Long-t

erm

obse

rvin

g

managem

ent

and g

overn

ance Webinar Theme 3,

Review: frequency, criteria, process

Image: freshspectrum.com

This is the third webinar in a thematic series devoted to commonly held questionsrelated to long-term observing management and governance.

The eight themes of this series are:1. Definition2. Lifecycle and Horizons3. Review: frequency, criteria, and process4. Network relevance5. Funding models6. Award structure and management7. Information sharing and communication8. 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 theArcticHub to download an ics file to your personal calendar.

Don’t forget that monies are available through ARCUS to host your own discussionson these management and governance topics. Please visithttp://www.arcus.org/search/aon/discussion-funding-form for more information.

A fully networked design

Image: Wolfgang Baumeister, CIPSM

What should the review process for long-term observing look like?

Are there different review tools that are more appropriate to nascent, mid-life, ormature networks?

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, environmental safety, communication efficacy,and community engagement be reviewed separately fromscientific merit?

Would lower scores in anyof these areas be grounds fora decline?

Image: Julie Smith

How should multi-disciplinary, interdisciplinary or integrated networks be evaluated?

Given a developing science or new interdisciplinary approach, what is the best methodfor evaluating the science(s) within the network?

Do multi-disciplinary panels work?

How do panels fare withcomplex proposals?

Image: Eli Stein

What are the key phrases that reviewers expect in a long-term observing effort?

Image: George Huba

Should there be consideration in the review process for:

• logistical costs• overhead and maintenance• communication• safety• workforce education• training• data products• accessibility• interoperability• social capital• community relevance

Should host facilitiesbe reviewed separatelyfrom the integratedprojects they support?

Image: Michel Theriault

How can conflicts be dealt with in a truly networked design?

We currently screen for conflicts that are:

• institutional• collaborative• mentoring• monetary

When all participants in a particular observing fieldare in conflict, who is appropriate to review?

Images: PBS NewsHour; IOOC-US

What are the stages in the development of an observing design?Where are the key points for review?

Image: CommDev/IFC/World Bank

What is the appropriate timeline forreviewing a long-term observing network?

What are the criteria necessaryto move a nascent network to amid-term or multi-decadal network?

What are the requirements for turninga network into a long-term facility?

Does the review timeline changewith maturity of the network?

Image: New Zealand Digital Library Project/Greenstone Digital Library Software

What is the ideal ratings system for observing and monitoring?

• 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

What are the evaluation metrics for a long-term network?

Are these different for anintegrated network?

Images: Zach Gemignani, Guy W. Wallace

What factor should risk play in an observing design?

What factor should it play in funding decisions?

Images: World Economic Forum

What role does innovation, improvisation, flexibility, and adaptability play in long-term observing?

Should innovation be a key component at critical reviewstages or is quality maintenanceof the information stream andobserving structuresatisfactory?

I.e., if it isn’t broken, should I fix it?

Are review processes and evaluationmetrics sensitive to the need forstability in certain situations?

Or, is the requirement to innovatea blessing in disguise even for long-termprojects?

Images: Emerald Insights; Owen and Dietz

What role should communitiesplay in the selection and maintenanceof long-term observing projects?

Should community engagement be a reviewcriteria for observing proposals?

Should community review be part of theprocess and how should this be carried out?

Should community review apply to alllong-term observing proposals?

Should additional conditions be made oflong-term observing awards if the workwill take place near or in a community?If so, what should those conditions be?

Should the community be part of the processfor determining renewal and continuanceof long-term observing efforts?

Image: Communication Initiative Network

How is participation in or leadership of observing and monitoring perceived by hiring bodies?

Image: The Scientist

Are graduate students andpostdocs who focus onmonitoring considered tobe competitive for academicpositions?

How is monitoring scienceviewed by tenure or advancement committees?

Does community or studentparticipation in observinghave merit beyond the activity,such as school credit or admission consideration?

What other benefits docommunities envision frommonitoring participation?

Thank you for your participation in today’s webinar.

Image: Indigenous Community Volunteers Australia

Please join us again on January 21st at 1:30pm ET for the next webinar.

If you have any questions about these webinars, the funding opportunity, or the ArcticHub, please direct them to ekey@nsf.gov .