grant grubbing, part IV

Music: Arcade Fire: Neon Bible (2007)

First a plea: if you're posting to my blog and don't see your comment appear, please tell me via email (slewfoot@mail.utexas.edu). My spam filter has been a bit aggressive lately, and five posts today and yesterday didn't appear until someone gave me the heads-up. Lemme know, folks!

Now: although I respect Jim's warning about publicizing the remarks of blind reviewers, I want to share with y'all the evaluations of my NEH Summer Stipend application, which I received today. I am sorry to report that despite getting the coveted top junior application slot at the university level, at the national competition I did not quite make it. Only 80-something of 800 something got funded. I had four reviewers; apparently it only takes one stick in the mud to tank your case. I had one such stick in the mud (who, nevertheless, said my proposal was "very good" to "good").

I know this competition is super tough, so I don't feel terrible or anything (although I very seriously doubt my university will select my application to send up again; I feel like they give you one chance and then that's it). In fact, I found a number of the comments very encouraging, especially the one that says (to paraphrase) "at first blush this is weird and tabloidy, but then . . . ." Hah! That's the reaction I've been trying to elicit ever since I started writing. I've been trying to show how the initially "ghoulish" is really quite normal and commonplace. I'm encouraged, in other words, that three of my four reviewers read what I am doing as serious and worthwhile. I may not have won the grant, but having some anonymous peers say---in effect---"keep it up!" is nice.

The reviews are short, which suggests the reviewers are going through a rather large number of applications. I suppose this is something to keep in mind for those of you doing the NEH SS things. I also do get the impression that folks from our field are actually reviewing these, which is a most excellent sign (if any of you reviewers are reading this: thank you!). Finally, yes, I'm aware that some of you think that sharing this is narcissistic, and it is to a degree, but I also hope some folks find it helpful and demystifying. One thing I can say about the NEH is that they work hard to be transparent, which I appreciate. Anyhoo, here we go:

TO: Applicants for 2007 NEH Summer Stipends
FROM: Leon Bramson, Senior Program Officer
NEH Division of Research Programs

Thank you for requesting additional information on the review of your 2007 NEH Summer Stipends application. We received 814 applications and were able to make 84 awards.

As with all applications submitted to the NEH, your proposal was read and discussed by knowledgeable persons outside the agency, who advised the Endowment about its merits. NEH's staff commented on matters of fact or on significant issues that otherwise would have been missing from these evaluations and made recommendations to the National Council on the Humanities. The National Council meets at various times during the year to advise the NEH chairman on grants. The chairman took into account the advice provided during the review process and made all funding decisions, as is prescribed by law.

Copies of the panelists' ratings and written evaluations of your proposal are included with this memorandum. The range of possible ratings is Excellent (E), Very Good (VG), Good (G), Some Merit (S) and Not Recommended (N). Please keep in mind that panels are the first stage of NEH review and that the panelists sent us their evaluations and comments online.

The panelists' names and references to other panelists or applicants have been omitted. Additional excisions reflect the Endowment's policy to hold in confidence the contents of letters of recommendation.

Comments by Panelist 1
Rating: VG
This proposal takes the human voice seriously. It will examine recorded voices of World Trade Center victims on September 11, 2001 in order to develop and refine a theory of mourning. This is a fundamental human activity largely ignored in humanistic scholarship. The work is oriented, however, more to disciplinary issues (the relative significance of visual vs. verbal rhetoric) than to the broader concerns of the humanities in general. And how the author will get from 9/11 to the nature of mourning is not laid out very well in the proposal.

The applicant is a young but extremely prolific scholar, well trained in rhetorical theory and practice. He has published an essay on the same theme as this project, and the strength of that essay suggests that he is well qualified to interpret these aspects of the humanities.

The result of this work will be a chapter in a larger book. The overall book project is described reasonably well, but exactly how this chapter will fit in is somewhat unclear. What analytical categories are used will be determined intuitively, as the applicant begins to engage the recorded texts. While the outcome of this analysis is obviously uncertain at this point, the applicant's track record makes it no cause for concern.

Since the project envisions an article that will become a chapter in a book, and the applicant is a highly prolific scholar, there is no question that the work will be completed, and probably well within the time period of the NEH fellowship.

Comments by Panelist 2
Rating: VG/G
How would this build on previous article in Text and Performance Quarterly? Notion of these voices as „haunted speech‰ trivializes them by comparison with TV laugh tracks. Lots of academic theorizing here, seems grounded in Media Ecology. The whole enterprise seems ghoulish rather than enlightening.

Comments by Panelist 3
Rating: E
The applicant proposes a study of the tape recorded voices of 9/11 victims. Though I have read and admired some of the publications of the applicant (I do not know him personally), I at first feared that perhaps this was simply a morbid and sensationalist project. The proposal itself convinces me otherwise. The applicant clearly describes how he will approach the materials, how this part of his project fits into his book-length project, and how that project fits both into his own field and the world of interdisciplinary humanities scholarship. He has been a highly productive young scholar, publishing in first-rate presses and journals. Highly recommended.

Comments by Panelist 4

Rating: E/VG

Different and interesting--from many disciplinary perspectives. The applicant is clearly up to the task of this project, and it is a refreshing take on a subject that has been well-deconstructed.