Newspaper Update

Good afternoon!

As of today, I’ve gotten through June 1947. The spring was a busy time for Olympia Schools at all levels, and many of these articles are full of names. A major development for the high school was its reclassification to Division A for sports. Its size still classified it for Division B, but its continued excellence was cause to bump them up a category. Also, after 30 years of teaching kindergarten for the children of Pacific Mills employees, the teacher retired. There’s a nice article about her. Social columns have also reappeared.

Labor issues are there, but subdued. Pacific Mills raised wages by 10%, and developed a new contract with the local CIO. Environmental issues have popped up for the first time, as Pacific Mills was indicted for polluting streams with dye. There were even a few articles regarding technology – one about mill mechanization and another about Pacific Mills’ new “Pacifixed” wool blend. Richland Mill was also profiled twice for its impressive safety record.

I’ll be putting all of these on the external hard drive this afternoon. I’ll be out of town and will be missing the meeting (and my research day!) next week. Let me know if there’s anything I should prepare in advance of the meeting.

Hours: 4

Advertisements

Grant — Reviewers’ Reports

As you know, our NEH ACHO grant did not get funded.  Here are the reports from the reviewers.  I think we should be very proud of the overall ratings — it looks like we should revise & resubmit.  Strangely, it seems like we need to justify our “humanities team.”  Our final ratings were 3 Very Goods and two Goods.  Note that in the preliminary ratings, we had two Excellents, so something happened in the discussion with panelists bringing down our proposal.  Usually you need to have mostly Excellents to be funded.

-Allison

March 29, 20012

Dr. Allison Marsh
Assistant Professor
University of South Carolina
History Department
Columbia, SC 29208-0001

Re: GE-50567

Dear Dr. Marsh:

I am writing with information about why your proposal, Exhibiting Local Enterprise, did not receive funding in the most recent round of competition. I would like to outline the review process and provide you with a complete set of the panelists’ written comments for your information.

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.

In evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal, reviewers were asked to address the significance of the topic, its potential audiences, the degree of collaboration between scholars and other project personnel, the qualifications of the project team, and the potential of the project to engage the public in humanities issues, ideas, and perspectives.

As noted above, copies of the panelists’ written evaluations of your proposal are enclosed. Please keep in mind that these evaluation sheets were completed before the panelists discussed the proposals, and panelists’ opinions and ratings sometimes change after exchanging views with their colleagues. In cases where there is a change in rating, we ask panelists to add a note to the evaluation sheet explaining their decision.

I hope that this material clarifies the Endowment’s review process for you. Even though your application was not funded, resubmission is always possible, and failure to gain support in this round of competition does not prejudice an applicant’s chances for reconsideration. Please see our Web site (www.neh.gov) for a list of upcoming deadlines.

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at (202) 606-8290, or send me an e-mail message at bbays@neh.gov. Thank you for your interest in the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Sincerely,
Barbara Bays
Senior Program Officer
Division of Public Programs

Copy: Mrs. Lumi Bakos, Sr. Sponsored Program Administrator

Enclosures: Panelists’ evaluation sheets

Panelist 1

1. Intellectual content: The likely contribution of the project to public understanding of the humanities, including the significance of the subject and the humanities ideas; the quality and relevance of the humanities scholarship informing the project; the extent to which the project offers an analytical perspective on the themes and ideas that underlie it.

Good ideas and intellectual content is strong. Remains a little unclear how this relates to the humanities; that should be strengthened

2. Audience: The appeal of the subject to a general audience, the accessibility of the ideas, and the quality of the project’s plan to reach broad audiences.

I wondered how this project would be distributed, and what it’s target audience is

3. Format: The appropriateness, quality, and creativity of the concept for organizing and presenting the material to advance the project’s intellectual goals; and the likelihood that the chosen format will effectively convey the humanities content to the audience. For multiformat projects, the likely complementarity of the various components.

