancement-grants-june-5-2018.pdf
552 KB
Also found at this link: https://www.neh.gov/files/grants/digital-humanities-advancement-grants-june-5-2018.pdf

Key Dates:

  • NEH draft by May 4th

  • Final to MIT by 28th

  • NEH deadline June 5th

Key Points:

  • Level II awards (from $50,001 to $100,000) are larger grants that can be used for more fullyformed projects that have completed an initial planning phase. Level II proposals should therefore include a more articulated plan of work leading to concrete and tangible outcomes, such as working prototypes; detailed plans for upgrading existing or defunct projects in need of substantive revision, enhancement, or recovery; test beds; or demonstration projects.

    Digital Humanities Advancement Grants at both Level I and Level II stages support activities for periods of performance (award periods) up to eighteen months.

  • The creation or conversion of a scholarly journal is NOT permitted (although the implementation of new modes of scholarly publication is permitted).

  • As a taxpayer-supported federal agency, NEH aims to ensure that scholars, educators, students, and the American public have ready and easy access to the wide range of NEH-funded products. For the Digital Humanities Advancement Grants program, such products may include software code, algorithms, digital tools, reports, articles, and websites. For projects that lead to the development of such products, all other considerations being equal, NEH gives preference to those that provide free access to the public

Evaluation Criteria:

  1. The intellectual significance of the project for the humanities; for a project developing new infrastructure or scholarly methods, its potential to enhance scholarly research, teaching, and learning in the humanities.

  2. The feasibility of the plan of work, and the appropriateness of the project’s methods and use of technology.

  3. The quality of the conception, definition, organization, and description of the project and the applicant’s clarity of expression.

  4. The qualifications, expertise, and levels of commitment of the project director and key project staff or contributors.

  5. The reasonableness of the proposed budget in relation to anticipated results.

  6. The quality and appropriateness of project plans for data management and (if applicable) sustainability.

License
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0)
Comments
8
?
Login to discuss
Suzanne Wallen:

it is best not to use “we” but to identify the Press or the editors, etc.

Suzanne Wallen:

it is best not to use “we” but to identify the Press or the editors, etc. Some readers will not know who “we” is.

Noah Springer:

Can Nick speak to any of this specifically? How about Ece?

Noah Springer:

Also, can Travis provide any language about how the analytics data will be stored?

Terry Ehling:

let’s add author-informed analytics

Terry Ehling:

Suggestions from the roster of attendees at the recent Duke DH workshop:

  • Cheryl Ball, Director, Digital Publishing Collaborative, Wayne State http://ceball.com

  • Eli Mylonas, Director, Center for Digital Scholarship, Brown University

  • Catherine Mitchell, Director, Publishing & Special Collections, CDL, University of California

Noah Springer:

I moved the Underlay content that we had in the narrative over here, but somehow it didn’t stick. It’s possible I accidentally forgot to paste it, but we will need to rewrite

Terry Ehling:

I wonder if we should mention the Underlay at all in the context of this proposal. Catherine, your thoughts? Based on our meeting with Danny yesterday, this initiative is highly speculative (and in need to significant funding). We’ll probably be able to scare up some $$ for one of the devs but the Underlay’s impact on this project, if any, won’t be clear from many years. Me thinks.

+ 2 more...
Catherine Ahearn:

I didn’t want to get too into the weeds with the Underlay, but let me know if this is too confusing and needs to be expanded.

Noah Springer:

I feel like we need something here that is clear that Underlay is experimental, and that we will have full use of Portico to maintain our archives. I know this will be more spelled out in the DMP, but it might be useful to clarify here as well. I think we also may want to lay out that Underlay allows for authors to keep ownership of their writing.

+ 1 more...
Noah Springer:

I plan on this section to start with brief discussion of more traditional methods of DH eval (associations, journals). Then move into more digital platforms (closer to us). Explain how we will be different than these previous iterations.

Secondly, I will point to PubPub and show how it is different than other OA platforms (Manifold … what else?). Explain how these differences will make our project different/better than previous iterations because can host community, provide digital affordances, avoid problems of areas like DH Commons

Noah Springer:

Do we want reviews quarterly? one of the issues with quarterly reviews is the delay between the review’s release, and the project. Projects could change drastically if the reviews are delayed for a quarterly release

Catherine Ahearn:

What did Laura say on this point? Terry made a good point about these needing to be timely, so perhaps a quicker publishing model is the better way to go here? Like we discussed last week, we can then retroactively call all content published in a given quarter an “issue” for the organization of our content, but it doesn’t necessarily need to some out at once. What do you think?

Born Digital
Published with