WELCOME EVERYONE! Union Honors Program Orientation Training Sunday, 14 December 2014
Welcoming Remarks and Introduction Judy McKenzie Sam Mukasa Honors and Recognition Committee
Presenters Judith Ann McKenzie, Chair (2013- 2014), Honors and Recognition Committee Sam Mukasa, Incoming Chair (2015- 2016), Honors and Recognition Committee
Workshop Panelists Eric Davidson Jessica Ball Tracey Halloway Mary Anne Holmes Carle Pieters Murugesu Sivapalan Jasper Vrugt
AGU Honors Program High Level Goals Deepen sense of connection to AGU and the value of AGU affiliation. Reinforce AGU’s strategic goals in scientific leadership, talent pool development, and science and society.
AGU Honors Program Specific Objectives Enhance AGU’s Honors Program to recognize and reward key elements of the mission, vision and goals of AGU Draw nominations from a larger and more diverse pool of nominators Create high level of visibility for all AGU Awards
Overarching Goal Support and contribute to the goals and objectives of the AGU Honors Program
Workshop Topics Increasing the pool of diverse nominations How to prepare a successful nomination package from a nominator’s perspective What constitutes a good nomination package from a selection committee’s perspective
Group Panel 1 Increasing the pool of diverse nominations Presented by: Tracey Holloway Mary Anne Holmes
Women in Science The Association for Women in Science (AWIS) demonstrates that women receive fewer awards than their proportion in professional societies would predict. Women are over-represented among service and teaching awards. Figure 1. Source: http://www.awis.org/?Awards_Recognition
AGU AGU is no exception. 22% of AGU members are women; 17% of honorees (medal and award recipients) are women. Note that only 13% of nominees are women. 13% Women are under-represented among those 22% 65% being nominated for AGU honors 17% 13%
AGU Women Fellows Women who are nominated for awards tend to be successful, as the data for women nominated for AGU Fellow below demonstrate. Table 1. Gender and Geographic Diversity of Nominees at Each Stage of the 2013 Fellows Process. I nitial Stage: Second Stage: Third Stage: Nominees Section/Focus Group Election of Fellows by the Union Ranked Nominees Fellows Selection Committee [ Men Nominees 172 (80%) 86 (83%) 49 (79%) Women Nominees 42 (20%) 17 (17%) 13 (21%) U.S. Nominees 166 (78%) 77 (75%) 49 (79%) Non-U.S. Nominees 48 (22%) 26 (25%) 13 (21%) Total 214 103 62 Men Nominees
AGU Women Fellows Women are under-represented among the nominees for AGU Fellow, allowing for time lag between PhD and eligibility. % U.S. Women Ph.D. Proportion of AGU Fellows Who Are Women, 2009-2013. Recipients in EAO 20 years prior Women Fellows Men Fellows % Women Fellows 20% 2009 5 51 9% 19% 2010 8 53 13% 21% 2011 9 56 14% 23% 2012 5 60 8% 20% 2013 14 51 22%
AGU Women Nominators Women are under-represented among AGU nominators for awards. Only 14% of nominations for AGU awards are made by women. Blue represents men Red represents women 15% 14%
Success Rates How successful are nominators for AGU Fellows who are not Fellows themselves? As successful as Fellow nominators.
Myths and Realities • The nomination itself doesn't really matter. The candidate's own accomplishments, like number of publications or h-index, determines who wins and loses. • The reason why current awardees are mostly male is because this reflects the demographics of the most senior and accomplished scientists. It will naturally change as the diversity of the field increases.
Myths and Realities • You should not ask to be nominated. If you are qualified, someone will take the lead and submit a nomination on your behalf. • Only AGU Fellows can submit nominations for AGU Fellows • Only senior scientists can nominate for major awards
Myths and Realities • Only senior scientists should write support letters • If a junior person wants to submit a nomination, he/she should have a senior person sign the nomination letter. • The nomination process should be secret - the candidate should never know whether or not he/she was nominated
Questions?
