Feedback Performa Key Points
NB. All percentages are to the nearest full numerical value.
The total number of feedback forms returned is 44. Using the average number of attendees at the conference (which was 80) then this would represent a 55 percent completion rate.
CONFERENCE
1. How would you rate the quality of the presentations and our speakers?
A number of attendees either left the pre-defined tick boxes blank or cited a mixture of these to highlight varying levels quality. These are captured below in the added ‘NA’ and ‘Mix’ categories:
Excellent 26 / 59%
Good 14 / 32%
Average 1 / 2%
Poor 0 / 0%
NA 1 / 2%
Mix 2 / 5%
The response to the conference was overwhelmingly positive with a combined 91 percent of attendees who completed one of our feedback forms rated the quality of the presentations either excellent or good.
2. Did the content of the sessions meet your expectations?
Yes 35 / 80%
No 3 / 7%
NA 4 / 9%
Mix 2 / 4%
Selection of verbatim comments:
“There were enjoyable surprises and a rigorous focus on practice in some presentations which exceeded the expectations.”
“Cohesive yet diverse made connections with presenters based on their projects to my interests or background.”
“A wonderful eclectic mix of creative, passionate presentations both academics and social entrepreneurs from all over the world.”
“Excellent. I hoped to see some interesting stuff and get some insights. Every single session did that and much more.”
“Maybe the day could have been broken up a bit more – perhaps some activities or discussion? Liked the paper orchestra!”
“Excellent variety and yet illustrating some key issues and emerging patterns throughout.”
“Really diverse group of people on such a range of ideas, but still a consistent theme.”
“There was a mix of interesting, informative, pointless and incredibly thought provoking.”
“Coming as I do from a non-academic background I feared a lot of the talks, would be full of jargon and totally theoretical. However, I was proved wrong – over the more ’theoretical’ talks, wrote inspiring.”
“I enjoyed the emphasis on group conversation: the ample time that was given latter each speaker, the accommodating atmosphere.”
“I didn’t know what to expect but have formed that the majority of presentations have been very thought-provoking, affirming and stimulating.”
“Beyond, really. I wasn’t expecting such “to the point” sessions.”
3. What did you like best and what could we have done better? (Verbatim comments)
“I loved the size of this conference. Intimate but not small. Breaks could be ‘thought’ better.”
“I thought the variety reflected the plurality of approaches in the area of research. Perhaps a framing each day, and some discussion around interdisciplinary conferences – aesthetics versus interested.”
“I loved the intellectual stimulation. Maybe some warmth would have helped.”
“I liked everything best. It was one of the best arts and technology event I’ve been to for ages. Great credit to the organisers and you should do more.”
“Catering would give us some informal spaces to interact.”
“Overall, excellent choice of speakers, set-up, length of talks, topics and organisation of sessions. As someone who doesn’t often come to these conference things I found a couple of the Skype
talks less engaging – specifically the ones who read verbatim from a script.”
“I think the conference program was good (excellent party) but the exhibition part in my opinion was much less successful and somewhat disconnected from the conference. Especially for artists, like us.”
“I enjoyed all the presentations. I feel very strongly that seating arrangements hampered opportunities for dialogue.”
“The different disciplines coming together. Not just academic and theoretical – really refreshing. Would have liked to hear the organisers talk about their research and motivations/hopes for this symposium.”
“I liked the variety of speakers. I thought you should have been more creative with the layout of the room.”
“I liked the small size. There was a high level of trust and conviviality. We definitely formed a community of our own for a while.”
“It was great that most speakers stayed through the whole symposium, so that there was a dialogue between speakers.”
“There were talks I really didn’t agree with – which is as it should be – but they were mostly incredibly interesting.”
“Couldn’t have been better and there was nothing I didn’t like. What you could do is to have another conference!”
“I didn’t have much time to explore Newcastle and its culture.”
“[What] could have been better [is] free wi-fi for participants.”
“Better publicity.”
“[What I liked best] the relevance of the presentations to contemporary politics […] and the wide range of topics covered. What could have been done better : free biscuits!”
“The different disciplines coming together, not just academic+theoretical – really refreshing. Would have liked to hear the organisers talk about their research.”
“More social and workshops.”
EXHIBITION
1. How would you rate the exhibition?
For many of the respondents, they had not attended the exhibition at the time of completing the feedback sheets (which were mainly handed out for completion at the conference). The ‘non-attend’ category below captures those who stated on their forms that they did not attend. Those who left this part of the feedback form blank fall under ‘NA’, though we do not know whether they attended or not.
Excellent 8 / 18%
Good 14 / 32%
Average 4 / 9%
Poor 1 / 2%
Non-Attend 14 / 32%
NA 3 / 7%
Overall, the response to the exhibition was not as strong as the conference, with less rating this part of the symposium as ‘excellent’ and slightly more stating that it was ‘average’ or ‘poor’ (11%). Still, a combined 50% of attendees who completed a feedback form rated the exhibition as either excellent or good, and the numbers are substantially lower because of the combined 39% who either did not or could not comment on the exhibition.
2. What did you like best and how could we have made it better? (A selection of verbatim comments)
“Love location and exhibition design. Because it’s small, maybe next time consider having only one good work.”
“Really enjoyed the opportunity to listen to people present ideas about their work.”
“Space was small particularly at the opening. Difficult to fit people in space and see the work. I only went to exhibition at opening because it wasn’t close to the rest of the symposium.”
“Reflected the skills of judgment of the organisers again, and a very good compliment.”
“Bit crowded, especially at the opening.”
“It should have been closer to the symposium venue.”
“I enjoyed the intimate scale of the venue. I would prefer that the plan of how the work will be mounted by reviewers with the artists ahead of time so that they can approve it and/or adapt their work to it.”
“Bigger space? It was a bit crammed at the opening. Otherwise, very professional.”
“I liked the way it was constructed (wood installations). It could have been bigger.”
“Nearer to the main space, to go back and re-explore every day.”
“Cool venue. Intimate”.
ATTENDEE DETAILS:
Gender
Female 20 / 45%
Male 19 / 43%
Transgender 0 / 0%
Undisclosed 5 / 11%
Age
Approximate mean age (of those who disclosed their age or birth year) 38
Oldest cited: 63
Youngest cited: 22
Affiliation
Academic 17 / 38%
of which are
– staff 9 (1 from Newcastle University) / 20%
– student 8 (1 from Newcastle University) / 18%
Non-Academic 11 / 25%
Undisclosed 16 / 36%