Synthesis of the participants' evaluations

Foreword

64 out of the 108 participants of the European Continental Assembly had answered individually and returned the evaluation questionnaires by the closing date of September 15, 2001 (i.e. a response rate of 59%): 55 participants answered a ready printed questionnaire while 9 others sent us their own evaluations. Furthermore, some participants (sometimes the same as those who had answered individually) carried out group evaluations. The latter are not accounted for in this evaluation, since we do not know the exact number of persons involved; on the contrary, some of their recommendations have been taken into account.

This synthesis is based on 64 answers. It is made up of quantitative and qualitative elements in order to present a general and synthetic viewpoint on the one hand and, on the other, it gives a more detailed reflection of the wealth of the evaluations and comments.

The quantitative evaluation, which reflects the viewpoint expressed most often, is presented as per the order of the evaluation questionnaire, at the beginning of each heading in the grey part. 

The qualitative evaluation gives a synthesis of the comments made, without taking into account rates of identical answers. Thus it does not reflect the general point of view of the participants, though it does reflect that of some of them. This evaluation follows the quantitative evaluation.

Last are the recommendations expressed by certain participants, sometimes in the form of quotations.

We have not spent time on the headings, which the participants found satisfactory (even though they are very flattering for us!). However, we have focused on what the participants felt worked less well in order to learn from these shortcomings and work towards enriching our knowledge, hence the interest of the qualitative evaluation. 

I. Logistical organisation 

	Number of answers	Good	Average	Poor	? ? ?	
Supply and quality of information on transport, accommodation, technical considerations, etc.	54    

	47

87%	6

11%	1

2%		

	Number of answers	Good	Average	Poor	? ? ?	
The site of Peles
	56	56
100%				
Accommodation	57	43 
75%	13
23%	1
2%		
Meals	57	43
75%	12
21%	2
4%		
Coffee breaks	55	46
84%	8
15%	1
1%		
Secretariat	54	47
87%	7
13%			
Reception	55	48
87%	7
13%			
Availability of computers	51	14
27%	22
43%	13
26%		
Visit to Brasov	55	16
29%	23
42%	14
25%		
End of assembly party	56	43
77%	11
20%			
General atmosphere of the assembly	55	44
80%	11
20%			

Appreciation of computer availability was average often due to poor Internet connections.
The visit to Brasov was rather spoilt by rain.
The organisation team scored well because of its efficiency and unflappability. 

II. Organisation of the content

•	II.1 – Electronic forum

	Number of answers 	Yes	No	
Did you send your presentation to the forum?	53	30            57%	23            43%	

	Number of answers 	Yes	No	
Did you send contributions to the forum?	53	7             13%	46           87%	

Since most of the participants had not taken part in the forum, they ignored the section below devoted to it, although it could have concerned them. This is probably due to the poor presentation of the evaluation questionnaire grid which mixed elements concerning the forum with general information, whatever the media.

If not, why?
Total number of respondents: 37

Reasons linked to the participant's incapacity: 

Lack of time 	14	
Lack of time to formulate in-depth reflections 	1	
The participant received information too late 	8	
The participant was identified too late (the forum had already been closed) 	9	
No Internet connection, no computer 	5	
Problems with speaking another language	4	
The participant did not receive the participation request 	2	
This type of communication is new for the participant 	2	
The participant did not know the forum existed 	1	

Reasons for doubt among the participants:

Poor or no knowledge of the Alliance and the participants (of the forum and the meeting in Romania) 	3	
The topics were too general and wide-ranging	3	
The participants must know each other first before participating in the electronic forum	3	
The participant did not have a clear idea of the type of contribution he/she could make 	2	
The participant did not understand the importance of the forum in the assembly process 	2	
The contributions were not stimulating 	1	
The subjects were too narrow 	1	
The participant did not feel sufficiently knowledgeable 	1	
The participant felt him/herself to be too expert, the debate appeared to be unrealistic 	1	
Refusal to give supposed legitimacy to on-line democracy 	1	
The participant thought it was too late to participate 	1	
The participant did not know that it his/her presentation was necessary on the forum	1	

The reason most often given for failure to participate in the forum was lack of time. Lack of time to read the many messages (even though they were mostly presentations) on the one hand, and lack of time to formulate a contribution requiring analysis and reflection on the other.
Some participants felt that setting up an electronic forum BEFORE the Peles assembly was very useful insofar as it allowed the participants to get to know each other and identify the topics that were to be debated at Peles. 
Other people were not aware that the forum was part of the physical meeting, the latter being the final stage of the work carried out on the electronic forum during the previous six months.
Lastly, certain people were sceptical as to the usefulness of the forum, arguing that the participants did not know each other, the general nature of the subjects and contributions, and the lack of experience and familiarity with the tool. Certain persons even went as far as saying that the forum was ill-suited for long detailed debates.

	Number of answers	Good	Average	Poor	? ? ?	
Electronic forum
						
Quality of the reference texts	42	21
50%	14
33%		7
17%	
Co-ordination	43	19
44%	10
23%	5
12%	9
21%	
Usefulness of the forum for those who participated 	42	20
48%	5
12%	6
14%	11
26%	
Archiving of contributions on the web 	44	25
57%	7
16%	5
11%	7
16%	
Archiving of working documents on the web	43	25
58%	8
19%	4
9%	6
14%	

	Number of answers	Yes	No	
Did you consult the contributions to the forum before your departure?	29	23             79%	6                21%	

Recommendations 

 Improve identification of the subjects for discussion on the forum; only publish very concise contributions so that everyone has enough time to read them.
 Some persons emphasised that the incorporation of participants at very different times of the process prevented the forum from attaining the objectives set for it, i.e. preparation, in the wide meaning of the term, of the Peles assembly. They say that the forum should have been used to provide basic technical information to allow everyone (in and outside the EU) to intervene more efficiently in the debates (e.g., what is a territory, the European political system, etc.).
 Continuation of the debates on the electronic forum AFTER the assembly since the desire for effort and involvement is greater once the participants have met each other physically and identified their common concerns. 
 Make participation in the forum obligatory.