Difference between revisions of "Talk:ADBC Summit 2018"

From iDigBio
Jump to: navigation, search
(Topics for Individual Discussion Groups)
(Topics for Individual Discussion Groups)
Line 34: Line 34:
 
** Current practices, Calculating costs, Evaluating research use issues and value: sharing feedback from the community (GRU Workshop, Digital Data II, SPNHC Symposium)
 
** Current practices, Calculating costs, Evaluating research use issues and value: sharing feedback from the community (GRU Workshop, Digital Data II, SPNHC Symposium)
 
* Challenges for research use of the data (across stakeholders). (from Charles Marshall – Would like some discussion of how one of the biggest  challenges is making use of their collective data to advance our understanding of ecological, evolutionary and environmental change, as well the underlying systematics of their taxa).
 
* Challenges for research use of the data (across stakeholders). (from Charles Marshall – Would like some discussion of how one of the biggest  challenges is making use of their collective data to advance our understanding of ecological, evolutionary and environmental change, as well the underlying systematics of their taxa).
 +
* Bottlenecks. What are your digitization slow steps?
  
 
=== Training Modules ===
 
=== Training Modules ===

Revision as of 15:00, 2 May 2018

PLEASE USE THIS PAGE FOR DISCUSSION OF THOUGHTS & SUGGESTIONS FOR THE SUMMIT

Evaluation of last year's Summit

Full Report: https://www.idigbio.org/sites/default/files/workshop-presentations/summit7/ADBC%20Summit%20VII%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf

Summary

An invitation to an electronic survey was sent to 131 individuals who participated in the Summit onsite; 80 individuals responded yielding a 60% response rate. Most (59%) respondents were representing a TCN or PEN with the remaining divided about equally between iDigBio and other organizations. Respondents represented projects funded each year of the ADBC program and they were about evenly split between those attending their first Summit and those who had attended prior ones (45% vs 55%).

iDigBio provided an orientation to those new to the ADBC community, including those attending the oVert TCN kickoff meeting. Most (75%) participants rated the orientation at least “somewhat helpful.” Nearly all respondents rated the presentations by iDigBio, NSF, and the TCN representatives to be at least “somewhat informative.” The format of the lightning talks was generally viewed as effective with the general scope of the TCNs and lessons learned of greatest interest and statistics related to digitization progress the least. Comments reveal that an interest in greater opportunities for Q&A and discussion during the TCN presentations; organizing the talks on some basis other than year of funding or directing each TCN to focus on a specific area of strength might facilitate that.

All of the working/interest group meetings and discussion sessions as well as Demo Camp and the workshop of collections data and ecological/conservation research were rated positively although ratings varied. The most highly rated sessions were the EAB meeting with TCN representatives, the oVert working group meeting, Legal Issues with Collections, iDigPaleo working group meeting, the ecology workshop, Demo Camp, and the sessions on Symbiota and Specify.

Summit organization was also regard positively with an appropriate amount of time devoted to formal presentations, time for informal interaction, and working/interest group meetings. The Summit venue was rated highly, despite the lack of affordable dining options nearby and the challenges of traveling to Gainesville. Respondents did comment on some issues related to communication about the Summit including delays in having a final program available, last minute changes to the program, the difficulty of reading the wiki, and confusion about the cost of participating in optional activities.

With respect to the impact of participating in the Summit, a majority of respondents from iDigBio, TCNs/PENs, and other organizations reported increases in knowledge of both iDigBio and the national digitization effort and TCNs. A majority of respondents from iDigBio and other organizations reported likely increases in communication and collaboration with TCNs, with 40% or more of TCN representatives indicating the same, including those participating in their first Summit.


Ideas for Summit Content

Topics for Summit-wide Discussion

  • ADBC Next Gen effort (Barbara Theirs/BCoN)

Topics for Individual Discussion Groups

  • Innovation Experiences, Lessons Learned
  • Data Quality Feedback
    • Experiences from our data providers
  • Georeferencing / Georeferences
    • Current practices, Calculating costs, Evaluating research use issues and value: sharing feedback from the community (GRU Workshop, Digital Data II, SPNHC Symposium)
  • Challenges for research use of the data (across stakeholders). (from Charles Marshall – Would like some discussion of how one of the biggest challenges is making use of their collective data to advance our understanding of ecological, evolutionary and environmental change, as well the underlying systematics of their taxa).
  • Bottlenecks. What are your digitization slow steps?

Training Modules

  • On Building a Carpentries Biodiversity Data Lesson by and for the Museum Community. A report from CarpentryCon, Digital Data II discussions on this topic and a chance to get input from the ADBC Community.
  • Georeferencing

DemoCamp

TBD


Field Trips

  • Tours of FLMNH collections


Self-Guided Tours/Activities