Result Summary for Survey:The Future of Dynamic Structural Science - Erice 2013

The Future of Dynamic Structural Science - Erice 2013

1. How did you hear about this meeting? Multiple choice permitted.
	domande che hanno avuto risposta		53
	domande saltate		0
		Percentuale delle risposte	Numero di risposte
Poster addressed to you		22,6%	12
Poster in institution		22,6%	12
From colleagues/boss/director		52,8%	28
Email		13,2%	7
Web		7,5%	4
Invitation		18,9%	10
From advertizing in Journal / listing		3,8%	2
Other (please specify) view		1,9%	1

2. Have you ever participated in a similar course?
	domande che hanno avuto risposta		53
	domande saltate		0
		Percentuale delle risposte	Numero di risposte
NO		37,7%	20
YES, in Erice		13,2%	7
YES, but elsewhere		34,0%	18
YES, in Erice & elsewhere		15,1%	8

3. Your research field is... (Multiple choice permitted)
	domande che hanno avuto risposta		53
	domande saltate		0
		Percentuale delle risposte	Numero di risposte
Protein crystallography		22,6%	12
Biochemistry		22,6%	12
Crystallographic methods		66,0%	35
Data collection		41,5%	22
Structural biology		28,3%	15
Molecular biology		17,0%	9
SAXS		18,9%	10
Free electron lasers		18,9%	10
Bioinformatics/Software development		11,3%	6
CryoEM		3,8%	2
Second harmonic generation		1,9%	1
New materials		39,6%	21
Neutron diffraction		7,5%	4
Other (please specify) view			14

4. Are you a
	domande che hanno avuto risposta		53
	domande saltate		0
		Percentuale delle risposte	Numero di risposte
lecturer		28,3%	15
workshop, demo or tutorial leader		3,8%	2
participant selected for an oral presentation		18,9%	10
participant with poster		39,6%	21
participant without poster		9,4%	5

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

domande che hanno avuto risposta

50

domande saltate

3

Importance
	Unimportant	Somewhat important	in the middle	Very important	Essential	Numero di risposte
A wide overview of the field	2,1% (1)	2,1% (1)	6,3% (3)	66,7% (32)	22,9% (11)	48
An overview of the most recent results in the field	2,2% (1)	4,3% (2)	21,7% (10)	54,3% (25)	17,4% (8)	46
An introduction into experimental techniques	2,1% (1)	4,3% (2)	19,1% (9)	48,9% (23)	25,5% (12)	47
An overview of the theoretical approaches	0,0% (0)	10,4% (5)	43,8% (21)	29,2% (14)	16,7% (8)	48
An overview of the existing software	4,3% (2)	14,9% (7)	40,4% (19)	36,2% (17)	4,3% (2)	47
The best available speakers in the field	0,0% (0)	4,4% (2)	17,8% (8)	53,3% (24)	24,4% (11)	45
An opportunity for the young participants to give a talk and to present their results as posters	2,0% (1)	8,2% (4)	20,4% (10)	46,9% (23)	22,4% (11)	49
Approach to difficult problems	0,0% (0)	11,1% (5)	37,8% (17)	44,4% (20)	6,7% (3)	45
Sufficient computing support	0,0% (0)	15,2% (7)	26,1% (12)	54,3% (25)	4,3% (2)	46
Opportunities to meet experts	0,0% (0)	0,0% (0)	10,4% (5)	54,2% (26)	35,4% (17)	48
Opportunities for young participants to exchange experience with each other during informal discussions	0,0% (0)	0,0% (0)	8,2% (4)	55,1% (27)	36,7% (18)	49
Comfortable living conditions, considering the constraints of Erice	0,0% (0)	6,3% (3)	52,1% (25)	39,6% (19)	2,1% (1)	48

Success
	Completely unsuccessful	somewhat unsuccessful	in the middle	somewhat successful	very successful	Numero di risposte
A wide overview of the field	4,3% (2)	2,1% (1)	6,4% (3)	29,8% (14)	57,4% (27)	47
An overview of the most recent results in the field	4,3% (2)	0,0% (0)	6,5% (3)	30,4% (14)	58,7% (27)	46
An introduction into experimental techniques	0,0% (0)	4,3% (2)	15,2% (7)	37,0% (17)	43,5% (20)	46
An overview of the theoretical approaches	0,0% (0)	2,1% (1)	31,9% (15)	51,1% (24)	14,9% (7)	47
An overview of the existing software	0,0% (0)	11,1% (5)	26,7% (12)	37,8% (17)	24,4% (11)	45
The best available speakers in the field	2,3% (1)	0,0% (0)	11,4% (5)	40,9% (18)	45,5% (20)	44
An opportunity for the young participants to give a talk and to present their results as posters	0,0% (0)	6,4% (3)	4,3% (2)	23,4% (11)	66,0% (31)	47
Approach to difficult problems	0,0% (0)	2,3% (1)	29,5% (13)	45,5% (20)	22,7% (10)	44
Sufficient computing support	2,2% (1)	0,0% (0)	13,0% (6)	26,1% (12)	58,7% (27)	46
Opportunities to meet experts	0,0% (0)	0,0% (0)	6,4% (3)	19,1% (9)	74,5% (35)	47
Opportunities for young participants to exchange experience with each other during informal discussions	0,0% (0)	0,0% (0)	8,3% (4)	22,9% (11)	68,8% (33)	48
Comfortable living conditions, considering the constraints of Erice	2,1% (1)	4,3% (2)	6,4% (3)	17,0% (8)	70,2% (33)	47

