The project has introduced approaches, ways of working, thematic connections, which are fairly new in each of the respective fields and communities of interest involved. The degree of confidence in the skills gained, observational data, and analytical rigour is of course limited given the short scale of time for such a project, but the success has been in showing the potential for such work as a popular or community-linked activity involving critical research, cultural engagement, politics and science, and most of all in having developed the connections, interest and enthusiasm of a range of partners towards a consolidated further project.
Responses to the feedback sheets for the training course section expressed a consistent score of “Excellent” for the training, and an average of nearly excellent for ‘How well was the project run?’ and for ‘Coordination/ marketing/ bookings’. Only the score for ‘Venue, access arrangements, food’ averaged to be lower as a “Good” result almost entirely due to catering problems on the first day only.
The final day of the course was most revealing, working with eight of the original group who were keen to stay on for an evaluative discussion. Most said they would have liked more discussion, contrary to the earlier perceptions received from staff working with the refugees who emphasised that the communities would centrally need a skills development magnet to bring them to the sessions. This may have been true for a number of participants, but we may have attracted a different set of participants if we had profiled Climate discussions differently.
Responses (by discussion) to the interest and worth of the discussion forum was a keen interest for this to be an ongoing advisory, support, discussion and development group for the longer term future project.
Audience responses to the final event (from questionnaires) suggested a very high level (“Excellent”) of interest and relevance of the event. The scores for the overall quality and for the enjoyment of the event were roughly between “Excellent” and “Good”. The ‘Venue, access, organisation food’ score was very variable across the forms, but again averaging roughly between “Excellent” and “Good”. Central to the slightly lower scores here was the difficulty of discussion for a variety of factors relating to the venue space, numbers, variety of methods, panel preparation, the complexity of the range of issues under discussion, wide range of starting reference points for audience members, and possibly an over-rich variety of content. Nevertheless, the format of the event was widely applauded and the majority of respondents expressed an interest to support or contribute to further activities.