2022 Geoscience Stakeholder Survey
(with past years compared)
Over the next decade, the geosciences community commits to developing a framework to understand and predict responses of the Earth as a system—from the space-atmosphere boundary to the core, including the influences of humans and ecosystems.� -- GEO Vision Report of NSF Geoscience Directorate Advisory Committee, 2009
Four rounds of data collection: 2013, 2015, 2021, 2022
From the start, the NSF EarthCube initiative has been guided by data.
An initial stakeholder mapping set of surveys were collected between 2011 and 2013 and are presented here as combined 2013 data (n=1,542).
A follow-up survey with 2015 data (n=449) focused on the sharing and reuse of physical samples (as part of the iSamples initiative) and a number of the 2013 questions were repeated.
2021 data (n=551) from an NSF-sponsored study (n=1,604) included a large response from AGU members and a number of the EarthCube questions on data sharing were included in that survey.
Now, with 2022 data (n=160), as EarthCube winds down, we present results from a sample of researchers and cyberinfrastructure professionals still associated with EarthCube on many of the same dimensions.
2011-2012 Stakeholder Survey: Accessing data, models, and software within fields/disciplines: Importance and ease (n=735)
How IMPORTANT is it for you to find, access, and/or integrate multiple datasets, models, and/or software (e.g. visualization tools, middleware, etc.) in your field or discipline?
How EASY is it for you to find, access, and/or integrate multiple datasets, models, and/or software (e.g. visualization tools, middleware, etc.) in your field or discipline?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not Important
Very Important
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Very Difficult
Very Easy
2011-2012 Stakeholder Survey: Cooperation/sharing among geoscientists; Cooperation/sharing among cyber-developers (n=735)
There is currently a high degree of sharing of data, models, and software among geoscientists.
There is currently a high degree of sharing of software, middleware and hardware among those developing and supporting cyberinfrastructure for the geosciences.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
2011-2012 Stakeholder Survey: Collaboration between geo and cyber; Sufficient end user training (n=735)
There is currently sufficient communication and collaboration between geoscientists and those who develop cyberinfrastructure tools and approaches to advance the geosciences. (v72)
There is currently sufficient geoscience end-user knowledge and training so they can effectively use the present suite of cyberinfrastructure tools and train their students/colleagues in its use. (v73)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
2012-2014 Twenty-Three End User Workshops (n=824)
Early Career (n=37 of 150) Oct. 17-18, 2012
Structure and Tectonics (n=24 of 34) Nov. 19-20, 2012
EarthScope (n=22 of 69) Nov. 29-30, 2012
Experimental Stratigraphy (n=21 of 49) Dec. 11-12, 2012
Atmospheric Modeling/Data Assimilation and Ensemble Prediction (n=29 of 74) Dec. 19, 2012
Open Geospatial Consortium (n=14 of 50) Jan. 13, 2013
Critical Zone (n=39 of 103) Jan. 21-23, 2013
Hydrology / Envisioning a Digital Crust (n=23 of 47) Jan. 29-31, 2013
Paleogeoscience (n=40 of 79) Feb. 3-5, 2013
Education & Workforce Training (n=33 of 57) Mar. 3-5, 2013
Petrology & Geochemistry (n=59 of 83) Mar. 6-7, 2013
Sedimentary Geology (n=50 of 82) Mar. 25-27, 2013
Community Geodynamic Modeling (n=45 of 97) Apr. 22-24, 2013
Inland Waters, Geochemistry, Biogeochem, Fluvial Sedimentology (n=46 of 138) Apr. 24-26, 2013
Deep Sea Floor Processes and Dynamics (n=29 of 59) June 5-6, 2013
Real-Time Data (n=25 of 107) June 17-18, 2013
Ocean ‘Omics (n=42 of 59) Aug. 21-23, 2013
Coral Reef Systems (two workshops) (n=44 of 48) Sept. 18-19/Oct. 23-24, 2013
Geochronology (n=66 of 148) Oct. 1-3, 2013
Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics (n=36 of 80) Oct. 7-8, 2013
Clouds and Aerosols (n=39 of 61) Oct. 21-22, 2013
Rock Deformation and Mineral Physics (n=37 of 79) Nov. 12-14, 2013
Marine Seismic (n=24 of 52) Dec. 11-12, 2014
Meet the Respondents�
Meet the respondents
EarthCube Stakeholder Surveys (including AGU) 2013 (n=1,549) 2015 (n=449) 2022 (n=160)
Information and Data Science) 6.6% (n=103) 10.0% (n=45) 15.6% (n=25)
AGU Responses in NSF Data Sharing and Reuse Study 2021 (n=551)
shared by others 67.3% (n=371)
Primary role Sample areas of expertise
2015 2022
Including graduate study, what are your years of experience in your professional disciplinary affiliation(s):
2015 2021 2022
Under 10 years 14.0% 23.1% 6.3%
11-20 years 25.2% 20.3% 27.7%
Over 20 years 60.8% 56.7% 66.0%
Please indicate your gender identity:
2015 2022
gender queer, or agender
and Prefer not to answer. -- 5.0%
How familiar are you with EarthCube? (Please check all that apply) 2013 2015 2022
communities (now or previously) 3.7% 2.9% 15.6%
Data Sharing�
Data sharing
Where (if at all) do you make your data publicly available? (check all that apply)
2021 2022
I don’t share my data publicly 3.7% 2.5%
Personal request to obtain data from another researcher 35.4% 31.9%
Data repository at my academic institution 31.6% 34.4%
Discipline-specific community data repository 34.7% 55.6%
Agency or sponsor data repository 32.1% 32.5%
Journal-specific repository 25.2% 30.0%
Web-based data sharing hub or platform (e.g., Figshare, Dryad) 24.5% 40.0%
Other (please specify) 6.2% 11.9%
Are you accessing or utilizing data other than your own? 2022
Yes 90.6%
No 5.7%
It is complicated (please explain) 1.9%
What are the three greatest bottlenecks in your work with data and data reuse? (check the top three):
2021 2022
and/or require security controls 12.5% 15.0%
The top three bottlenecks (indicated in Bold/Red) are consistent across the 2021 and 2022 surveys, indicated a degree of reliability between the two.