4. Program resources: The appropriateness of the materials and resources that support the project’s interpretive themes and ideas.

resources are good

5. Justification for higher funding: If the application requests higher funding, the strength of the case for the complexity of the project, the involvement of multiple institutional partners, the combination of several different program formats, and the breadth of the project’s public appeal and reach.

good partnership with other institutions

6. Venue selection and training (only for Dissemination Project applications): If the application is for a Dissemination Project (for a program that travels to twenty or more venues), the geographic breadth and audience reach of the project; the quality of the criteria and process used to determine the host venues; and the quality of the training offered to representatives of the host venues. 

7. Humanities team and project team: The qualifications and potential contributions of the advising scholars; the experience and technical skills of the project team; the quality of the project team’s previous work; and the likelihood that the institutional partners will collaborate effectively. 

strong humanities team, but could be strengthened by adding more scholars outside of the institutions

8. Work plan: The likelihood that the applicant will achieve the project’s goals in a timely and efficient manner.

9. Budget: The appropriateness and reasonability of the project’s costs. 

10. Overall Evaluation: Please summarize the major reasons for your rating.

Strong in terms of goals of ELE; strong basis with USC and partnership with NMAH. Main problem is how ELE would be distributed and what exactly it would entail. But maybe that’s what a planning grant is for? Also, might appear too closely associated with the graduate program, and less with the museums

Not much in terms of humanities scholars outside of USC

Preliminary Rating: VG: Very Good

Additional comments after panel discussion:

Unclear humanities content — project needs a humanities team. Project is too vague in terms of how it would work, and what the implementation would mean — how the ELE would be distributed.

Final Rating: G: Good
Panelist 2

1. Intellectual content: The likely contribution of the project to public understanding of the humanities, including the significance of the subject and the humanities ideas; the quality and relevance of the humanities scholarship informing the project; the extent to which the project offers an analytical perspective on the themes and ideas that underlie it.

Plan to test learning modules of on-line exhibits on the business history of a mill in South Carolina and a company in Kodiak, Alaska. The goal is to incorporate local institutions into a larger project on “American Enterprise.” I suppose one could argue that efforts to connect local stories and national history is a key project of the humanities. Promises as well to engage “cutting edge scholarship, new media, and core principles of museum theory.” Project will also take up a recent turn in business history that incorporates histories of science, culture, politics, and the environment. The proposal suggests the complex nature of business enterprise–the benefits, failures, and unanticipated consequences.

2. Audience: The appeal of the subject to a general audience, the accessibility of the ideas, and the quality of the project’s plan to reach broad audiences.

In the long run, ELE will use local exhibits and new technologies to bring broader audience to American Enterprise. But during this planning phase, the audience is as much local museum professionals as the audiences they serve. Take up important challenge of finding resources to tell local stories.

3. Format: The appropriateness, quality, and creativity of the concept for organizing and presenting the material to advance the project’s intellectual goals; and the likelihood that the chosen format will effectively convey the humanities content to the audience. For multiformat projects, the likely complementarity of the various components.

I understand that the beta test phase of this project is meant to do exactly this–to test whether or not the format achieves the project’s intellectual goals. Will visitors have a better understanding of business? Will they be curious to learn more about business? Will they make new connections between their lives and the story of the nation? Will they have a new understanding of what it means to be a producer or a consumer? And so on. Clear sense of questions and goals.

4. Program resources: The appropriateness of the materials and resources that support the project’s interpretive themes and ideas.

The ELE is building on intellectual and curatorial expertise behind the Smithsonian exhibit on American Enterprise. That exhibit has provided the project’s interpretive themes and ideas. It seems smart (perhaps efficient) to extend these ideas to different venues and to invite speculation on the ways local histories might alter the Smithsonian’s big national story.

5. Justification for higher funding: If the application requests higher funding, the strength of the case for the complexity of the project, the involvement of multiple institutional partners, the combination of several different program formats, and the breadth of the project’s public appeal and reach.

N/A

6. Venue selection and training (only for Dissemination Project applications): If the application is for a Dissemination Project (for a program that travels to twenty or more venues), the geographic breadth and audience reach of the project; the quality of the criteria and process used to determine the host venues; and the quality of the training offered to representatives of the host venues.

N/A

7. Humanities team and project team: The qualifications and potential contributions of the advising scholars; the experience and technical skills of the project team; the quality of the project team’s previous work; and the likelihood that the institutional partners will collaborate effectively.