Group Panel 2: How to prepare a successful nomination package from a nominator’s perspective Discussion led by: Carle Pieters Jasper Vrugt
Tips for Nominators • Discuss why candidate is well suited to the award goals and criteria – What is the motivation for nomination? • Stick to the ‘rules’ (#pages, format, bibliography) • Identify clear (science) achievements Link to specific papers in bibliography or on CV Mention other accolades (NAE/NAS, Fellowships) • Explain the importance of the science/accomplishments relevant to the award - Science (specific papers that “changed” the field), Service (unique impact, AGU service), Teaching/mentoring (“many students that are now leaders in their field”), or Outreach Note: A good package usually has all relevant elements
Tips for Nominators • Distinguish/highlight the role of the nominee – Motivator?, Leader?, Implementation? • Mention relation to co-workers (students, Post Doc, mentor, etc.) - If nominee has large research group, highlight intellectual contributions to work - Success of co-workers (students, postdocs, adjunct Faculty) • Summarize the qualifications of the letter writers.
Tips for Nominators cont. Remember: YOUR package is what the evaluators use to judge the nominee.
Questions?
Group Panel 3 Presented by: Jessica Ball Eric Davidson Murugesu Sivapalan
What Reviewers Want to See Tailor the nomination materials to the award! Is the nominee appropriate for the solicitation? • Doesn’t necessarily exclude younger/less experienced researchers The nomination package clearly addresses the criteria for the award • Not just a laundry list of publications & grants • Example: Science For Solutions Nomination letters are well written, not identical and indicate that the supporter understands the goals of the award
What Reviewers Want to See Remember the purpose of the award Diverse nominators with regard to institutional affiliations, discipline or subdiscipline, career stage.
Horton Medal Assessment: A Three Stage Process Murugesu Sivapalan Chair, Horton Medal Committee (2013-2014)
Stage 1 Agree on/reiterate criteria for medal selection (prior to start of assessments) Agree on specific criteria of the medal
Rationale of Stage 1 Agree on criteria and process to be adopted, and bring focus to the tasks at hand
Stage 2 Summary Statements on Nominations (All Committee Members) Synthesis of Summary Statements (by Committee Chair)
Rationale of Stage 2 Encourages thorough and in-depth review Promotes an open mind Provides an opportunity to be informed and educated Provides a well-synthesized review documents
Stage 3 Comparative Assessments Rankings/Voting
Lessons Learned/Tips for Nominators Pay explicit attention to selection criteria Always support with evidence for each criteria Do not expect medal committees to go beyond what is contained in the nomination packages. Do not focus on one or two papers (just because they are cited a lot – bring out a lifetime of achievement) Do not just rely on bibliometrics
Fellows Program Review Task Force Recommendations Presented by: Eric Davidson, President-elect
S&FG “Best Practices” • Establish canvassing committees to identify qualified and underrepresented candidates • Diversify membership of canvassing and nominations committees, including non-Fellow membership • Name one nominations committee member an equity advisor, who will get training from AGU on implicit bias • Be aware of limitations of the H index; make optional; specify source of data • Provide feedback to nominators; no hold-over nominations
AGU Core Values The Task Force examined the criteria for Fellows selection to ensure their relevance and alignment with AGU’s mission and core values: • The generation and dissemination of scientific knowledge • Open exchange of ideas and information • Diversity of backgrounds, scientific ideas and approaches • Benefit of science for a sustainable future • International and interdisciplinary cooperation • Equality and inclusiveness • An active role in educating and nurturing the next generation of scientists • An engaged membership • Unselfish cooperation in research • Excellence and integrity in everything we do
Fellows Program Criteria The current criteria for evaluation of scientific eminence are: • (1) major breakthrough, • (2) major discovery, • (3) paradigm shift, or • (4) sustained impact The proposed new criteria are: • (1) breakthrough or discovery; • (2) innovation in disciplinary science, cross-disciplinary science, instrument development, or methods development; or • (3) sustained scientific impact
Questions?
Open Forum/Discussion
Recommend
More recommend
