|
|
|
Visit of James Herbert
Director, Research and Education Division
National Endowment for the Humanities
Sponsored by OVPR and DRDA
October 25, 1996
SUMMARY
by Julie Ellison
Associate Vice President for Research
Herbert reported on the overall state of the NEH
The good news: Everyone who was fired has found a job. The endowment is relatively healthy and is operating smoothly. It has stabilized after a year of reduction and reorganization. There are now three divisions: Research and Education, which contains all academic programs; Preservation and Access; and Public Programs and Enterprise; plus the Challenge Grants program. The Summer Fellowship program is back after a one-year suspension. An additional $10 million was added to the NEH FY 1997 budget, bringing it to level funding at $110 million. Last year, applications to all programs dropped by about 1/3 (making fellowships easier to get last year than ever before), but Herbert expects them to return to normal. There is strong support for projects in the area of foreign languages, above all for teacher training and the development of materials in noncognate languages.
The bad news: Funding for Research and Education has fallen from about $60 million annually to about $20 million. Herbert's biggest worry is funding for major editions of the papers and writings of key American authors. The cost of these editions, typically supported by full-time staffs not protected by faculty status, is projected to be $150 million over the next 50 years. He feels that the US has set a very high editing standard which, combined with new digital processes, constitutes one of the "glories of American scholarship." He fears that these editions are "dead in the water" unless there is a change of heart in Congress. The current funding outlook will force NEH to decide whether to give a little funding to more projects or full funding to fewer.
Herbert had some good advice
For applicants to all programs
- Request reviewers' critiques in writing if rejected. Reapply if rejected. Humanists are too easily discouraged. Work with the project rep in developing the project (for programs other than individual fellowships). The reps will assist in the revision and resubmission process for projects that are not successful the first time. Often the exchange can be accomplished via e-mail. "Keep coming back." Long-term interaction with NEH staff pays off. Staff members are mostly former teachers and enjoy fostering projects.
For faculty who are potential members of NEH review panels
- The common characteristics of effective reviewers: "They work hard and get along with other people."
For applicants to Individual Fellowships for College and University Teachers
- These programs have been "held harmless" by the NEH, largely at the urging of professional societies like the MLA and the AHA, which made full support for individual fellowships a top priority. Successful proposals are innovative. They often address new disciplines and new interdisciplinary areas, but are "jargon-free." Shoot for fresh ideas and clear communication. There is some wiggle room for faculty in fields contiguous to the humanities, such as nonquantitative social sciences, the history of the social sciences, and certain aspects of environmental studies. His advice to assistant professors is: Apply! A recent study of NEH, NIH, and NSF programs by the General Accounting Office led NEH to include a greater percentage of younger scholars (within 10 years of the PhD) on their review panels in order to be more responsive to junior faculty. Proposals from junior and senior faculty are not separated during the review process, but they do analyze their award patterns annually to make sure that a fully diverse population is being served. About 30% of individual fellowships go to untenured assistant professors.
For applicants to Collaborative Programs
(including conferences, editions, translations, archaeology)
- NEH will consider multi-year funding for projects in this category. Review panels used to be organized by type of project (editions, translations, etc.). Now review panels are organized by large disciplinary areas (such as "Early American History and Culture"), which consider all kinds of projects in that subject area. Faculty developing proposals for the collaborative programs need to bear in mind the fact that their project will be evaluated on the basis of its intellectual contribution to the field, broadly conceived.
For applicants to the Teaching with Technology Program
- This new program met with an enthusiastic response. NEH was swamped with proposals. Don't be discouraged if you are turned down; keep reapplying. Only 4%-6% of applications could be funded. The NEH will invite project directors to meet together as a seminar. At this stage, most of the applications involved developing digitized content, but this focus is not the only option. Funding went to few proposals in nondramatic literature and, to Herbert's surprise, to few language learning projects. The program is intended to foster a) the development of digital materials, b) "beta testing" or trying out new materials, c) developing a repertoire of excellent teaching practices related to new technologies, and d) developing ways to introduce teachers to digital materials. The best proposals will serve several of these goals.
For applicants to the Humanities Focus Grants Program
- This program supports curricular and program planning by a group of faculty working together on, for example, new degree programs, new majors, and the like. For K-12 teachers, there is a greater need for time to engage in collective study; for college and university teachers, there is a greater need to work on the process of sharing knowledge. The grants can fund a spectrum of activities, ranging from mostly content study to mostly planning. There is a $25k cap. These are defined as "next semester" grants because the turn-around time is much faster than for other NEH programs--about 2-3 months.
For applicants to Seminars and Institutes
- Seminars, such as the NEH summer seminars, typically involve one scholar and 12-15 participants. Institutes (such as "Shakespeare in Oregon") tend to have 30-40 participants exposed to a number of visiting scholars. Applicants should match their topic to the appropriate format. The Endowment is open to variations on these formats. This program is funded at $6 million this year. Budget cuts mean that everyone has to reapply every year; there is no multi-year funding available.
For applicants to Educational Development and Demonstration Grants Program
- These are now harder to get. The criterion has changed from a standard that looks for projects that are "good for the institution" to those that are "good for the country"--i.e. demonstrate national significance as a pilot or outreach program, for instance. This rubric includes funds for local collaborations between public schools and colleges (often community colleges) and for networks of community colleges. There are many excellent models of such collaborations and fine program officers.
For applicants to grants for Preservation and Access, including research tools (dictionaries).
- NEH is seeking to develop a long-term funding plan to "save the books." They feel there is good understanding among Congressional staff of the problem of decaying materials. Funding has been kept steady here, with only a small reduction to $18 million. Including research tools in the Preservation and Access category is new.
Late-Breaking and On-the-Horizon Developments
Mellon/NEH collaboration
- The program taps new sources of support for 10-25 freestanding research centers, such as the Newberry Library, the Folger Library, the American Academy, and so forth. NEH and the Mellon Foundation each contributed $5 million over three years, increasing NEH support for these institutions by as much as 100%. Individual fellowships at these sites should be significantly more plentiful. The NEH funds came from the "Enterprise Fund," designed to seed new sources of non-federal funding. Mellon added to its existing support for the humanities, bringing its net commitment to $30-$35 million annually.
NEH-NSF Joint Initiatives
- Under discussion.
Electronic Proposal Submission
- NEH regards itself as "procedurally close" to NSF. They are watching closely as NSF implements electronic proposal submission and plan to "piggy-back" quickly once NSF has a viable system in place.
Assessment
- It is increasingly important to document the impact of both funded programs and cuts, in light of the growing emphasis on assessment. Recent legislation ties government funding requests to performance. NEH and NSF are working on developing appropriate measures, even as NEH tries to resist "giving money to things you can count because they can be counted."