ARCSS Feedback Results by Question

To return to the main results page, click here.

---

389 Anonymous, 422 Anonymous, Michelle Boyle, Arnold Brower

Michelle Boyle

Michelle Boyle
University of British Columbia
mboyle@sdri.ubc.ca

Q1. Are there specific issues relating to the ARCSS eNote #2 (distributed to the community on 15 April 2005) on which you would like further clarification?

Response: --No answer received on this question--

Q2. What are the best methods to engage the research community in planning and implementing more integrated and synthetic research on the Arctic system?

Response: - workshops/retreats surrounding a specific question (i.e. Big Sky, Tahoe) - on-line forums surrounding a particular question, with the discussions edited and distributed at its close - having a framework research agenda allowing individual researchers to design at least a portion of their research to fit; this is most effective if there is an overarching committee periodically providing a synopsis, and identifying research gaps; this allows both a cohesive effort as well as the means to identify researchers and projects for potential collaboration

Q3. What kind of information from the ARCSS Committee and NSF will be most useful to the research community in this process?

Response: - overarching research agenda, with priority areas identified by a synthesis and gap analysis - informaton about researchers and projects to facilitate collaboration (e.g. on-line listings or database, clustered by common themes and searchable) - perhaps information on matching funding opportunities

Q4. What are your suggestions for improving communications between the AC and NSF and the research community?

Response: - good already - many might disagree, but I find shorter and more frequent communications easier to digest (and more likely read) than long summary messages

Q5. How can we improve communication and coordination among the various disciplines and research programs relevant to ARCSS activities?

Response: - see #2; emphasize opportunities for people from different disciplines and projects to meet (in person or on-line), and ideally focus on the same issue (e.g. roundtables on a current issue); this can facilitate interaction and also identify "problem" areas where communication/understanding between disciplines is difficult - the AC or staff could take an active role in suggesting collaborations (as a product of the synthesis and gap analysis of a common research agenda)

Q6. Any general comments related to the ARCSS Program and arctic system science?

Response: (Comments from the peanut gallery): I believe inter- and transdisciplinary research is critical to moving forward, even though it is often difficult and messy. The systems science framework is a very powerful tool to achieve this. However, it can benefit from occasional reflection and revision of what "system" and "science" means in the Arctic.