Part II Responses

Workshop evaluation New England Workshop on Science and Social Change 2004

Part II [see Part I responses later on]

Write out neatly a synthetic statement (1 or 2 paragraphs) evaluating this workshop. (You might build on/build in your comments from the other side.) Please make comments both to help us develop the workshop in the future and to enable some third party appreciate the workshop’s strengths and weaknesses. (Imagine a reader who may not be willing to wade through all the notes on the other side, but who does not expect to see averages from a "1-5" numerical evaluation.)

Responses

The workshop was a wonderful demonstration of the principles that alternative formats can contribute in novel ways to the development of ideas and scholars. On a personal level, I learned far more about STS as a field and DST as a concept than I could ever imagine by attending a conference of a comparable length. I also believe that the professional and personal relationships I have established over the last four days will endure and contribute to my future research and perhaps to the research of others.

The workshop diminished my skepticism and personal reluctance; once here, I participated, and had moments of surprise and recognition that validated these approaches for me. I saw collaborations being born and though I am not involved in them I am now alerted to them. The planners were extremely important as organizers but also as moment-to-moment facilitators and coaches. It was sometimes a problem that these roles demanded too much of them, with concomitant stress, frayed tempers and too-divided attention. This made the relaxation interludes doubly important. These latter were also productive in furthering personal and group projects.

The workshop effectively engaged me (& I think others) in ways of interacting, collaborating, identifying (?) issues, processing ideas on the surface. But what I want now is sustained engagement with a bounded project using strategies and tools like those we developed/practiced here…and perhaps it is necessary to do this work with people who have been thru this process together. Do these approaches inform how we do our inquiry/interdisciplinary work or are the social/pedagogical tools developed here really just preliminary to traditional, largely individual level of interdisciplinary work?

Diverging from goal oriented, narrowly focused conferences this workshop itself became a metaphor for understanding complexity and development. Reflecting throughout the process, building “organic” from emerging ideas and concepts, the workshop became a self organizing whole. At times many of us, demanding a product or wanting a single purpose or theme to hold onto, became frustrated with the process. Questions of direction and logic in turn move the development of the workshop into new and creative spaces.

Participants should spend time prior to the workshop reflecting on their work, the questions they’re struggling with and why they chose to go to the workshop. This space of reflection will best prepare them for joining a collaborative, interdisciplinary process.

For me the great strength of the workshop was that it enabled a relaxed mind and therefore playfulness and creativity. It takes some courage to go with this set up because the program is open and the progress develops in the making. But it certainly worked extremely well to accomplish what I said in the first sentence.

This set up also implies that many loose ends will remain, but I grew comfortable with that since there will be so much opportunity to stay in touch. The surprising thing is that even very concrete plans emerged à we are going to organize and international conference on science and metaphor.

The facilitation was modest and inconspicuous but very efficient and important. The workshop showed how important it is to create a joint atmosphere of trust and relaxation. More emphasis on concrete material might help for a follow-up workshop. But I was surprised to see how well we did with relatively little concrete cases.

The organizers personal goals for the workshop were that it would be “generative, restorative, and experimental”. These became the touchstone for the workshop which succeeded on all three counts. Of course, there is always the challenge of continuing and fulfilling ideas and collaborations that emerge in a workshop, but this group finished with a strong spirit so I am confident the generativity will continue. Many, many workshops are dysfunctional – this one wasn’t. Interestingly it’s not obvious that we created new approaches to the difficult issues of the workshop’s topic but people were relaxed about this. It needs to be seen whether a process-intensive workshop like this can also highlight content issues.

It was an interesting innovative way of making people realize the different ways in which a non-formal environment and a non-disciplinary format can lead to fruitful discussions and ideas. I think that it will also lead to future projects and collaborations. I have at least three projects in sight. I think it would be quite good if in future meetings (in one or two years) we came to present the fruits of such collaborations in the same place or another.

Great Workshop. EXCELLENT.

