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.

•	II.2 – General information on the content 

	Number of answers	Good	Average	Poor	? ? ?	
General information on the content						
General presentation of the assembly	45	23
51%	17
38%	2
4%	3
7%	
Reference text per topic	46	18
39%	21
46%	4
8%	3
7%	
Experience records	45	15
33%	14
31%	3
7%	13
29%	
Syntheses of the forum	46	25
54%	11
24%	4
9%	6
13%	
List of sub-topics	46	22
48%	15
33%	1
2%	8
17%	
The assembly programme	46	27
59%	12
26%	4
9%	3
6%	
Europe web site	43	20
47%	10
23%		13
30%	

 The working documents

Having a detailed working document, such as that used by the RUR workshop, as basis for discussion was greatly appreciated. The source of documents given to the participants in other workshops was not always identified (allies, co-ordinators, etc.) thus making them questionable. 

 The programme

This was considered as a good framework for discussions. However, it was noted that the methodology and cross-linking of workshops presented in the programme were either implemented cursorily or not at all.

Recommendations

 Do not set up topical groups but ones that are cross-linked by topic and region while keeping the same objective.
 A cross-linked “Governance and community action” workshop could have been set up in each topical group.
 Organise work groups for considering concrete action plans per country.
 Each topical workshop could have discussed the following process of the assembly and reported it during the plenary session. 

•	II. 3 – The clarity of expectations and objectives 

	Number of answers	Yes	No	
Have you understood the importance we give to making proposals and not only to analysis and reflection in the assembly?	31	23             74%	8               26%	

Despite the understanding illustrated above, certain things obscured the objectives:
-	The specifications of the proposal booklet were not explained well enough or they had been explained during the plenary session but not recalled or implemented during the topical workshops or else implemented differently according to the workshop.
-	No presentation was made of the questions: for whom, what form, to bear on what, to fight for what cause? . These equated with the ultimate target of the proposals, the form that the proposal booklet should take, its level of content (concrete/abstract), its "policy" orientation”, etc.

Certain participants did not clearly perceive the organisers' expectations:
-	Was it a meeting between Europeans from every background to exchange points of view, or to formulate proposals and then diffuse them in their networks?
-	Or was it aimed at producing joint proposals in the framework of a specifically programmed community event? Hence the problem of the lack of a definite political strategy, and a plan of action to diffuse the proposals.
"Insofar as there was no explicit methodology or objective, the time scheduled for work automaticall became time for debate without any objective for production.”

Some participants underlined the assembly's objectives remained unchanged despite the failure of the forum, which had been the central element of the process. It would have been better to have taken this into account as it changed the structure of the assembly (since only a few people had participated in the forum and the contributions were not of great interest).

	Number of answers	Yes	No	
Was the explanation of all these elements during the first plenary session of use?	26	19          73%	7            27%	

•	II. 4 – The plenary sessions

	Nb. of answs.	Good	Avge.	Poor	? ? ?	
Plenary sessions						
Co-ordination	53	27
51%	24
46%	2
4%		
Placing the Assembly in the context of the Alliance and the project "What Europe do we want?"	52	23
44%	23
44%	4
8%	2
4%	
Restitutions (by the co-ordinators and participants)	52	16
31%	21
40%	12
23%	3
6%	
Linking with other Alliance continental assemblies 	45	5
11%	17
38%	17
38%	6
13%	
Translation	54	32
59%	18
33%	2
4%	2
4%	
Audiovisual communication 	50	25
50%	15
30%	2
4%	8
16%	

The plenary sessions

They were mostly considered as too long; they did not highlight important aspects; "they were not planned so that everyone could feel involved”; they were boring.

Recommendations

 One participant suggested that it would have been enough to read the restitutions of each group during the plenary session, transcribe them and distribute them to the other topical groups which would have added their own comments before handing them back to the group having written the restitution. This would have permitted constructive dialogue.

 Another person proposed replacing the plenary sessions by conferences by independent thinkers such as Anthony Giddens, Ulrich Beck, Jürgen Habermas, Toni Negri, Pierre Bourdieu and Manuel Castells.

 The restitutions

These appeared to be very incomplete. Accumulating the role of co-ordinator with that of reporter during the plenary session was not considered to be very deontological. Time was lacking in the workshops to ensure that the group discussed the restitutions before they were read during the plenary session. 

•	II.5 – The topical workshops

	Nb. answers	Good	Avge.	Poor	? ? ?	
2. Topical workshops						
Co-ordination	54	20
37%	21
39%	12
22%	1
2%	
Methodology	54	10
19%	24
44%	20
37%		
Translation	54	36
67%	13
24%	2
4%	3
5%	
Quality of the debates	54	23
43%	26
48%	5
9%		
Conference rooms (equipment, etc.)	52	30
58%	21
40%	1
2%		
Atmosphere in your topical group  (listening, human warmth of the participants, etc.)	53	45
85%	7
13%	1
2%		

 Co-ordination

NB: The participants' appreciations obviously differ from one topical group to another, depending on the co-ordinators and participants composing the group.
The criticisms expressed appear grouped below, therefore a given criticism does not necessarily apply to all the topical groups.

