Data Management telecon 2013-03-15

Currently developed modules

List of current modules

http://commons.esipfed.org/datamanagementshortcourse

What has been planned: http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Data_Management_Course_Outline  

100 originally proposed, 50 made it through editorial review, 37 published on commons.

Assessment

http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/WorkshopSchedule

Evaluations - sparsely populated.

Idea - ask for funding to assess current modules before developing new modules.

Different approaches taken in different modules - haven’t dealt with particular areas in the outline, so we don’t even know if we’re hitting all the important points - and, discovery of the modules is a question. Who else is doing this kind of work? How successful have they been in their modules?

Pressing development needs

Can look briefly at the outline to see the big holes - see if it’s still viable organization.

Info on the Sloan Foundation Challenge Grant:

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/support/announcements/2013/02/icpsr-to-award-20000-challenge-grants

From Ruth, the current process for development of modules is this:

1. Author module (can take up to 40 hr to do a good job)

2. Peer review process (2-4 reviewers)

3. Author updates of module (~ another 8 hours?)

4. Author records module (less than an hour)

5. Transcript created from recording and applied to ppt and script created (~1 day?)

6. Author reviews transcript (roughly an hour)

7. Final ppt published, final module recording made (less than a day)

During all of this process, there is an editor monitoring the process,

pushing the process forward.

Expense per module, then, using rate of $100/person-hour would be approximately $5000. (This is probably the lowest amount - better to set a target. This process needs fleshing out).

Further information about the grant: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/files/datamanagement/sloan-challenge-2013.pdf

Questions for this are:

1. Who would be the agency? ESIP (Would need to talk with Carol)? Another group?

2. Should we focus on new module development, assessment, or a combination of both?

3. $20K cannot go to indirect - how do agencies involved feel about that? Argument for ESIP be the agency.

IDEAS FOR NEXT STEPS:

For Sloan Grant, we should probably focus on ASSESSMENT in all its various forms.

1. Are people finding the modules? How are they finding them? What forms are they using?

2. Are people realizing they NEED DMT? (suggestion - encourage NSF/other funding agencies to link to modules)

3. How can we connect to DataONE (they also have training modules)? IEDA also training as well.

4. How have other groups developed modules? What is their process/how successful is it? Many participants indicated that they have materials that they could reuse/repackage, but some of those various modules ended up taking a long time. Time spent did not indicate quality necessarily.

5. HOW to assess? Luann Dahlman had expressed interest early on; ESIP has used someone in the past who has provided a template to ask questions - Carol will share with Denise and Denise will further distribute.

6. Outreach - if many haven’t heard of the modules, we could “publicize” and then have them assess. Find out what people may need to use in a classroom setting.

7. Other ideas? What can produce the most bang for buck?

8. Surveys targeted to particular groups (e.g., previous workshop participants; classroom users)

9. Possibility of another workshop?? Maybe in conjunction with ESIP Winter 2014. Maybe just cover cost of travel for presenters/organizers; room/food; presentation materials. FOCUS ON ASSESSMENT. But is ESIP really the right target audience? Or maybe early career, etc - AGU, GSA, other venues... Maybe ultimately develop an EarthCube standalone Data Management workshop. Maybe target with Sloan grant the new/younger generation of scientists and focus assessment on how it impacts their work. “We’ve built this for the new generation.”

10. Assessment needs to be considered as a major component of any use of these materials moving forward.