2016-agu-town-hall-presentationhandout-for-website

The AGU town hall goals are:To share with you the process and explain the objectives, timeline & status of a community effort to draft a report on future directions in tectonics.. AGU 20

• 

• 

The AGU town hall goals are:

To share with you the process and explain the objectives, timeline & status of a community effort to draft a report on future directions in tectonics.

The take-home messages are:

1)  The process including May 2016 workshop

and information gathering from the

community is working.

2)  A draft is in progress.

3)  Your input is needed

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The process & workshop worked:

There was enthusiasm about the workshop and the outcomes among the participants, Most felt that their voices were heard,

And clear themes emerged…

… and lots of data

Idea papers

“Madlib” individual syntheses Scribe reports from breakouts PowerPoint synthesis reports Syntheses from plenaries

Online comments

Group brainstorm sessions

From before, during,

after workshop

… and lots of data

Idea papers

“Madlib” individual syntheses

Scribe reports from breakouts

PowerPoint synthesis reports

Syntheses from plenaries

Online comments

Group brainstorm sessions

From before, during,

after workshop

From many perspectives

e.g., Active tectonics Geochronology

Geophysics Low & Hi-T Geochem.

Erosion/tectonics Metamorphic/structure Shallow/structure

Structure/Mechanics P-mag

Geomorphology Geodynamics Geodesy/tectonics Field/Lab/Modeling Grad/undergrad institution Range of career stages

Underrepresented groups

By the GSA Town Hall update, we had:

commiFee *

By the GSA Town Hall update, we had:

commiFee*

• 

• 

hNps://sghuturedirec*ons.wordpress.com/idea-­‐paper/

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

à  à 

à  à 

à 

1  

AGU 2016 Town Hall handout – 1

The University of Wisconsin – Madison, May 20-22, 2016

This NSF-sponsored workshop assembled ~90 Earth scientists to discuss a broad range of topics, including: (1) identifying grand challenges and opportunities for significant advances in the field of Tectonics; (2) defining and prioritizing the resources, technologies, partnerships, and infrastructure our community needs to make scientific progress; and (3) developing a vision to build and strengthen our community, including finding new ways to maximize the educational and societal benefits of our work and to communicate and enhance our impact The overarching goal of the workshop was to begin a community-wide conversation on these issues that will continue in public forums throughout the year The results will be captured in a report that communicates the goals, needs, and relevance of Tectonics research to funding agencies, other scientists, and non-specialist audiences

The Workshop Organizing Committee (Basil Tikoff and Laurel Goodwin, University

of Wisconsin-Madison; Yvette Kuiper, Colorado School of Mines) obtained the funding

(NSF-EAR-1542001), designated the Writing Committee chairs (Kate Huntington, University of

Washington; Keith Klepeis, University of Vermont) and handled logistics in Madison The

Workshop Planning Committee, composed of volunteers and individuals recruited to represent

the diversity of the Tectonics community (Rick Allmendinger, Cornell University; Marin Clark,

University of Michigan; Eric Cowgill, University of California-Davis; Becky Dorsey, University

of Oregon; Kevin Mahan, University of Colorado; Jim Spotila, Virginia Tech) managed participant application and selection, and worked with the Writing Chairs and Organizing Committee to design and lead the workshop Workshop participants represented a broad range of disciplines, institutions, backgrounds and career stages; a full list of participants is available on the workshop website (link provided below) The workshop was structured around five breakout sessions, which led to very exciting, animated discussions and numerous ideas to move our community forward Short papers (also posted on the website) solicited from each participant and presented as brief pop-ups at the start of the workshop also helped shape the discussions Themes that emerged from the discussions are forming the basis for the Tectonics report

Broad input from the community is critical to the success of this endeavor, from defining our vision for the report to realizing that vision in the decades to come Major themes

and ideas that emerged from workshop discussions have been synthesized and the report is starting to take shape—please join our listserv for regular updates and for opportunities to contribute your ideas You are invited to:

1) subscribe to the workshop listserv: email 'join-sgt-workshop@lists.wisc.edu' 2) visit our website: https://sgtfuturedirections.wordpress.com

3) Leave a comment: (visit our website for the link)

The target date for the report is May, 2017 We encourage you to be part of this opportunity to advocate for our community!

