Summary of Participant Evaluations from 2007 NewSSC

Organized in relation to the Four Objectives of NewSSC (http://www.stv.umb.edu/newssc.html)

#1 Promote Social Contextualization of Science

Statements from the participants relating to this goal suggest a widely ranging initial perspective of what “social contextualization of science” might mean. Some uncertainty remained, even at the end of the workshop, for some participants. In general, participants suggested that the approach to understanding broader implications for science as they emerged in this workshop transcended disciplinary boundaries and resonated with a variety of personal and professional commitments. Some seemed to hope for a more concrete analysis, either of the science or its social context, through the use of further case studies. Some admitted that approaching environmental knowledge in this way meant that there was less time to develop that knowledge, either as individual understanding or as generally applicable concepts. There seemed to be a consensus that approaching environmental knowledge through this workshop gave them access to an understanding shaped through collaborative interactions that they would not have achieved through conventional research or discussion.

• “Use of ‘case study’ approach helped me to achieve my goals” [1]
• Social contextualization provided “an over-arching theme” [1]
• “As someone interested in the ‘issue at hand’ I feel that this workshop provided me with a great opportunity to discover more detailed directions to explore both from others and form considering my own experience in this context…. This was a great environment to focus on and explore ideas that I hope will be very important to work that I will be involved in in the future.” [1]
• “The need to think and work collaboratively in the field of environmental studies or in developing knowledge to solve environmental problems across different disciplines and social realities cannot be more important given the current state of the world’s environment – ecologically and socially. This kind of workshop would be useful for all people involved in education and research at all levels of education.” [2]
• “I wasn’t expecting to find the concept of ‘environmental knowledge,’ or at least knowledge so linked to scientific knowledge (especially [a] western model).” [3]
• This goal was “met fairly well – could be met better by introducing 2-3 case studies with different kinds of collaborations (rather than just one).” [4]
• “Although all participants had strong professional connections with environmental topics, the discussion often was applicable more generally to the collaborative process rather than only environmental knowledge and inquiry.” [4]
• Meeting this goal was “well done by each participant bringing their own construction of science to the table. Having a diverse group of participants is key. [6]
• “Participants were able to use their disciplinary knowledge to generate activities that addressed the process of collaboration in many different contexts.” [7]
• “I learned much less about environmental knowledge than I had anticipated, and much more about the process (which I here assume to be portable) of eliciting fruitful exchanges from participants of diverse backgrounds, methodological commitments, etc.” [8]
• “I don’t really understand ‘social contextualization of science’ in goal 1, or if I do understand it I probably don’t share that as a goal in the same way that others do.” [8]
• “What does the ‘social contextualization’ mean – really? Is using this kind of language productive, when the workshop is meant to be about collaboration?” [12]

#2 Innovative Workshop Process that Connects Multiple Perspectives to the Issue at Hand

Participants reflected on their experience in response to this goal with a recurring kind of statement that indicates an irony in how workshops are conventionally designed and run. In this case, most participants seemed satisfied that they had managed to connect multiple perspectives in understanding environmental knowledge through collaboration because the workshop was structured in a way that was deliberately flexible. Where participants indicated an initial frustration with the structure, they generally reflected that their frustration was due to personal impatience or experiences that tended to point toward products earlier in the process. At this workshop, if they were patient, they found themselves connecting more closely and across a greater number of dimensions of understanding before the third day, if not within the first session. They overwhelmingly appreciated the attention given to process and the way this opened them up to make more creative contributions and to appreciate the contributions of others. The participants suggest a transformative element in recognizing the value of ideas that might otherwise have been confined to a particular professional perspective or anecdotal personal experience. Because they could risk more individually, ideas that might have seemed moored to a singular field took on multiple dimensions. {interactive emergence?} When such ideas emerged, they could be evaluated by members of the entire group.

• “Variety of activities – inward and outward time.” [1]
• “I think the workshop could have been improved by giving more time for both attention to personal goals and for quiet reflection time.” [1]
• “What was special? – Rather loosely designed but yet very structured and defined.” [1]
• “It was a great pleasure to be part of a group focused on process in relation to a topic experienced by participants from somewhat varied perspectives.” [1]
• “I’ve learned that it takes generosity and active engagement by all participants.” [2]
• “The workshop was special to me in that I saw 12 people put in time, effort, creativity to figure out how to work together.” [2]
• “In a process like this expectation are being defined as time and activities advance. Different activities create different expectation. My attitude changes as my knowledge about those I’m with gets deeper. When we feel more comfortable, we are more open to be in the process.” [3]
• “For the diversity of experiences and activities, this workshop gives us tools to develop and take with us for our future activities, including facilitation models, which was very helpful.” [3]
• The workshop was “special because it focused very intentionally on quality of interaction, and because the ‘side trips’ could be done as part of the workshop instead of surreptitiously.” [4]
• “The workshop was quite successful in creating a space in which participant s could take risks and explore ideas about collaboration to generate new environmental knowledge…. There was a very good blend of personal, theoretical, pedagogical, institutional, theoretical, and pragmatic approaches to collaboration and exploration of issues. The facilitation was excellent – flexible and responsive to participants’ needs, but sufficiently structured that we didn’t seem to be floundering or trying to make up things to do.” [4]
• “Overall, the workshop was great – people participated, questioned, revealed vulnerabilities, and made connections very quickly.” [5]
• “I think people kept shying away from the theoretical aspects; Peter always brought this in and was a good model of finding ways to move among the specific, experiential, and theoretical.” [5]
• “It is structured in such a way that (most) academic markers are removed from consideration so all participants are expected t play all the time…. The workshop tries to employ multiple ways of knowing and learning about the world, so everyone is uncomfortable at least some of the time. As one participant noted, he was learning the most during the times he was most uncomfortable.” [5]
• “The workshop’s format is flexible and open to directions that the participants as a whole want to take.” [7]
• “Sometimes I feel collaboration can be fingerpainting for adults, but we has so little play that this [workshop] was a real treat.” [9]
• “It was wonderful to have the time to work on myself, and my own skillset.” [9]
• The workshop provided “a number of what seem like very successful and appropriate activities to foster participation and collaboration, especially the use of writing scenarios/cases and the importance of provding enough time for people to build connections with one another.” [11]
• The workshop provided examples of “effective facilitation techniques and activities in order to assist with the building of collaboration around environmental issues.” [11]
• “Engaged people in multiple ways…. Fully engaged people can develop exciting ideas and insights.” [12]

#3 Training and Capacity-Building

From the evaluations, this goal was rarely addressed discretely. In general, comments identified under goal #2 related participants’ enthusiasm for having learned new techniques for engaging others in activity-centered collaboration. Additional evidence of this goal might emerge from seeing how participants used those techniques in the classrooms and other outreach and teaching modes in their projects.

#4 Repeatable, Evolving Workshops

Only two participants commented directly about this goal, one suggesting that this was “self-evidently being accomplished” [1] and the other suggesting that what worked or didn’t work could be used to frame future workshops [5]. One other participant noted that additional materials might be distributed prior to the workshop, but this did not really correspond with this goal and was more a reflection on how things might be run differently to alleviate some of the initial uncertainty surrounding the process of these workshops [6].