One comment. Although it might be difficult to do this, it may be useful to do a slightly more critical activity in which people are asked to identify one area in which the workshop could be improved. For example, the people could be asked “It would have been wonderful if the workshop could focus on x more rather than so much attention being given to y.” But this may seem to negative or judgmental. So if this seems inappropriate, I will happily retract the suggestion.

The workshop was highly successful as a first step towards exploring inventive forms of collaboration and developing new tools and approaches to more extended and inclusive approaches to making knowledge and working for change.

It would be important to build on the major emerging strong points to try and establish continuing, long-term collaborations among those who are willing or prepared to engage in them. It is difficult to identify weak points, in so far as the strong points were the bulk(?) of a very open and experiential approach which always involves some trade-off.

The pattern of opening up, interconnecting ideas and foreshadowing on the first day proved to be effective. The shaping of day 3 activities that took place on day 2 did prove to work. There was enough context and tension to make the focusing by participatory activity design work. Then, there was enough informal time to enrich these activities and to connect with others who could enrich them. Specifically, the metaphor activity design was transformed 3 times before its execution. The other focused activity worked very well that day also. Alternation of style of activity and reflective review was crucial! Mix of personal, structured and unstructured. Two facilitators with different roles was effective.

Perhaps the most potentially constructive was the intro of the article on asthma and the discussion of its use in the classroom.

I learned some excellent new tricks to stimulate team-building and participation. I have never seen problem-based learning work so well, for instance.

I would have liked to have seen a healthier respect for downtime including a dinner out (and an evening off!!) to rest and relax and enjoy each other’s sociality. This is because participation at this level is exhausting.

This was an exceptional group of participants. I hope for many opportunities to collaborate in the future.

Part I -- The primary goal of here is to make notes as prep. for Part II, a synthetic statement.

1. Start with a self-evaluation: In what ways did you achieve your personal goals? How could you have proceeded differently if you were participating in this workshop again? What have been your major personal obstacles to taking more from this workshop?

One goal that was well achieved was learning what a workshop like this could achieve. I did want to learn more about the substance of DST. Reading (or attempting) to read the papers on this topic prior to the workshop felt like I was walking into the middle of a conversation. If I could do this again I would find the time to read more basic work on the subject.

Reconnecting with colleagues accomplished. I would have done more searching for books (and brought them!), etc., having understood the request too narrowly. Obstacles: general tendency to hang back, skepticism about activities, deep ambivalence about academic scholarly life.

I found new resources and relationships. New people, readings to do , some new ideas to play with. I sense a prospect for the future – workshops, writing, new collaborators. I want more detail, pursue projects more explicitly.

In what ways? I’m not sure I had personal goals. I think I just wanted to dramatically expand in my thinking – to take a step far away from my framework for analyzing. I would have proceeded differently by spending more time in pre-workshop preparation. The timing in the semester made it such that I came to the workshop very rushed in my thinking. So, this was an obstacle—also at times I felt behind the curve – wonderfully learning but frustrated.

The personal goals were to become more clear about the questions of my project. I am not totally clear how but I received a lot of signals and reassuring and affirmation of my intuitions.

Personal goals achieved: participants took up on the process.

Not achieved: made lots of space/outside track of being organizer for conversators.

Read and began conversations before workshop.

I was tired before the workshop and didn’t sleep well during it.

By developing a bit the themes of a paper I should be writing soon. My major personal obstacle to take more of this workshop was my ignorance about this sort of workshop.

Obstacles; I have recently had some resistance to academia and the world of ideas (as opposed to the world of experience, flesh, dance, humor, etc.)

Achievement: Interesting to see, yet again, that these dichotomies are false and bad/false advertising. Too bad they can often seem so calcified in the academic world, especially in self consciously rigorous disciplines including philosophy.

My personal goals were to come to a setting where I could explore ways, my own work connects to or resonates with work of other people, who share, at least partially, my own interests and concerns. I feel very satisfied with the results, and, in particular, with the possibility of both keeping on the conversation and experimenting back home with what I have learned. I would just have spent some more time before the workshop studying the materials.