Promising collaboration among South Carolina Public History Program, the Smithsonian, and Baronov Museum. Plan is to involve mid-sized cultural institutions in exhibitions on “American Enterprise.” Seems to make good use of talented and committed graduate students in the public history program at USC and a USC alum who is now a curator in Alaska. Professor Marsh brings impressive experience and excellent credentials to the project. (Maybe a bit too quick to emphasize the role of USC alums, but I quibble.)

8. Work plan: The likelihood that the applicant will achieve the project’s goals in a timely and efficient manner.

Plan to bring together partners–at sites and at annual Business History Conference–to evaluate learning modules for first two exhibitions. Meetings are necessary to evaluate the on-line exhibits?

9. Budget: The appropriateness and reasonability of the project’s costs. 

The request is for $70K, primarily to cover travel costs to allow the teams to meet in person. The planning grant will cover a course buyout for project director and offer some funds for co-directors and for a graduate assistant and cover expenses for quarterly meetings. The proposal makes a strong case of the need for these face-to face meetings as key to the assessment process. Some funds are set aside for images and the rights to their reproduction.

10. Overall Evaluation: Please summarize the major reasons for your rating.

I appreciate emphasis on efforts to bring local history into conversation with national developments as well as the project’s pledge to remain open to the stories from local partners that might change the themes developed at the Smithsonian. Overall, this seems a very well-focussed and carefully developed project with clear and well-articulated goals.. It seems appropriate to support it to the next phase.

Preliminary Rating: E: Excellent

Additional comments after panel discussion:

Promising idea to create a platform that might be shared among many small museums but concern about the absence of a team of scholars to help the planners articulate the themes and goals of the exhibits. It is not entirely clear how the plans will lead to next steps.

Final Rating: VG: Very Good
Panelist 3

1. Intellectual content: The likely contribution of the project to public understanding of the humanities, including the significance of the subject and the humanities ideas; the quality and relevance of the humanities scholarship informing the project; the extent to which the project offers an analytical perspective on the themes and ideas that underlie it.

Business history has taken on new relevance in the recent economic turbulence, and this project is poised to add to the historic perspective by enabling smaller museums to create online exhibits with site specific content. While much of the project activity is process oriented, the goals established by NMAH will guide the content development in the partner sites. The bibliography provides resources that will be useful to participant museums.

2. Audience: The appeal of the subject to a general audience, the accessibility of the ideas, and the quality of the project’s plan to reach broad audiences.

Although the aggregate reach of the project has the potential to reach multiple audiences throughout the country, the planning grant has two specific audiences. Focus on the needs of the participating museums and their visitors will serve as a productive lens by which to guide the project and measure success.

3. Format: The appropriateness, quality, and creativity of the concept for organizing and presenting the material to advance the project’s intellectual goals; and the likelihood that the chosen format will effectively convey the humanities content to the audience. For multiformat projects, the likely complementarity of the various components.

Very well thought-out, the work done to date has created a vision for the learning models and identified the 21st century learning skills that will be supported by the online exhibitions. The expectation that each institution will create an online presence that aligns with its mission, brand and voice built within a proven format keeps the project lively and creative.
Learning models created by graduate students are an excellent way to anticipate the kinds of support that an emerging professional will encounter.

4. Program resources: The appropriateness of the materials and resources that support the project’s interpretive themes and ideas.

This project is well-resourced in access to content, technological expertise, and scholarly discourse. USC brings the energy and contemporary perspective of graduate students, who not only add to the discussion during the project period, but who will also help implement the project as they enter the workplace.

5. Justification for higher funding: If the application requests higher funding, the strength of the case for the complexity of the project, the involvement of multiple institutional partners, the combination of several different program formats, and the breadth of the project’s public appeal and reach.

This is a project with national impact in several ways. Not only does it create an opportunity for communities across the country to add local content to the narrative of American Enterprise, it also provides specific tools and instruction that will strengthen the technological capacity of participating institutions. The dual benefit of adding value for the audience and the participants is particularly appealing.

