ARCUS | Arctic Research Consortium of the United States

ARCSS Overview

Updates From the ARCSS Committee

ARCSS Meetings

Community Planning

Community Surveys

ARCSS Synthesis Process

ARCSS Research Efforts

Synthesis of Arctic System Science

ARCSS Committee

ARCSS Publications

ARCSS Listserve

ARCSS Data Coordination

Contact Information

ARCSS Synthesis eTown Meeting Feedback Results by Contributor

Return to Results Page

Lil Na'ia Alessa, Lilian Na'ia Alessa, Matthew Sturm

Matthew Sturm

Matthew Sturm

msturm@crrel.usace.army.mil

Q1. Name a historical example of good or great science synthesis. What was it about this example that made the synthesis a real process of discovery and scientific advancement?

Response: Charles Darwin and the Origin of the Species: Darwin collected his own data, read widely and eclectically, and then was able to see a structure and organizing principle that no one else saw, and to then return to his data and readings to further "prove" to himself that his synthesis was on target.

Q2. Does synthesis imply the need to view the Arctic at ever greater levels of complexity?

Response: Not always, but we have to be careful here. Physicists tend to think that these higher order systems can be simplified if only the organizing principles can be found; ecologists and biologists have had to grapple with very complex interactions and ramifications from changes for their whole careers. The key to answering this question is actually knowing what bigger question we are answering and deciding whether we can lump and simplify, or whether the diversity and complexity of the subsystems produce even more complexity enmasse.

Q3. Did you find the definitions of scale and focus in the last AO a hindrance or a help? Did they confuse or clarify what constituted good synthesis?

Response: I think they were good at explaining the scope and scale of the synthesis ARCSS was looking for, but less good at suggesting the sort of activity and end-product that was desired.

Q4. Have you been involved in synthesis efforts previously? Were they similar in nature to the type of projects that were funded or that you proposed to the last announcement?

Response: Yes, and in a number of cases, Yes. However there seemed to be more data products funded than would be consistent with my past synthesis experience, which tended to focus on system processes and function.

Q5. Have you known someone who was good at scientific synthesis? What was it they did that made them good?

Response: I have seen some auto mechanics who were great at this. You told them a set of symptoms, maybe mimicked the sound the car was making, then they produced a diagnosis that proved right on. What made them (and scientists of the same ilk) good was the ability to not be confused by the details (suggesting the answer to number 2 might be a stronger No), but could grasp the system complexity.

Q6. What are the elements needed for a good synthesis? Face-to-face meetings? Synthesis retreats? Wiring diagrams? Models that reduce complexity? Integrating data sets? Publishing articles geared toward the lay-public? Creating products useful for decision-makers? Things not on this list? Tell us what you think.

Response: I would distinguish two types: solo synthesis (Darwin) and group synthesis. In both cases, there is the ability to ingest and sort through a lot of seemingly disparate data. The end result of successful synthesis (or at least one hallmark) is that it launches other efforts.

Q7. Please add any additional comments, questions, or ideas on future modes of arctic synthesis, especially if none of the questions above interested you or stimulated a response.

Response: I will pass on this since as an ARCSS AC member, I have many opportunties to provide this sort of input. I really want to hear from the community. My comments above are just meant to "seed" the process.