Participant evaluations
The 2007 Summer Study. Positive ratings again despite massive growth!
Participant evaluations have been carried out after all summer studies. Although evaluation methodology has varied slightly over the years, the evaluations have been performed with enough consistency to allow for some comparisons. In general, the eceee Summer Studies have received very high scores from the participants. 2007 was no expception, and give the fact that we grew by 50 % from 2005 is proof that the established concept is truly appreciated by new and old participants.
Some highlights from the 2007 evaluation:
The 2007 edition of the eceee Summer Study was held at La Colle sur Loup near Nice in Southern France 4–9 June 2007. This year’s event – the 8th since 1993 – attracted 357 participants, which is over 50 % more than in 2005. The number of submitted abstracts has also grown considerably over the years. This was also shown in the conference proceedings, with 222 printed papers, which is a 35 % increase compared to 2005.
The participation from Eastern and Central Europe, and the Former Soviet Union on one hand, and from Southern Europe (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece) on the other hand remains lower than hoped for. We have managed to attract participants from a few new countries, but again, some countries with previous participation had no presence this year.
138 individuals or 39 % of all participants filled out the post summer study evaluation form (in 2005, the response rate was 84 individuals or 35 %). Participants keep valuing the summer study very highly in general, and many comment that the eceee Summer Study is the most important and interesting energy efficiency event in Europe.
46 % of all respondents have attended 2 or more summer studies (including the 2007 edition). In 2005, 13 % of respondents had attended at least 4 summer studies. In 2007, this number has dropped to 4 % which confirms that the event steadily attracts new audiences. 88 % of all respondents said that they intend to attend future summer studies.
As usual, of the contents part of the summer study, the panels, the informal sessions, the proceedings and the conference newsletter Graffiti are valued the highest. This year’s poster session was much more successful than in the past two editions: 45 posters were presented and the session received one of its highest ratings ever.
Plenary sessions also received a higher rating than in 2003 and 2005. Although many are tired at the end of the already busy day, the high ratings reflect the efforts to attract high-level speakers who are able to capture the interest of Summer Study attendees.
The general organisation of the summer study was highly rated by participants, with 93 % of all respondents rating it as 4 or 5 (where 1 is lowest and 5 the best), an extremely good rating considering the unexpected increase in papers and participants. Although several authors and reviewers and each and every panel leader suffered during the paper review and preparation stage, this process got an average rate of 4.0. On-site organization, registration and the social program all received high scores; whereas accommodation and meals was clearly the weakest point in terms of how participants rated the organization.
Finally, 76 % of respondents give the value for money (summer study as a whole in relation to the fee) a 4 or 5 rating, and if the 3 rating is included the total is 93 %.
Comparisons with previous summer studies
Looking at average ratings for important activities (1 = not useful, 3 = useful, 5 = very useful), the following table gives the ratings over the years. However, there is an important comment one must make before studying the numbers in the below table: The average response rate was only in the range 25–39 %, with 1993 and 2003 as exceptions when approximately half of all the participants responded. (It should also be noted that the first summer study was a much smaller event with approx. 150 participants). The numbers should thus be studied with care.
| 1993 | 1995 | 1997 | 1999 | 2001* | 2003 | 2005 | 2007 |
Proceedings | 4.8 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.4 | 4.1 | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Panel sessions | 4.3 | 4.3 | 3.9 | 4.5 | 4.1 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.4 |
Poster session | 3.2 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 3.5 | 3.3 | 3.5 |
Plenaries | 4.1 | 3.4 | 2.5 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 3.8 |
Informal sessions | 3.9 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 3.9 |
Graffiti | 3.8 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 3.8 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.3 |
*
2001 averages were derived from three verbal levels, where answers
marked "not interesting" were attributed the numerical value 1,
"interesting" the value 3 and "very interesting" the value 5.
Proceedings – the written legacy
A positive result over the longer term is that proceedings have consistently been rated very high, and that the high standard has been maintained over the years. (The slight drop in 2003 is still acceptable considering the unforeseen effect that some respondents seem to have commented on the size of the printed book, rather than on the contents.)
The consistent quality of the proceedings is particularly important, since they represent the written legacy of the summer study and is the product available for those who are not able to participate.
Download the 2007 summer study evaluation (pdf file)
Download the 2005 summer study evaluation (pdf file)
Download the 2003 summer study evaluation (pdf file)
Download the 2001 summer study evaluation (pdf file)
Download the 1999 summer study evaluation (pdf file)