Evaluation RESULTS
0
© ECPR Standing Group Identity, 2013
For the organizing committee of the Young Scholars School “European Identity: Concepts – Research Methods – Evidence”:
Viktoria Kaina (Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena)
Ireneusz P. Karolewski (University of Wroclaw)
Sebastian Kuhn (Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena)
Paul Heinecke (Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena)
Susanna Thiel (Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena)
For the analysis:
Johannes Krause (Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena)
Sebastian Kuhn (Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena)
For any questions do not hesitate to contact us:
[email protected]
See also our websites:
ECPR SG “Identity”: http://www.ecpr-identity.uni-jena.de/
YSS: http://www.identity-school-2013.uni-jena.de/
1
Table of Contents
Evaluation by the participants ................................................................................................................ 3
Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Zusammenfassung .............................................................................................................................. 3
Detailed results ................................................................................................................................... 4
Open questions ................................................................................................................................. 23
Evaluation by the seniors ...................................................................................................................... 25
Open questions ................................................................................................................................. 25
Appendix: Questionnaire ...................................................................................................................... 26
2
Evaluation by the participants
Summary
Overall, the Young Scholars School’s evaluation turned out very positive. This is indicated by
the means of all questions ranging from 3.0 to 4.0, where indicators are ranged from 1
(strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) and all questions had a positive connotation.
In order to compare within the positive results it can be stated that question groups
1 „General Assessment” and 3 „General School Conditions” have been evaluated above the
average. Also the low variances indicate general concordance in the evaluation of these
categories. Variable V22 “The organizing team was friendly and willing to help“ has scored
highest with 4.0, followed by V08 “I would recommend applying to an event like this to
colleagues” (mean=3,89). Third in rank were the variables V21 “The organization of the
event was efficient and professional” as well as V23 “Overall, I am satisfied with the general
conditions of the event”(mean of both=3,84).
Within the generally positive evaluation question group 2 „Competencies and Skills“
ranks lowest. The lowest rating in relation to the overall very positive results has been 3.0
for variable V13 “I expanded my knowledge on methods“. The two other lowest rated
variables are V19 “The time frame was appropriate“ (mean=3,05) and V14 “I acquired
knowledge relevant to practice” (mean=3,22).
Question groups 4 „Lecturers and School Events” and 5 „Conference Workshops” are
in the middle of the field.
Zusammenfassung
Insgesamt wurde die Young Scholars School als sehr positiv bewertet. Dies ist daran
erkennbar, dass bei den Antwortmöglichkeiten von 1 (strongly disagree) bis 4 (strongly
agree) und bei positiver Formulierung der zu bewertenden Aussagen alle Mittelwerte im
Bereich zwischen 3,0 und 4,0 liegen.
Um innerhalb der durchweg positiven Bewertungen einen Vergleich anzustellen
kann festgehalten werden, dass vor allem die Themenblocks 1 „General Assessment“ und 3
„General School Conditions“ überdurchschnittlich positiv bewertet wurden. Die hierbei
niedrige Varianz ist ebenfalls ein Indikator für die generelle Einigkeit in der Bewertung
dieser Kategorien. Die Variable V22 “The organising team was friendly and willing to help“
wurde mit einem Wert von 4,0 am positivsten bewertet, gefolgt von V08 “I would
recommend applying to an event like this to colleagues” (mean=3,89) und V21 “The
organisation of the event was efficient and professional” sowie V23 “Overall, I am satisfied
with the general conditions of the event”(jeweils mean=3,84).
Die Variablen von Themenblock 2 „Competencies and Skills“ haben die innerhalb der
durchweg positiven Resonanz niedrigsten Zustimmungen. Die (im Verhältnis!) niedrigste
Bewertung erhielt die Variable „V13 I expanded my knowledge on methods“ mit einem
Durchschnittswert von 3,0. Die beiden nächst höher bewerteten Variablen sind V19 “The
time frame was appropriate“ (mean=3,05) und V14 “I acquired knowledge relevant to
practice” (mean=3,22).
Die Themenblöcke 4 „Lecturers and School Events” und 5 „Conference Workshops”
liegen im Vergleich im Mittelfeld der Bewertungen.
