EVENT REPORT TEMPLATE – Study Visit to Goldsmiths, University of

London 19th to 22nd September 2018

This template has to be filled by project partners (organisers) for all BE-OPEN events (except SC meetings). Furthermore, this template can be used to inform colleagues and partners about other events attended (promoting BE-OPEN). In the second case please just fill in the first page and delete the chapters thereafter.

Author: Lazar Petrovic

Event Title: Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom

Event Date: 19th to 22nd September 2018

Event Venue: Room 300, Richard Hoggart Building Goldsmiths, University of London

Type of event: (National, international, press conference, promotional event etc.)

Study Visit

Short description:

The study visit to Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom, was held from 19th to 22nd September 2018. The workshop was organized and led by the team member from Goldsmiths, prof. dr. Caspar Addyman. Participants in the three day workshop were teachers, researchers and administrative staff from partner institutions: University of Novi Sad, University of Arts in Belgrade, University of Belgrade, University of Kragujevac, State University of Novi Pazar and Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development RS.

Organiser(s): Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom

Agenda: BEOPEN Goldsmiths programme Registration lists 19-22.09.2018

Number of participants: First day 24, Second day 23, Third day 19, and on the Fourth day 16.

Links to further information: Study visit to Goldsmiths, University of London

Other personal remarks: /

Here you can include the information such:

N/A

EVENT ORGANISATION DETAILS

Invitation was sent off to participants on: N/A

Information material was sent off to participants on: N/A

Date of initial participant list compilation: N/A

Date of final participant list compilation: N/A

Total number of participants invited: N/A

Date of agenda finalisation: N/A

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE EVENT PREPARATION PHASE

*(To be filled by organisers)

Organisers: Please complete (if you have not met with any problems in that phase, please fill in “N/A”. Please also include any feedback by the participants before the workshop ):

1) N/A 2) N/A

EVENT ROLLOUT

Some general information (to be filled by organisers): Final Event Agenda and Participant list

BEOPEN 3-day Conference

September 19 – 22, 2018

Room 300, Richard Hoggart Building [map]

Goldsmiths, University of London

BEOPEN (beopen.uns.ac.rs) is an EU funded project driving Open Science/Research

innovation at universities in Serbia. The Goldsmiths workshop represents the final study visit

by project members to an EU partner institution. The event looks into the future of Open

Science/Research. It is divided into three sessions where invited speakers are challenged to

consider what comes next.

Wednesday September 19th

Thursday September 20th

Friday September 21st

Saturday September

22nd

10:00

ARRIVE

Openness as

Engagement and Impact

Openness as Diversity and

Inclusion

Interactive Notebooks Workshop

11:00

12:00 LUNCH LUNCH LUNCH FREE

13:00

Innovations in Open Science

Genes & Tonic workshop

FREE

DEPART

14:00

15:00 SciComm workshop 16:00

17:00 Celeste Kidd FREE

18:00 FREE

19:00

DINNER (Venue TBC)

Science Showoff (Amersham Arms)

20:00

21:00

Innovations in Open Science - Wednesday, 19 Sep 2018 (Afternoon)

What possibilities exist once Open Science/Research has won the debate? What business

models make current changes sustainable and further changes possible? What impact will

there be on the quantity and quality of publications? Will this new open era truly benefit and

be accessible to everybody that wants to participate? What technological and cultural

innovations will determine the future? There are many obstacles once open science

becomes the norm. In this session, we hope to start going beyond the tip of the iceberg and

delve deeper into these questions.

Openness as Public Engagement & Impact - Thursday, 20 Sep 2018 (Morning)

Public engagement and impact are well established requirements for a successful academic

portfolio. But their links to the Open Science/Research agenda are underappreciated. This

session explores the synergies between these areas. We are hoping to steer the

conversation away from DO’s and DONT’s to the true meaning of engagement and impact.

How can we make research that leaves the ivory tower and truly engages people and solves

their on-going problems?

Openness as Diversity & Inclusion - Friday, 21 September 2018 (Morning)

Science is not truly open if it does not create equal opportunities for participation. It is not

immune from bias and prejudice and will suffer if it does not address them. But how should

these goals be met and how do they integrate with Open Science/Research Principles? For

example, does open peer review increase or decrease discrimination? Could Open

Science/Research be a trojan horse that can contribute to a wider form of openness:

openness towards humans, their imperfections and uniqueness? But are diverse voices

being heard?

