Hello there Stephen. The inclusivity part is baked-in. We require background/demographic information when participants send their applications in, then we use that info to maximize diversity when we build each cohort. Yes, this does mean the application itself is a selective (but not unduly competitive) step.

One of the best parts of Emerge is that we found an extremely engaged and capable assessment group to work with us. Prior to submitting our grant proposal, we had some good conversations with Strategic Evaluations, Inc. (SEI), then really built their services into the grant. SEI has been wonderful to work with. They collect feedback from our program participants immediately after each of our structured events/workshops, then conduct live focus group interviews at the end of the program year. We're just now wrapping up the first year and excited to see what this first round of assessment data tells us!

Hi George. Working with Strategic Evaluations has been a great learning experience for me and the entire leadership team. I've never worked on a project that had a true, comprehensive evaluation mapped out and fully budgeted like this. But I'm pleased to say the evaluation process has been really engaging and fun so far!

Good question! We're in the process of conducting the live focus group interviews to wrap the Year 1 activities, so the jury will be out for a little while longer. But one key lesson that I PERSONALLY (not necessarily speaking for the entire leadership team here) learned in a visceral, real-time way throughout the first year is that I've been trying to shoehorn too much technical content into our live workshops. The first workshop was an intensive 3-day event on R programming and analysis of NSF NEON data. The second was a 3-day crash course on graphic design, using InkScape software. I lead both workshops and coming into them, I didn't have a super accurate intuition of how much ground we should try to cover.  We probably overflowed somewhat at both workshops, so I'll be factoring that into the Year 2 workshops.

In terms of trying to promote the group/peer/cohort dynamic that we are emphasizing so heavily, we probably won't change much. All signs suggest this part of the project has been a huge success! The Year 1 cohort first came together just about a year ago, and has been reunited live 3 times since then. But in between events, there has been a lot of direct communication and group chatter among the participants. Despite being in different locations all across the country, they've clearly become friends and that has been wonderful to see!

As Dan mentioned, we have a lot of "between-workshop activity".  We have year-round collaboration with monthly meetings where we meet in a virtual online space.  In these meetings, the participants are in teams that they work with on activities that are process skills we all need in science and when working on long-term projects.  We have found it's filled the gaps for some fellows and allowed others to peer mentor.  So they fellows really got to know each other in these spaces.  We've learned a lot about how time conflicts can be a problem for people to get together even online, so we'll be working on negotiating that even more in year 2.

Thank you. I am looking forward to learning more about how the second year goes. 

Not as much as us!

Thanks for this comment.  We really like hearing the voices and stories too, which is really a strength of our program because the fellows really do talk to each other and listen to each other's experiences.  We are really working on building communication and trust because it's one of the big things we have to navigate as scientists in collaborations.  We do have a year-round virtual program-- and the scheduling can be a challenge especially because we're in different times zones.  The approach we took with it was to have as many people come live to our monthly collaboration meeting and also record the session.  Then fellows who can't make it can watch the short session and meet up with their team to do the asynchronous task.  That session plus task part of the program is really meant to be an investment of about 2-4 hours per month where fellows read papers together, work with code from the workshops and just have time and space to work at their own pace.  The monthly sessions have reflection/metacognition components as well that focuses on process.  I can speak for myself here, but I think the biggest obstacle has been as you say, getting everyone into the same room with all of the schedules.  I think this coming year we'll schedule everything early so that conflicts will be fewer.

Hello there Michelle. Recruitment has primarily been through word-of-mouth. As you probably guess, that made things tricky in Year 1. Each of the co-leads was really shaking the bushes among our own networks for applicants. We filled out a strong Year 1 cohort, but were not overwhelmed with a huge number of applicants.

I'm happy to say in the 2nd year, recruitment has been easier. Word has traveled so there is some 'passive' recruitment happening. But we also now have some alums telling their friends about first-hand experiences, their advisers are speaking out for us, and with some Year 1 deliverables (like our Showcase video), we have better media to work with.

In response to your latter question, the answer is definitely "yes"! It's true that Emerge is wrapped in a freshwater science blanket, but that is really just a matter of setting and logistics. In reality, the Emerge recipe is simple: (1) assemble cohorts that are comprised entirely of underrepresented individuals, so they will feel safe and at ease more quickly; (2) bring them together as often as feasible and use online tools to maintain connection in between live events; (3) provide training in some "premium" technical skills so they will feel confident and empowered as fledgling scientists; (4) remind they constantly that what makes them special is not their bullet list of professional accomplishments, but the really unique personal stories they bring to the table. I would image this process can be replicated in any STEM discipline, so long as a dedicated team of leaders/mentors is on board and there are sufficient financial resources!?