Evaluation Criteria

Core Evaluation Criteria

• The project translates or develops the student’s scholarly and/or pedagogical work by bringing it to a public audience and/or community context.
• The project demonstrates collaborative practice and an equitable distribution of labor. Good collaborative practice includes:
  • Outlining clear lines of communication
  • Suitable distribution of responsibility
  • Articulating mutual benefit(s) to all parties in the collaboration
• Quality and salience of the project’s benefits to the student(s) beyond advancing their dissertation research.
• Quality and salience of the project’s benefits to the community partner(s), including the extent to which the project addresses a community-identified need.
• Will the project result in the creation of a new public cultural good or service?
• Is the budget feasible and reasonable?

Will the project result in the creation of a new public cultural good or service?

Public good is evaluated according to:

• Plan for sustainability beyond the life of the grant
• Plan for engaging the widest possible public (for example, how you will advertise, engage stakeholders and disseminate impact)
• Reflection on potential contributions to public/community policy or influence upon professional practice
• Models that enrich the artistic and cultural life of the community
• Clear evaluation plan with commitments from partners and/or peers to assess the significance of the public good generated by the project?

Is the budget feasible and reasonable?

Allowable for expenses are as follows:

• Student stipends can be requested up to $20 per hour
• Community partner honorariums for organizational costs associated with the project
• Transportation, research material, supplies, documentation, publication, production of public good(s) such as performances or exhibitions, etcetera.