Page 35 - gt1511

and data representation. This field trip allowed these communi-
ties to understand each other’s goals; geoscientists explained their
data needs, while cyberinfrastructure experts explained the chal-
lenges associated with the current technology and data tools.
Moreover, by presenting the results of data collected from the
specific field areas that we visited, the computer scientists were
able to gain an appreciation for the scope of scientific questions
that geologists try to answer, the role of data in making geological
inferences, the decision-making process for collecting future data-
sets, and how data and models interact in developing a regional
conceptual framework. Sharing experiences in the field, both
intellectual and practical, is a time-tested method for creating a
strong and collaborative scientific community.
SURVEY OF FIELD-TRIP PARTICIPANTS
Approximately three weeks prior to attending the 2014 EC3 field
trip, the participants were asked to complete a voluntary, 55-ques-
tion survey in order to assess their current understanding, interest,
and experience with cyberinfrastructure in the geosciences as well as
their knowledge and level of involvement in EarthCube. Of the 32
field trip participants, we received 25 responses to the pre-field trip
survey. Directly after the completion of the field trip, the participants
were again asked to complete the same survey along with an addi-
tional 15 questions. The post-field trip survey garnered 28 responses.
The goal of these two surveys was to evaluate the effectiveness of
using field experiences to help identify and bridge the conceptual
gaps between the geoscience and cyberinfrastructure communities
with respect to developing the appropriate data infrastructure for the
field-based geosciences.
We highlight here the most salient results from these surveys,
summarized in Figure 1. The complete survey and partially
redacted results can be downloaded from this link: http://www.
sonoma.edu/users/m/mookerje/EC3_pre&post_survey_
Redacted.pdf. The data suggest that after the field trip, both geolo-
gists and computer scientists felt that they had a better
understanding about the current challenges facing field geoscien-
tists with respect to getting their data fully incorporated into the
appropriate data infrastructure. Similarly, both groups also had a
better understanding of what was needed by the cyberinfrastruc-
ture community in order to design an effective integrated data
system. Computer scientists gained a more complete idea of how
they could help geoscientists capture their data into a data
QuesƟon as stated in survey Geoscientists Computer Scientists
Before trip After trip Before trip After trip
How likely do you think that you are going to utilize
EarthCube resources in your own research (not likely=0,
extremely likely=10)?
Rate your understanding of what geoscientists do in the
eld (do not understand=0, fully understand=10).
Rate your understanding of how cyberinfrastructure
specialists can address the speci c needs with respect to
eld data system management (do not understand=0,
fully understand=10).
Rate your current understanding of what cyberinfrastruc-
ture specialists need in order to best design the appropriate
data management systems that incorporates eld data (do
not understand=0, fully understand=10).
Rate how well you feel you understand the current
challenges facing the eld-geoscientist with respect to
getting their data fully incorporated into the appropriate
databases and database structure (do not understand=0,
fully understand=10).
Sharing data about physical samples is particularly di cult
to do (strongly disagree=0, strongly agree=10).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 1. 2014 EC3 Field Trip Pre- and Post-Survey Results.
management system, and they were confident that it was possible
to fully capture the types of data used by field geologists into an
integrated data system. It is unsurprising that this increase corre-
lates with an increase in the computer scientists’ understanding of
what geologists do in the field. After the field trip, both the geosci-
entists and the cyberinfrastructure participants responded that
they were more likely to utilize EarthCube resources in their own
research and that they believed that the development of cyberin-
frastructure would ultimately save them time in their various
scientific endeavors.
THE PATH FORWARD
For EarthCube to succeed, it needs to engage the larger geosci-
ence population and build consensus around what cyberinfra-
structure is the most appropriate for our community. Activities
designed to communicate across disciplinary lines—such as the
field trips described here—are an effective approach. However, we
also need mechanisms that scale in such a way as to incorporate
input from a larger percentage of our scientific community. From
our perspective, almost every geologist that we talk with recog-
nizes the need for cyberinfrastructure. It is clear that we must
have digital data systems in order to increase the capacity and effi-
ciency for conducting science, improving the quality of science,
and facilitating new discoveries. Further, there is increasing pres-
sure from funding agencies that we make our data more widely
available. Regardless of this pressing need, many of the geoscien-
tists we have talked to seem to be taking a “wait and see” attitude
toward cyberinfrastructure and EarthCube specifically. While
that reluctance is, to some extent, understandable, cyberinfra-
structure cannot be designed well without input from the
communities that it is meant to serve. We are now at a critical
junction to make field-based geologic data an integral part of
EarthCube. This task will be difficult and will take time away
from other activities, but it is essential to the future of the science.
We urge all geoscientists—especially early-career investigators
and graduate students, who will inevitably take advantage of these
systems during their careers—to engage and help shape the
emerging geological cyberinfrastructure (http://earthcube.org/
info/get-involved). One excellent venue for learning more about
ongoing and planning activities is at EarthCube Town Hall meet-
ings hosted at the national GSA and AGU conferences. However
one decides to engage, now is the time for geoscientists to make
their opinions, perspectives, and data needs known.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
M. Mookerjee’s work is funded by NSF EarthCube grant ICER-1340265.
GSA TODAY | www.geosociety.org/gsatoday
REFERENCES CITED
Gil, Y., Chan, M., Gomez, B., and Caron, B., editors, 2014, EarthCube: Past,
Present, and Future: EarthCube Project Report EC-2014-3, Dec. 2014,
http://earthcube.org/document/2014/earthcube-past-present-future (last
accessed 25 June 2015).
Kelbert, A., 2014, Science and Cyberinfrastructure: The Chicken and Egg
Problem: Eos, v. 95, no. 49, p. 458–459, doi: 10.1002/2014EO490006.
Richard, S.M., Pearthree, G., Aufdenkkampe, A.K., Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J.,
Daniels, M., Gomez, B., Kinkade, D., and Percivall, G., 2014, Community-
Developed Geoscience Cyberinfrastructure: Eos, v. 95, no. 20, p. 165–166.
Manuscript received 27 Feb. 2015; accepted 9 June 2015. ✸
35