learnteach

So one of my current projects-in-rotation is doing an extremely geeky analysis of the history and dynamics of the Best Related* Hugo category.

The initial stage was to create a spreadsheet of all the known nominees (finalists, long-list, and any additional available data), track down additional data related to them, and categorize the nature and content of the works from various angles.

The second stage was to describe and document the procedural activities behind the creation and modification of the category, as well as to do the same for other Hugo categories that interacted with its scope in some way.**

The third stage was to put together simple descriptive statistics for nomination patterns, comparing the three "eras" of the category scope and (to the extent possible) comparing chronological changes within each era that give evidence for the evolution of nominator attitudes. (Graphs! We have graphs!)

Now I've moved on to a more narrative analysis of each of the various category axes (e.g., media format, content type, etc.) examining what they tell us about how the nominating community thinks about appropriate scope and noteworthiness. As I've hoped would happen, some interesting thoughts and observations are showing up as I work through the discussions, and I'm making notes towards an eventual Conclusions section.

To some extent, I have three sets of questions that I'd like to answer:

1) On a descriptive basis, what have people nominated for Best Related? How have changes in the official definition and name of the category affected what people nominate, and where are the places where nominators have pushed the edges of the official scope and, in so doing, affected future decisions about changing the official scope?

2) Can we determine what makes nominators consider a work worthy of nomination for Best Related? How do factors including format, subject, and creator visibility interact in the nomination dynamics? To what extent are larger socio-political currents reflected in what is nominated?

3) On an anecdotal basis, there are opinions that the Best Related category has "jumped the shark" in terms of works being nominated that are frivolous, trivial, out-of-scope, etc. Some ascribe this to the open-ended definition of the scope under the Best Related Work label. Are there quantitative or qualitative differences in what is being nominated currently that would support an opinion that the category is becoming less relevant in terms of recognizing "worthy" work? And if so (not saying I hold this opinion), does the data point to approaches that might discourage "outliers" from an agreed-on scope without the need for procedural gymnastics or ruthlessly excluding worthy works purely on the basis of format? (Works that would have no other route to recognition under the current Hugo Awards program.)

Please note that my purpose in doing this analysis is scientific curiosity (and a desire to keep my analytic brain in practice). I tend to be solidly on the "let the nominators decide" team outside of the scope definitions enshrined in the WSFS constitution (which Hugo administrators have often subsumed to the "let the nominators decide" position). But at the same time, I'm interested in answering the question of "how has the body of nominations/finalists/winners changed as the scope of the category has broadened?"

It will be several more months (at least) before I'll have a draft ready for anyone else to look at. At which point I'll be looking for some beta readers, not only for intelligibility and accuracy but for any points of context that I may be unaware of. I anticipate publishing the resulting work in my blog, though I may be looking for some other venue to mirror it for a wider audience.

*"Best Related" is my umbrella term for the three stages of the category: Best Non-Fiction Book, Best Related Book, and Best Related Work. Part of my analysis is to examine how changes in the category name and scope affected what got nominated.

**For example, how the creation of categories for Best Fancast, Best Game, etc. interacted with the nomination of those types of works under Best Related.