Result Summary for Survey:Erice Crystallography 2009 Questionnaire

Erice Crystallography 2009 Questionnaire

1. How did you hear about this meeting?
	answered question		73
	skipped question		0
		Response Percent	Response Count
Poster addressed to you		17.8%	13
Poster in institution		21.9%	16
From colleagues/boss/director		43.8%	32
Email		9.6%	7
Web		12.3%	9
Invitation		23.3%	17
From advertizing in Journal / listing		1.4%	1
viewOther (please specify)		4.1%	3

2. Have you ever participated in a similar course?
	answered question		73
	skipped question		0
		Response Percent	Response Count
NO		50.7%	37
YES, in Erice		11.0%	8
YES, but elsewhere		27.4%	20
YES, in Erice & elsewhere		11.0%	8

3. Your research field is
	answered question		73
	skipped question		0
		Response Percent	Response Count
Theoretical Physics		11.0%	8
Experimental Physics		32.9%	24
Geosciences and planetary sciences		24.7%	18
Solid state chemistry		32.9%	24
Materials Sciences		46.6%	34
Nanomaterials		1.4%	1
Structural analysis		21.9%	16
Chemical crystallography		30.1%	22
Biological crystallography		1.4%	1
Biology		0.0%	0
Spectroscopy		21.9%	16
Drug research and development		4.1%	3
Instrumental science		9.6%	7
viewOther (please specify)			3

4. Are you a
	answered question		73
	skipped question		0
		Response Percent	Response Count
lecturer		31.5%	23
workshop leader		1.4%	1
participant selected for an oral talk		2.7%	2
participant with poster		45.2%	33
participant without poster		19.2%	14

5. How important were the following course objectives, and how successfully were they addressed?

answered question

71

skipped question

2

Importance
	Unimportant	Somewhat important	in the middle	Very important	Essential	Response Count
A wide overview of the field	1.4% (1)	1.4% (1)	7.0% (5)	54.9% (39)	35.2% (25)	71
An overview of the most recent results in the field	4.3% (3)	4.3% (3)	25.7% (18)	44.3% (31)	21.4% (15)	70
An introduction into experimental techniques	1.4% (1)	1.4% (1)	7.1% (5)	41.4% (29)	48.6% (34)	70
An overview of the theoretical approaches	1.4% (1)	8.5% (6)	32.4% (23)	32.4% (23)	25.4% (18)	71
An overview of the existing software	1.4% (1)	11.3% (8)	26.8% (19)	53.5% (38)	7.0% (5)	71
The best available speakers in the field	1.4% (1)	8.5% (6)	7.0% (5)	53.5% (38)	29.6% (21)	71
An opportunity for the young participants to give a talk and to present their results as posters	0.0% (0)	5.8% (4)	26.1% (18)	43.5% (30)	24.6% (17)	69
Approach to difficult problems	0.0% (0)	7.5% (5)	40.3% (27)	41.8% (28)	10.4% (7)	67
Sufficient computing support	1.5% (1)	3.0% (2)	33.3% (22)	43.9% (29)	18.2% (12)	66
Opportunities to meet experts	0.0% (0)	2.9% (2)	2.9% (2)	42.6% (29)	51.5% (35)	68
Opportunities for young participants to exchange experience with each other during informal discussions	1.4% (1)	2.9% (2)	4.3% (3)	42.9% (30)	48.6% (34)	70
Comfortable living conditions, considering the constraints of Erice	2.8% (2)	5.6% (4)	29.6% (21)	49.3% (35)	12.7% (9)	71

Success
	Completely unsuccessful	somewhat unsuccessful	in the middle	somewhat successful	very successful	Response Count
A wide overview of the field	0.0% (0)	2.8% (2)	12.7% (9)	32.4% (23)	52.1% (37)	71
An overview of the most recent results in the field	0.0% (0)	2.9% (2)	10.1% (7)	44.9% (31)	42.0% (29)	69
An introduction into experimental techniques	4.3% (3)	15.7% (11)	21.4% (15)	37.1% (26)	21.4% (15)	70
An overview of the theoretical approaches	0.0% (0)	10.0% (7)	30.0% (21)	42.9% (30)	17.1% (12)	70
An overview of the existing software	1.4% (1)	12.9% (9)	42.9% (30)	30.0% (21)	12.9% (9)	70
The best available speakers in the field	1.4% (1)	1.4% (1)	15.7% (11)	38.6% (27)	42.9% (30)	70
An opportunity for the young participants to give a talk and to present their results as posters	1.4% (1)	8.7% (6)	11.6% (8)	34.8% (24)	43.5% (30)	69
Approach to difficult problems	0.0% (0)	6.0% (4)	52.2% (35)	26.9% (18)	14.9% (10)	67
Sufficient computing support	0.0% (0)	3.0% (2)	16.7% (11)	25.8% (17)	54.5% (36)	66
Opportunities to meet experts	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	1.5% (1)	29.4% (20)	69.1% (47)	68
Opportunities for young participants to exchange experience with each other during informal discussions	2.9% (2)	0.0% (0)	4.3% (3)	33.3% (23)	59.4% (41)	69
Comfortable living conditions, considering the constraints of Erice	1.4% (1)	0.0% (0)	5.6% (4)	29.6% (21)	63.4% (45)	71