Although some participants appreciated the flexibility and dynamism of the proceedings, most of them felt that the co-ordination and methodology were the assembly's weak points.

The criticisms are as follows:
-	lack of preparation or clear specifications for the role of co-ordinator, resulting in problems of authority;
-	incompetence (not necessarily concerning the topic but the co-ordination);
-	single language; 
-	non-conformity with the deontology of co-ordination  (the co-ordinator accumulated several functions: author of the framework text, reporter, etc.)
-	lack of taking the participants' expectations into account;
-	lack of taking into account the participants' diversity (and its corollary, failure to use the competences of each person to the full);
-	divergences between two co-ordinators dealing with the same topic; 
-	excess "democracy" undermining the efficiency of the group as a whole;
-	too much pressure to attain the objectives.

When working in groups, some participants regretted that they had no clear idea beforehand of how the debates had progressed (due to the many and labyrinthine digressions; because everything was done orally; and due to an incapacity to "capture, systematise and communicate" the progress of the debates).

Recommendations

 Evaluate with the participants what type of co-ordination they desire, or else entrust this task to one or more of the participants.
 Change the co-ordinators from one session to another in the same group.
 “A neutral (or professional) co-ordinator who appoints people in the groups with journalistic or communicational experience to write daily syntheses or a short diary that takes stock of progress for all the participants. ”

 The methodology

This was heavily criticised since no presentation was made of the methodology or its application to work. Certain participants would have liked prior knowledge of it before the assembly, which would have made discussion and adjustment possible during it.

Furthermore, it was stated that there was no minimum form of common information that highlighting the diversity of the participants at the assembly.
“This lack of minimum information resulted in creating a gulf between  the "experts", the people "in-the-field" and the “novices”, and bogged down a large number of debates in semantic and technical disputes.”

Several participants would have liked the groups to be broken down into smaller ones (a maximum of 10 people) which would have dealt with much more specific problems.

Recommendations

 Upgrade the level of information 
Provide the participants with a common basis for work by sending the documents that guarantee the credibility of the proposals made:
- working papers by philosophers, sociologists, political scientists, etc. other than those working in the Alliance;
- statistics, opinions, proposals; 
- the presence of experts on the topic who could present the subject to “simples citizens”.

 Discuss the topics less but more in-depth.
 Form smaller groups.

 Methodology of constituting the groups 

“the principle of the methodology should be that the group must produce specific knowledge easily distinguishable from that of its individual members. I think it is important not to confuse informal exchanges and warmth of interpersonal relations with improvisation regarding the co-ordination of the group's production. On the contrary, it is not possible to improvise the methodology of group production.
The only way to respect and instil dignity in a group (and justify the effort made to set it up) is to produce something that genuinely represents the participants' cross-disciplinary knowledge, that accounts for its convergences and divergences, that accumulates this knowledge and that organises it in view to diffusing it outside the group.”

•	III.1 – The elements of this assembly to be conserved (by order of importance)

NB: Regarding the two following sections, the participants' appreciations are either precise and concise or vague with little explanation. Nonetheless, they have been taken into account.

Number of respondents: 59

The quality of the participants	77	
The diversity and wide range of geographic and professional backgrounds and ages of the participants.	23	
The opportunity of making friends and useful contacts 	12	
The feeling of brotherhood and solidarity 	5	
Intercultural relations that permit better understanding of the other	22	
The possibility of learning things and having new ideas	10	
Warm atmosphere	5	
The content of the assembly	35	
The participation of civil society	1	
The joint responsibility of influencing European construction	6	
The human will to change things, and enthusiasm 	9	
The common concerns of Western and Eastern Europe 	7	
Choice of topics	4	
Multidisciplinary vision	1	
Taking the history of Europe into account 	1	
Linking projects and ideas	1	
Interested in working on the assembly's sequels 	3	
Alliance missions	2	
The form of the assembly 	21	
Freedom of expression	2	
Dynamism and creativity	2	
Working methods	2	
Alternation of forms (including division into topical groups)	6	
Organisation of plenary sessions	1	
Positive dynamism of the co-ordinators 	1	
Existence and continuation of the electronic forum 	3	
Link between local and global (including intercontinental communication)	4	
Logistics/Organisation	18	
Beauty of the site 	3	
Visits and closing party	3	
Informal moments	3	
Presence of Romanians in the organisation	2	
Quality of the organisation	7	

•	III. 2 – Things in the assembly to be avoided (by order of importance)

