PIE in the SKY Marni Goldman Jack Hehn Cherilynn Morrow Robert Ridky

1. PIE in the SKY • Marni Goldman • Jack Hehn • Cherilynn Morrow • Robert Ridky

2. MEANS to BROADEN IMPACT Diagram is derived from a written description of the review criteria for an NSF STC Integrative Management & Leadership Integrate Research & Education Circle of Broadening Impact Enhance Capacity for Science & Applications K-12 Ed Informal Ed Pub Outreach Intellectual Merit Enhance Diversity

3. Recommendations for NSF • The longer NSF avoids expressing clarity about Criterion 2, the more resentment and confusion can be created in the community that will undermine the good intentions and intended cultural change of Criterion 2. There are many case studies already to that exemplify this back-slide. Crit 2 is an important need and we want to see it flourish. • NSF-wide (or Geosciences only) panel assessment of how Criterion 2 is being handled...Conduct a study...self-evaluate how this is going? Self evaluate...(COV?) do an inventory of how Criterion 2 is working at NSF... How are program officers, review panels, and proposers currently handling Criterion 2? What % of the written reviews are addressing Criterion 2? What are the coping strategies?

4. Recommendations for NSF • Engage the science and bridge-building community formally in a series of “town meetings” to support the clarification of Criterion 2 and the formation of a descriptive analysis that serves as a common “sheet of music” for program officers, reviewers, and proposers & collaborators in the interpretation of Criterion 2 • Explicitly promote and support a cadre of professionals (the bridge-builders) that help to carry out Criterion 2 work – Support Network • Build answers to an evolving FAQ about Criterion 2. Encourage each program officer to have answers until NSF-wide guidance is clear. • Collect indicators of quality options for fulfilling Criteria 2 – role for DLESE to point to those doing this in the community.

5. Recommendations for Institutional leaders • VP of research at Universities, Research institutions leaders to review their institutional commitment for Criterion 2 • Endorsement of scientist-bridge builder-educator collaboration in fulfilling Criterion 2 • Professional society leaders...examine position and activities and resources in support of Criterion 2. Use Criterion 2 as a political lever to support NSF...promoting the image of NSF via the fact that they have this....Workforce issues. Future of the economy and the scientific enterprise....

6. For Bridge-Building Community • Communicate the good intentions Endorsement of scientist-bridge builder-educator collaboration in fulfilling Criterion 2 • In the near term, encourage the PI to contact her/his program officer to see how the Criterion 2 is being locally interpreted... • Participate in the interpretation and clarification of Criterion 2 • Develop some plug-ins and pathways... • JOINTLY convene sessions across disciplines at prof societies like AGU...

7. Recommendations for the Science Community • In the near term, contact program officer to see how Criterion 2 is locally interpreted... • Contribute to the dialogue that is pressing for clarity regarding Criterion 2 • Seek bridge-builders to help form partnerships in fulfilling/meeting Criterion 2

8. Recommendations for DLESE • Deliver resources to support meeting Criterion 2...(e.g. resources to explain or promote Criterion 2, options for plug-ins and pathways) • DLESE supports the community in its effort to fulfill Criterion 2... • On-line professional development to focus attention to available resources...

9. Da “PIE in the SKY” Plan • Early going: • Keep working to articulate clarity the fundamental goals/outcomes of Criterion 2 from an NSF perspective. What does success look like? (e.g. Mike’s opening presentation starts to articulate the challenge...) • NSF engages the science and bridge-building community formally in a series of “town meetings” at professional society meetings or elsewhere to support input on and clarification of Criterion 2. • Convene a forum that investigates the power and pitfalls of established network models and their relevance to achieving/facilitating the intended aims of fulfilling Criterion 2 (e.g. IRIS, AGI, AIP, NASA Space Science Support Network, COSEE, DLESE...) • ,Take this input and create a descriptive analysis that serves as a common “sheet of music” for program officers, reviewers, and proposers & collaborators in the interpretation of Criterion 2. • Meanwhile, DLESE collect resources from the “grass roots” level that support scientists in education (e.g. NASA Space Science (Scientists Communication & Involvement Group), COSEE, ReScipe). • Re-convene a group like us to keep things going...build on the intellectual capital we’ve built here.

10. Individual Proposer Evolve from this meeting (US!) and others like it, an intellectual commons or facility that operates strategically on the entire structure from the individual scientist/proposer/ prof society member to networks of organizations with intellectual common ground. Center/Dept/Prof Soc Inter-Org Collaboration All Orgs with Intellectual Common Ground US!