Checking for non-preferred file/folder path names (may take a long time depending on the number of files/folders) ...
This resource contains some files/folders that have non-preferred characters in their name. Show non-conforming files/folders.
This resource contains content types with files that need to be updated to match with metadata changes. Show content type files that need updating.
| Authors: |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Owners: |
|
This resource does not have an owner who is an active HydroShare user. Contact CUAHSI (help@cuahsi.org) for information on this resource. |
| Type: | Resource | |
| Storage: | The size of this resource is 2.5 MB | |
| Created: | Jun 24, 2026 at 9:47 p.m. (UTC) | |
| Last updated: | Jun 25, 2026 at 4 p.m. (UTC) | |
| Citation: | See how to cite this resource |
| Sharing Status: | Public |
|---|---|
| Views: | 93 |
| Downloads: | 43 |
| +1 Votes: | Be the first one to this. |
| Comments: | No comments (yet) |
Abstract
This workshop makes the case that incorporating end-user and stakeholder perspectives strengthens the research-to-operations (R2O) pipeline, and gives participants concrete social science methods for doing it. The framing organizes the value of user integration around three goals: making research outputs valid (revealing operational pitfalls and ground-truthing findings), relevant (grounding work in users' lived experience and context), and actionable (producing tools that solve articulated problems and sustain long-term engagement). These ideas are illustrated with CIROH-funded project examples spanning flood warning communication, benefits analysis, flash flood forecasting, usability testing of NOAA flood inundation maps, and community-based work such as FloodSavvy and the Coupled Human-Water Systems Think Tank. The materials then introduce a "user integration toolbox" of audience research methods that hydrologic researchers can apply themselves or pursue through collaboration: community-based participatory research, research ethics considerations for human-subjects work, semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and surveys, along with a candid look at where AI tools can and cannot substitute for social science expertise. The deck is built around an interactive session format, including small-group discussions and a reflection exercise in which participants identify a key audience and draft questions that audience insights could help answer. It is intended for hydrologic and water-resources researchers who want to engage users more systematically but lack formal social science training.
Acknowledgements:
This research was supported by the Cooperative Institute for Research to Operations in Hydrology (CIROH) with funding under award NA22NWS4320003 from the NOAA Cooperative Institute Program. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of NOAA.
Subject Keywords
Content
Additional Metadata
| Name | Value |
|---|---|
| thumbnail_url | https://www.hydroshare.org/resource/574631ac7fb54943a2064462d1fd1fd6/data/contents/thumbnail.png |
How to Cite
This resource is shared under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Comments
There are currently no comments
New Comment