6. Venue selection and training (only for Dissemination Project applications): If the application is for a Dissemination Project (for a program that travels to twenty or more venues), the geographic breadth and audience reach of the project; the quality of the criteria and process used to determine the host venues; and the quality of the training offered to representatives of the host venues. 


n/a

7. Humanities team and project team: The qualifications and potential contributions of the advising scholars; the experience and technical skills of the project team; the quality of the project team’s previous work; and the likelihood that the institutional partners will collaborate effectively.

The partner institutions and project team members bring distinct strengths that will support the success of the endeavor. Each has a clearly defined role, and an established connection to ELE. Partnering with the Baranov Museum will be an excellent test of the challenges and opportunities inherent in a long distance partnership supported by technology. The team also represents a continuum of work on ELE, with a former graduate student providing a link between the planning and the implementation of a prototype. Although this team does not convene a panel of scholars, the humanities are represented in the planning done to date, and will be included in the work done at partner sites

8. Work plan: The likelihood that the applicant will achieve the project’s goals in a timely and efficient manner.

Excellent work plan, with responsibility assigned and a feasible pace. The in-person quarterly meetings are important, allowing for a different kind of exchange than by conference call or email.

9. Budget: The appropriateness and reasonability of the project’s costs. 

Appropriate for the project. The investment in travel is necessary for the project participants to effectively meet the goals of ELE

10. Overall Evaluation: Please summarize the major reasons for your rating.

Outstanding proposal for an ambitious and enterprising project that has the potential for lasting impact in itself and serving as a model for replication in museums who wish to collaborate on other nationally relevant subject matter.

Preliminary Rating: E: Excellent

Additional comments after panel discussion:

I continue to feel that this project has considerable merit, and would add strengh to the field as well as content for the public. The missing pieces are a scholar panel for each site, and a clear description of what sort of implementation plan would emerge from this process.

Final Rating: VG: Very Good

Panelist 4

1. Intellectual content: The likely contribution of the project to public understanding of the humanities, including the significance of the subject and the humanities ideas; the quality and relevance of the humanities scholarship informing the project; the extent to which the project offers an analytical perspective on the themes and ideas that underlie it.

Innovative idea to train local (especially rural and isolated) museums to develop on-line exhibits about business history. The plan is based on an extensive review of relevant scholarship, and cutting edge technology

2. Audience: The appeal of the subject to a general audience, the accessibility of the ideas, and the quality of the project’s plan to reach broad audiences.

On-line exhibits could promote both local museums and reach any audience with computer access

3. Format: The appropriateness, quality, and creativity of the concept for organizing and presenting the material to advance the project’s intellectual goals; and the likelihood that the chosen format will effectively convey the humanities content to the audience. For multiformat projects, the likely complementarity of the various components.

Developing pilot modules and using them for training seems sensible, though proposal is not always precise as to how the training will work to ensure local staff, without access to tech support, will develop their own exhibits

4. Program resources: The appropriateness of the materials and resources that support the project’s interpretive themes and ideas.

Project team will draw on public historians, museum directors, and graduate students

5. Justification for higher funding: If the application requests higher funding, the strength of the case for the complexity of the project, the involvement of multiple institutional partners, the combination of several different program formats, and the breadth of the project’s public appeal and reach.

6. Venue selection and training (only for Dissemination Project applications): If the application is for a Dissemination Project (for a program that travels to twenty or more venues), the geographic breadth and audience reach of the project; the quality of the criteria and process used to determine the host venues; and the quality of the training offered to representatives of the host venues. 

7. Humanities team and project team: The qualifications and potential contributions of the advising scholars; the experience and technical skills of the project team; the quality of the project team’s previous work; and the likelihood that the institutional partners will collaborate effectively.

