Comments on: “Soft” [money] is not a four-letter word http://www.foundhistory.org/2010/03/26/soft-money-is-not-a-four-letter-word/ by Tom Scheinfeldt Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:11:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: What I learned from the Scholars’ Lab and the Center for History and New Media | Academitron http://www.foundhistory.org/2010/03/26/soft-money-is-not-a-four-letter-word/comment-page-1/#comment-9949 What I learned from the Scholars’ Lab and the Center for History and New Media | Academitron Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:55:32 +0000 http://www.foundhistory.org/?p=880#comment-9949 [...] Scheinfeldt, CHNM’s managing director, has written about the viability of running a DH center on soft money. And he makes a good point that getting [...] [...] Scheinfeldt, CHNM’s managing director, has written about the viability of running a DH center on soft money. And he makes a good point that getting [...]

]]> By: THATCamp 2010 » Blog Archive http://www.foundhistory.org/2010/03/26/soft-money-is-not-a-four-letter-word/comment-page-1/#comment-9810 THATCamp 2010 » Blog Archive Mon, 17 May 2010 16:36:31 +0000 http://www.foundhistory.org/?p=880#comment-9810 [...] to the above… A while ago, I gently challenged Tom Scheinfeldt’s post about Soft Money by arguing that there was a pretty strict limit on how much digital work could be supported just on [...] [...] to the above… A while ago, I gently challenged Tom Scheinfeldt’s post about Soft Money by arguing that there was a pretty strict limit on how much digital work could be supported just on [...]

]]> By: Goose http://www.foundhistory.org/2010/03/26/soft-money-is-not-a-four-letter-word/comment-page-1/#comment-9223 Goose Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:38:27 +0000 http://www.foundhistory.org/?p=880#comment-9223 Tom, thanks for an informative post. The type of structure that you describe at CHNM sounds exactly like the set-up in the quango or think-tank world, which has been working on a similar "corporate nonprofit" model for years (places like the Urban Institute, Rand, or EPI). There seems to be one difference, though. Where those organizations create knowledge for the same government agencies that fund them -- EPI reports on tax policy go to the Treasury, etc. -- that would not seem to be the case for an institution like CHNM, which takes funding and turns it into goods for a different set of people. The "clients" you describe are not the same as the end users, in other words, and in this CHNM's mission would seem to be more like an academic department than a corporation. It sounds like that tension can be negotiated, but do you think it might put a cap on the genera applicability of the halfway model, at least for digital humanities organizations? Tom, thanks for an informative post. The type of structure that you describe at CHNM sounds exactly like the set-up in the quango or think-tank world, which has been working on a similar “corporate nonprofit” model for years (places like the Urban Institute, Rand, or EPI).

There seems to be one difference, though. Where those organizations create knowledge for the same government agencies that fund them — EPI reports on tax policy go to the Treasury, etc. — that would not seem to be the case for an institution like CHNM, which takes funding and turns it into goods for a different set of people. The “clients” you describe are not the same as the end users, in other words, and in this CHNM’s mission would seem to be more like an academic department than a corporation.

It sounds like that tension can be negotiated, but do you think it might put a cap on the genera applicability of the halfway model, at least for digital humanities organizations?

]]>