Jeff,
I'm thinking you should aim a bit lower
than NEH for the first time around, maybe
something local. How about the Annenberg
Foundation? Their interests are arts, education
and communication. OHM meets at least two of those criteria.
How about a place that hosts a major
collection of historical maps? The most famous, I
think, is the David Rumsey collection, managed by
someone called Cartography Associates
([email protected]). Also, one OSM mapper
used public-domain topo maps from the University
of Texas historical map library to do part of the
Lincoln Highway in OSM (the rest was not public
domain). So they might be interested.
The USGS has historical map collections
and also might be able to give grants. After
all, the already use OSM software as the basis of
editing the National Map, so, in a way, they owe OSM.
For any of these, the opportunity to
have their map data digitized might interest
them. Also, they would make a good partner.
Charlotte
At 12:07 PM 12/28/2014, you wrote:
Karl -
This insider's perspective is fantastic. Very helpful.
There's much we can do about the lack of a
start-up grant on our own, but the partnership angle is interesting.
We'll need to be very attentive to the rest of
the advice. Another piece of feedback we've
received (from David R?)Â is that the panel
members' feedback can differ from the project
officers' feedback. So... Your notes are gold.
For the odds, well... To paraphrase Wayne
Gretzky... you never make a shot you don't take. : )
- jeff
On Friday, December 26, 2014, Karl Grossner
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
Hello OHMers, happy holidays -
A friend and colleague who has followed the
discussion of NEH grant possibilities for OHM
wrote me to share some thoughts drawn from their
experience as a review panel member for a recent
round of DH Implementation Grants. I thought
they were pretty relevant, so copied them in
below. My biggest takeaway is the need for
innovation in humanistic inquiry, which confirms
what some have suggested -- framing the effort
as supporting a particular historical study, and
simultaneously a proof-of-concept. This may fit
a 'start-up' grant model better than an implementation one at this stage.
Karl
----------
The Implementation grants are âLow Risk / High
Rewardâ That is, project ideas may be
fabulous, however, funded projects in the
âImplementationâ round already have some
element of success and stability.
 âImplementationâ means just that. They
will fund projects that are already up and
running in some form. The funding is to
enhance or elaborate what has already been done. Â
Stronger proposals are those that have:Â
Evidence that PIs are already in a successful
partnership, such as having co-authored or
presented on the project jointly prior.
Have already obtained âsupportâ for the
project which could be NEH Start Up funds, or
campus or other external funding, or recognition of any sort.
Statement of Innovation concerns innovation in
both technology and humanistic inquiry - really
creative innovations in both areas.
The percentages of grant winners in past years
is approx. 15%. Very slim. My panel reviewed
18 proposals (out of 54? submitted). Of those
18, 4 were outstanding, 11 were good and showed
promise for future developments, 3 were
turkeys. Only 1 of the 4 that my panel ranked
as outstanding went on to receive funding, and
that particular one had obtained NEH Start Up
funds previously. The other few that NEH
funded in this round were reviewed by the other
panels and I donât have background on
those. We were told that many successful
grants had be submitted previously, so it often
takes more than one try (I am sure you are aware of that).
Preservation, sustainability and data management
of the project are important and requires
thought and planning. This was a weakness of
many of the middle level proposals. The higher
ranked proposals mostly used their library or
state-level repository partnering, and included
many details about how the storage, preservation, etc would work.Â
. Â it is helpful to talk to the NEH ggrant
officers throughout the writing process to make
sure, firstly, that the idea is appropriate for
the grant, as well as to get a pre-review.Â
--
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
<http://www.gwhat.org>www.gwhat.org
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
206-676-2347
OpenStreetMap: Mapping with a Human Touch
osm:Â
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map>Open
Historical Map (OHM)Â /Â
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer>my OSM user page
t: <https://twitter.com/GWHAThistory>@GWHAThistory / @OpenHistMapÂ
f:Â <https://www.facebook.com/GWHAThistory>GWHAThistory
_______________________________________________
Historic mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
Charlotte Wolter
927 18th Street Suite A
Santa Monica, California
90403
+1-310-597-4040
[email protected]
Skype: thetechlady
_______________________________________________
Historic mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
