Difference between revisions of "Talk:ADBC Summit 2018"

From iDigBio
Jump to: navigation, search
(Topics for Individual Discussion Groups)
Line 28: Line 28:
* Innovation Experiences, Lessons Learned
** Example: [https://www.idigbio.org/content/how-and-how-not-design-light-box-cautionary-tale How to, and how not to, design a light box: A cautionary tale.] Cindy Skema (MaM TCN)
=== Training Modules ===
=== Training Modules ===

Revision as of 09:37, 2 May 2018


Evaluation of last year's Summit

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


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


Training Modules




Field Trips

  • Tours of FLMNH collections

Self-Guided Tours/Activities