Running Head: Seventh SCRA Biennial Evaluation

Seventh SCRA Biennial Evaluation

Running Head: Seventh SCRA Biennial Evaluation

The Seventh Biennial Conference of the Society for Community Research and

Action: A Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation1

Deborah A. Salem2,3 , Matthew J. Chinman4, Tameka Gillum3, Augusto Legaspi3,

Dawn K. Lewis4, Lucy Seabrook3, Kathryn Scrimenti4, and David C. Tate4

3Michigan State University and

4Division of Prevention and Community Research and The Consultation Center

at the Yale University School of Medicine

1 We wish to thank Paul Toro for providing the evaluation survey and Jack Tebes, Ken Maton, and the others who organized the Seventh Biennial Conference for their assistance with data collection and interpretation of the findings.

2 Please direct correspondence to Deborah A. Salem, Department of Psychology, 129 Psychology Research Building, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Michigan, 48824-1117.

SCRA Evaluation7.wpd, 6-14-00

Seventh SCRA Biennial Evaluation

THE SEVENTH BIENNIAL CONFERENCE OF THE SOCIETY FOR COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND ACTION: A QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE EVALUATION

The First Biennial Conference of the Society for Community Research and Action was held in Columbia, South Carolina in 1987. Since that time the conference has been held throughout the United States and has doubled in size. Each conference has been evaluated in order to provide feedback to future organizers regarding how the conference can better meet the interests and needs of conference attendees. The Seventh Biennial Conference was held June 9-12, 1999 on the grounds of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. The conference theme was “Ideas to Action- Action to Ideas.” This article reports the results of a quantitative/ qualitative evaluation of the conference.

In addition to our interest in feedback about participants’ satisfaction with the conference, the conference offered an opportunity to examine the current contents of work in community psychology. Although there have been several reviews of the content of journals in community psychology (e.g., Lounsbury, Leader, Mears, & Cook, 1980; Speer, Dey, Griggs, Gibson, Lubin & Hughey, 1992; Martin et al., 1999), the conference offers a unique opportunity to examine the direction of current work in the field.

Method

Seventh SCRA Biennial Evaluation

The goal of this evaluation was the maximize the usefulness of the information generated for use by future conference planners. In order to do that we used a modified joint insider-outsider approach (Bartunek & Louis, 1996). The evaluation team was composed of a group of outside evaluators from Michigan State University and a group of conference planners from The Consultation Center at the Yale University School of Medicine. The team worked together to plan the evaluation, collect and analyze the data, and write the final report. In this manner we were able to maintain objectivity, while benefitting from the experience and insider knowledge of the conference planning team.

Procedures

Conference Participation and Satisfaction

The data used to assess conference participation and satisfaction was collected using a qualitative/quantitative survey and conference registration information. Conference registration data from all those who attended was used to generate the number of overall conference participants and conference presenters, as well as participants’ gender, current position (i.e., student, faculty, other), and SCRA membership.

A revised version of the survey used for the Sixth Biennial Conference (Toro, Clinton, & Williams, 1998) was used to collect additional demographic, participation, and satisfaction information. Participants’ reasons for attending the conference and their perceptions regarding the conference arrangements, content, costs, structure, importance of continuing education credit availability, overall conference value, and likelihood they would attend the next Biennial Conference were assessed with closed, Likert-type scales and checklists. Preferences for future biennial conferences (e.g., time of year, facility/setting type, length, fees) were rated using a checklist of preferences. Respondents were also given the opportunity to respond to open-ended questions regarding what they liked most and least about the Seventh Biennial Conference, as well as to provide suggestions to improve future conferences.

Seventh SCRA Biennial Evaluation

Survey forms were placed in the conference folders of each participant. Drop-off boxes were placed at two high traffic areas of the conference. Participants were reminded at several of the large group events to complete their evaluations and were further encouraged with a drawing for prizes. Many of the forms were collected at the final town meeting and a small portion were returned by mail.

For the quantitative data, descriptive statistics are presented below in a series of tables which compare them to responses from the last three Biennial Conferences. For the open-ended questions, a coding system was developed based on the responses to the questions. Four of the authors read through the responses and developed an initial set of codes. They then met to discuss and finalize the codes. The responses were then content-coded by three coders. After coding individually, they met to discuss the codes, resolve any inconsistencies, and identify common themes.