Genes & Tonic Workshop

Robert Chapman from the InLab will lead a workshop on effective public engagement in

scientific research. The aim of this event is to introduce participants to the idea of impact as

openness in how research can be conducted to integrate public opinions utilising both

qualitative and quantitative methods. Theoretical frameworks and justifications will be

explored before considering a practical example. Participants will then be asked to workshop

their own ideas in small groups, considering how they might engage the public with their

research and what benefit this might bring to their work and their participants.

SciComm Workshop

The Genes & Tonic workshop will lead into a further interactive session of Science

Communication led by Dr Steve Cross, former head of Public Engagement at University

College London and creator of the Science Showoff cabaret.

Interactive Notebooks Workshop

Moving beyond open access the next challenge will be sharing the processes of science.

Raw data is of limited use without supporting metadata and human readable analyses

scripts. Interactive Notebooks provide one possible solution to these problems. This hands-

on workshop will teach participants how to use Juptyer notebooks in combination with Github

and MyBinder to create replicable, shareable data analyses (http://tiny.cc/OSJW).

Science Showoff

Science Showoff is a science cabaret created and hosted by science comedian Dr Steve

Cross. This special edition features performers from all of Goldsmiths' many science

departments. Each performer has 8 minutes to share their love of the weird and wonderful

side of science, while Steve is there to keep control of the performers and ensure the

audience stay happy and hydrated.

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/science-showoff-tickets-

49290600513?utm_term=eventname_text

All sessions take place in Richard Hoggart Building, Room 300, and the

Science Showoff at The Amersham Arms pub.

Wednesday

September 19th

Thursday

September 20th

Friday September

21st

Saturday

September 22nd

10:00

ARRIVE

Fiona Gabbert,

Gordon Wright & Tom

Chapman

Alfredo Carpineti

Interactive Notebooks

Workshop

10:15

10:30 Jonathan Freeman

Katy Petherick

10:45

11:00

Lee Edwards

Eniola Fujamade

11:15

11:30 Alexandar Brkic Jessica Wade

11:45

12:00

LUNCH

LUNCH

LUNCH

FREE

12:15

12:30

12:45

13:00 Welcome Public Engagement at

Goldsmiths

FREE

DEPART

13:15 Michael Markie

13:30

Genes & Tonic

Workshop

13:45 Mark Hahnel

14:00

14:15 Jenny Molloy

14:30

14:45 COFFEE

COFFEE

15:00

15:15 Sophie von Stumm

SciComm Workshop

15:30

15:45 Stuart Ritchie

16:00

16:15

Discussion 16:30

16:45

17:00

Celeste Kidd

(via Skype)

FREE

17:15

17:30

FREE

17:45

18:00

18:15

18:30

18:45

19:00

DINNER

(venue TBC)

20:00 SCIENCE

SHOWOFF

(Amersham Arms)

21:00

SPEAKER INFORMATION

Michael Markie

Talk title: Open science – where are we and where are we heading?

Bio: Michael Markie is the Publisher of F1000 Platforms. He is an open science, open data

and open research advocate dedicated to changing the way science is communicated. He

played a pivotal role in helping launch F1000 Research in 2013, and now oversees

publishing platforms for organisations and institutions such as the Wellcome Trust, The Bill

and Melinda Gates Foundation and the African Academy of Sciences amongst others.

Michael is an active member of the open science community and has given many

talks/seminars/workshops on the subject at international conferences and research

institutions around the world. Michael previously studied Chemical Biology at the University

of Leeds, where he worked on synthesising a range of potential anti-tumour compounds.

Mark Hahnel

Talk title: Tracking the impact of all of your research outputs

Bio: Dr Mark Hahnel is the CEO and founder of Figshare, which he created whilst

completing his PhD in stem cell biology at Imperial College London. Figshare currently

provides research data infrastructure for institutions, publishers and funders globally. He is

passionate about open science and the potential it has to revolutionise the research

community.