3
Detailed results
Table 1: Item Overview
Item
N
V01 School was enriching
V02 more events of this kind
V03 stimulating Junior-Senior contact
V04 innovative design
V05 variety in design
V06 new own ideas by design
V07 networking by design
V08 part recom to colleagues
V09 combination of school and conference
V10 overall satisfaction
V11 knowledge expansion on theories
V12 perspectives form other disciplines
V13 knowledge expansion on methods
V14 knowledge expansion relevant to practice
V16 overall satisfaction w skill acquirements
V17 adequate facilities
V18 appropriate equipment
V19 appropriate time frame
V20 sufficient supporting material
V21 good organisation
V22 good organisation team
V23 overall satisfaction w general conditions
V24 prepared / engaged participants
V25 adaption / attention of participants
V26 pleasent working atmosphere
V27 integration of lecture into topic
V28 thought-provoking ideas
V29 overall satisfaction w school events
V30 engaged / interested chair
V31 criticism of chair
V32 interdisciplinary interested peers
V33 peers interested in work of fellows
V34 actively discussing peers
V35 criticism of peers
V36 overall satisfaction w conference workshops
mean
19
19
19
18
19
19
19
18
19
19
19
18
19
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
18
19
18
17
17
19
19
18
19
19
4
3,74
3,79
3,53
3,72
3,32
3,63
3,58
3,89
3,74
3,68
3,42
3,28
3,00
3,22
3,33
3,68
3,74
3,05
3,74
3,84
4,00
3,84
3,37
3,37
3,47
3,40
3,42
3,44
3,53
3,32
3,37
3,63
3,56
3,58
3,53
Item 1: The School was enriching (N=19)
Item 2: There should be more events of this kind (N=19)
5
Item 3: The contact between Juniors and Seniors was stimulating (N=19)
Item 4: The design of the event was innovative (N=18)
6
Item 5: The design of the event offered a lot of variety (N=19)
Item 6: The design of the event gave me new ideas for my own academic work (N=19)
7
Item 7: The design of the event allowed new possibilities for networking and creating contacts (N=18)
Item 8: I would recommend applying to an event like this to colleagues (N=19)
8
Item 9: The combination of the “classical“ School programme with a conference is a good idea (N=19)
Item 10: Overall, I am satisfied with this event (N=19)
9
Item 11: I expanded my knowledge on theories, models and explanatory approaches (N=19)
Item 12: I got to know perspectives from other disciplines (N=18)
10
Item 13: I expanded my knowledge on methods (N=19)
Item 14: I acquired knowledge relevant to practice (N=18)
11
Item 15: I expanded my knowledge on other areas:_________________________ (N=6)
Item V15 gave the participants the chance to communicate particular fields in which
individual progress has been achieved during YSS. Six of 19 Participants used this
opportunity. The mean is 3.33. While two participants evaluated V15 without naming
specific fields, the other four participants noted up to two progress fields. These fields are
listed below, also naming the participants discipline and age.
•
•
•
•
„the art of academic research“ – Political Science, 29
„methods of identity research”, „political science” – European Studies, 32
„different fields of political science”, „other approaches” – Psychology, 29
„interdisciplinary approaches to identity” – Politics, IR, EU Studies, 26
12
Item 16: Overall, I am satisfied with the competencies and skills acquired during this event (N=18)
Item 17: The facilities were adequate (N=19)
13
Item 18: The equipment of the rooms was appropriate (technical/media) (N=19)
Item 19: The time frame was appropriate (N=19)
14
Item 20: Supporting material was sufficiently provided (N=19)
Item 21: The organisation of the event was efficient and professional (N=19)
15
Item 22: The organising team was friendly and willing to help (N=19)
Item 23: Overall, I am satisfied with the general conditions of the event (N=19)
16
Item 24: In regard to the “classical” School events, the lecturers were well prepared and dedicated (N=19)
Item 25: In regard to the “classical” School events, the lecturers tried to adapt the content of their lectures
to the suggestions of participants, and listened and responded to remarks and questions (N=19)
17
Item 26: In regard to the “classical” School events, the lecturers created a pleasant working atmosphere
(N=19)
Item 27: In regard to the “classical” School events, the lecturers integrated their lecture into the overarching
topic of the School (N=18)
18
Item 28: In regard to the “classical” School events, the lecturers gave thought-provoking ideas for my further
work (N=19)
Item 29: Overall, I am satisfied with the “classical” School events (N=18)
19
Item 30: In regard to the conference workshops, the chairs were engaged and interested (N=19)
Item 31: In regard to the conference workshops, the chairs gave fair and constructive criticism/advice (N=19)
20
Item 32: In regard to the conference workshops, the peers were interested in interdisciplinary discussions
(N=19)
Item 33: In regard to the conference workshops the peers were interested in the work of their fellow
participants (N=19)
21
Item 34: In regard to the conference workshops the peers were actively engaged in the discussions (N=19)
Item 35: In regard to the conference workshops the peers gave fair and constructive criticism/advice (N=19)
22
Item 36: Overall, I am satisfied with the conference workshops (N=19)
Open questions
In the last part of the evaluation sheet, the participants had the chance to give individual
answers to three questions. They were asked about aspects of the school that were
especially positive (V37) and not satisfying (V38), and were offered the possibility to give
suggestions for improvement (V39).
