WELCOME EVERYONE! Union Honors Program Orientation Training - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

• f nominators

Create high level of visibility for all AGU Awards

Overarching Goal

Support and contribute to the goals and

• bjectives 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. Women are under-represented among those being nominated for AGU honors 22% 13% 65% 13% 17%

AGU Women Fellows

[

Men Nominees

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:

Nominees

Second Stage:

Section/Focus Group Ranked Nominees

Third Stage:

Election of Fellows by the Union 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

AGU Women Fellows

Women are under-represented among the nominees for AGU Fellow, allowing for time lag between PhD and eligibility.

Women Fellows Men Fellows % Women Fellows % U.S. Women Ph.D. Recipients in EAO 20 years prior 2009 5 51 9% 20% 2010 8 53 13% 19% 2011 9 56 14% 21% 2012 5 60 8% 23% 2013 14 51 22% 20% Proportion of AGU Fellows Who Are Women, 2009-2013.

AGU Women Nominators

Women are under-represented among AGU nominators for awards. Only 14% of nominations for AGU awards are made by women. 14% 15%

Blue represents men Red represents women

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

• r 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

• f 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

• n 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

Do not just rely on bibliometrics Do not focus on one or two papers (just because they are cited a lot – bring

• ut a lifetime of achievement)

Do not expect medal committees to go beyond what is contained in the nomination packages. Always support with evidence for each criteria Pay explicit attention to selection criteria

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;

• r
• (3) sustained scientific impact

Questions?

Open Forum/Discussion

Wrap Up/Next Steps

Myths Eos Article Implementation Outreach and Communications Workshop Survey

We Need your Support!

AGU 2015 Union Honors Award Cycle

Nominations Open: 15 January 2015 Nominations Close: 15 March 2015 Nominate for all AGU Honors!

THANK YOU EVERYONE!

Have a great Fall Meeting!