Teams have historical skills, museum skills, an technical skills

8. Work plan: The likelihood that the applicant will achieve the project’s goals in a timely and efficient manner.

Work plan is detailed and clearly delineates responsibilities for the entire team

9. Budget: The appropriateness and reasonability of the project’s costs. 

Questions about paying for course release, travel to Alaska, and $10K for reproduction rights

10. Overall Evaluation: Please summarize the major reasons for your rating.

Strong on its innovative approach to supporting small and isolated museums, and new ways of presenting business history–Some questions about specific of training and budget

Preliminary Rating: VG: Very Good

Additional comments after panel discussion:

Project shows promise–especially the technological platform and framing questions behind the proposed on-line exhibits. Yet the proposal, by focusing on testing two on-line exhibits, and providing no broader team of scholars, may be appropriate for a digital humanities grant, not a broader planning grant.

Final Rating: G: Good

Panelist 5

1. Intellectual content: The likely contribution of the project to public understanding of the humanities, including the significance of the subject and the humanities ideas; the quality and relevance of the humanities scholarship informing the project; the extent to which the project offers an analytical perspective on the themes and ideas that underlie it.

build small instn. capacity by training for small-biz exhbts.
‘enliven and prsnlz. am. biz hist.’
‘competition, innovation, oppty., and the common good'(?) [tho does address ‘failure’ ‘hardship’]
skips 1830s-1920s: why?
21st-c. skills: what’s that (carefully detailed and matched to diff. tasks)

2. Audience: The appeal of the subject to a general audience, the accessibility of the ideas, and the quality of the project’s plan to reach broad audiences.

3. Format: The appropriateness, quality, and creativity of the concept for organizing and presenting the material to advance the project’s intellectual goals; and the likelihood that the chosen format will effectively convey the humanities content to the audience. For multiformat projects, the likely complementarity of the various components.

online learning modules AND online exbts. (olympia mills, and alaska comm’l.)…per smithso. am. entrprs. (2014)–way to reach out to local auds.
‘network’: so do they overlap?
where’s overall msg.
mix of struc. and msg. as point

4. Program resources: The appropriateness of the materials and resources that support the project’s interpretive themes and ideas.

omeka open-source toolkit,,,usc classes and nmah support

5. Justification for higher funding: If the application requests higher funding, the strength of the case for the complexity of the project, the involvement of multiple institutional partners, the combination of several different program formats, and the breadth of the project’s public appeal and reach.

6. Venue selection and training (only for Dissemination Project applications): If the application is for a Dissemination Project (for a program that travels to twenty or more venues), the geographic breadth and audience reach of the project; the quality of the criteria and process used to determine the host venues; and the quality of the training offered to representatives of the host venues.

7. Humanities team and project team: The qualifications and potential contributions of the advising scholars; the experience and technical skills of the project team; the quality of the project team’s previous work; and the likelihood that the institutional partners will collaborate effectively.

A bit limited.

8. Work plan: The likelihood that the applicant will achieve the project’s goals in a timely and efficient manner.

1/4ly mtgs.

9. Budget: The appropriateness and reasonability of the project’s costs. 

10. Overall Evaluation: Please summarize the major reasons for your rating.

Idea of sharing tools and development skills is great; content is a little bland. Well-articulated in terms of learning development; social dynamic aspect is vague or assumed. Maybe tying it into actual enterprise projects, or targeting underprivileged populations, or some way to make ‘enterprise’ theme work on several levels more explicitly.

Preliminary Rating: VG: Very Good

Additional comments after panel discussion:

So: are they asking for support of the program? or of the technology platform?

Final Rating: VG: Very Good

Newspaper Research Update

Good morning!

First – as of yesterday afternoon, all of the newspaper articles (Jan. 1944 – Jan. 1947) are on the external hard drive. You can use the spreadsheet as a guide, or just take some time to glance through the headlines.

If you check out the updated spreadsheet, you’ll notice a new category – advertisements! In September 1946, the Columbia Merchants Association held Pacific Mills week. Downtown merchants featured Pacific Mills products in their stores, and in large newspaper advertisements. It seems to have been very successful at raising awareness about Pacific products. Also, as the editor tellingly stated, “For too many years there has been a feeling on the part of some people that Pacific was a section by itself and was not to be considered part and parcel of Columbia. Such false reasoning has done neither the community nor the city any good.” As well as excellent advertisements for both Pacific Mills itself and their products, the newspaper ran several articles about Pacific’s history and importance as a local business.