My personal goals were simple as I saw this as a great learning opportunity. It was in many ways. I would have benefited more if I had more background in the biological dimension.

[No response]

I was able to share some old and new ideas, and to receive some very helpful feedback and some affirmation. I came to realize what makes Arizona so exciting to me – through my autobiography on day one. I was held back by my persistent GI difficulties, which made me exceedingly tired.

1a. What have you learned about making an experimental, “interaction-intensive workshop stimulating and productive? What would your advice be to prospective workshop participants about how to get the most from a workshop like this?

I learned about the value of tight time limits on activities, the value of creative activities, the value of long breaks.

It’s easy for all to get stuck on getting it right, being good and smart students. Advice, easy to give, hard to take: chill.

I am comfortable with the format. It’s necessary to learve behind baggage about roles of workshop leaders and participatnts. In this case, there was space for us to take ownership. Be generative. Lead activities. Helps to be comfortable with engaging actively on where it will go, rather than to expect to be told that.

Participation, participation, participation. The workshop itself becomes a metaphor for complex development and should be thought as such. Participants should spend time thinking about a lot they’re working on, thinking about, and reflect on why they agreed to participate in such a workshop.

I learned that a developing and open program works. It takes courage to take so much time for the early phases à and it works! (or worked now at least). It was very important that there were no formal presentations!

It’s possible with a good choice of participants and facilitator. People feel like things happen even if big or specific debates aren’t focused on. Read beforehand and make notes on how people’s work connects with your own.

Prepare in advance and be willing to get surprised by the development of the workshop.

Advice: Arrive with an open mind. Do all the reading (scare them a bit).

Learned: Do not worry about having too many exercises that seem to be self-reflexive/self-reflective and evaluate. We already know so much. Rather than further produce/generate knowledge, reflect on what you already know and see how it ties in with what other people know and how productive work can come out of it.

I believe that it depends, most of all, on the participants themselves, but also on the facilitation and on those arrangements (location for instance.) which are crucial for success. I would ask the participants to give some of their time before the workshop to engage with whatever writings are accessible, and to engage in mutual conversation of pleasant and intellectually rewarding functions.

You have to balance formal/informal, structured activities/open discussions and it helps to vary the day structure. Advice – take time to articulate emerging themes halfway through.

The play – (metaphor theatre, music-making) was extremely important in creating a sense of comraderie.

PBL works very well; especially where the problem is open ended. I will use a variant of this technique with an upcoming workshop audience to brainstorm about future opportunities. Advise! Suspend disbelief and you’ll uncover otherwise impossible opportunities. I would find ways to respect healthy regular breaks!!

2. General evaluation: How did the workshop meet or not meet your expectations? How did your attitude to doing the workshop change through the four days? How do you think the workshop could be improved? What was special about this workshop (negative & positive)? How does it compare with other workshops? What would be your overall recommendation to prospective participants?

The workshop met my expectations (exceeded my expectations_ regarding developing new relationships and learning new processes. In some ways it fell short of my expectations in terms of learning more of the substance about development and biology.

Didn’t know what to expect; the preliminary scaffold didn’t prepare me for the intensity and density of assignments. I did gradually come to appreciate the exercises, esp as devices for acknowledging what I can do. Some dismay that usual irritation and anxieties did erupt. Little frame for comparison.

I want an experimental, interaction intensive that focuses on a sustained issue/case. Not running us through productive paces but actually taking on and rereading/reaframing a case of science and social change oriented to developing a treatment, a view, a product. Not only for personal development with prospects for future work.

I think it met—no exceeded my expectations. I expected mind expanding conversations but I had no idea how intensely I’d be thinking creatively and critically as I adjusted to the workshop. I felt more comfortable to ask questions, let people know if I didn’t understand an idea.