Jenny Molloy

Talk title: Open science: history, tools and equity

Bio: Dr Jenny Molloy is a Shuttleworth Foundation Research Fellow in the Department of

Plant Sciences at the University of Cambridge, studying the role and impact of open

approaches to intellectual property for a sustainable and equitable bioeconomy. Dr. Molloy's

work focusses on better understanding problems facing researchers accessing biological

research tools in low-resource contexts, particularly Latin America and Africa. She is

analysing existing innovative solutions and the potential for local, distributed manufacturing

of enzymes to improve access and build capacity for biological research. The broader aim of

her research is to contextualise "open source" approaches to biotechnology within current

narratives of innovation and the bioeconomy policy agenda.

Sophie Von Stumm

Talk title: The OSF – leader or stopper of science?

Bio: Dr Sophie von Stumm is an Associate Professor for Developmental Psychology at the

London School of Economics, where she directs the Hungry Mind Lab. She integrates

approaches from psychology, education science and genomics to study the causes and

consequences of individual differences in cognitive development. Over the course of her

career, Dr von Stumm has published more than 50 scientific articles and secured grants in

excess of £500,000 for her research from major national and international funding agencies.

She won the APS Rising Star award in 2015 and is a Fellow of the Jacobs Foundation

(2017-2019).

Celeste Kidd (via Skype)

Talk title: How campus sexual harassment increases inequality in education.

Bio: Dr Celeste Kidd is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of California,

Berkeley, where her lab investigates attention, curiosity and learning using a combination of

computational and behavioral methods. Kidd is also one of nine former members of the

University of Rochester’s department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences who filed a federal

lawsuit against the University for its whitewashing of the sexual harassment complaints of 16

women students, including Kidd, and retaliation against those who complained. Since going

public with her story, she has acted as an advocate for better protections for students

against sexual misconduct, work for which she was made one of TIME Magazines 2017

Persons of the Year as one of the "Silence Breakers".

Stuart Ritchie

Talk title: Open science for pre-existing data

Bio: Dr Stuart Ritchie is Lecturer in the Social Genetic & Development Psychiatry Centre at

King’s College London. He is interested in human lifespan cognitive development, and which

factors—genetic or environmental—influence between-person differences in cognitive

abilities.

Fiona Gabbert, Gordon Wright & Tom Powell

Talk title: OPEN-ing night: Public Engagement through Experiential Performance

Bio: Dr Fiona Gabbert is a Professor of Applied Psychology and Director of the Forensic

Psychology Unit at Goldsmiths University of London. She has an international reputation for

her research in the fields of suggestibility of memory and investigative interviewing, that has

a strong focus on improving the usability, credibility, and reliability of evidence from

witnesses. Fiona regularly works as a collaborator and consultant with practitioners and

policy-makers to develop and embed effective investigative interview practice. She is

passionate about disseminating research to a range of audiences.

Dr Gordon Wright is an Early Career Researcher and Lecturer in the Department of

Psychology at Goldsmiths, and co-Director of the Forensic Psychology Unit. His research

examines individual differences and contextual factors influencing aversive and antisocial

behaviour, such as Deception and Insider Threat, as well as the Dark Triad of personality.

Tom Powell is Researcher for Goldsmiths Theatre & Performance Department, Graduate

Entrepreneur within the Institute of Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship, and Director &

Producer of Creative Vortex Productions. Currently studying an MA in Creative Producing at

the Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, as a founder of Creative Vortex, Tom and

his company create work in the realms of theatre, film and public engagement,

characteristically research-led or research-based.

Jonathan Freeman

Talk title: TBA

Bio: Dr Jonathan Freeman is a leading expert in media psychology and human factors of

digital media. Taking as his starting point fundamental psychology research and methods,

Jonathan has developed and applied a body of knowledge to the evaluation and optimisation

of digital media products and services, focusing both on user experience and from the user

and provider perspective on delivering, monetising and experiencing better digital media

products and services.

Lee Edwards

Talk title: Going beyond the tickbox: the challenges of engagement and impact as process

and practice

Bio: Dr Lee Edwards is Associate Professor in the Department of Media and

Communications at the London School of Economics and Political Science. She teaches and

researches public relations from a socio-cultural perspective and is particularly interested in

the relationship between public relations, inequalities, social justice and democracy. She has

published theoretical and empirical papers on a range of topics including public relations as

a cultural intermediary, diversity in public relations, and public relations and democracy. Her

books include Understanding Public Relations: Theory, Culture and Society (Sage, 2018);

Power, Diversity and Public Relations (Routledge, 2014) and Public Relations, Society and

Culture: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations (Routledge, 2011, with Caroline Hodges).