Making data available
2013: During the past five years, approximately how many data sets, tools, models or software have you made publicly available to other scholars?
2022: During the past five years, approximately how many data sets, tools, models, notebooks, or software have you made publicly available to other scholars?
2013 2022
0 16.4% 3.8%
1-3 39.1% 25.0%
4-6 19.4% 19.2%
7-10 9.6% 16.0%
10-20 5.2% 7.1%
More than 20 8.7% 28.8%
After a decade, there has been a marked increase in reported data sharing in the geosciences. The 2013 mean was 2.8 (s.d. 2.1), while the 2022 mean is 8.6 (s.d. 7.7). Note, however, the large standard deviation, with some respondents at zero and a number at more than twenty.
Indicator Issues�
Finding, Accessing, Integrating data, models, and software
Progress: Importance of finding, accessing, and/or integrating multiple data sets, models, and/or software.
Pain Point: Difficulty of finding, accessing, and/or integrating multiple data sets, models, and/or software.
Important/Very important
2015
82%
2022
91%
Difficult/Very difficult
2013
65%
2022
60%
Note: Multi-year comparison data is provided on this slide and the others that follow. Caution is urged; similar populations were surveyed, but the samples differ across the years.
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not Very
Important Important
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Very Very
Difficult Easy
Culture Change in the Geosciences
Progress: The balance between cooperation and competition in the culture of your field or discipline.
Progress: Degree to which success is primarily a product of individual effort or a product of collective effort.
Progress: EarthCube initiative is inclusive in the way it operates.
Emphasize cooperation
2013
26%
2022
48%
Agree/Strongly Agree
2013
36%
2022
62%
Emphasize Collective effort
2013
42%
2022
58%
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Conflict Cooperation
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Individual Collective
Effort. Effort
Cooperation, Communication, Sharing, Training
Progress: A high degree of cooperation and sharing of data, models, and simulations among geoscientists.
Pain Point: A high degree of cooperation and sharing of software, middleware and hardware among those developing and supporting cyberinfrastructure for the geosciences.
Pain Point: There is sufficient communication and collaboration between geoscientists and those who develop cyberinfrastructure tools and approaches to advance the geosciences.
Pain Point: There is sufficient geoscience end-user knowledge and training so they can effectively use the present suite of cyberinfrastructure tools.
Agree/Strongly Agree
2013
23%
2022
33%
Agree/Strongly Agree
2015
12%
2022
8%
Agree/Strongly Agree
2013
4%
2022
5%
Agree/Strongly Agree
2013
25%
2022
25%
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
Support for Interdisciplinary Work and Open Sharing
Progress: My employer/organization values and rewards bridging across fields and disciplines.
Progress: Efforts that I make to bridge across fields and disciplines are recognized and highly valued by colleagues in my field/discipline.
Little Change: Sharing data, tools, models, notebooks, and software will advance my career in the next 3-5 years.
Pain Point: Trusting that shared data, tools, models, notebooks, and software will be well-documented and reliable.
Pain Point: Tenure, promotion, and rewards in my organization recognize and value sharing research data.
Agree/Strongly Agree
2013
44%
2022
50%
Agree/Strongly Agree
2013
42%
2022
50%
Agree/Strongly Agree
2013
25%
2022
29%
Agree/Strongly Agree
2015
14%
2021
10%
Agree/Strongly Agree
2013
57%
2022
59%
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
Looking Ahead�
Looking ahead: What is most needed to promote innovation in geoscience research?
“... the impact of EarthCube was not necessarily the tools or research currently enabled, but rather the culture change that it has instilled throughout the research cycle to increase the value of collaborative work around data.”
“Funding and professional/career recognition for work to make data and other information artifacts reusable (FAIR).
“Similar initiatives to carry on the work. This isn’t a one and done deal. There is still a lot more room for improvement in all disciplines.”
“Continued collaboration between geoscience investigators and data science and CI professionals.”
“Ease of integration across data and models toward end use applications beyond basic research; integrating human systems, data and models.”
“Data standards that are enforced!!!! Let’s stop dumping “data” into repositories in formats that are not accessible or usable by the majority of users....”
“Training in what EarthCube has accomplished and how it benefits researchers, to see what more can be done.”
“Partnership with groups working on equity and diversity in data science…”
Over the next decade, the geosciences community commits to developing a framework to understand and predict responses of the Earth as a system—from the space-atmosphere boundary to the core, including the influences of humans and ecosystems.� -- GEO Vision Report of NSF Geoscience Directorate Advisory Committee, 2009