Question V37 „What did you find especially positive?“ has been answered by 16 of 19
participants. The answers are listed in order of their frequency. Only answers named at least
three times are listed.
•
•
•
•
•
Friendly, open and constructive atmosphere (7x)
The total concept of the school as well as the interaction with seniors (6x)
The team of organizers and helpers (5x)
The seniors’ input as well as the organization of the school (4x)
Mr. Bruter as a senior as well as having the chance to exchange ideas with fellow
specialists in the same field of research (3x)
Question V38 „What didn’t please you?“ has been answered by 15 of 19 participants. A lot
of different answers have been given, which can be summarized among the following four
issue areas:
•
Criticism of seniors (different level of preparation/quality of lectures, heterogeneous
presence at social events, too few seniors at final presentation)
23
•
•
•
Criticism of the choice of seniors (wish for more seniors for the workshops, better
balance in quantitative vs. qualitative methodologists, as well as European identity
sceptics vs. optimists)
Criticism of the content of lectures (too little focus on quantitative methods, too
little consideration of political realization of a European identity, some SMC-sessions
were perceived as not as helpful)
Criticism of the structure (too little time for networking and too early dinner times as
well as concurrent and partly too long workshops)
The last question was V39 „Do you have any suggestions for improvements?“. 13 of 19
participants used this opportunity to communicate their ideas. The results can be
summarized as followed:
•
•
All events of the school that were content-related, ergo lectures, workshops and
SMC-meetings, should be finished before dinner (by far the most frequent
suggestion being named seven times), in order to have spare time and time to
getting to know each other
No concurrent events, in order to be able to take part in all the sessions (named
twice)
Additional single suggestions to question V39 were:
•
•
•
•
•
More workshops, less lectures
More paper discussions
Having the conference part first, in order to profit more from the feedback on one’s
own paper
A session focusing on “Implementation of European Identity”
Having a Q&A-session with the seniors about their scientific careers and how they
manage(d) to overcome obstacles.
One of the participants even suggested to actively advertise the concept of the school as
„there is hardly a better way to engage in discussion and exchange knowledge and to
include PhD students and other young researchers in senior research agendas/projects.“
(Sheet #8, V39, 24 years, Political Science, PhD Candidate)
24
Evaluation by the seniors
Unfortunately, only three seniors have filled in the evaluation forms. Due to this small number of
cases a detailed presentation of the evaluation results is not appropriate. Basically, the school was
rated very positively by all three seniors. There are no significant differences compared to the results
from the evaluation by the participants.
Open questions
In the last part of the evaluation sheet, the seniors had the chance to give individual answers to
some open questions. The answers are listed below:
Question: What did you find especially positive?
•
•
“the week engagement between seniors and graduates”
“variety of seniors and academic quality of participants, as well as the kindness and
efficiency of the team”
Question: Do you have any suggestions for improvements?
•
“I would mix the school and workshops to alternate lectures and panels and ask seniors to
stay at least 48 hours”
Question: What was the reason for your willingness to participate at the YSS as a Senior?
•
•
“Curiosity, wanted to see what the young generation is working on, since I'm not main
stream in European studies I wanted to tell young academics about other ways to think and
work on these issues.”