Alexandar Brkic

Talk title: TBA

Bio: Dr Aleksandar Brkić is a scholar and lecturer in the fields of cultural/arts management

and cultural policy, with significant experience as creative producer and arts manager,

working in the intersections of performing arts, visual arts and design. He is the founder of

8010, an art production company from Belgrade, engaged as a creative producer for a piano

duo LP Duo. Since 2010 he acts as a Vice President of Centre for Scene Design,

Architecture and Technology/OISTAT Centre Serbia (SCEN). He is a member of European

network on cultural management and policy (ENCATC), Association of Arts Administration

Educators (AAAE) and European Sociological Association (ESA).

Will Cenci & John Price

Talk title: Public engagement at Goldsmiths

Bio: Will Cenci is Goldsmiths Public Engagement and Communications. Dr John Price is the

Academic Lead for Public Engagement at Goldsmiths and Head of the History Department.

Alfredo Carpineti

Talk title: Being LGBTQ+ in STEM

Bio: Dr Alfredo Carpineti is an astrophysicist, journalist (IFLScience), science communicator,

and social activist. He's the chair and founder of Pride in STEM, an award-nominated charity

working to raise the profile and showcase the work of LGBTQ+ people working in STEM. He

was one of the organisers of LGBTSTEM Day.

Katy Petherick

Talk title: Science for all

Bio: During her 6 years as a cancer researcher, Dr Katy Petherick became increasingly

passionate about improving accessibility to science and moved into Public Engagement,

supporting scientists at the University of Sussex to work more closely with people outside of

academia. Since 2015, she has coordinated a variety of initiatives that encourage diversity in

science, including working with groups less engaged with science and promoting minorities

in science. For example, Katy co-founded Soapbox Science Brighton, promoting Women in

STEM and set up Out and About STEM, promoting LGBTQ+ in Life Sciences. In addition to

her current role, Katy supports science in the local community through various volunteer

activities, including co-founding and chairing the British Science Association Brighton and

Hove branch, committed to reaching new audiences with science.

Eniola Fujamade

Talk title: Race and academia: challenges facing Black academics in education and beyond

Bio: Eniola Fujamade is a young STEM professional currently navigating her early career in

the oil and gas and consulting industry with a previous background in sales and recruitment.

She is passionate about developing systems and initiatives that aid the growth and potential

of future generations. As the Programme Director for BBSTEM: Black British Professionals

in STEM, she works collaboratively with institutions and the Black community to develop

relationships that strive for diversity and inclusion in the STEM world. BBSTEM was founded

in 2018 to address the challenges facing Black individuals in STEM and campaigns for a

balanced representation within both education and industry.

Jessica Wade

Talk title: How to use storytelling to communicate diversity with the public

Bio: Dr Jessica Wade is an excitable scientist with an enthusiasm for equality. She has been

involved in several projects to improve gender inclusion in science, as well as encouraging

Event Implementation – Commentary by Organizing Partners

WP-leader:

N/A

Task leader:

N/A

EVENT EVALUATION BY PARTICIPANTS

Summary of the Participant Feedback Form Results to be filled by organisers based on the questionnaire results. Please note: insert only the overall percentage of all feedback forms received (e.g. participants total number=30; 15 of them were most satisfied and 15 of them satisfied – please include 50% in the column most satisfied and 50% in the column satisfied.)

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

The event administration 0% 0% 0% 0% 100,00%

The structure of the programme

0% 6,25% 0% 18,75% 68,75%

The venue and facilities 0% 0% 0% 6,25% 93,75%

The quality of presentations 0% 0% 0% 25,00% 75,00%

The quality of discussions 0% 0% 20,00% 33,33% 46,67%

more young people to study science and engineering. Jess won the Institute of Physics

(IOP) Early Career Communicator Prize (2015), “I’m a Scientist, Get Me Out of Here!”

