[OHM] Fwd: OHM grant proposal

[Charlotte Wolter]

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 
(carto at davidrumsey.com). 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:karlg at stanford.edu>karlg at stanford.edu> 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 ‘Low Risk / High 
>Reward’ That is, project ideas may be 
>fabulous, however, funded projects in the 
>‘Implementation’ round already have some 
>element of success and stability. 
>  “Implementation” 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 ’support’ 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 don’t 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:jeff at gwhat.org>jeff at gwhat.org
>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 Historic at openstreetmap.org 
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic

Charlotte Wolter
927 18th Street Suite A
Santa Monica, California
90403
+1-310-597-4040
techlady at techlady.com
Skype: thetechlady

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/historic/attachments/20141228/78a0a126/attachment.html>