“opportunity to engage with collegues and high level graduates on a topic of shared
interest”
How important are events like this?
•
“Difficult to answer - I think, they can make a difference and impact on the evolution of a
field like this. If only half the participants are courageous (?) by what they heard, that will
make a difference.”
25
Appendix: Questionnaire
Dear participants,
The YSS 2013 was an attempt to combine a “classical” PhD School with a two-day-workshop part and
new elements of interaction between young scholars and well-respected students of (European)
collective identity as well as social science and public. In order to review the success of the YSS, we
cordially invite you to give us your feedback. Please let us know what did you find especially positive
and how we could improve future events of this sort.
We will inform you about the main results of your evaluation on the website of the ECPR Standing
Group “Identity”, the School’s website and the School’s Facebook page. We are aiming at establishing
a lasting scholarly forum of young and senior scholars for discussing several aspects of (European)
collective identity. Your ideas in this respect are most welcome.
Thank you in advance!
Viktoria Kaina, Ireneusz P. Karolewski, Sebastian Kuhn, Paul Heinecke and Susanna Thiel
Firstly, please give a general assessment.
strongly
disagree
(1)
disagree
(2)
agree
(3)
strongly
agree (4)
n/a (98)
The School was enriching.
V01
There should be more events of this
kind.
V02
The contact between Juniors and
Seniors was stimulating.
V03
The design of the event was
innovative.
V04
The design of the event offered a lot
of variety.
V05
The design of the event gave me new
ideas for my own academic work.
V06
The design of the event allowed new
possibilities for networking and
creating contacts.
V07
26
I would recommend applying to an
event like this to colleagues.
V08
The combination of the “classical“
School programme with a
conference is a good idea.
V09
Overall, I am satisfied with this
event.
V10
By visiting the Young Scholars School I acquired the following competencies and skills.
strongly
disagree
(1)
disagree
(2)
agree
(3)
strongly
agree (4)
n/a (98)
I expanded my knowledge on
theories, models and explanatory
approaches.
V11
I got to know perspectives from
other disciplines.
V12
I expanded my knowledge on
methods.
V13
I acquired knowledge relevant to
practice.
V14
I expanded my knowledge on other
areas:_________________________
V15
______________________________
______________________________
Overall, I am satisfied with the
competencies and skills acquired
during this event.
V16
27
Please rate the general conditions of the Young Scholars School:
strongly
disagree
(1)
disagree
(2)
agree
(3)
strongly
agree (4)
n/a (98)
The facilities were adequate.
V17
The equipment of the rooms was
appropriate (technical/media).
V18
The time frame was appropriate.
V19
Supporting material was sufficiently
provided.
V20
The organisation of the event was
efficient and professional.
V21
The organising team was friendly and
willing to help.
V22
Overall, I am satisfied with the
general conditions of the event.
V23
In regard to the “classical” School events, the lecturers…
strongly
disagree
(1)
disagree
(2)
agree
(3)
strongly
agree (4)
n/a (98)
…were well prepared and dedicated.
V24
…tried to adapt the content of their
lectures to the suggestions of
participants, and listened and
responded to remarks and questions.
V25
…created a pleasant working
atmosphere.
V26
…integrated their lecture into the
overarching topic of the School.
V27
28
…gave thought-provoking ideas for
my further work.
V28
Overall, I am satisfied with the
“classical” School events.
V29
In regard to the conference workshops…
strongly
disagree
(1)
disagree
(2)
agree
(3)
strongly
agree (4)
n/a (98)
…the chairs were engaged and
interested.
V30
…the chairs gave fair and
constructive criticism/advice.
V31
…the peers were interested in
interdisciplinary discussions.
V32
…the peers were interested in the
work of their fellow participants.
V33
…the peers were actively engaged in
the discussions.
V34
…the peers gave fair and
constructive criticism/advice.
V35
Overall, I am satisfied with the
conference workshops.
V36
What did you find especially positive? V37
What didn't please you?
V38
29
Do you have any suggestions for improvements?
V39
For statistical purpose please indicate:
a)
Your age in years:__________
V40
b) Sex
V41
female
male
c)
The status of your qualification:
V42
Phd Candidate
Post-Doc
Other:____________________________________________________
d) Your discipline:_______________________________________________
30