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

This  annotated  presenta*on  is  followed  by  a  3-­‐page  handout  from  AGU  Town  Hall  2016   Future  Direc*ons  in  Tectonics   NSF-­‐supported  community-­‐wide  effort  to:   •  Iden*fy  scien*fic  grand  challenges  and  opportuni1es   •  Ar*culate  our  needs     •  Develop  a  vision  for  our  community   •  Final  goal:  report  on  Future  Direc*ons  in  Tectonics   •  Now  is  a  good  *me;  last  effort  was  15  years  ago   •  The  welcome  and  introduc*on  to  AGU  Town  Hall,  Dec  15,  2016,  was  presented  by   YveNe  Kuiper  (a  co-­‐PI  on  NSF  grant  funding  this  community  effort)     •  Such  reports  have  benefiNed  other  successful  communi*es;  the  *me  is  right  for  us   to  assess  how  our  relevance,  opportuni*es  and  needs  have  changed  in  the  nearly   15  years  since  the  last  report  on  tectonics   Process   •  Organizing  commiNee:                                                                                                   Laurel  Goodwin,  YveNe  Kuiper,  Basil  Tikoff   •  Workshop  commiNee:  Rick  Allmendinger,  Marin  Clark,   Eric  Cowgill,  Becky  Dorsey,  Kevin  Mahan,  Jim  Spo*la     •  Wri*ng  commiNee:                                                                                                                           led  by  Kate  Hun*ngton  and  Keith  Klepeis   •  Workshop  (May  20-­‐22,  2016):  >90  par*cipants   •  Community:  town  halls,  online  input  and  feedback   •  A  large  community  effort  is  underway  The  effort  has  been  adver*sed  broadly  for   over  a  year  Many  people  represen*ng  diverse  perspec*ves  have  goNen  involved   •  The  org  commiNee  got  funding  from  NSF  and  worked  with  the  workshop  and   wri*ng  commiNees  to  plan  and  facilitate  the  workshop  The  wri*ng  commiNee  has   goNen  extensive  feedback  on  documents  and  dracs  from  the  other  commiNees,   workshop  par*cipants,  and  feedback  and  contribu*ons  from  community  members   Thank  you   •  NSF  Tectonics:  David  Fountain,  Steve  Harlan   •  Everything-­‐not-­‐already-­‐men*oned:                         Randy  Williams   •  The  NSF-­‐EAR  Tectonics  program  officers  encouraged  this  community  effort  and   provided  funding  (NSF-­‐EAR-­‐1542001)  Randy  Williams  (U  Wisconsin  Madison)  has   provided  extensive  logis*cal  and  technical  support   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  presenta*on  and  audience  group  ac*vi*es  for  the  rest  of  the  Town  Hall  were   presented  by  Kate  Hun*ngton  (on  behalf  of  Kate  Hun*ngton  and  Keith  Klepeis,   wri*ng  commiNee  co-­‐chairs)   The  locy  goals   of  the  wriNen   report  are:       to  build   community,   ar*culate     our  vision,   enhance  our   impact,     like  many  other   successful   communi*es   Image:  legjoints.com     The  goals  also   include:     To  explain  examples   of  our  science  to   many  poten*al   audiences     To  galvanize  our   community  &  build   our  iden*ty     To  serve  as  a  plahorm   to  aNract  resources   that  can  benefit  the   community  as  a   whole  (and  avoid   being  prescrip*ve)     Image:  legjoints.com   The  process:       We  made  every   effort  to  build  in   transparency     &  avoid  personal   agendas   •  The  process  is  designed  to  avoid  having  any  one  person  or  group  hold  the  reins     •  The  people  who  obtained  a  workshop  grant  from  NSF  to  produce  the  report  are   not  the  same  people  who  are  wri*ng  the  report   •  There  are  mul*ple  commiNees  of  volunteers  and  groups  of  people  selected  to   represent  the  diverse  perspec*ves  of  our  community   •  We  adver*sed  broadly  and  solicited  widely  to  aNract  broad  par*cipa*on  from  the   Tectonics  community   Image:  domvetlabs.worpress.com   The  process:       avoid  Franken-­‐   Document   •  The  process  has  been   designed   with   the  e   nd  product  in  mind  We  want  to  avoid   Image:   Boris   Karloff   making  a  frankendocument  composed  of  individual  posi*on  papers  on  different   topics  