Community InSAR Workshop

1. Community InSAR Workshop Education and Outreach Breakout Group October 20 – 22, 2004

2. Education & Outreach Breakout Group E&O, Higher Ed 6 Gov’t / Industry 1 Consultants 1 Science Centers 2 K-12 education 2

3. The E&O Planning Challenges • Match Science Goals, Data and Product Availability with a Related (and feasible) Education and Outreach Plan • Assemble an E&O working group with broad audience representation and participation • Achieve broad non-science community involvement • Provide education and resources to both internal and external science communities • Organize InSAR E&O outside context of specific missions

4. Breakout Summary • Audiences • Planning Goals / Process • Questions • Recommendations

5. Audiences

6. Audiences Formal Education • Students and Educators • K-12: Elementary, Middle and High School students, their parents, and educators • Undergraduate / 2-year (Community) College students and educators • Undergraduate / 4-year College students and educators • Graduate students and educators

7. Audiences Knowledge Transfer / Data Output • Scientific Research community, including • InSAR community • non-InSAR community • Social scientists • Science educators

8. Audiences Knowledge Transfer / Data Output: Research for partnerships and Development for Output • Industry • IT / Data management • Aerospace • Hazard assessment • Mapping • Financial - Insurance - Real Estate • Others

9. Audiences Knowledge Transfer / Data Output: Research for partnerships and Development for Output • Government • Congressional aides and staff • Federal Government agencies • State / Local agencies with E&O personnel • Forest Service / Rangers • State Parks • Public Policy-makers • Decision-makers at Federal, State, and Local levels

10. Audiences Informal Education / Outreach • General public • Lifelong learners • Media reporters (print, electronic, radio) • Writers • Filmmakers • Education Professionals (PD) • Museum and Art Gallery Curators and Educators • Science Center Educators

11. Planning Goals / Process

12. E&O Planning Goals / Process • Rationale for a non-mission-based InSAR E&O Plan: Create • Awareness • Understanding • Friends • Funds

13. Process Goals • Awareness • “Why InSAR?” • Need concrete examples linked to hooks such as “…single most valuable tool that Earth scientists can provide to world geological hazard mitigation.” • Provide examples of products for the public sector according to audience types • Create products to publicize importance of InSAR (reports, brochures, news articles, TV/film/video production) • Answer: • What can InSAR provide that other technologies can’t? • What was life like before InSAR? • How will life improve with InSAR?

14. Process Goals • Understanding • Inspire the next generation of scientists • Stimulate national science literacy and learning • Advance public understanding of benefits of InSAR technology and uses • Promote understanding of long term benefits of InSAR • i.e., space exploration / including Earth and beyond

15. Process Goals • Friends • Recruit potential collaborators in all sectors • Increase potential use of research / data output • Partnerships lead to increased awareness, understanding and provide additional resources

16. Process Goals • Funds • For planning workshops, plans and proposal(s) development • As result of partnerships / collaborations

17. Process Goals What works • Seamless integration of InSAR rsearch community • 2-way communication w/ audiences • Consensus on strategic plan with vision, mission statement, objectives, goals, tasks • Meet regularly to maintain communication and increase mutual trust • Evaluate progress (formative, summative) • Maintain flexibility and willingness to readily adapt to change are key elements in the process

18. Process Goals What doesn’t work • Research community working in isolation • Assuming we know what our audiences need • Creating plans without audience participation • Reinventing the wheel

19. Process Goals Successful Planning Models • SCEC, EarthScope, LIGO have incorporated consensus building processes in which each audience communicates challenges / needs in the context of proposed research • A series of structured, focus-group-style workshops • Time consuming but worthwhile

20. Process Goals Models • SCEC: ~80 people, ~4000 hours • Result: Strategies that carried SCEC forward beyond original 11-year STC cycle • EarthScope: ~50 people, ~3600 hours • Result: National Level / Model E&O Program with global impact • LIGO: ~40 people per observatory, ~2000 hours each site • Result: $5M / 5 year award for LIGO Science Education Center

21. Questions

22. Questions • What are the truly important, challenging and exciting questions related to InSAR E&O? • Why should our tax-paying audiences care about / pay for SAR/InSAR-based research? • How does InSAR-related E&O / access to data output benefit • the global scientific community? • each target audience? • society as a whole?

23. Questions • What specific activities are best for each audience? [in focus groups, ask both scientists and audiences] • What are their challenges and needs? • How can our research agendas help overcome those challenges and meet those needs? • What communication and dissemination methods should be used? • What societal role should we jointly pursue?

24. Recommendations

25. Recommendations • E&O planning process should include scientists and representatives from target audiences • Integrate the E&O planning with scientific planning process • Concurrent with science / mission planning • Conduct workshops co-located with scientific conferences, in order to include scientists • InSAR scientists should teach other scientists, educators, industry reps and E&O professionals about InSAR science and uses of InSAR data

26. Recommendations • Create an E&O working group as part of the InSAR community that will be maintained throughout planning & execution process • Appoint a chair of the working group who would take responsibility for the success of the planning process • Working group should focus on the why and the how but not the what

27. Recommendations • Working group should develop a planning grant request to support focus groups / workshops • First workshops scheduled as training opportunities for working group members • Cover InSAR “basics”: e.g., “how” to use the data. Conduct these for: • Education community • Scientific community • Industry

28. Recommendations • Subsequent workshops incorporate focus groups’ output

29. Recommendations • A strategic plan / proposed budget / timeline should be created by the Working Group • Use all focus groups’ output • Submit Plan to InSAR Community and potential funding sources.

30. Recommendations • The Plan should • Include mission-related merit review in terms of product development and output • Recommend creation of web-based databases on all activities related to InSAR output • Suggest ways to provide broad access to consistent, high level data products for multiple uses (e.g., interoperability, standards in science and industry) • Incorporate protocols/parameters required to develop a standard for data usage • Incorporate existing industry uses of the technology and data

31. Summary Session Day 3: Identifying andPrioritizing Acquisition Strategies/Needs – Report Outline • Use of existing systems and archives to meet science needs • Negotiated data sharing arrangements for existing and future data sets • International cooperative experiments using existing and planned sensors (e.g., Antarctic missions) • Role of commercial SAR data providers • New satellite systems to advance frontier • Major science goals • Capabilities and technologies required • Recommendations for the US SAR program • Scope • Priorities