Funding

"identifying funding sources, writing grant proposals, writing follow-up reports (1a flipcharts)

"How do we learn what the faculty need? Science has support, A&H doesn't. Bamboo can stimulate that conversation on-campus." (Ex 1, 1b-E)

"Increase competitiveness of humanities w/natural sciences in campus allocation decisions" (Ex 1, 1b-G)

"Researchers don't talk to each other in sustainable ways, give them money and they'll talk to each other." (Ex 1, 1c-A)

"Stanford model - Applying for funding is part of culture" (Ex 1, 1c-A)

"Focus on keeping projects alive beyond life cycle of funding." (Ex 1, 1c-A)

"Researchers don't talk to each other in sustainable ways, give them money and they'll talk to each other." (Ex 1, 1c-A)

"Purchasing the energy that requires researchers to talk to one another" (Ex 1, 1c-A)

"Bamboo isn't funding, it's better access to technology services; more direct support to individual scholars" (Ex 1, 1c-E)

"Seeking funding. Compound: Identify sources of funding, collect recommendations, Some is scholarly, some is administrative. Indentify funding sources, writing proposal, develop budgetm, gather letters of recommendation; process for individual proposal versus larger collaborative proposal is very different; bamboo could provide national center that would provide proposal writing and technical expertise (part of NEH strategy); Letters and Science Desktop support is our closest resource at Berkeley." (Ex 2, 1a-B)

"Write grants. This may be a very creative activity" (Ex 2, 1a-C)

"avoid grant administration (reporting, tracking, management). could the project buy us out of our administrative or teaching duties?" (Ex 2, 1a-C)

"much humanities research is not funded per se. Many proposals that do get written look like book proposals, and this becomes a de facto shaper of research process; getting a little money is important ... to make trips to archives ... making the proposals is an individual effort -- one does it oneself; review of research activity comes at various career points: when funding is requested, at tenure-review time; if someone has shown that what I'm working on is no longer right or relevant, I won't get funded ... this is an incentive to staying current ... I have to do it, even though as a teaching-university faculty member I don't actually have time to stay as current as I might like." (Ex 2, 1b-C)

"if someone has shown that what I'm working on is no longer right or relevant, I won't get funded ... this is an incentive to staying current ... I have to do it, even though as a teaching-university faculty member I don't actually have time to stay as current as I might like." (Ex 2, 1b-C)

"Faculty have to deal with some dollars and cents metrics as part of their research." (Ex 2, 1b-E)

"Invest in a spread of ideas, and only a few will flourish. Same thing that anyone has to do in humanities or sciences? Sometimes innovation doesn't come from the places you want it to come from. Or from where you'd predict it would come from. The importance of surprise and serendipity in scholarship." (Ex 2, 1c-B)

"Bit of money in one spot can inspire immense change that will be picked up elsewhere, never really know who will pick it up. Can throw lots of money and nothing will come out. Part of practice from outset for funding is to define what content of project will be." (Ex 2, 1c-B)

"Information about grants, which was more or less there... just getting it to desktops. Helping to prepare applications by collecting successes and failures, as repository for referees comments. Less successful and less experienced researchers could learn to write more effective funding applications. Generally a private side of the research process, it's not available for others to see. Can we bring this out to the open? It would may allow for more successful research administratively. Streaming information selectively for grant opportunities works well. Perhaps too well? Massive e-mails with funding opportunities, no mechanism for filtering. Process not as simple as it seems." (Ex 2, 1c-B)

"Unsuccessful bids disappear. Avoid re-writing grants to a funding agency that doesn't want that sort of project. Giving away ideas for everyone to see, means that other funding agencies can see where projects have failed. Also risk of projects being snapped up by others if failed applications are out there. As soon as something is funded it's in the open world, if it's not it shouldn't be out there. Sometimes silly reasons for rejection; excellent bids turned down. Prioritization of bids being signed off on? There is a responsibility to maintain things properly organized prioritized. Remains a personal thing, since researchers are dealing directly with funding agency. Inconvenience to go through centralized control mechanism. People are happy to bid to other countries, since it doesn't hurt their rating for interior funding." (Ex 2, 1c-B)

"Grant applications and reports. This is a significant, huge piece of our work. "Ninety-percent of early phase project work is seeking funding." What's the grant-seeking process? We review calls that come out from NSF and others. Consider how our projects match. It is so hard to determine whether your project is a match. It's critical to know the project or program director at the funding body. There are also practices and protocols that need to be followed." (Ex 2, 1d-B)

"coming back to the money-thing. The alignment or orthogonality of personal and funding interests." (Ex 2, 1d-E)

"have built large database of social science data; 5 year project. for social science scholars, but also for the public. Funding has run out, can't find funding to continue; "on life support" through library. Katz's law, "costs more to maintain a database than to build it." Confronting this a lot. Get funding to build something, scholars come to rely on it, but when funding runs out, isn't clear how that it will be supported over time. " (Ex 2, 1d-G)