all  s*tched  together   Image:   •  Rather  we  want  to  clearly   ar*culate  a  vision  with  one  voice  that  provides  context   Wikipedia   and  organizes  the  broad   perspec*ves  of  our  community  into  unifying  themes   The  process:     wri*ng     co-­‐chairs     asked  to  join   early  on   Keith Klepeis U Vermont •  The  wri*ng  commiNee  is  composed  of  two  people  with   different  backgrounds  to  reflect  the  breadth  of  our  community   •  They  are  responsible  for  shepherding  the  process  and  ensuring   a  coherent  product  comes  out  at  the  end     •  Their  job  is  to  solicit,  discill,  and  help  ar*culate  the  community’s   DreamWorks   ideas  rather  than  their  own.Image:     Kate Huntington U Washington Goals   (1)   iden*fy  scien*fic  grand  challenges  &  opportuni1es  where   we  are  poised  to  make  progress,  that  illustrate  the  kind  of   work  we  do   (2)   iden*fy  the  resources,  technologies,  partnerships,  and   infrastructure  our  community  needs  to  make  scien*fic   progress   (3)   develop  a  vision  to  build  and  strengthen  our  community,   to  maximize  the  educa*onal  and  societal  benefits  of  our   work  and  to  communicate  and  enhance  our  impact   Since  then,  we  have  (see  today’s  handout  page  2):   •  Started  analysis  of  data  to  develop  Part  2  framework   •  Revised  Part  1  framework  based  on  feedback  (GSA  &  online)   •  Started  to  tap  teams  of  experts  to  help  with  Part  1   Excerpt  from  Handout  page  2:     We  have  completed  the  first  systema*c  review  of  your  feedback,  and  we  will  be  revisi*ng   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  cri*cisms   and  ideas  that  resonate  broadly  across  the  community  are  emerging  clearly  and  star*ng  to   shape  revisions  of  the  report  framework     We  have  begun  to  tap  teams  of  experts  to  help  with  framing  and  wri*ng  parts  of  the   report  We  are  working  in  parallel  on  all  of  the  grand  challenge  topics,  and  have  made   substan*al  progress  on  the  topics  from  the  drac  framework  that  were  most  developed  and   that  received  the  strongest  support  from  the  feedback  we  received         Names  of  poten*al  wri*ng  contributors  for  the  various  sec*ons  have  arisen  organically   through  the  workshop,  GSA  Town  Hall,  survey/feedback  and  other  community  ac*vi*es  In   most  cases,  poten*al  wri*ng  contributors  were  recommended  independently  by  several   people  in  their  respec*ve  fields  In  other  cases,  a  key  concept  was  highlighted  by  many   people  in  the  community  as  being  important,  and  someone’s  wri*ng  (e.g.,  an  “idea  paper”   submiNed  prior  to  the  May  2016  workshop,  see   hNps://sghuturedirec*ons.wordpress.com/idea-­‐paper/  for  more  informa*on;  other   wriNen  product  from  the  workshop,  online  surveys  or  GSA  Town  Hall  ac*vity  responses;  or   recent  publica*on)  ar*culated  that  concept  par*cularly  clearly,  making  that  author  an   obvious  person  to  tap           The  Part  1  framework  is  evolving      &  2  Deforma*on,  from  Earth’s  surface  to  the  upper  mantle,   over  the  earthquake  cycle,  from  geologic  *me  to  human  *me          -­‐  What  controls  the  spectrum  of  fault  zone  behavior  through                  1me,  from  the  Earth’s  surface  to  the  upper  mantle?              -­‐  How  does  rheology  vary  throughout  the  lithosphere?           To  give  you  a  sense  of  how  the  themes  are  evolving:     Themes  1  &  2  (themes  from  the  9/2016  Drac  Framework  that  was  shared  with  the  community   and  online;  fault  zone  behavior  and  rheology)  both  center  on  deforma*on;  wri*ng  groups  are   working  on  developing  the  examples  for  these  themes,  and  we  as  the  wri*ng  co-­‐chairs  will   revise,  merge  or  change  the  order  of  these  themes  as  needed  to  crac  a  cohesive  final   document  that  is  faithful  to  the  main  consensus  ideas  that  emerged  from  the  workshop  and   community  survey  data    &  2  Deforma*on,  from  Earth’s  surface  to  the  upper  mantle,   over  the  earthquake  cycle,  from  geologic  *me  to  human  *me          -­‐  What  controls  the  spectrum  of  fault  zone  behavior  through                  1me,  from  the  Earth’s  surface  to  the  upper  mantle?              -­‐  How  does  rheology  vary  throughout  the  lithosphere?        What  are  the  dynamic  interac1ons  among  Earth-­‐surface     processes,  landscape  development,  and  tectonics?     This  list  provides  examples  of  the  type  of  vigneNes  that  might  be  used  to  illustrate   key  aspects  of  this  theme  :   •  Tes*ng  geodynamic  and  tectonic  models  using  the  geologic                record  of  surface  uplic  and  subsidence   •  Localized  interac*ons  among  climate,  erosion  and  tectonics   •  The  missing  link  –  understanding  rock  damage  and  erodibility   •  Dynamic  coupling  of  tectonic/topographic  stress,  damage/deforma*on,                chemical  weathering  and  physical  erosion        &  2  Deforma*on,  from  Earth’s  surface  to  the  upper  mantle,   over  the  earthquake  cycle,  from  geologic  *me  to  human  *me          -­‐  What  controls  the  spectrum  of  fault  zone  behavior  through                  1me,  from  the  Earth’s  surface  to  the  upper  mantle?              -­‐  How  does  rheology  vary  throughout  the  lithosphere?        What  are  the  dynamic  interac1ons  among  Earth-­‐surface     processes,  landscape  development,  and  tectonics?          How  have  tectonic  processes  shaped  the  co-­‐development  of     the  solid  Earth,  biosphere  and  atmosphere?                 Some  of  the  concepts  that  are  being  used  to  frame  this  theme  include  the  following:              -­‐  Tectonic  processes  link  Earth  systems,  key  role  in  developing  and  maintaining  the                    habitability  of  our  planet              -­‐  To  understand  processes,  need  to  integrate  structure  and  dynamics  of  the                      mantle  and  crust  to  develop  quan*ta*ve,  global  tectonic  model  of  Earth                      that  spans  both  oceans  and  con*nents  over  billions  of  years      &  2  Deforma*on,  from  Earth’s  surface  to  the  upper  mantle,   over  the  earthquake  cycle,  from  geologic  *me  to  human  *me          -­‐  What  controls  the  spectrum  of  fault  zone  behavior  through                  1me,  from  the  Earth’s  surface  to  the  upper  mantle?              -­‐  How  does  rheology  vary  throughout  the  lithosphere?        What  are  the  dynamic  interac1ons  among  Earth-­‐surface     processes,  landscape  development,  and  tectonics?          How  have  tectonic  processes  shaped  the  co-­‐development  of     the  solid  Earth,  biosphere  and  atmosphere?      How  can  interac*ons  between  tectonic  processes  and  society     help  advance  scien1fic  knowledge  and  help  us  determine   how  best  to  sustain  an  increasingly  urbanized  planet?     Please  be  pa*ent  with  us  as  we  work  through     this  massive  organiza*onal  effort!       •  Your  input  is  needed  at  this  Town  Hall  (in  1  minute:  get  ready)   •  Addi*onal  experts  to  review  each  of  the  sub-­‐sec*ons   •  Everyone’s  help  to  vet  the  framework  for  Part  2  of  the  report   and  Review  the  en*re  report     So  far  we  have  asked  >20  poten*al  wri*ng  contributors  to  work  together  and  with  us  on  some  aspect  of   Part  1  of  the  report  Another  ~10-­‐12  wri*ng  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  wri*ng  other  sec*ons     Your  input  is  needed  (today’s  handout  page  3):       What  are  the  opportuni1es  for  our  community  to  increase  and/ or  beFer  communicate  the  quan1ta1ve  rigor  of  our  research?     The  next  slides  introduce  the  individual  &  group   brainstorming  ac*vi*es  that  made  up  the  rest  of  the   Town  Hall,  following  ques*ons  from  the  audience   Your  input  is  needed  (today’s  handout  page  3):       What  are  the  opportuni1es  for  our  community  to  increase  and/ or  beFer  communicate  the  quan1ta1ve  rigor  of  our  research?     