(2015), the IOP Jocelyn Bell Burnell Award (2016), the Institution of Materials, Mineral and

Mining's 'Robert Perrin Award' (2017), the Imperial College Dame Julia Higgins Certificate

(2017) and the IOP Daphne Jackson Medal and Prize (2018). Jess sits on the committees of

the IOP’s Women in Physics Group, Physics Communicators Group and London & South

East Branch. She is on the Council of the Women’s Engineering Society (WES) and Women

in Science & Engineering (WISE) Young Women’s Board. In 2017 Jess was the UK

representative on a US State Department International Visitor Leadership Program,

travelling across America for a month looking at initiatives to recruit and retain women in

‘STEM’. Jess co-led the UK Team at the 2017 International Conference for Women in

Physics. She is a keen Wikipedian, and is helping to upload the biographies of women,

LGBTQ+ and POC scientists - creating one every day in 2018.

The level of presenters' competence

0% 0% 0% 13,33% 86,67%

The level of attendees' competence

0% 6,67% 6,67% 20,00% 66,67%

Strongly disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

The information I got will be of immediate use to me

0% 0% 20,00% 46,67% 33,33%

This event completely covered the topics I have expected

0% 6,67% 6,67% 26,67% 60,00%

I enjoyed the interaction with other participants

0% 0% 6,67% 6,67% 86,67%

My expectations about this event were met or exceeded

0% 6,67% 0% 20,00% 73,33%

The discussions were relevant for the workshop

0% 6,67% 6,67% 20,00% 66,67%

The discussions were relevant for the participants

0% 6,67% 0% 26,67% 66,67%

The methods of working were suitable for the topics and for the participants

0% 6,67% 0% 26,67% 66,67%

The overall organisation was professional

0% 0% 0% 6,67% 93,33%

The time management was always to my fullest satisfaction

0% 0% 0% 6,67% 93,33%

The style and level of communication between organisers and participants were professional

0% 0% 6,67% 0% 93,33%

I would recommend this kind of event to my colleagues

0% 6,67% 0% 6,67% 86,67%

Please indicate your agreement with the following statements related to open science:

Strongly disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

The information I got on open science was very useful to me

0% 6,67% 0% 26,67% 66,67%

The information I got on open access was very useful to me

0% 0% 6,67% 40,00% 53,33%

The information I got on open data was very useful to me

0% 6,67% 0% 33,33% 60,00%

I have received all information needed on best practices for introducing the open science, open access and open data

0% 6,67% 0% 60,00% 33,33%

Please indicate your agreement with the following statements related to open science:

Strongly disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

The information I got during the first day of study visit was very useful to me

0% 0% 6,67% 13,33% 80,00%

The information I got during the second day of study visit was very useful to me

0% 0% 6,67% 13,33% 80,00%

The information I got during the third day of study visit was very useful to me

0% 0% 6,67% 40,00% 53,33%

Prior Experience of Similar Events – Overall %:

86,67%

Strengths and limitations of the event: please include comments received

Please indicate the strengths of the event and contributions or activities you find the most relevant to the goals of the BE-OPEN project:

• Openness as public engagement and impact could be considered as important for making the link between academic researches and solving problems, providing accessible solution.

• Participants competences, overall topic, versatility of the

topics, know-how clearly exposed and explained.

• Not so many, the presentations were interesting but not so much the main topics that is open science.

• Getting together with UK colleges in sense of bringing newts trends and good practices to Serbian Universities and social events were useful.

• Presenting the same other aspects of open science, we don’t consider such as citizen science, public assessments, women in science etc.

• Networking during this event and demonstrating what are current trends in UK academic community, very useful.

• Presenting some aspects of Open Science that are often neglected: citizen science, public engagement…

• This event has made us reconsider openness in science regarding public engagement inclusion and diversity and future technology.

Did all important stakeholders attend the event and did they get a chance of presenting their opinion on open science and open access:

• Yes, they did.

• Yes, apart our colleagues from Nis.

• Yes, all of them attended the event and had a chance to present their opinion.

• Yes, the stakeholders got a chance to present their opinion during the discussion.

• All participants had a chance to present their experience and opinion.

• Yes, as planed within the project. They presented their attitudes during discussions and workshops.

• Some of them attended without expressing their opinion on open science.

• Yes, all important stakeholders attend the event and did they get a chance of presenting their opinion on open science and open access.

Please indicate how you think the event could have been improved:

• The event was perfect.