We thank the NSF for sponsoring the workshop and David Fountain and Stephen Harlan for their insights

We thank the Univ of Wisconsin-Madison for hosting the event and Randy Williams for excellent support

AGU 2016 Town Hall handout – 2

For those of you who are new to this effort, thank you for coming! Thank you also to everyone who checked out the website and draft report framework, sent comments, participated in the GSA Town Hall activities, and responded to our surveys about the draft report framework

We have completed the first systematic review of your feedback, and we will be revisiting the data again in the months ahead As expected, the comments touch on a wide range of topics (and

in some cases directly contradict each other!) Fortunately, the major criticisms and ideas that resonate broadly across the community are emerging clearly and starting to shape revisions of the report framework

We have begun to tap teams of experts to help with framing and writing parts of the report We are working in parallel on all of the grand challenge topics, and have made substantial progress

on the topics from the draft framework that were most developed and that received the strongest support from the feedback we received

Names of potential writing contributors for the various sections have arisen organically through the workshop, GSA Town Hall, survey/feedback and other community activities In most cases, potential writing contributors were recommended independently by several people in their

respective fields In other cases, a key concept was highlighted by many people in the

community as being important, and someone’s writing (e.g., an “idea paper” submitted prior to the May 2016 workshop, see https://sgtfuturedirections.wordpress.com/idea-paper/ for more information; other written product from the workshop, online surveys or GSA Town Hall activity responses; or recent publication) articulated that concept particularly clearly, making that author

an obvious person to tap

So far we have asked >20 potential writing contributors to work together and with us on some aspect of Part 1 of the report We have begun discussions and writing with some and await responses from others We aim to complete initial drafts of some grand challenge sections by the end of December Another ~10-12 writing contributors we have not yet contacted will be needed

to help flesh out the rest of Part 1, and many more will be needed to contribute to writing other sections

Please be patient with us as we work through this massive organizational effort! Your input is

needed at this Town Hall and accompanying online survey (http://tinyurl.com/AGUsurvey)

We will need additional experts to review each of the sub-sections And everyone’s help is needed to vet the framework for Part 2 of the report (Winter 2017) and Review the entire report Thanks again for being part of this effort to advocate for our community

Kate Huntington (U of Washington) and Keith Klepeis (U of Vermont),

Writing committee co-chairs

AGU 2016 Town Hall handout – 3

Please respond to one or more of the following questions

• We suggest you take a moment to jot down your ideas, then discuss in pairs or small groups and record your notes in the spaces below

• You can complete your responses later and submit online: http://tinyurl.com/AGUsurvey

and/or turn in page 3 only of this handout at the end of this Town Hall meeting

• If you wish, take photo of this page with your phone, keep it or email it to Kate1@uw.edu

Question #1: What are the opportunities to increase and/or better communicate the

quantitative rigor of our scientific research? Specifically:

a across the many disciplines that make up our community?

(e.g., Do we need new ways of organizing observations, archiving them and incorporating them into models? What statistics should be reported in the kinds of datasets you publish, or in the datasets you rely on from others? What are the strategies for communicating uncertainties to other geoscientists?)

b as we communicate to other audiences? (e.g., What are the strategies for communicating data and uncertainties to your students? To your institution administrator? To the public?)

Question #2: What are the opportunities for our community to increase the development of quantitative skills in our educational efforts, workforce development, and outreach efforts?

(e.g., Does the “rocks for jocks” stereotype affect participation, learning goals or outcomes in your undergraduate curriculum? What quantitative skills do high school students need to succeed at higher levels? What quantitative skills do graduate students need to succeed in their future careers? What are the opportunities to develop or engage the quantitative skills of non-scientists?)

Name (optional):