à  across  the  many  disciplines  that  make  up  our  community,  or     à  as  we  communicate  to  other  audiences     New  ways  of  integra*ng  observa*ons  and  models?  Standardizing  data  repor*ng   for  the  kind  of  work  you  do,  or  the  publica*ons  you  rely  on  from  others?  How  to   communicate  data  and  uncertain*es  to  students?     Your  input  is  needed  (today’s  handout  page  3):       What  are  the  opportuni1es  for  our  community  to  increase  and/ or  beFer  communicate  the  quan1ta1ve  rigor  of  our  research?     à  across  the  many  disciplines  that  make  up  our  community,  or     à  as  we  communicate  to  other  audiences     New  ways  of  integra*ng  observa*ons  and  models?  Standardizing  data  repor*ng   for  the  kind  of  work  you  do,  or  the  publica*ons  you  rely  on  from  others?  How  to   communicate  data  and  uncertain*es  to  students?       What  are  the  opportuni1es  for  our  community  to  increase  the   development  of  quan1ta1ve  skills  in  our  educa1onal  efforts,   workforce  development,  and  outreach  efforts?     Does  a  “rocks  for  jocks”  stereotype  affect  your  curriculum?  What  quan*ta*ve   skills  do  students  need  to  succeed  at  higher  levels?     Your  input  is  needed  (today’s  handout  page  3):       What  are  the  opportuni1es  for  our  community  to  increase  and/ or  beFer  communicate  the  quan1ta1ve  rigor  of  our  research?     à  across  the  many  disciplines  that  make  up  our  community,  or     à  as  we  communicate  to  other  audiences   New  ways  of  integra*ng  observa*ons  and  models?  Standardizing  data  repor*ng   for  the  kind  of  work  you  do,  or  the  publica*ons  you  rely  on  from  others?  How  to   communicate  data  and  uncertain*es  to  students?       What  are  the  opportuni1es  for  our  community  to  increase  the   development  of  quan1ta1ve  skills  in  our  educa1onal  efforts,   workforce  development,  and  outreach  efforts?   Does  a  “rocks  for  jocks”  stereotype  affect  your  curriculum?  What  quan*ta*ve   skills  do  students  need  to  succeed  at  higher  levels?       ACTIVITY  (see  handout):   1.  Respond  to  one  or  more  ques*ons,  discuss  with  neighbor(s),  write  notes   2.  Submit  responses  online,  hand  in,  and/or  photograph  &  email  to  Kate1@uw.edu!   Future  Direc1ons  in  Tectonics     Thanks  for  being  part  of  this  effort  to  advocate  for  our  community!       •  Visit  online    hNps://sghuturedirec*ons.wordpress.com   •  Join  Listserv    email  join-­‐st-­‐workshop@lists.wisc.edu     •  Respond  to  today’s  ques1ons    *nyurl.com/AGUsurvey,  kate1@uw.edu     Next  steps     •  Complete  Part  2  framework  (needs,  community,  educa*on,  broader  impacts)   •  Complete  draE  of  Part  1  with  help  from  experts   •  Solicit  community  input,  con1nue  veeng  and  review   Report  target     date  May,  2017           NSF-­‐EAR-­‐1542001     Report  on  the  "Future  Directions  in  Tectonics"  Workshop   The University of Wisconsin – Madison, May 20-22, 2016 Synopsis   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  Process   The Workshop Organizing Committee (Basil Tikoff and Laurel Goodwin, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Yvette Kuiper, Colorado School of Mines) obtained the funding (NSFEAR-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 Getting  Involved   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! Acknowledgments   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 – AGU  Town  Hall  Update   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 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 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 – Name (optional): 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 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 high school students need to succeed at higher levels? What quantitative skills graduate students need to succeed in their future careers? What are the opportunities to develop or engage the quantitative skills of non-scientists?) AGU 2016 Town Hall handout –