Talk:ADBC Summit 2017

PLEASE USE THIS PAGE FOR DISCUSSION OF YOUR THOUGHTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR THE SUMMIT

Executive Summary from ADBC Summit 2016 Evaluation

• The New TCN Orientation was better received than Summit V orientation. We received no negative comments about jargon and acronyms; in the past, use of those overwhelmed new participants’ and contributed to their sense of being outsiders. This suggests that iDigBio’s effort to avoid jargon and to define acronyms in presentations and in the program were successful. Comments do suggest, however, that the orientation might be even more effective if held at the beginning, rather than at the end, of the day (or online prior to the Summit), and that some of the information regarding the iDigBio website would be better conveyed via hands-on activities (e.g., creating an iDigBio account). There were also requests for appearances by NSF and iDigBio PIs and a meet-and-greet with the iDigBio staff, and greater emphasis placed on PENs.
• Most respondents found the presentations by NSF and iDigBio to be informative; however, comments suggest that NSF, iDigBio, and BCoN are not doing a good job communicating plans for the future of biodiversity collections digitization.
• The 5-minute structured format for the TCN presentations also appears to have been effective. The brevity of the presentations kept participants’ interest level high, and the format made it easy to draw comparisons across TCNs. The most frequent criticism of the format was that it was too constraining; respondents expressed interest in learning more about lessons learned and successful approaches unique to specific TCNs as opposed to metrics and statistics.
• Most of the discussion sessions were also effective. There was some overlap across some sessions, which frustrated some participants and also wasted time; at least some sessions would have benefitted from an orientation that provided an overview of current status, important issues, and terminology.
• A majority of respondents participated in at least one ad hoc or special interest meeting during the Summit; most found the meetings valuable and believe it important to include time for those meetings in the schedule. Thus, if possible, future Summits should set aside time for these meetings.
• The meeting organization worked well. As in prior years, some participants were frustrated by concurrent discussion sessions, and new members of the community would have appreciated structured opportunities to meet up with representatives from more senior TCNs.
• With respect to Summit resources, most respondents checked the wiki at least once prior to the Summit. During the Summit, participants relied equally heavily on the wiki and the interactive pdf. If given a choice of just once resource, participants indicated a strong preference for an interactive pdf over only the wiki, a printed program, or a phone app. Thus, iDigBio should continue to provide both the wiki and the pdf and consider a single-page two-sided printed agenda.
• The overall meeting venue was rated highly, with iDigBio members more enthusiastic than other participants. The reception at the aquarium was highly praised. Most who offered comments liked some aspects of TechTown (e.g., “fun,” “creative,” “collaborative”), but this was offset byproblems with acoustics and physical layout. Similarly, Chattanooga received mixed reviews, although participants did appreciate the ease of moving among hotels, meeting spaces, and restaurants.
• With respect to Summit impacts, most respondents reported increased knowledge of iDigBio, the national digitization effort, and TCNs. Most TCN and iDigBio affiliates anticipate increased communication with others at the meeting, as well as possible new collaborations. Another benefit of participating in the Summit noted by participants was the opportunity to engage in meaningful conversations with NSF staff.
• The Summit received a median grade of ‘A’ and an average grade of A- (range = C to A+).
• We asked participants to identify potential venues for future Summits and to suggest ways to add value to the meeting in light of the fact that participants will increasingly need to cover some of the costs. Most of the locations suggested were in the Western U.S. In terms of adding value, there was a high interest in training and workshops, with the greatest interest shown in workshops related to tools, data, and research use.

Ideas for Discussion Groups, Training Modules, and Demos

Discussion Group Topic Ideas

• Future workshops
• WeDigBio

Training Module Ideas

• Georeferencing
• Photography 101
• Using R with the iDigBio API
• Jupyter

Demo Ideas

• Digital Atlas of Ancient Life
• GUODA
• iDigPaleo

Field Trip Ideas

• Hike along the La Chua Trail
• Fossil hunting
• National Fossil Day at the Florida Museum (Nov 4)
• Tour of the museum at the Division of Plant Industry - entomology, pathology
• Tour of UF's Natural Area Teaching Laboratory
• Hike around Lake Alice
• Sweetwater wetlands preserve