• Probably the technical demonstrations for the people who are not from the IT sector could improve the event.

• No improvement needed, presenters covered all the topics.

• The event is well tuned and planed I have no comments.

• The event was perfectly organized. IT sector host institution didn’t participate in the events.

• The event was really good.

• The organisation was perfect, but this is not so good partner for the open science.

Any further comments: • None.

• Thank you to the organisers.

• Thanks to the colleague Caspar.

• Not all of the partners attended the meeting, however all of the presenters had the opportunity to present their opinion.

• I have no further comments.

Additional comments:

*to be filled by local partner

Please add the following additional information here:

• Charts of the statistical figures from the tables above (pie or bar charts)

FIRST SET OF QUESTIONS:

100,00%

THE EVENT ADMINISTRATION

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,25%

18,75%

68,75%

THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAMME

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,25%

93,75%

THE VENUE AND FACILITIES

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

25,75%

75,00%

THE QUALITY OF PRESENTATIONS

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

20,00%

33,33%

46,67%

THE QUALITY OF DISCUSSIONS

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

13,33%

86,67%

THE LEVEL OF PRESENTERS' COMPETENCE

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

SECOND SET OF QUESTIONS:

6,67%

6,67%

20,00%66,67%

THE LEVEL OF ATTENDEES' COMPETENCE

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

20,00%

46,67%

33,33%

THE INFORMATION I GOT WILL BE OF IMMEDIATE USE TO ME

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,67%

6,67%

26,67%60,00%

THIS EVENT COMPLETELY COVERED THE TOPICS I HAVE EXPECTED

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,67%

6,67%

86,67%

I ENJOYED THE INTERACTION WITH OTHER PARTICIPANTS

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,67%

20,00%

70,33%

MY EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THIS EVENT WERE MET OR EXCEEDED

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,67%

6,67%

20,00%66,67%

THE DISCUSSIONS WERE RELEVANT FOR THE WORKSHOP

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,67%

26,67%

66,67%

THE DISCUSSIONS WERE RELEVANT FOR THE PARTICIPANTS

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,67%

26,67%

66,67%

THE METHODS OF WORKING WERE SUITABLE FOR THE TOPICS AND FOR THE PARTICIPANTS

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,67%

93,33%

THE OVERALL ORGANISATION WAS PROFESSIONAL

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

THIRD SET OF QUESTIONS:

6,67%

93,33%

THE TIME MANAGEMENT WAS ALWAYS TO MY FULLEST SATISFACTION

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,67%

93,33%

THE STYLE AND LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ORGANISERS AND PARTICIPANTS WERE PROFESSIONAL

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,67%

6,67%

86,67%

I WOULD RECOMMEND THIS KIND OF EVENT TO MY COLLEAGUES

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,67%

26,67%66,67%

THE INFORMATION I GOT ON OPEN SCIENCE WAS VERY USEFUL TO ME

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,67%

40,00%

53,33%

THE INFORMATION I GOT ON OPEN ACCESS WAS VERY USEFUL TO ME

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,67%

33,33%

60,00%

THE INFORMATION I GOT ON OPEN DATA WAS VERY USEFUL TO ME

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,67%

60,00%

33,33%

I HAVE RECEIVED ALL INFORMATION NEEDED ON BEST PRACTICES FOR INTRODUCING THE OPEN SCIENCE, OPEN ACCESS AND OPEN

DATA

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,67%

13,33%

80,00%

THE INFORMATION I GOT DURING THE FIRST DAY OF STUDY VISIT WAS VERY USEFUL TO ME

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,67%

13,33%

80,00%

THE INFORMATION I GOT DURING THE SECOND DAY OF STUDY VISIT WAS VERY USEFUL TO ME

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

PRIOR EXPERIENCE OF SIMILAR EVENTS:

LESSONS LEARNED

(Please fill in using bulleted text, e.g.)

• N/A

6,67%

40,00%

53,33%

THE INFORMATION I GOT DURING THE THIRD DAY OF STUDY VISIT WAS VERY USEFUL TO ME

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

(May be filled by any of the organising partners)

Please add in any other comments concerning the preparation and organisation of this event:

On the project website, partners can find Agenda, Gallery, Attendance sheet and this report.

BE-OPEN TEAM

The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of

the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for

any use which may be made of the information contained therein.