[Humanist] 24.889 effects of assumptions about grant-funding
Humanist Discussion Group
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Mon Apr 18 07:16:48 CEST 2011
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 24, No. 889.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 07:43:50 +0100
From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
Subject: effects of assumptions
I don't think it's fair to overlook all the honest effort that goes into
evaluating grant proposals, devising competitions, managing the funds &c.
Giving away allocated money and everything associated with it is not an easy
job. There must be a fair amount of satisfaction in helping to create major
research initiatives and to sponsor individual projects. Hardly a day goes
by that I am not consciously grateful for JSTOR, others for Perseus and so
The point of my earlier note, however, wasn't the justice or, I suppose
sometimes injustice, with which funds are dispersed. Rather it was how our
own reliance on the awards of funding as a measure of academic worth is
itself worth critical examination. As a starting point for discussion let us
assume that ALL awards are well deserved and fairly given.
My question, then: is this the way to encourage the kind of work we most
admire, that has done us the most good overall? Do we get the best from
requiring (a) a cogent case for a known result; and (b) deliverables within
a fixed and relatively short time-span? Do we really want research that is
not grant-funded, for whatever reason, to be thought second-rate? What *is*
the proper role for grant-funding? What does it or could it signify?
Professor Willard McCarty, Department of Digital Humanities, King's
College London; Centre for Cultural Research, University of Western
Sydney; Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (www.isr-journal.org);
Editor, Humanist (www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/); www.mccarty.org.uk/
More information about the Humanist