Geology topics

Alison Specht

Publications and source records attributed to Alison Specht.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2022

Accessibility of environmental data for sharing: The role of UX in large cyberinfrastructure projects

Incorporating user experience (UX) testing when creating research cyberinfrastructure is often overlooked, but if left too late, the cost of retrofitting is considerable, and the very clients the cyberinfrastructure was built to serve may be lost. Successfully integrating UX testing into the product development cycle can be difficult but rewarding. This paper describes how UX evaluations were incorporated over ten years of operation of DataONE ( www.dataone.org ), a multi-sector science research cyberinfrastructure project created to support the discovery, access, and sustainability of data about life on Earth and the environment that sustains it. The diverse stakeholders in DataONE include data creators and users such as researchers and government workers across the broad scope of the earth and environmental sciences as well as those who hold and manage data such as libraries and data repositories. Between 2009 and 2019 DataONE members designed and constructed data management tools and services to fulfill the DataONE objectives. To assist in achieving its goals, a participatory design approach was used by establishing several largely volunteer and stakeholder-representative working groups, including the Usability and Assessment Working Group. This Working Group conducted over forty UX evaluations to assess the usability of DataONE products and websites at various stages of the development process. In addition to improving the usability of DataONE products, the UX evaluations fostered community involvement by building trust and engagement with the products being developed. The DataONE UX experience yields several important lessons which will improve the success of other projects. It is our conclusion that UX testing should be a mandatory part of the design of any cyberinfrastructure project.

Ecological Informatics↗

USGS2017

Synthesis centers as critical research infrastructure

Demand for the opportunity to participate in a synthesis-center activity has increased in the years since the US National Science Foundation (NSF)–funded National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) opened its doors in 1995 and as more scientists across a diversity of scientific disciplines have become aware of what synthesis centers provide. The NSF has funded four synthesis centers, and more than a dozen new synthesis centers have been established around the world, some following the NSF model and others following different models suited to their national funding environment ( http://synthesis-consortium.org ). Scientific synthesis integrates diverse data and knowledge to increase the scope and applicability of results and yield novel insights or explanations within and across disciplines (Pickett et al. 2007 , Carpenter et al. 2009 ). The demand for synthesis comes from the pressing societal need to address grand challenges related to global change and other issues that cut across multiple societal sectors and disciplines and from recognition that substantial added scientific value can be achieved through the synthesis-based analysis of existing data. Demand also comes from groups of scientists who see exciting opportunities to generate new knowledge from interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration, often capitalizing on the increasingly large volume and variety of available data (Kelling et al. 2009 , Bishop et al. 2014 , Specht et al. 2015b ). The ever-changing nature of societal challenges and the availability of data with which to address them suggest there will be an expanding need for synthesis. However, we are now entering a phase in which government support for some existing synthesis centers has ended or will be ending soon, forcing those centers to close or develop new operational models, approaches, and funding streams. We argue here that synthesis centers play such a unique role in science that continued long-term public investment to maximize benefits to science and society is justified. In particular, we argue that synthesis centers represent community infrastructure more akin to research vessels than to term-funded centers of science and technology (e.g., NSF Science and Technology Centers). Through our experience running synthesis centers and, in some cases, developing postfederal funding models, we offer our perspective on the purpose and value of synthesis centers. We present case studies of different outcomes of transition plans and argue for a fundamental shift in the conception of synthesis science and the strategic funding of these centers by government funding agencies.

BioScience↗

USGS2017

Best practices for virtual participation in meetings: Experiences from synthesis centers

The earth environment is a complex system, in which collaborative scientific approaches can provide major benefits by bringing together diverse perspectives, methods, and data, to achieve robust, synthetic understanding (Fig. 1). Face-to-face scientific meetings remain extremely valuable because of the opportunity to build deep mutual trust and understanding, and develop new collaborations and sometimes even lifelong friendships (Alberts 2013, Cooke and Hilton 2015). However, it has been argued that ecologists should be particularly sensitive to the environmental footprint of travel (Fox et al. 2009); such concerns, along with the time demands for travel, particularly for multi-national working groups, provide strong motivation for exploring virtual attendance. While not replacing the richness of face-to-face interactions entirely, it is now feasible to virtually participate in meetings through services that allow video, audio, and file sharing, as well as other Web-enabled communication.

Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America↗