Webinar Theme 3, Review: frequency, criteria, process. Long-term observing management and governance. Image: freshspectrum.com. This is the third webinar in a thematic series devoted to commonly held questions r elated to long-term observing management and governance.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Review: frequency, criteria, process
management and governance
This is the third webinar in a thematic series devoted to commonly held questions
related to long-term observing management and governance.
The eight themes of this series are:
Lifecycle and Horizons
Review: frequency, criteria, and process
Award structure and management
Information sharing and communication
National and global connectivity
Past webinars have been recorded and archived on the ArcticHub.
Our next webinar on Network relevance will be held on January 21st at 1:30pm ET.
Future events are posted on the ArcticHub and the SAON webpage.
You may also click on the link “Subscribe to the calendar of webinars” on the
ArcticHub to download an ics file to your personal calendar.
Don’t forget that monies are available through ARCUS to host your own discussions
on these management and governance topics. Please visit
http://www.arcus.org/search/aon/discussion-funding-form for more information.
A fully networked design
Image: Wolfgang Baumeister, CIPSM
Are there different review tools that are more appropriate to nascent, mid-life, or
Image: Nick Kim
Is there one model for evaluating all disciplines in observing networks?
Do intellectual merit and broader impacts cover what is needed to evaluate a network?
Are there other universal aspects of
observing networks that should be reviewed?
Are certain review criteria dependent
on the maturity of the network?
Should facility management,
and community engagement
be reviewed separately from
Would lower scores in any
of these areas be grounds for
Image: Julie Smith
networks be evaluated?
Given a developing science or new interdisciplinary approach, what is the best method
for evaluating the science(s) within the network?
Do multi-disciplinary panels work?
How do panels fare with
Image: Eli Stein
expect in a long-term observing effort?
Image: George Huba
the review process for:
• logistical costs
• overhead and maintenance
• workforce education
• data products
• social capital
• community relevance
Should host facilities
be reviewed separately
from the integrated
projects they support?
Image: Michel Theriault
We currently screen for conflicts that are:
When all participants in a
particular observing field
are in conflict, who is appropriate
Images: PBS NewsHour; IOOC-US
Where are the key points for review?
Image: CommDev/IFC/World Bank
reviewing a long-term observing network?
What are the criteria necessary
to move a nascent network to a
mid-term or multi-decadal network?
What are the requirements for turning
a network into a long-term facility?
Does the review timeline change
with maturity of the network?
Image: New Zealand Digital Library Project/Greenstone Digital Library Software
• What weaknesses are acceptable? • Do established observing efforts have
• What happens when weaknesses are an advantage over new projects?
found in an established priority observing • Should the two be reviewed
effort that is deemed critical? separately?
Image: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
for a long-term network?
Are these different for an
Images: Zach Gemignani, Guy W. Wallace
risk play in an
What factor should
it play in
Images: World Economic Forum
and adaptability play in long-term observing?
Should innovation be a key
component at critical review
stages or is quality maintenance
of the information stream and
I.e., if it isn’t broken, should I fix it?
Are review processes and evaluation
metrics sensitive to the need for
stability in certain situations?
Or, is the requirement to innovate
a blessing in disguise even for long-term
Images: Emerald Insights; Owen and Dietz
play in the selection and maintenance
of long-term observing projects?
Should community engagement be a review
criteria for observing proposals?
Should community review be part of the
process and how should this be carried out?
Should community review apply to all
long-term observing proposals?
Should additional conditions be made of
long-term observing awards if the work
will take place near or in a community?
If so, what should those conditions be?
Should the community be part of the process
for determining renewal and continuance
of long-term observing efforts?
Image: Communication Initiative Network
perceived by hiring bodies?
Are graduate students and
postdocs who focus on
monitoring considered to
be competitive for academic
How is monitoring science
viewed by tenure or
Does community or student
participation in observing
have merit beyond the activity,
such as school credit or
What other benefits do
communities envision from
Image: The Scientist
Image: Indigenous Community Volunteers Australia
If you have any questions about these webinars, the funding opportunity, or the ArcticHub,
please direct them to email@example.com .