Merge pull request #7 from nsidc/2024-02-01-meeting

Add meeting notes from Feb 1, 2024 meeting

meetings/2024-02-01_kickoff/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+---
+title: "2024-02-01: Kickoff meeting"
+subtitle: "[Emergent Design for Generative Change: Dialogic Theory at Work](https://peggyholman.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ODReview_vol55_no1-Holman.pdf)"
+date: "2024-02-01"
+---
+
+The following is a summary captured from a group note-taking document. Notes below may
+each reflect a different speaker. When there was consensus in our notes, that will be
+called out explicitly.
+
+Quoted terms without context, e.g. "attractive fields", can be found in the reading!
+:book:
+
+
+## Attendees
+
+Liz Cassano, Julia Collins, Erik Ramos, Robyn Marowitz, Matt Fisher, Amy Steiker, Andy
+Barrett
+
+
+## Why is open science important or interesting to you?
+
+> I think open science is great to keep research accountable and allow more
+> collaboration in the scientific community
+
+> Open science is important so all people can participate in scientific discovery even
+> if resources are not plentiful
+
+> Open science is kinder, more inclusive, and collaborative science
+
+* Reflects values we love from [Openscapes](https://openscapes.org/)
+
+> Open science is better way of collaborating and building knowledge
+
+> Open science is more inclusive, more feedback, opens the door to better science
+
+* I think more feedback is so important!
+
+
+## Word cloud
+
+We used <https://menti.com> to do a brief survey:
+
+![A word cloud with "collaboration" in the center](word-cloud.png)
+
+
+## Discussion
+
+* 3 people mentioned they enjoyed the part about dialogue vs. debate.
+* 3 people mentioned they are thinking more about generative questions.
+* 3 people mentioned they enjoyed the part about inviting a diversity of people
+  who care.
+
+
+### "Cheeks in chairs"
+
+* Could be a useful method to narrow to a small number of ideas from a large number of
+  perspectives.
+* Gives people agency!
+
+
+### Dialogic vs. traditional mindset
+
+* I was confused by the terminology at first so I followed the citation through to
+  [The Dialogic Mindeset for Generative Change (2018)](https://b-m-institute.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/TCH_chapter.pdf).
+  I found the left column of Table 1 ("Most traditional change mindsets talk about...")
+  really relatable for the way my brain tends to think (seeking objective truth,
+  believing in rationality), but found the right column ("...but the Dialogic Mindset
+  sees") to be closer to the way I want to think and see the world.
+
+
+### What is "generative imagery"
+
+* Reference:
+  [Dialogic Organization Development: The Theory and Practice of Transformational Change.](https://www.gervasebushe.ca/otherdocs/Chap_5.pdf)
+
+
+### How to bring these ideas back to NSIDC?
+
+4 people felt this is important.
+
+
+#### Open science working group
+
+* Reflecting on "invite the diversity of people who care": do we have the right kinds of
+  diversity in that group?
+* Reflecting on "attractive fields" and "dancing on the edges": How big should the field
+  be?
+* Reflecting on "generative imagery": To be effective, should the scope of our working
+  group go beyond recommending tactics and include things like building generative
+  imagery?
+
+
+### Effectiveness of open science efforts
+
+* Some efforts feel like "checking a box". It would be more helpful if scientists, data
+  managers, etc. had better understanding of "why" so we can tailor open science to
+  real-world needs. Involve necessary perspectives, users _and_ practitioners.
+* 2 kinds of open science:
+    * Methodological, checking boxes: data available, code available, published open
+      access, pre-print requirements, etc. These are mechanistically important and *easy
+      to measure*.
+    * "Open science is a kinder/more effective way of doing science": Being vulnerable,
+      open to sharing, willingness to listen, trying not to hoard stuff, open to being
+      wrong or sub-optimal *leads to better outcomes*. *Hard to measure*, but you know
+      it when you see it. **"It feels good."**
+        * Within NSIDC, if we can find better ways of working, e.g. share code and
+          workflows between scientists and devs, we can have better interactions,
+          **we can make more usable data**, and more.
+    * Actually, probably more than two! :smile:
+* 3 people like the idea of "generative image" / collective image that gives us
+  something to hang our work off of.
+* Open science can look very different depending on your role.
+* Larger _institutional_ open science initiative feels more "top-down"; many of us are
+  stakeholders with valuable perspectives! Could be more dialogic process.
+
+
+### Creating an "attractive field"
+
+* Practices for creating attractive fields can be invisible! But practicing is
+  still important.
+* Involving diverse people that care: Having passionate open science champions in
+  different groups is key!
+* On having multiple voices from some perspectives: there is "diversity within
+  diversity"!
+    * This comment on "diviserty within diversity" resonated with me on a personal level
+      :smile:
+* 2 people feel it's important to make room for people to "dance at the edges", not keep
+  anyone out.
+
+
+### "Differentiation"
+
+* Has anyone noticed themselves differentiating in the context of open science
+  transition?
+    * I developed a new interest in inclusion, accessibility, education. Not really
+      clear where it came from, but happened in last couple of years.
+    * Through Openscapes, developed a less insular / linear approach to my work. Learned
+      to work with others in parallel and asynchronously (e.g. GitHub, Slack), and it's
+      been great! Still don't like pair programming as much, but Openscapes opened my
+      mind to how powerful being vulnerable and working with others can be.
+    * Noticing increased "we" mindset of working together towards a goal, OK to be
+      vulnerable when on the same team. Group mindset "helps vulnerability not feel
+      vulnerable"
+        * 1 person liked this
+    * Tight feedback loops. Suggestions and compromises.
+        * _TODO: Can this note be improved?_
+
+
+### Psychological safety
+
+* I was nervous when I first started working on GitHub! Felt vvery vulnerable.
+    * 2 people agreed: **With respect to open science, this pain of vulnerability is a
+      foundational hurdle!**
+    * It's not just you! _Everyone on the call nods vigorously at this point_
+* Can CIRES new DEI director work with us on improving and modeling psychological safety
+  in our workplace?
+
+
+### Trust in science
+
+* Getting fresh eyes on old/legacy stuff is critical for trusting science. There is
+  shady science, incentives are a known problem. The only way around is transparency!
+* There's stuff out there that's private, but authored by someone retired, passed away,
+  or so far removed from the work that they can no longer understand it.
+    * 2 people agreed: things are being lost, and it's a tragedy!
+* Doing open science things is like listening to your grandmother reminding you to wear
+  clean underwear just in case you end up in the hospital. It's a good idea just in
+  case, but it's also a good idea _anyway_.
+
+
+## Feedback
+
+At time of writing this is the feedback we have. Please open a PR or reach out to any
+reading club member to provide feedback to be posted here.
+
+* 2 people agreed short articles are great for participation
+* 2 people agreed voting in Slack is OK
+* 2+ people agreed we should provide an "open science quick start" for newer folks
+* Can / should we invite members of other communities to join us for future meetings?