Final Update, as taken from the project web site - August 16th 2011 - It has become clear that not only are we going to be unable to obtain financial support for this project, but that the amateur organizations this plan counts on to complete a survey of this type are largely unwilling or unable to supply the support needed to accomplish the survey's goals.
Likewise, the reaction from the professional community, other than our professional variable star research friends who offered letters of support, has been luke warm to non-existent.
The AAVSO has agreed to act as principle investigator, supply project management, plan and coordinate meetings, obtain funding (if possible), host the web site, publish the summary report and provide project evaluation at the end, but we cannot do it alone. Therefore, regrettably, we have decided not to pursue this idea any further.
Final comment, August 2011 - Well-run groups would already know the answers to the survey questions - badly run groups wouldn't be interested in knowing the answers. It is as simple as that.
In my opinion the project must be fronted by somebody with a proven track-record of accepting views that differ from his/her own and/or views that differ from those of the AAVSO leadership. A compilation of diverse opinion is what is needed and there must be no scope for minority views being blocked, banned or branded as unacceptable or disloyal.
Final comment, August 2011 - In as far as the survey from fronted by anybody I think the famously forthright Mike Simonsen was not perhaps the most diplomatic choice.
"We've estimated the costs to be between $100,000.00 to $1M US." This seems a lot of money to me and I would like to see a copy of the SWAT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis!
Final comment, August 2011 - I couldn't see at the time why the cost should be anything more than nominal - and I still cannot. Quite clearly others shared my concerns.
I am approaching this survey from the viewpoint of someone who has 28 years experience of running pro-am collaborations.
I have no issue with the idea of indentifying areas where such collaborations might take place but equally important is identifying a pool of amateurs wanting to get involved in such projects. Particularly amateurs who have not been involved previously.
MOTIVATION - In the past far too little attention has been paid to the issue of what motivates amateurs to get involved in the first place and then what motivates them to continue after the first flush of enthusiasm has worn off. I have seen well-known and well-respected amateur astronomers (including AAVSO members) in effect arguing against quite literally decades of research that proves that recognition and appreciation are important factors.
If professional astronomers ***choose*** to use data generated by amateurs without telling them and without mentioning them in any subsequent article they are pretty much poisoning the well for more considerate professional colleagues who might come along later. It is doubly sad that the areas of astronomy where amateurs and professionals interact most frequently are the very areas where the most problems have arisen. I am talking about where the professional custodians of databases solicit amateur contributions.
COMMUNICATION AND MOVING THE GOAL POSTS - If research or organisational priorities change and such changes impact on the work being done by unpaid volunteers that common sense and good manners would dictate that some explanation of what is happening should be made public. This doesn't always happen.
Much of the above has been drawn from the world of School Governors (School Boards in the USA?) but remember schools have multi-million pound budgets, hundreds of stake holders and are run as pro-am projects. They have much to offer those involved in this proposed survey.
I think it is convenient to subdivide professional-amateur collaborations in astronomy and astrophysics into three groups:
Update July 2 2010 - It has been pointed out to me that professionals wanting to use pre-existing amateur data doesn't really count as a collaboration unless the professional makes contact with the amateur prior to using the data. Well spotted!
Such collaborations in astronomy and astrophysics can work well. Indeed, providing the professional treat the amateurs in the same way as they would treat fellow professionals, both parties stand to gain. As an example I suggest readers have a look at this paper on BL CAM. The amateurs who contributed results are clearly identified and the published paper is freely available on-line. And this is how it should be done each and every time!
Another example of the sort of collaboration that I would be happy to support can be seen here. The what, why and where details are all included and as an added bonus the project is of relatively short duration.
To me the acid test that helps me decide between participation and non-participation is always: "Did the professional astronomer respond to my email in which I both expressed interest and asked questions about the project." I find that some professional astronomers are far too casual in the way they interact with the unpaid volunteers they seek to get involved - indeed I know from first hand experience that some professionals ***choose*** to use the data generated by amateurs without telling them and without mentioning them in any subsequent article.
Return to the front page
| Astronomical Outliers |
This page was launched on May 16th 2010, updated on July 2nd 2010 and final changes made on August 18th 2011.