6. Proportion of time spent on
	domande che hanno avuto risposta			51
	domande saltate			2
	too much	adequate	too limited	Conteggio di valutazione
lectures	14,0% (7)	82,0% (41)	4,0% (2)	50
demos, workshops, tutorials	2,1% (1)	78,7% (37)	19,1% (9)	47
discussion	0,0% (0)	78,0% (39)	22,0% (11)	50
posters	2,0% (1)	84,0% (42)	14,0% (7)	50
free time	4,0% (2)	94,0% (47)	2,0% (1)	50

7. Which topics were not covered as extensively as anticipated?
	domande che hanno avuto risposta	18
	domande saltate	35
		Numero di risposte
view		18

8. Which topics were given exaggerated importance?
	domande che hanno avuto risposta	14
	domande saltate	39
		Numero di risposte
view		14

9. Should there be another meeting like this one? If YES, how many years from now?
	domande che hanno avuto risposta					50
	domande saltate					3
	NO	YES, 1-2 years from now	YES, 3-4 years from now	YES, 5-6 years from now	Media di valutazione	Conteggio di valutazione
Are you in favour?	2,0% (1)	30,6% (15)	49,0% (24)	18,4% (9)	2,84	49
Would you personally attend?	10,9% (5)	23,9% (11)	45,7% (21)	19,6% (9)	2,74	46

10. Your evaluation of the following factors. Please write comments at the bottom.
	domande che hanno avuto risposta					52
	domande saltate					1
	Excellent	Good	Adequate	Poor	Media di valutazione	Conteggio di valutazione
Advertizing this meeting	19,2% (10)	55,8% (29)	25,0% (13)	0,0% (0)	2,94	52
Selection of "students"	24,0% (12)	58,0% (29)	14,0% (7)	4,0% (2)	3,02	50
Notification of acceptance	51,1% (24)	44,7% (21)	4,3% (2)	0,0% (0)	3,47	47
General correspondence	59,6% (31)	32,7% (17)	7,7% (4)	0,0% (0)	3,52	52
Documents on the course	53,1% (26)	42,9% (21)	4,1% (2)	0,0% (0)	3,49	49
Web announcement	40,8% (20)	42,9% (21)	14,3% (7)	2,0% (1)	3,22	49
Documents on the course (in Erice)	61,5% (32)	32,7% (17)	5,8% (3)	0,0% (0)	3,56	52
Computers	49,0% (25)	45,1% (23)	5,9% (3)	0,0% (0)	3,43	51
Technical facilities in lecture hall	65,4% (34)	26,9% (14)	7,7% (4)	0,0% (0)	3,58	52
Workshop, demo, tutorial organization	19,1% (9)	57,4% (27)	21,3% (10)	2,1% (1)	2,94	47
Workshop, demo, tutorial quality	17,4% (8)	54,3% (25)	23,9% (11)	4,3% (2)	2,85	46
Quality of presentations	47,1% (24)	52,9% (27)	0,0% (0)	0,0% (0)	3,47	51
Poster session	36,0% (18)	54,0% (27)	10,0% (5)	0,0% (0)	3,26	50
Leisure (social program, excursions, etc)	80,0% (40)	16,0% (8)	2,0% (1)	2,0% (1)	3,74	50
Comments on meeting organization view						18

11. Please rate the workshops you attended ( from 0 to 100):
	domande che hanno avuto risposta			33
	domande saltate			20
		Media delle risposte	Totale delle risposte	Numero di risposte
Correlation functions - Techert (Sa: 15.20, Su: 11.50) view		55,58	1.445	26
Matlab & analysis of scattering data - Nielsen (Sa: 16.40, Su:11.50) view		79,29	2.220	28
Anisotropy simulation - Ghiggino (M: 16.40, T: 16.40) view		79,71	1.355	17
Precognition - Srajer (T: 15.20, 16.40) view		69,38	1.110	16
Crysallis - Collet (R: 16.40, 17.30) view		77,29	1.855	24
Matlab & fingerprinting - Wulff (R: 16.40, 17.30) view		74,76	1.570	21

12. How do you score (0-100)
	domande che hanno avuto risposta			49
	domande saltate			4
		Media delle risposte	Totale delle risposte	Numero di risposte
The meeting overall view		89,16	4.369	49
Workshop component view		76,59	3.140	41

13. Any other comments, suggestions, observations, or criticisms? We remind you that this survey is completely anonymous.
	domande che hanno avuto risposta	20
	domande saltate	33
		Numero di risposte
view		20

14. How useful did you find the online, live updating schedule?
	domande che hanno avuto risposta		52
	domande saltate		1
		Percentuale delle risposte	Numero di risposte
Not at all		5,8%	3
Somewhat		46,2%	24
Very much		48,1%	25