The preferred web browser for submitting internal grant applications is Google Chrome. 

General Guidelines for HARP Large-Scale Development Grant Applications

The Humanities and Arts Research Program (HARP) Large-Scale Development Grant funds one award up to $100,000 each academic year to support a faculty or team of faculty engaged in an exceptional large-scale creative and performance project or activity in the arts and humanities. This limited funding is designed to support faculty in the final stages of the development of projects that seem likely to enhance the reputation of the faculty member and the university, and lead to international distribution of a performance or product. While the program aims to fund a single project, the Office of Research & Innovation reserves the right to divide the funds among two or more programs of high merit, with lower budget requirements, the total not exceeding $100,000 across all programs.

The deadline for HARP Large-Scale Development applications will be in early-October, with awards announced in December. Funding will be available for a two-year period beginning on January 1.

What types of projects are eligible?

HARP Large-Scale Development grant projects should:

• produce results or a product that is very likely to receive external recognition (e.g., through available distribution or exhibition venues), be used beyond MSU, and enhance MSU’s reputation in the field or the production.
• produce a scholarly or creative product ready or near ready for distribution to a wide audience (e.g., large-ensemble music production, staged play, large format artwork, produced film/documentary, large-scale video game) with the potential for significant impact in the discipline or related areas.
• enable the distribution of a product already produced at MSU but needing funds to take it to the world.

Who is eligible?

• Tenured and tenure-track faculty
• Faculty with uninterrupted, multi-year, fixed-term appointments
• Faculty with one-year appointments who can obtain written confirmation from their department chair of pending appointment through the duration of the grant (letters from the chair should be uploaded as part of the project description)
• Academic specialists in the continuing appointment system who have the majority of their effort in the research category
• Faculty from Arts and Letters, Communication Arts and Sciences, James Madison, Lyman Briggs, Music, Social Science, and the Residential College in the Arts and Humanities are eligible to apply for HARP funding.
• NOTE: Faculty emeriti are not eligible to apply for HARP funding.
• NOTE: Faculty rank and proximity to promotion and tenure decisions will not be considered in the evaluation of proposals. All applications will be evaluated on the merit of the work being proposed.

I have received HARP funding. When am I eligible to reapply?

• An investigator who has received a HARP Development grant award, either as a PI or Co-PI, is eligible to apply for another HARP Development grant two years after the end date of their funded project.
• An investigator may apply for a Production grant one year after the start date of a HARP Development grant project.
• An investigator may apply for a HARP Development grant one year after the start date of a HARP Production grant project. 
• An investigator who has received a HARP Production grant is eligible to re-apply two years after the end date of their funded project. 
• An applicant may submit one HARP application per academic year. Exceptions will be made only when an applicant submits a HARP Production proposal and is directed to revise and resubmit.
• While a PI may simultaneously apply for more than one category of HARP award, only one award under one category will be made to any PI or Co-PI in a given year, and future HARP funding will follow the above rules.

Proposal Evaluation

Your proposal and examples of previous related works will be reviewed by faculty drawn from across campus working in the humanities broadly defined; this includes but is not limited to those working in the visual, performing, and written arts. The panel will evaluate the quality of your proposal, evidence of previous productivity in the chosen medium, and appropriateness of your budget. Through discussion the panel will reach a consensus funding recommendation for your project.

The consensus statement (normally one paragraph to a page in length) will summarize the panel’s evaluation, and the positive comments and/or panel concerns that emerged during discussion. This statement reflects the critical points used to make the panel’s recommendation. Prior to the panel discussion, individual panel members submit written reviews which will be made available to the applicant. These reviews will not be modified following the panel discussion, and thus may not reflect all the critical factors used in making the final funding decision.

If the panel finds the project interesting, but the proposal is less than adequate in one or more of its aspects (budget, credibility, etc.), the panel may recommend re-writing and re-submission for a subsequent competition.

Final funding decisions will be made by the Office of Research & Innovation and will be based on the potential for enhancing the University's scholarly reputation, the likelihood of external recognition, and the availability of funds.

Review Criteria:

1. Eligibility: Is the scope and intent of the project appropriate for the HARP Large-Scale Development grant? (Yes or No. If No, OR&I will review and make final decisions on eligibility).