In other Pacific news, a new community center was dedicated in November. In December, there were two articles about the Pacific Mills dispensary (the second is nearly identical to the first, but has some differences). It’s unclear what inspired them, but they provide some insight on Pacific Mills’ workings.

The Olympia High Red Devils football teams had one of their longest and best seasons ever. They forfeited the state football game (after attempting to change the date – they already had a game scheduled the night before) and played a bowl game in Miami. Even though we’re not researching football, this certainly was hugely important to the Pacific community! Toward the end of my day, I began seeing mentions of the Pacific Terrifics again – you might hear about them next week.

There wasn’t much in the way of labor or larger political themes. Cotton prices are rising, and so is production. However, there was a front page rant from the South Carolina governor about northerners owning textile mills.

That’s all – have a great weekend!

Pacific Mills Week - Sept. 13, 1946

Hours: 4 (not including the meeting)

Minutes from 2/28 Mtg w/ Peter at NMAH

ELE: “Learning in Public”

February 28th, 2012

Meeting with Peter @ Smithsonian: 8:30am

–         4 Points: Storyboard

  • Pre-WW2
  • Developing Research
    • Whaley’s Position—Architect, President
    • Working Conditions—Health Conditions
    • Social Conditions
    • Pacific Mills—Tabled at the moment

–         Legacy?

  • “Huge market!”

–         Learning Modules

  • Evolving/ w/ comments
  • Site unknown

–         Themes (4)

  • Incorporated?
    • “states’ rights important”
      • Not Smithsonian’s standards, keep it local
  • Themes in learning module
    • Incorporate them as you choose

–         What standard must you achieve to get your pin on the map? What degree of development is necessary?

Flow chart of ELE website tab linked off of main AE page:ELE Website Flow Chart

–         When do we want our tab?

  • We can do something before we make it workable.
  • April NCPH – deadline for tab? Work group & roundtable & poster.
  • European + Business history in August?

–         Overarching questions

  • When is a story local and when does it become part of a national trend?
  • How do you make it a local story?
  • When does it become a regional/national story?

In attendance: Celia James, Katharine Klein, Shane Lesko, Peter Liebhold, Caitlin Mans, Allison Marsh.  1 hr mtg x 6 = 6 hours worked.

Minutes posted on behalf of Shane Lesko

Meeting 3/23

Congratulations to all for the completion of the IMLS grant!

Allison passed out copies of the grant and supplemental material for everyone to see.  In particular, we hope that everyone will look at the supplemental material and make comments so that edits can be made before the meeting at NCPH in a month.

ELE website supplemental material comments

  • it’s just a picture, not yet in html (Caroline)
  • Talked about tab organization:  Smithsonian site requirements under Online ExhibitS; put Online Exhibits as the first tab
  • ELE Publications:  Our White Paper and Scope of Work (already completed) and other documents as they are created – i.e. grant applications (Celia et al)
  • Will we have facebook/twitter?  Group consensus is that it’d be a lot of work. (Allison et. al)
  • Have a contact us section for people to contact us with comments, see who we are, etc.(Katharine et al)
  • At least 2 more pargraphs in the description section:  1 that talks about USC/NMAH collaboration (about us) and another purpose of this site.(Allison) … much of that is already written (Katharine).
  • Add logos:  Smithsonian, USC, Creative Commons [Allsion made an exectuive decision to make all of our work this as a type of copyright that puts it in the public domain:  There is a Creative Commons that says you have to cite our authorship] (Allison)
  • Direct link to American Enterprise and possibly Omeka depending on their level of involvement (Sarah) … perhaps make the “American Enterprise” text in the paragraph a hyperlink (ALlison)
  • What software should we use?  (Caroline)  Katharine finds Dreamweaver easiest.  Might also want to consider the cost of that versus open source which would probably be more accessible to our constituents (Sarah).  Jennifer mentioned that the Slavery at USC website used Weebly, which had problems, but was more user friendly according to that group.  Allison said that USC requires us to use Droople on their server.  It appears this is a new development in USC policy; Jennifer’s fiance Matt recently went to a workshop on Droople and may be able to give us insight into what it is.
  • What about server? (Caroline)  The ELE website will be hosted by NMAH, but Developing ELE blog, Olympia MIlls, AND the Learning Modules will be ours and hosted by us (Mills exhibit and Learning Modules on USC server).  We just found out that the LMs need to be hosted by us because SI education department had no input in them, so they can’t host them (Katharine).
  • Open-ended question: what type of static links do we want?  Maybe this header on the LMs and ELE publications, but not on exhibtis, etc.  Probably should have requirements of having links to AE and ELE
  • Caroline doesn’t yet have the skills to do this, but is comfortable “making the plunge.”
Learning Modules

