Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Navigate Up
Sign In

News & Events

CPSI 2006 - Summary of Workshop Evaluations

Back to 2006 CPSI Research Workshop

  • 104 people – 30 Decision Makers, 66 Researchers, 4 Decision Makers/Researchers, and 4 unclassified individuals – attended the May and June, 2006 CPSI Research Workshops (53 in Ottawa and 51 in Edmonton).
  • Individuals from across the country attended both workshops, which focused on the following areas:
    • Building a Team
    • Knowledge Transfer and Exchange
    • Research Methodology
    • Creating a successful application


Below is a collated summary of the workshop evaluation results, representing feedback received from both the Ottawa and Edmonton sessions.

Evaluation Scale:

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 strongly disagree/ least valuable wealk

 disagree/ some but little value

 Neutral / not sure / average

 Agree/ valuable

 Strongly agree/ very valuable / very strong

 

1. Overall, the workshop was ranked by 71 respondents as:

Strongly agree/very valuable/very strong = 21%
Agree/valuable = 59%
Neutral/not sure/average = 15%
Disagree/some but little value = 3%
Strongly disagree/least valuable/weak = 2%

Strengths:

  • Group discussion format was seen as useful; 84% of respondents identified the group discussion as agree/valuable to strongly agree/very valuable.
  • 86% of respondents indicated that they acquired relevant and valuable ideas and information.
  • 92% of respondents indicated that there is value in funding agencies such as CPSI offering this type of workshop.
  • 72% of respondents indicated they would attend a similar workshop or recommend the workshop to a colleague; 5% said they would not and 22% indicated maybe.
  • Decision makers and inexperienced researchers appeared to find the content most valuable.
  • The workshops were seen as positive opportunities for networking
  • Attendees appreciated CPSI’s interest and willingness to share information on how to improve and strengthen a project and/or application in order to be successful. (CPSI used the knowledge gained from the 2005 Grants Competition process and the 2006 competition requirements to provide this information to attendees.)

Areas for improvement:

  • A number of attendees indicated that the content of the workshop could have been delivered in a one day session
  • There was a general desire for greater detail and more in-depth information relating to each of the sessions.
  • It was reported that the content may have been somewhat basic for the level of researcher audience in attendance.

2. Building a Team Session was ranked by 71 respondents as:

Strongly agree/very valuable/very strong = 11%
Agree/valuable = 65% Neutral/not sure/average = 20%
Disagree/some but little value = 3%
Strongly disagree/least valuable/weak = 1%

Strengths:

  • The readings and resources were identified as valuable.
  • Group discussions and ideas that came from this session were valuable.
  • The session was deemed effective for team-building and promoting an understanding of the importance of the involvement of both researchers and decision makers.
  • Valuable information on how to structure a team was provided.

Areas for improvement:

  •  More concrete examples and content would have added greater value to the session.
  • Session could have been shorter.

3. Successful Knowledge Transfer & Exchange (KT&E) was ranked by 69 respondents as:

Strongly agree/very valuable/very strong = 16%
Agree/valuable = 51%
Neutral/not sure/average = 26%
Disagree/some but little value = 6%
Strongly disagree/least valuable/weak = 1%

Strengths:

  • Discussions were useful

Areas for improvement:

  • It was suggested that attendees could create a KT&E plan for a case scenario.
  • More strategies and examples on KT&E activities that are successful would have added value to the session.
4. Research Methodology was ranked by 68 respondents as:

Strongly agree/very valuable/very strong = 9%
Agree/valuable = 46%
Neutral/not sure/average = 29%
Disagree/some but little value = 12%
Strongly disagree/least valuable/weak = 3%

Strengths:

  • Basic nature of content was identified as useful for decision makers and less experienced researchers.
  • Good practical tips were provided.
  • Readings and resources provided good information; presentation brought the detail to life.

Areas for improvement:

  • Additional information, content could be provided, including specific examples.
  • Greater discussion on different research methodologies and differences and similarities; greater discussion of qualitative versus quantitative methodology.

5. Day 2 session, focusing on CPSI grants competition and completion of the application form, rated by 63 respondents as:

Strongly agree/very valuable/very strong = 37%
Agree/valuable = 37%
Neutral/not sure/average = 22%
Disagree/some but little value = 4%
Strongly disagree/least valuable/weak = 0%

Strengths:

  • Session helped clarify technical information and informed potential applicants of competition expectations.
  • Generally, CPSI candor and openness in sharing information was appreciated; CPSI provided an excellent clarification of requirements.
  • Resulted in clear understanding of the application process.

Areas for improvement:

  • The session content could have been covered in and incorporated into one day.
  • It was suggested that a review of an actual application, section-by-section, would have enhance the value in this session.