"Write grants, conceptualize fundable activities, writing grant applications" (Ex 3, 1a-C)

"Money: Again, faculty and IT/Library have divergent needs to raise/spend $." (Ex 3, 1b-E)

"what tail is wagging the dog - scholarship or funding? in some areas there is no funding. availability & interest of funding will vary over time; there can be "fashions". NEH money can drive the agenda into certain areas over time. funding will drive what gets digitized, and that will affect what's available." (Ex 4, 1d-D)

"we decided not to apply for NEH grant for HPC because we can do the work on an 8-core MAC. what about lots more documents? well we don't have that many and we can't share due to licensing. couldn't find application for HPC. another stakeholder is grant institutions. bamboo might be able to provide some long-term stability for funding. why did govt fund HPC? hum. doesn't design nukes. govt. won't fund hum. need for HPC is rare in hum., can do a lot with disk space and apache. bamboo could be a clearinghouse for funding opportunities." (Ex 4, 1d-F)

"Fieldwork is hard to fund because the data is raw, not yet organized > not yet cited/proven." (Ex 5, 1b-E)

"Having the right resources doesn't mean everyone needs the same resources. An uncommon thing is recognizing what resources you do need. The most important part of the project so far is to get funders to understand the nature of needs for our work as scholars. For me $6000 is a lot of money to go to a site and hang out. But it would never cover technology needs to send for transcription, and so on. [some study] Once you apply new technology, it takes 1.5 times longer than it would have taken without." (Ex 5, 1c-A)

"What AHRC is saying is that you can get $ for digitization and working electronically only if there's a serious research component" (Ex 5, 1c-D)

"would like to see funding agencies look at costs of proposal preparation and adjust expectations accordingly. (NEH paperwork act underestimates costs, Mellon has an iterative process of working with investigators and doesn't fund overhead) - complexity of application process - increase of cost share, 20-30% that gets handed off to institution" (Ex 6a, 1d-E)

"More time and resources to work on the things we want to work on - we need to. More funding." (Ex 6b, 1b-D)

"Every new PhD as a condition of completion 5 years of strings-free funding. No teaching environment, completely off-road. Humanities is over-committed, though: too many PhDs for jobs. But it's been that way for a long time. Emancipate the research from the requirement of tenure. If you have five years of proliferating research, maybe 98% would be garbage, but some would be a gem. A bomber is $400m. We could do a lot of funding with $400m. The world's PhDs are becoming more like American PhD. Give people more time for research, less pressure to acquire tenure. Give job descriptions where people are free to follow their own R&D without agency-imposed structures and objectives. Broader sense, stop the entire Americanization of education. Newsweek institution ratings." (Ex 6b, 1c-B)

"Coalition of funders, agencies, and learned societies to map how we change the situation with regard to tenure and promotion for digital scholarship." (Ex 6b, 1d-A)

"a different support model for researchers in the humanities. Measured by ROI, but that is the wrong measure of success." (Ex 6b, 1d-A)

"In Australia, that goes to the government departments that give credibility to certain types of publication and give funding. "Lasting value" - things that are digital, you don't expect them to have lasting value. Redefinition of what constitutes lasting value for digital artifacts to achieve that quality" (Ex 6b, 1d-C)

"Funding issue; unlimited funds so things we do can be sustained. Current funding models (projects, seed money, generous one-time grants) aren't conducive for making these things part of our regular life. Too many things fail after initial funding is over. Sustainability and durability (means you're using it and it's still ok)" (Ex 6b, 1d-C)

"Micro-payments instead of macro-payments. You pay for a search (quarter of a cent). Rice project; you get grains of rice, they ask you what a word means, and every time they guess it puts three grains of rice in a bucket (my kids use it). Advertising support? How do they deliver the rice?" (Ex 6b, 1d-C)

"The best outcome for this process would be a 20-page (3-page?) which articulates guidelines under which Mellon will fund certain projects in the next 5 years." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table H)

"Need models for buying out faculty time." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table I)

"If I [CIO] go to the provost and ask for a quarter million of a bucks a year, that's 1-2 faculty members-- powerful argument. More faculty or doing that? Then he says "why don't you find this money?" - then that's 4 graveyard shift computer operators. There's no money tap out there - everything's a trade-off Provost can't pull out money from a golden pocket, which things are more valuable than other things? If we're going to ask for money, we have to answer "what are you willing to give up to get it?" That's the right way to talk w/in a college university." (W3, Perspectives: Information Technology, Q&A, Greg Jackson)

"Funding and prioritization that are based on categories may end up ignoring significant differences among seemingly similar things. So, categorization seems useful, but identifying it as a criterion for validation seems arbitrary. A corollary to this thought is that imposed categories tend to be normative. Scholarship is about the exploration of new and different things." (Shared Services working group, Program Document Sec 4 - Discussion Draft of 9 March 2009, Elli Mylonas, 3/16/10 comment)

Bamboo tags: 

Add new comment