2. Significance:

Elements to be considered include:

• To what extent does the project address an important question, problem, or issue – to humanity at large, or to a scholarly discipline? 
• Is the project sufficiently unique? To what extent does it address the subject in a way that is significantly additive to the field of scholarship?
• To what extent does the project align to goals within the MSU 2030 strategic plan, particularly the pillars of “Discovery, Creativity and Innovation for Excellence and Global Impact”, “Sustainable Health”, “Stewardship and Sustainability” or “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion”?

Reviewers should include clear feedback on how the work excels or falls short of being significant in the field of study, significantly additive to extant work in the field, or addressing one or more elements of MSU 2030 Strategy.

3. Impact:

Elements to be considered include:

• If the project is produced and released to the public, to what extent will scientific, cultural, or artistic knowledge be advanced? 
• To what extent will the work have significant effect on the concepts or methods that drive the field of scholarship?
• To what extent will the dissemination of this work bring enhanced reputation to MSU?

Reviewers should provide constructive feedback on how the project could be altered or enhanced to raise its impact.

4. Strength of Applicant & Previous Work: 

• To what extent does the stature, experience and track record of the applicant indicate a high probability of project completion? 
• Does the application demonstrate a body of work that is of high quality and ready to move to the next level?

Reviewers feedback should describe how the applicant could strengthen the probability of project completion, through additional skills or the contribution of collaborators.

5. Dissemination Plan:  

• To what extent does the application provide a viable plan for translation to the world, including plans for partnerships with non-MSU parties required to help with dissemination?
• To what extent will the funding deliver a finished product ready for impact, and/or does the application describe a viable path to future funding to complete the work?

Reviewer feedback should describe feedback on alternative strategies, partnerships, use of funds, or sources of follow-on funding to increase the likelihood of successful dissemination of the work.

6. Need:

Elements to be considered include:

• Does the applicant adequately describe other avenues for funding that were pursued, and lessons learned, or feedback received in that process?
• Does the applicant adequately describe the impact this project will have on their own career and standing in their field?

Reviewer feedback should describe other routes to funding, or other means to achieve project goals, if the need for this funding was deemed low.

7. Budget: 

• Does the applicant clearly articulate how the requested funds will be used and is the budget appropriate for the scope of the project?  (Yes or No)

Reviewer feedback should recommend remedies that should be made post-approval, and/or suggestions for an improved use of funds in a resubmission.

Post Award Information

HARP Large-Scale Development awards funding for 24 months beginning on January 1 and ending on December 31.

Accounts will be established in the principal investigator’s name and be maintained within his or her department. The use of funds will be restricted to direct costs of the project excluding faculty salary. Costs can include supplies and services, funds for external contractors, and other reasonably related and pre-approved activities. All investigators working on a project must meet applicable approvals for use of human and animal subjects. Principal investigators will be notified via email when accounts are established. Start dates are firm. If there is need to postpone the start of work, investigators are asked to submit a request for an extension. Extensions will not change the start date but will extend the duration of the grant. All extensions are subject to approval by OR&I.

Ownership of intellectual property and/or copyright derived from the HARP Large-Scale Development program is retained by MSU under institutional policy.  Commercialization of MSU-owned intellectual property resulting from HARP Large-Scale Development grants is coordinated by MSU Technologies.

Report

A final report is required at the mid-point and completion of the project.  The following questions should serve as a guideline for these reports:

• Generally, what is/was the result of receiving HARP funding?
• Did you mount an installation or show the work? If so, where was it/will it be presented?
• Did you create a DVD, CD, or other tangible product, and how is it being disseminated?
• Did you complete a film and what are your plans for the film (e.g., festival showings, contests)?
• Did you produce a new gaming product, and what are the plans to distribute it?
• What responses to your work have you received (especially ones that illustrate how other people consider it important)?
• Do you foresee your completed work leading to more work in the same or an expanded area?
• Do you foresee any outreach and representation of MSU locally, regionally, nationally, or internationally?
• How has your work made you a better artist, professor, or member of the larger community of scholars?
• If you are an untenured professor, have you talked to your chair about the effect the completion of your project could have on your receiving tenure?

HARP Large-Scale Development Panel Selection Procedures

The Review Panel for the Large-Scale Development grant program will be drawn from the Humanities Research Panel and/or Exhibition and Performance Panel, aiming to assure a good overlay of expertise to match the submissions received.  Guidelines for the formation of these panels can be found in the description of the HARP Production and HARP Development programs.

HARP Large-Scale Development Important Dates

Downloadable PDF of HARP-LS guidelines.