Conference Content

Seventh SCRA Biennial Evaluation

Over four hundred presentations of various formats took place at the Seventh Biennial. Each presentation was reviewed and categorized within the following dimensions: subject matter (see Table 10 for list of subjects), population(s) served or studied (see Table 11 for list of populations), and presentation type (see Table 7). Subject matter and population categories were derived post hoc from the presentations themselves. Lists of potential subjects and populations were developed by four of the authors who scanned presentation titles and abstracts for relevant categories. Potential subject themes and populations were then accepted, rejected, or modified based on the consensus of the four authors as to the category's usefulness, specificity, and clarity. Twenty presentation abstracts were then coded by two of the authors, using the subject and population categories. These ratings were reviewed for consistency of categories, ease of use, and inter-rater agreement and final modifications to subject and population categories were completed. The remainder of the presentation abstracts were then coded by one of the two raters for subject(s) and population(s). Each abstract could receive up to five subject and population codes. Three times during the rating process, 20 presentations (a total of 60 out of 486) were coded by both raters and used for verifying inter-rater agreement. Comparisons between raters was accomplished by consensus matching for total number (and type) of subjects and populations. Few differences between raters occurred and when present were corrected by a clarification or modification of subject and population definition. Presentations categorized under the modified subject were reviewed and re-scored as necessary.

Sample

Seventh SCRA Biennial Evaluation

The survey response rate was low, with only 18% (102/560[5]) of conference attendees completing evaluation surveys. An even smaller percentage of participants (12%, 68/560) responded to the open-ended questions. We were able to compare survey respondents with the general sample of conference attendees on variables that were collected both at registration (i.e., all attendees) and on the survey. The two groups were the same in terms of gender (64% female for both samples). The samples differed slightly with regard to current position (overall sample: 51% faculty, 40% student, and 9% other; survey sample: 50% faculty, 36% student, 13% other, 1% missing); SCRA membership (overall sample: 95% yes, 5% no; survey sample: 88% yes, 5% no, 7% missing); and whether or not they were on the program (overall sample: 79.5%, survey sample: 72.5%). While the results presented below should be interpreted with caution, based on the variables that we can compare the survey sample does appear to be representative of the overall conference participants.

Conference Attendance and Participation

The pattern of high attendance rates that we have seen over the last several Biennial Conferences continued this year. The 1999 conference was the second most widely attended, with 590 participants (see Table 1). Approximately two-thirds (67%) of respondents had attended at least one past conference (19% attended one, 12% attended two, 11% attended three, 11% attended four, 7% attended five, and 8% attended all six). Notably, nearly 80% of those attending the conference participated as a presenter on the conference program. Participants’ most important reasons for attending the conference were to acquire new ideas/theories, to learn about new developments, and to meet new people. Taking a vacation and attending special interest groups were the least important reasons for attending (see Table 2). These findings were remarkably consistent with prior years.

Participant Characteristics

Seventh SCRA Biennial Evaluation

Table 3 compares participant characteristics from the Seventh Biennial (1999) to the last three conferences (for comparison data from the first three conferences see Ferrari & Tadavich-Rizzo, 1996). Only limited data on the characteristics of members was available from the conference registration materials. As in past years, the majority of participants were women (64%), and the vast majority were SCRA members (95%)[6]. The conference was attended primarily by those in academic settings, with 51% of respondents identifying themselves as faculty and 40% as students. While biennial conferences have always been attended primarily by those from academic settings, there was a noticeable decrease in participants from other types of settings and an increase of the proportion of faculty participants at the Seventh Biennial.

The remaining demographic data were collected with the survey. The low response rate makes it difficult to know how well the respondents represent the overall population of conference participants with regard to the following demographic characteristics. Survey respondents had a mean age of 39. The majority were European Americans (65%), followed by African Americans (10%) and foreign citizens (8%). These rates are similar to those found for the Sixth Biennial (1997) and appear to reflect a continued trend for increased ethnic, racial, and international representation among conference participants.

Satisfaction and Recommendations

Quantitative Findings

Seventh SCRA Biennial Evaluation

The Seventh Biennial Conference satisfaction data were compared to survey data collected from the prior three Biennial Conferences. Satisfaction with the biennial conference continues to grow, suggesting that organizers have done an excellent job responding to past feedback. Satisfaction with the conference arrangements (e.g., housing, dining, social events) was generally higher than for past conferences, with a mean of 4.5 (5=very positive) for overall site quality (see Table 4). Satisfaction with the conference content was also very high (see Table 5). Compared to prior conference attendees, respondents at the Seventh Biennial had notably higher levels of agreement that the conference content reflected the scope and values of the field, with mean ratings ranging from 2.1 to 2.5 (1=strongly agree, see Table 5). They also rated the conference as having greater overall value to them (see Table 6). Similar to the past two conferences, respondents reported a high likelihood that they would attend the Eighth Biennial Conference (see Table 6).

Respondents were asked about their preferences regarding conference length, time of year, and location. The majority (58%) preferred a three day conference, 23% preferred 3½ to 4 days, and about 18% preferred 2 or fewer days. About half of the respondents (52%) preferred to have future biennial conferences on a college campus, 19% preferred a conference center or lodge, and 12% preferred a hotel. Ten percent expressed a preference for an urban site and 7% preferred a rural site. Most (80%) wanted future biennial conferences to be held in late May or early June, while 13% preferred mid to late June. Few respondents preferred July or August (6%), January to March (2%), or September to November (2%).

