The Digging Into Data (DID) grants awards have been posted. The “Using Zotero and TAPoR on the Old Bailey Proceedings: Data Mining with Criminal Intent” project which I am part of was one of the ones funded. From the description:
Description: This project will create an intellectual exemplar for the role of data mining in an important historical discipline – the history of crime – and illustrate how the tools of digital humanities can be used to wrest new knowledge from one of the largest humanities data sets currently available: the Old Bailey Online.
This program is significant in a number of ways:
- It encourages (forces) international cooperation. Brett Bobley and the others involved in the councils deserve a lot of credit for developing a model for international programs and overcoming all the differences between funding agencies in record time. We all know that good research is often international, but this program rewards such cooperation. I hope the next round involves other countries – this is a model to be extended and emulated.
- One of the things that made a difference is that this program had a single evaluation process. The respective funding agencies agreed to work with one international assessment committee, thereby relinquishing a certain amount of control. This is significant because other attempts have kept separate panels which leads to projects being approved by one and not another. (This happens even within Canada.) DID shows that our councils are cooperating and willing to release control for the good of research – we should recognize that and encourage more.
- It focuses on using large data-sets and they negotiated access to a number of data-sets to support this. The work they did convincing content providers to provide access to full-text collections was beneficial in and of itself.
- It focuses on demonstrating research results from “digging into data” where computational techniques are applied to data. It isn’t a tools program, but a “what can you do with tools and lots of data” program. The time was right.
The number of letters of intent and applications is indicative of how successful this program was in identifying a research support need. As researchers we usually only think only about our work and ignore the host of conflicting demands of councils. Grant councils are also answerable – the design of programs is an administrative art that is rarely recognized by those who benefit. DID stands out in my mind as a successful experiment. If anything is was too successful – the low success rate shows they underestimated the number of applications and many deserving projects weren’t funded. Now the challenge to the councils is to scale up and build on this to meet the demand. The challenge to those of us funded is to live up to the potential and show that this works in order to make room for all the other deserving projects.