ERF is listening!

Comments from the ERF 2005
Norfolk Conference Evaluations

We work hard to make each Federation biennial conference the best conference we've ever held. This is challenging because each conference has a team of volunteer leaders and each time we are working with a new conference venue.

The conference leaders and staff rely heavily on the help of hundreds of people to make the conference successful. To all conveners and participants in oral and poster sessions, organizers of special event and students who helped out, we say a hearty THANK YOU !!! for a job well done. It was terrific to work with you.

ERF 2005 Conference Statistics:

1,470 + participants from 24 countries and 40 US states
1,200 + scientific presentations
75 oral sessions
150 + session chairs and co-chairs
300 + student participants
100 + student workers
Number of people who liked the posters sessions at midday -- 3 out of 4
Cost of one coffee break - $4,000+

Innovations at this conference:

  1. Plenary on Sunday afternoon, second plenary on Thursday morning
  2. Synthesis sessions
  3. Posters at mid-day every day
  4. Poster summaries in oral sessions
  5. Town Hall meeting to present planning for Federation's future

Frequently mentioned as the best features of conference:

  • Networking with new and old acquaintances
  • Opportunities to discuss the latest work with people who are doing it
  • Range and diversity of science presented

Frequently mentioned as needing improvement:

  • Have the sessions all in one venue.
  • While a strong majority liked having the poster sessions at midday, they want improvement in the food available and set up.

Overview of the following comments:

In this Newsletter we present the comments on the mid-day poster sessions and the synthesis sessions. In the next Newsletter we will present the responses to the question about what you would like to see more of at the next conference. That newsletter will also contain a call for special sessions for the ERF 2007 conference in Providence, Rhode Island.

The following lists present the representative comments from the evaluation forms.

Thanks to the over 150 people who completed their evaluation forms. You provide us with valuable insight for improving our future conferences.

Comments on Poster Sessions:

  • 3 out of 4 replied that they prefer the lunchtime poster sessions.
  • Many people commented that they would prefer having posters up more than one day.

Pros from academics

  • This is a wonderful arrangement to emphasize the science of the posters. Please keep it this way!
  • I am usually too burned out by the then of the day to concentrate on posters, plus I think it saved time in terms of dealing with lunch.
  • Best poster format I have seen. Free lunch attracted people.
  • Liked the posters at lunch, but not every day.
  • Better energy, attendees more attentive (lack of alcohol). I think this should be done again.
  • It was the best part of the meeting.
  • I think having posters at lunch is much better than at happy hour. Good job.

Pro's from students

  • The set up was a little cramped. Food was bad. BUT, lunchtime session was wonderful. I've never had so much feedback at a poster session. Great change.
  • Well organized, lots of diversity. Time was good for bringing more people to posters.

Pros from Federal employees

  • I liked having the posters with lunch provided and no competing events.
  • Having participated in ERF conferences for 20 years now, I really liked moving the poster session to lunchtime with the 2 hour period to munch, chat and chew with colleagues. Serving lunch kept most of the colleagues around to talk with.

Pros from state/regional government employees

  • Excellent poster boards and arrangement. Lots of space. Good to have food during session. Lots of good discussions.
  • Poster sessions well organized. I enjoyed having time to discuss topics with presenters.
  • Lunch w/ poster sessions is a great idea.

Pros from private sector and nongovernmental organization attendees

  • You are not as "burned out" at lunch so can really look at the posters.
  • Much better than evening - people are more attentive at mid-day.
  • Was nice to have them at lunchtime. Had a chance to see everything since they weren't all up at once (not overwhelming). Drawback, poster is only up one day.
  • This is more fair to the presenters than the cocktail hour plan - I really like it.

Cons from academics

  • I prefer the 5-7 pm hours w/ a bar- people can meet up for dinner. Please go back to the evening posters.
  • By the 4th day it was a lot. But it did get a lot of people to the posters and saved time by providing lunch.

Con's from Students

  • Having lunch during the poster session was not a nice idea because people were eating and not paying attention to the presenters/posters.

Cons from Federal employees

  • Well done, but not sure the oral summaries worked very well.
  • 2 hr lunch & poster session drains a great deal of energy from afternoon sessions.
  • Not at lunch, that is networking time.

Comments on Synthesis Sessions:

Pros from academics

  • These were a great idea but need to be scheduled better.
  • Useful and thought provoking.
  • Interesting discussion but not particularly cohesive.
  • Great idea but would be better to have them one afternoon at the end of the meeting, not opposite the concurrent sessions. V
  • Good talks, great idea. Should not have synthesis sessions competing with each other.
  • It is very difficult to synthesize of the fly. It may be more useful to ask people to synthesize their field rather than react to specific talks. It is important however to make sure they actually do synthesize.

Pro's from students…

  • Rewarding experience. Motivated me to continue studies in coastal zone management.
  • Synthesis sessions are good. Need more chemistry at the meeting.
  • I really enjoyed this. I think that grad students, post docs could really benefit from hearing and participating in a debate about where our field has been, is, and is going.

Pros from Federal employees

  • I walked in late (killing time until another session) and stayed because it was great. Wish I had gone to more. Much better than panel forum used at other conferences I've attended. The interaction was nice even if dominated by a few people in the audience--perhaps a moderator would have helped.
  • Fascinating level of commitment to real change in ways of collaborating.
  • Great idea, needs better advertising.
  • Hey scientists, loosen up! Don't be afraid to provide your best judgment even in the face of not knowing all the information.
  • Very good quality of talks.
  • I think this is a great addition to the ERF conference.
  • Good idea to do this. This meeting was lean on chemistry, hence the synthesis was more an assessment of the state of the field, not what was at the meeting -- which was good. Need a geochemist on the conference organizing committee.

Pros from state/regional government employees

  • Did not appear to stick to charge, though discussions were enlightening.

Pros from private sector and nongovernmental organization attendees

  • Integrate with technical paper sessions to attract additional participation. Give more attractive names to sessions.

Cons from academics

  • Too late in the day.
  • Too many other talks, judging, etc.
  • Good concept and idea but…although presentations were good, no real synthesis
  • Providing more info on who will be talking and on what subjects would have improved attendance and participation.

[ back to top ]