6. Proportion of time spent on
	answered question			72
	skipped question			1
	too much	adequate	too limited	Response Count
lectures	37.5% (27)	62.5% (45)	0.0% (0)	72
workshops	2.8% (2)	54.2% (39)	43.1% (31)	72
discussion	2.8% (2)	83.3% (60)	13.9% (10)	72
posters	4.2% (3)	83.3% (60)	12.5% (9)	72
free time	1.4% (1)	68.1% (49)	30.6% (22)	72

7. Which topics were not covered as extensively as anticipated?
	answered question	29
	skipped question	44
		Response Count
view		29

8. Which topics were given exaggerated importance?
	answered question	19
	skipped question	54
		Response Count
view		19

9. Should there be a meeting like this one? If YES, how many years from now?
	answered question					73
	skipped question					0
	NO	YES, 1-2 years from now	YES, 3-4 years from now	YES, 5-6 years from now	Rating Average	Response Count
Are you in favour?	0.0% (0)	26.0% (19)	50.7% (37)	23.3% (17)	2.97	73
Would you personally attend?	1.4% (1)	21.4% (15)	51.4% (36)	25.7% (18)	3.01	70

10. Your evaluation of the following factors. Please write comments at the bottom.
	answered question					73
	skipped question					0
	Excellent	Good	Adequate	Poor	Rating Average	Response Count
Advertizing this meeting	34.2% (25)	43.8% (32)	16.4% (12)	5.5% (4)	3.07	73
Selection of "students"	31.5% (23)	54.8% (40)	12.3% (9)	1.4% (1)	3.16	73
Notification of acceptance	47.9% (35)	41.1% (30)	11.0% (8)	0.0% (0)	3.37	73
General correspondence	57.5% (42)	32.9% (24)	9.6% (7)	0.0% (0)	3.48	73
Documents on the course	46.6% (34)	42.5% (31)	11.0% (8)	0.0% (0)	3.36	73
Web announcement	35.6% (26)	46.6% (34)	15.1% (11)	2.7% (2)	3.15	73
Documents on the course (in Erice)	49.3% (36)	46.6% (34)	4.1% (3)	0.0% (0)	3.45	73
Computers	53.4% (39)	37.0% (27)	8.2% (6)	1.4% (1)	3.42	73
Technical facilities in lecture hall	67.1% (49)	27.4% (20)	5.5% (4)	0.0% (0)	3.62	73
Workshop organization	43.8% (32)	35.6% (26)	12.3% (9)	8.2% (6)	3.15	73
Workshop quality	26.0% (19)	46.6% (34)	20.5% (15)	6.8% (5)	2.92	73
Quality of presentations	23.3% (17)	58.9% (43)	16.4% (12)	1.4% (1)	3.04	73
Poster session	35.6% (26)	46.6% (34)	15.1% (11)	2.7% (2)	3.15	73
Leisure (social program, excursions, etc)	57.5% (42)	35.6% (26)	6.8% (5)	0.0% (0)	3.51	73
viewComments on meeting organization						23

11. Please rate the workshops you attended ( from 0 to 100):
	answered question			53
	skipped question			20
		Response Average	Response Total	Response Count
viewHandling the DACs, HP crystallization (Pulham, Dziubek)		72.16	3,103	43
viewProcessing diffraction data collected in the DAC (a round-table discussion)		50.62	2,126	42
viewEquation of State Calculations (Boffa-Ballaran)		61.34	2,147	35
viewQuantum mechanical calculations of molecular solids at non-ambient conditions (Macchi)		56.96	1,595	28
viewCrystal structure predicition using ab initio evolutionary algorithms (Oganov)		61.89	2,290	37
viewStructure solution from powder diffraction data (Filinchuk)		62.95	2,392	38
viewTexture and strain analysis (Vogel)		67.97	2,107	31

12. How do you score (0-100)
	answered question			66
	skipped question			7
		Response Average	Response Total	Response Count
viewThe meeting overall		81.62	5,387	66
viewWorkshop component		66.47	3,855	58

13. Any other comments, suggestions, observations, or criticisms? We remind you that this survey is completely anonymous.
	answered question	32
	skipped question	41
		Response Count
view		32