Number of respondents: 49

The form of the assembly	65	
Unclear and/or unsuitable working methods in workshops 	10	
Lack of analysis and methodology	3	
Over-large groups 	2	
Cross-linked workshops not developed enough	4	
Plenary sessions (in particular too long)	11	
Lack of links between workshops and plenary sessions 	1	
Communication problems (language, jargon)	3	
Translation 	2	
Programme too full, lack of time 	6	
Assembly was too long (thus resulting in fatigue)	3	
Random identification of participants; absence of socio-economic experts	4	
Co-ordination (including use of only one language, lack of expert on topic, little account taken of the intercultural dimension and divergent viewpoints, too much pressure to reach objectives, people involved in the Alliance over-privileged)	9	
Lack of preparation of participants; late reception of information	2	
Too many digressions in the workshops 	2	
Working papers drawn up without Central and Eastern European Countries 	1	
No specifications given to the roles of each person in the groups 	1	
Gap between practice and theory 	1	
The content of the assembly 	10	
The objectives lacked clarity 	8	
Incoherent topics 	1	
Over-political debates	1	
Logistics/Organisation	10	
Accommodation (double and triple rooms)	4	
Poor Internet connections 	1	
All expenses paid	2	
Not enough contact with the local population 	2	
No media presence	1	
Nothing to criticise!	7	

•	III.3 – How the participants felt after the assembly 

	Nb. of Answrs. 	Good	Avrge.	Poor	? ? ?	
New energy for your projects, activities and reflections	48	36
75%	9
19%	3
6%		
The feeling of involvement and the wish to expand from the Peles network	46	36
78%	8
18%	1
2%	1
2%	
The desire to diffuse and improve the proposals because belief that another world is possible 	50	42
84%	6
12%	2
4%		

While ready to diffuse the proposals, some participants hoped that they would become more credible.
•	VI – General recommendations

 The duration of the assembly (5 days) was appreciated differently: 
- Over-long due to lassitude, overloaded programme;
- Too short to deal with the subjects identified in the topical groups, “not enough to write proposals expressing genuine understanding of the problems and their “solutions”, in order to get them to progress in the right direction”;
- Too short to visit and understand the host country (which would have led to understanding of the accommodation conditions provided by the Peles site and feeling less out of phase with the  surrounding countryside).
- On the practical level, one participant emphasised that it was very difficult to free himself for this length of time or longer.

 Place more emphasis on ways of forging links: “first of all, more rituals, games, and casual encounters are required to create friendship between us (otherwise, how can international solidarity be created?)”.

 “The continental messengers and the audiovisual team [could have] been more active, for example, by offering entertaining reports of the day, and by creating an imitation or group identity. A poem or song from a different country every day, a news sheet and a photo album are some ideas that could have been exploited”.

 “Freer (physical and intellectual) areas to create an “off” space would have been useful (in this respect we received much help from the interest shown for the subject by several organisers).  Perhaps small clans could have been prevented from forming by more visible forms of letting off steam; short, filmed reports of the meetings, and so forth”.

 Continue to exchange information between participants (materials, articles, reports of international conferences, etc.).

 Regularly organise other meetings in the future so as to continue formulating proposals.

 Suggestions of topics for future meetings:

- Collaboration between NGOs and different levels of authority: local, regional, national, etc.
- Activities by NGOs and community development as a means of building civil society.
- Promoting free circulation of information and the philosophy of contemporary Europe.
- The challenges, criteria and perspectives for enlarging the EU.
- Subsidiarity, self-determination and national integrity: their correlation and progression in a developing European community.
- The foundations of a common European foreign policy.
- Conflict in the Middle East and European civil society.
- Countries in transition: their challenges and contributions to European construction.
- European culture and other world civilisations: the history and foundations of a common European culture and perspectives for progression and enhancement.

 Ask participants for a financial contribution even if modest in view to making everyone more responsible.

 In addition to informal contacts, privilege formal bilateral and multilateral contacts with representatives of NGOs, universities, etc.

Appendix 1

Origin of the 64 evaluation questionnaires received

Geographical origin	Number of answers	
Albania	1	
Algeria	1	
Germany	2	
Austria	3	
Azerbaijan	2	
Belarus	3	
Belgium	4	
Bulgaria	2	
Canada (correspondent from the Americas)	1	
Croatia	2	
Denmark	1	
Spain	2	
Estonia	1	
France	2	
Georgia	3	
Greece	2	
Hungary	2	
Israel	1	
Italy	1	
Latvia 	1	
Lithuania 	3	
Macedonia	1	
Morocco 	1	
Moldavia	1	
Netherlands	1	
Norway	2	
Basque Country	1	
Portugal	3	
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 	1	
Czech Republic	3	
Romania	2	
Russia	1	
Switzerland 	3	
Tunisia	2	
Turkey	2	
TOTAL	64	

By membership of the European Union 
	Absolute value	Percentage value	
European Union (EU)	22	34	
Candidates for EU membership 	16	25	
Autres 	26	41	
TOTAL	64	100	

By geographic group
Geopolitical groups	Absolute value	Percentage value	
Northern Europe	13	20	
Southern Europe	12	19	
Central and Eastern European Countries	23	36	
Newly Independent States	10	16	
Maghreb region and the Middle East	6	9	
Total	64	100