Learning modules:  should only be documenting the creation of the online exhibit.  We are only documenting how to create an exhibit in the modules.  If people are interested in this 2part process, they can read this blog.

We assigned Learning Module first drafts (see a forthcoming blog post) and went over the LM outline created for IMLS grant.

  • See an Editting redbox under “Exhibition” eventually
  • Edittedn LM outlines
Online

Caroline will take SI blog post.
Allison will update personal bios
People who are working on stuff online should develop questions so Celia and Sarah can go to the NCPH digital dropin.
Other Stuff
We should all be thinking about potential articles that come out of this process.

Caitlin Mans (not in attendance) has a summer internship with NMAH that is partially related to ELE.  Not working with Peter, so good that we’re making connections with other people.

Jennifer:  1944-47 research all loaded on hardrive.  Read her blogs AND get back to her on what you’re looking for.  She’d like to not go year by year if people could give her an idea of what type of info they’re looking for.  Fun teaser for her blog posts:  ads about local clothing that says, “Clothing made by a man to catch a man!”  She’ll put a picture of it on the WordPress. And we could put it in the blogpost for SI.

Speaking of, we need to create a blog post for the American Enterprise website.  Each person was supposed to come to the meeting with a few sentences written about their work done.  Many of us were waiting to decide what we’re doing for the NCPH deadline at this meeting.

Fundraising:  Fundraiser in 2 weeks, we aren’t sure about the percentage, GHA buying first drink just for grad students and all proceeds going to ELE.  Need to make sure Caroline Peyton and Caitlin Man are in the loop.

Assignments:

  • Smithsonian sentences to Caroline Vereen by Monday 3/26
  • Comments on LM and website by Saturday 3/31
  • tell Jennifer what type of research you need – PLEASE!
  • Come up with questions and add them to Dropbox/ELE/Omeka/Questions for NCPH Digital Dropin.doc by 4/10
  • Celia:  email Anjuli and Sarah Swinney Epps and Claire White and Lana Burgess about helping with LMs, write LM post, and email everyone about commenting on the same document with comments not track changes.
  • Caroline: Tell everyone that they need to send her sentences, write intro and combine the sentences into blog post for SI and send to Peter
  • Allison:  collate SI bio and get to Peter
  • Sarah:  email to Caroline Peyton and Caitlin Man about PR ab fundraiser and donation box
  • Caitlin Man:  donation box

Next Meeting:  Thursday 4/12, have everything done for pre-NCPH

In Attendance:  Sarah Scripps, Caroline Vereen, Allison Marsh, Celia James, Katharine Klein, Jennifer Betsworth

Fundraiser Planning and Update

I met with Caroline Peyton the Vice President of the Graduate History Association (GHA) at the University of South Carolina to help plan our upcoming event.  To help raise money, ELE and the GHA are together holding an happy hour on April 2nd from 5-7 pm at “The Thirsty Fellow.”  This event with help serve as a benefit for ELE, with ELE earning some of the happy hour profits. This should be a great opportunity to help ELE raise some much needed funds and also will also be a great time to just relax and get together before finals.  For all graduate history students,, the GHA will even pay for your first drink ($5 dollars max).

In terms of helping plan a fundraiser, I have realized how important having a time frame is, in both sending out information and well as working with so many busy schedules.  It has also been a good experience working with a business, which in this case has been great, especially their patience in trying to find a date that would work the best for a majority of people’s schedule. I am however excited for the fundraiser and encourage everyone to come.

Hours Worked In the Past Week: 2.