GEO AQ Community of Practice: Role, Mission, Objectives

Main ESIP page >> Main AQ Work Group page

An ad-hoc group of air quality researchers and practitioners who have worked to build parts of the GEOSS information infrastructure are interested in forming a GEO Community of Practice. The formation and goals of a GEO AQ CoP will be discussed at the 18 November Air Quality and GEOSS meeting in Washington during the GEO-VI Plenary. A key outcome of the meeting could be for the group to draft a recommendation to GEO to formally recognize a GEO AQ CoP.

The role and focus of the CoP will be determined by its participants and will evolve over time with the participants. The ideas listed below are intended as a starting point to initiate discussion among the group as it begins to come together. These ideas are based on experiences in developing air quality communities of practice and developing air quality community components of the GEOSS information infrastructure.

Potential Roles

Communication / potential coordination among relevant projects

A primary role of the GEO AQ CoP is to serve as a forum for communication and collaboration among the many air quality projects relevant to GEOSS. A number of these projects are described here. These include initiatives mentioned in the GEO Work Plan, and a larger set of projects relevant to Work Plan Tasks, but not referenced there.

Advising GEO and GEO committees

As described below, GEO looks to Communities of Practice to inform them on user needs from a community. An example of this is the activity currently underway to document user requirements for air quality from GEOSS. Presently, no convenient mechanism exists for GEO to seek information from the AQ community. The GEO AQ CoP is envisioned to fill this gap.

Other GEO work and priorities need input and review from the AQ Community. These include:

• The air quality Tasks in the GEO Work Plan. The CoP will review whether the Work Plan reflects the relevant activities underway, and particularly whether Tasks have participation from relevant activities.

• The direction / scenario / priorities for the upcoming Phase 3 of the GEO Architecture Implementation Pilot. AIP has been an important process for building real functionality into GEOSS for AQ practitioners, and the direction of the next phase is an important decision in the near future.

Forum for developing standards and implementation guidelines

The CoP can serve as a forum to enhance standards for metadata, interoperability, and implementation practices for exposing data and services to GEOSS.

Community Building

The CoP will serve as a visible point-of-entry for members of the air quality community interested in finding ways to participate in GEOSS, and find out what GEOSS and can do for their work.

Background on GEO Communities of Practice

GEO View of Communities of Practice

Definition: A Community of Practice (CoP) is a user-led community of stakeholders, from providers to the final beneficiaries of Earth observation data and information, with a common interest in specific aspects of societal benefits to be realized by GEOSS implementation.

Objectives: Each CoP will have slightly different objectives, however common objectives will include:

• Identify, gather, and seek agreement on their particular user community requirements;
  • GEO Task US0901a collects EO needs from users and makes explicit statement to "Wherever possible, the Advisory Groups involve members of the GEO Communities of Practice."
• Provide a forum for cooperation of activities where GEOSS adds value to existing initiatives, to identify linkages and opportunities for collaborative strategic and technical projects and to coordinate the delivery of some GEOSS targets to enable the realization of societal benefits
• Report on progress and provide updates to the User Interface Committee, GEO and other stakeholder communities as appropriate;
• Advise the User Interface Committee, other CoPs and GEO on matters relating to their particular area of interest or societal benefit, and on cross-cutting issues of interest to the CoP.
• Provide an informal point of contact for members or other jurisdictions on the specific benefit or interest area that affect more than one organization;

Participants: Each Community of Practice should include representatives from GEO Members, Participating Organizations and any other stakeholders that have similar interests, goals, and or objectives - working closely together to create a forum for efficient and effective intelligence and advice to be provided to GEO for the successful implementation of GEOSS. Both developing and developed countries will be represented.

More information on Communities of Practice

• Active Communities of Practice working with GEO
• Views from beyond GEO

Logistics / Mechanics

The group will determine how often, and how, to meet. A collaborative website is expected to be used to foster interaction among the group and share its activities with GEO and other interested parties. Proposals such as monthly or quarterly teleconferences will be discussed. Meeting in-person during appropriate international meetings may also be appropriate.

These meetings will serve as an opportunity to learn about the activities of colleagues and find opportunities to collaborate, and an opportunity to discuss work the group will tackle (as a group).

GEO AQ Community of Practice Evolution

AQ CoP In the United States

• Dec 2005: AQ Cluster Forms at ESIP Winter Meeting (ESIP AQ Cluster History)
• May 2008: GEOSS UIC Plenary, Toronto - plenary session declared that it would be desirable to create an Air Quality GEOSS Community of Practice.
• July 2008: ESIP Summer Meeting, AQ Cluster meeting - Gary Foley encouraged the ESIP AQ cluster to be the starting point for the evolving Air Quality GEOSS Community of Practice.
  • At 2008 Summer meeting, ESIP AQ Cluster members have expressed interest in being the starting point of the GEOSS AQ Community of Practice. Further decision required.
• August 2008: GEO AQ Community of Practice: Resources wiki page set up
• May 2009: ISRSE meeting AQ and GEOSS session highlighted potential participants, issues and need for AQ Community of Practice and need for better connection between EU and US.
  • David McCabe, EPA, USA: The GEO Air Quality Community of Practice: From Observations to Decision Support (.ppt) paper submitted to ISRSE (.doc)
• June 2009: Frascati meeting to connect EU-US AQ network.
• September 2009: GEO AQ Community of Practice: Role, Mission, Objectives wiki page set up

AQ CoP In India

• need input from Sethi

Geosciences CoP - Kastens, EOS

By K. A. Kartens, C. A. Manduca, C. Cervato, R. Frodeman, C. Goodwin, L. S. Liben, D. W. Mogk, T. C. Spandler, N. A. StIllings, S. Titus: How Geoscientists Think and Learn. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 31, 4 August 2009

A Community of Practice

Reflecting on the nature of geoscience thinking and learning reveals that geoscientists are not merely individuals who know a lot about the oceans, atmosphere, or solid Earth. Geoscientists make up a “community of practice,” who have been shaped by, and now embody, a distinctive suite of experiences, approaches, perspectives, and values. These include taking a long view of time, using temporal and spatial reasoning to formulate hypotheses and answer questions, interpreting observations in terms of a system of intertwined processes rather than a single independent variable, and building cascades of inscriptions that begin with the raw materials of nature and tap into powerful visualization techniques.

None of these attributes, taken individually, is unique to geosciences. Nor does every individual geoscientist have every one of these experiences, ascribe to every perspective, and utilize every approach. But taken collectively, this combination of attributes has proven valuable for answering questions and solving problems concerning the Earth and its environment.

• Kim A. Kastens, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, Palisades, N. Y.; E-mail: kastens@ldeo.columbia.edu;
• Cathryn A. Manduca, Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College, Northfield, Minn.;
• Cinzia Cervato, Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames;
• Robert Frodeman, Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, Denton;
• Charles Goodwin, Department of Applied Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles;
• Lynn S. Liben, Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park;
• David W. Mogk, Department of Earth Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman;
• Timothy C. Spangler, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colo.;
• Neil A. Stillings, School of Cognitive Science, Hampshire College, Amherst, Mass.; and
• Sarah Titus, Department of Geology, Carleton College

Project: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/research/education/synthesis-research-thinking-and-learning-geosciences