The Seventh Biennial was characterized by a wide variety of types of conference events. Table 7 describes the number and percentage of different kinds of conference events over the past four Biennials. The most relevant comparisons here are between the three large conferences (1995, 1997, 1999). The trend we’ve seen in the last two conferences of a decreasing percentage of symposia and posters continued in 1999. There was an increase in the proportion of roundtable/conversations and workshops. This increase in roundtable/conversations is consistent with the feedback from the Sixth Biennial that participants would like to see more of this format. For the most part, respondents at the Seventh Biennial indicated that they wanted to see about the same distribution of presentation formats at future conferences (see Table 8). The only exceptions were slightly higher mean ratings for roundtable discussions (_=3.4) and innovative and experimental sessions (_=3.5), suggesting that there is some continued interest in an increase in these more interactive and innovative formats.

Seventh SCRA Biennial Evaluation

All the workshops at the Seventh Biennial qualified for continuing education credits (CEUs). Although a third of the Sixth Biennial Conference respondents felt that it was important to offer CEUs, only seven individuals took advantage of this opportunity at the New Haven conference. At the Seventh Biennial, about 20% of conference respondents stated that offering CEUs was important or very important and 45% stated that they felt CEU credits were unimportant. Offering CEU credits has the potential to attract a wider variety of professionals to the biennial conferences. Given the expense and work involved in offering CEU credits and the varying state requirements for taking and offering CEU credits, conference organizers may wish to evaluate whether to offer credits at future conferences.

Table 9 summarizes respondents’ feelings about the conference costs. The majority of respondents (54-65%) thought conference costs were reasonable. However, depending on the category (e.g., student vs. non-student), 18% to 24% of the respondents thought the cost of the conference was too high.

In summary, the survey data indicates that conference participants had high expectations for the conference, anticipating that it would provide access to new ideas, theories, information and developments; opportunities to meet new people and see old friends; and opportunities to share their own work. For the most part, these expectations appear to have been met, as reflected in the high level of satisfaction with all aspects of the conference. The majority reported that the customary time of year (late May to early June) and setting (college campus) matches their preferences for future biennials. However, most wanted a slightly shorter conference than the established 3½ day length. Conference costs were a concern for a sizeable subgroup of participants. Clearly, if our goal is to maintain an accessible, diverse, and inclusive conference,

Seventh SCRA Biennial Evaluation

we must pay careful attention to keeping the cost reasonable. Future conference planners might want to consider increasing the amount of money allocated to student scholarships.

Qualitative Findings

Overall, the qualitative responses were quite consistent with the quantitative data. Respondents were very positive about the conference. They were also forthcoming with constructive feedback and helpful suggestions to improve future biennial conferences.

Most Valued Aspects of the Conference

Many respondents commented on the overall high quality of the conference, the beautiful setting, and the great job done by the planning committee. As one person commented, “The conference was very rewarding professionally and personally. It was very clear that a great deal of planning, time, and effort went into it. Lots of attention to detail and helpful people to deal with.” Another stated, “The planning committee did an amazing job coordinating a conference for such a large group with diverse backgrounds and interests.”

Respondents’ reports of the highlights of their experience at the Seventh Biennial are captured in the following themes: (a) networking and sense of community with other participants, (b) the high quality of the presentations and invited speakers, (c) an opportunity for the exchange of ideas, and (d) enjoyment of other aspects of the conference.

Seventh SCRA Biennial Evaluation

Networking and sense of community. Participants reported that the conference provided an opportunity for (a) professional networking, (b) maintenance of personal relationships with old friends and colleagues, and (c) the experience of fellowship and sense of community. The majority of responses referred to opportunities for professional networking (i.e., establishing or strengthening contacts with colleagues, potential teachers, and potential students). As one person commented, “[I valued] discovering that my ideas were converging with others. I feel that a new network has been formed which may stimulate innovative research.” Another appreciated “...meeting (or seeing) the scholars whose work I read (and finding them so down-to-earth).” For students the conference offered opportunities for making “connections with future teachers” and “contact with other students.” It also enabled students to make helpful contacts for future or current job searches. Participants mentioned specific conference activities that served as good venues for meeting new people: the informal lunch on the lawn, committee/interest group meetings, dinner at the Peabody Museum, and the conversation hour with Seymour Sarason.

Participants also enjoyed the opportunity to reestablish personal relationships with people they already knew and to see old friends. As one person commented: “ [I] enjoyed seeing old friends and hearing what they are doing.”

Finally, participants appreciated the feelings of fellowship and sense of community among the conference participants. They found it helpful to interact with others who have similar values and interests. As one person said, “Biennial is my favorite conference because of the kind of individuals doing work in the field who share my values.” Another commented that the conference provided an “affirmation that my work/interest is worthwhile.” However, this sense of community was not shared by all participants. For example, one respondent spoke to the need for increased acceptance of diversity within SCRA, stating that the “increased Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered Program [sessions] revealed great pain and sense of isolation, invisibility, and even active hostility from others in SCRA.”