Workshop:Guidelines

From CedarWiki

CEDAR Workshop Guidelines for Conveners

Convening a workshop at the yearly CEDAR meeting is an excellent way to bring together experts on a particular science topic, review recent results from an ongoing experimental campaign, plan a new project, or increase visibility and awareness of a given area of research. Although recent workshops have gravitated towards a two-hour, fully scheduled period of ten-minute talks, we would like to remind conveners that this might not be the most effective format. Depending on the goals for the workshop, a small discussion group or panel might be a better use of the time slot.

Regardless of the specific format chosen, there are several guiding principles that CEDAR has endorsed and that all workshops should adhere to:

• Many of the attendees to the CEDAR meeting are students. It is important to introduce the topic of the workshop in general terms and to provide context for the non-specialists attending the workshop.
• Discussion is a vital aspect of any successful CEDAR workshop. Sufficient time should be reserved in the workshop schedule to allow for it.
• CEDAR is a broad and open community. When deciding on the participants for a workshop, give consideration to all interested scientists, not just those you may have initially thought of when planning the workshop.
• One of the goals of CEDAR is to encourage the next generation of scientists. Student participation, where appropriate, should be encouraged in any workshop.

When proposing a workshop, potential conveners are required to denote what type of format they intend on following. The format may be one of the following:

• Scheduled short-presentations. These workshops are very similar in style to a session at the semi-annual American Geophysical Union meetings and are generally referred to as "AGU-style" workshops. They typically consist of a schedule of approximately eight ten-minute talks on a given subject with time allotted at the end of each presentation for questions. This format may be appropriate when the workshop is focused on presenting campaign/mission/instrument results. It is expected that these workshops would concern a topic of broad interest to the community and that the attendance would be relatively high.
• Panel discussion. These workshops consist of inviting a "panel of experts" to discuss their views on a topic and then answer questions from members of the audience. This workshop format is most successful when the topic is more programmatic in nature. Focus should be given to allowing ample time for the audience to question the panel. It is expected that the attendance would be relatively high.
• Tutorial. This format is appropriate when the goal of the workshop is to present a given technique, approach, or new topic to the community. It is expected that fewer speakers would be presenting material than in format (1). Each speaker, however, would likely go into more depth on their material and be allotted a longer speaking slot. Planning sufficient discussion time (preferably after each speaker) is critical for the success of this type of workshop. It is expected that the topic of these workshops might be somewhat specialized and that the attendance would be moderate.
• Round-table discussion. This small-group/working-group format is appropriate when the proposed topic is quite specialized and perhaps controversial. The point is to allow for face-to-face discussion on the topic. Participants in the round-table format are encouraged to bring material to present, but the focus is on the discussion. Outside of perhaps having a short overview of the topic at the beginning, the bulk of the time is reserved to discussing the topic. This format is also useful for planning future projects. It is expected that the attendance for these workshops would be small. The possibility exists to hold these smaller discussions outside of the typical meeting schedule (before the morning plenary sessions or after the afternoon workshops).

There are several additional points to keep in mind when planning your workshop:

• After being held, all workshops must be documented. This includes writing a summary of the workshop, how many people attended, what was discussed, etc. In addition, we encourage that any presentation slides are archived on the CEDAR website. Ask your participants to provide digital copies of their slides for this purpose. Accepted formats for archival in the CEDAR database are .pdf, .ps, .eps, and .html.
• The success of a workshop should not be judged solely on the number of people who are sitting in the audience. The quality of the material presented and the discussions fostered are more important than a simple headcount.
• A wide range of technology is available for integration into a workshop. When proposing a workshop, please request any support you will need (LCD projector, access to the internet, a database where presentations/data/models will be accessed in real time, etc.).
• Be creative in organizing your workshop. If you have an idea for a type of workshop not suggested above, go for it! You will not be refused the opportunity to host another workshop at a future CEDAR meeting if your workshop does not work out the way you wanted because you tried a new idea.

In order to propose a workshop, potential conveners should submit the following information to the Workshop Planning Committee (lwaldrop@uiuc.edu) by April 06, 2007:

• Title of the workshop
• Format of the workshop (as described above)
• Duration (2 hours by default)
• Estimated attendance
• Conflicts with other workshops to avoid
• An initial (brief) description of the workshop
• Special technology requests (as described above)

After the proposal deadline, a schedule of workshops will be created. Conveners of approved workshops will be required to submit a more detailed workshop description that will be posted on the CEDAR website and distributed to the CEDAR community. Conveners also will be required to submit a student- oriented version of their workshop description that will be distributed on Sunday, June 24, during the CEDAR Student Workshop. Geared toward students who may be unfamiliar with the workshop topic, this version should include a general description of the context and importance of the topic while avoiding specialized jargon.

Any comments on the workshops at the CEDAR meeting should be directed to the Workshop Planning Committee (Lara Waldrop, Jorge Chau, Hanli Liu).