In the beginning I was a bit worried about the very open program. Yet by day 2 I relaxed and others did as well, I think, and that generated the energy for playfulness of the 3^rd day.

Met goal of making me feel it was worth the effort and $. I was interested to notice we weren’t discussing specific debates but this wasn’t an obvious source of frustration.

[On compare with other workshops] A whole lot better (incommensurable).

[On Recommendation] Try it with openness – remember it worked for others.

[On improvements] Perhaps: some concentrated presentations and structured responses.

It did not meet my expectations about specific goal, but met my expectations insofar as giving me ideas as to what we can get out of a group.

I did arrive a little “curmudgeon-like” and, as is so often the case in these situations, that rose perhaps, out of fear and defensiveness. At times, I do feel inadequate (“not intelligent enough”) in academic contexts and it was great to be removed from a judgmental framework. Attitude: I became more open minded. A personal crisis on the 3^rd day was averted by a very nice conversation with Susan.

I was expecting an interesting workshop but it proved to be exciting as well on some accounts. Although this is building I have not had the time to reflect upon, was lead to think a lot about development and about other issues which will be central to my work over the next months/years. I found the workshop excellent and would highly recommend attendance to prospective participants.

I got more relaxed and comfortable with the variety of venues.

More fun than other workshops.

Great fun – great ideas – great locale. Excellent prospects for future work. I wish I hadn’t been so tired. Great effort to break the usual workshop mold.

3. Re-read the workshop description (from the prospectus). Comment on how well the goals expressed there were met and make general and specific suggestions about how these could be better met:

NewSSC is an innovative, interaction-intensive workshop designed to facilitate discussion and longer term collaboration among college faculty who teach and write about interactions between scientific developments and social change. Specific objectives of NewSSC are to show that:

scientists, science educators, and Science and Technology Studies (STS) scholars can cross fertilize each other’s work;
academic workshops that allow participants to connect theoretical, pedagogical, practical, political, and personal aspects of the issue at hand can foster new projects and collaborations; and
productive workshops can be run at modest costs.”

I presume the third goal was met and this is a terrific achievement. I believe the first goal was met from impression of others. Probably only in the broadest sense am I an STS scholar. Great, great success on the second goal as I was able to make and observe a number of connections.

Quite well met.

I think it accomplished these goals… But now I want the dimensions in the 2^nd point to be put to work. Not at the surface as subjects to play with in a variety of contexts, but the way we attack a bounded issue.

Cross-fertilization most definitely occurred and I was interested to watch how ideas and collaborative projects developed as the workshop evolved – if I can use this metaphor. As a student I felt my goals were different but in many ways was spoiled to be able to participate with so many amazing minds. I don’t think I answered this question fully.

Since various plans to continue cooperation came out of the workshop, I think it worked very well in realizing these goals. I also think that the facilitation online and the preparation work of Peter was very important in enabling all of the above.

[Re objective 1] Science education took a low profile; scientists not attending.

[Re objective 2] Confident that has begun to happen.

[Re objective 3] Definitely.

The goals expressed in the first part were met but the second part I am not sure, but I think that insofar as we come out with several potential long term collaborations those goals should also be.

I think the workshop was highly successful and met its goals.

We have gone some way towards attaining these goals, but some work is still needed to extend our joint work into longer term cooperation. The existence of an email list will certainly be important, but it might be interesting as well to try and organize initial collaborations between participants. I would as well strengthen explanation of participatory, creative forms of collective work and to draw on a wider society of these.

Innovative, yes, and participatory; the final short presentations were strong evidence of the cross fertilization that occurred and can continue.

1. Yes, but I am not sure how much cross-fertilization there actually was.

2. Yes – but for me, mainly in hooking up with Cor.

3. For sure.

Timing – not at the end of term! Goals were obviously met. Participants were open to workshop activities. Many of which were heterodox. One evening off with a nice dinner out—possibly with bedtime stories or with no work at all—to celebrate and relax and enjoy.