Engaging and Learning for Conservation: Workshop on Public Participation in Scientific Research Workshop Evaluation – Report 1

Engaging and Learning for Conservation: Workshop on Public Participation in Scientific Research was held at the American Museum of Natural History 7-8 April 2011. This preliminary report synthesizes the process evaluation with the workshop feedback provided by the participants. The overall goals of the project are to convene a workshop for scientists, educators, and community members involved in public participation in scientific research (PPSR) to share experiences, lessons, protocols, and tool and to collaboratively set forth a coherent agenda for answering outstanding questions for advancing informal education goals leading to conservation outcomes. The overarching evaluation question, therefore, is one of accountability: did the workshop lead to an agenda that is designed to meet these goals. However, moving toward this end requires meeting several objectives of the workshop which in turn necessitate outcome-based measurement. As the workshop itself is the centerpiece of the proposal, understanding the changes in participants during the workshop around the key products is a way of formatively understanding the potential for success. To this end, a process evaluation including two components was identified as appropriate. If the success of a workshop is determined by the degree to which participants are satisfied with the process of and the outcomes from the workshop, this workshop was a success. Participants were satisfied with the experience and felt the workshop had moved the field forward toward the stated goals of the project. Overall, participants were satisfied with the facilities ( =6.13, SD=.98; note, the scales were all 7-point summated ranking scales), the organization ( =5.83, SD=1.20), and the facilitation ( =5.88, SD=1.13). The workshop appears to have been successful in meeting both its goals and the desired outcomes of the participants. It was clear that both levels of goals were in operation during the workshop. Generally, the goals of the organizers, with the attendant outcomes, and the goals of the participants coexisted well during the workshop, but there were a few points at which the goals competed (e.g., with the matrix discussion). The workshop also appears to have been tremendously successful in creating energy around the work of PPSR. There were, however, some implications that the organizers could consider for future workshops. Pilot activities. Although they may make sense when discussed in the group, when they are actualized with people, they may change. This is a reflection on the matrix activity. The opening session was well constructed and implemented. The talking heads component of the workshop went well. Even so, participants were ready for legitimate engagement/participation in the work of the workshop earlier than they were allowed to engage. Consider a way of allowing participants to have voice earlier in the process; in this workshop, it would have been most appropriate after the first morning break. The workshop, in this case, could have been longer without compromising participation. Additional length, if the agenda were shared early with invitees, would have allowed for more intentional networking time, more thoughtful next steps discussions, and added reflection time to the process. There are also some important considerations for the organizers in the continuation of this project. Consider how to allow the perspectives on PPSR, the entry to and different purposes for PPSR can be addressed in the materials for the field. As the workshop did not see these perspectives converging except for a couple of individuals, it may be important to note and stress these differences throughout the products that emerge. The energy around networking was tremendous. There is always a drop in energy when individuals return to their already overly busy working environments. Can the organizers consider and create ways to force engagement with others or some means of active facilitation of networking rather than the usual passive facilitation efforts? The strategies for communicating progress on products should be shared collectively and comprehensively by the organizers to all participants. The appendix of this report includes the survey used in the study.

If you would like to edit a resource, please email us to submit your request.