Survey of AABHL 2011 Conference
(38 Responses from 148 delegates ~ 26% response rate)
Please rate the following components of the Conference from 1-5:
Component / Average response/51. Quality of the Plenary Sessions: / 4.57
2. Quality of Concurrent Sessions: / 4.07
3. Bio-Bites Presentation Format: / 3.83
4. Pre-conference organisation: / 4.21
5. Organisation at Conference: / 4.19
6. Venue: / 3.38
7. Social Functions: / 4.33
8. Catering: / 3.64
9. Registration Cost: / 3.69
Do you think there should be…?
10. more or less Plenary Speakers: / More11. more or less concurrent sessions: / Same
12. more or less Posters: / More
13. more or less Panel Sessions: / More
14. more or less free time: / Same
Do you think…?
15. The web-based registration was useful: / Yes16. Having the papers published on a CD-ROM is appropriate: / Yes
17. You would recommend the conference to others: / Yes
18. Have you attended a previous conference: / Yes
19. Based on this year’s Conference would you attend the next conference: / Yes
20. Did you find the conference relevant: / Yes
21. 73.68% of responses think that the conference should be held annually
Please rate the following speakers from 1-5…
Speaker / Average response22. Jocelyn Downie / 4.57
23. Malcolm Parker / 4.66
24. Plenary (Julie Letts et al) / 4.53
25. Ian Freckelton / 4.81
26. Ken Hillman / 4.78
27. Ray Moynihan / 4.71
28. Plenary (Jean Murray et al) / 4.41
In general…
29. What were the best features of the Conference?
- Friendly helpful people, good feedback in seminars
- The many opportunities for sharing ideas both formally and informally
- Meeting old friends
- Very high quality plenary speakers (not to mention Ray Moynihan!)
- The interaction between delegates and the breadth of expertise was amazing. Very collegial and interactive
- The speakers at all sessions
- Plenary/ Ken Hillman/ Ian Freckelton
- Excellent cross section of Health, Law and Ethics – Topics, speakers, context and discussion
- The focus
- Plenary sessions were all very engaging and relevant. Overall, conference was well structured and implemented
- Catching up with colleagues and meeting new ones
- Themes of conference
- Range and quality of plenary sessions
- Organisers efforts
- Catering
- The structure of the venue assured that there was maximum contact among the attendees – at breakfast, morning plenary, morning tea, lunch, afternoon tea, dinner, pre-dinner drinks
- Plenary Speakers/ Sessions
- Networking opportunities
- Conference dinner address
- The location
- Really good mix of law, medicine and ethics
- Wide variety of topics
- Dinner speaker - Ray Moynihan
- Having a topical and controversial/ difficult theme – with discussions between disciplines that provide different perspectives/insights. Respectful handling of difference
- High Standard of presentations and opportunity to meet others with similar interests
- The company, the quality of speakers and papers, the dinner, the weather, the accommodation, the diversity of delegates backgrounds
- Brilliant, stimulating, cross-fertilization between speakers and delegates
- Sharing ideas
- Catching up with colleagues
- Variety and diversity of contributors disciplines and experience
- Great atmosphere and interdisciplinary mix
- Respectful atmosphere, respectful and engaged participants in all sessions, good attendance at papers, overall organisation, high quality content and presentation style, accommodation excellent and reasonably priced
- Stimulating plenary sessions
- Dinner and food and speakers
- Plenary – Challenging and varied
- Wonderful opportunity to learn new concepts, be intellectually challenged, and to meet like minded individuals. Cross section of disciplines and professions – great to get out of our usual “silos”
- The specific encouragement of workshops was excellent. They were a feature of this conference and I would like to see them happen in the same way again next time.
- Quality of discussion and Q&A
- Size (not too big), friendly atmosphere, great mix of ideas reflecting different disciplines, approaches, backgrounds and experiences
- Variety of presentations
- Lovely place to visit, good mix of papers and “student” friendly
- Chances for interaction
- Ken Hillman and Ray Moynihan
- I think Bio-Bites worked really well – good to have a small amount of a lot of topics
- Great to see some more hospital administrators, practising doctors and lawyers attending this year.
- Discussion time
- Thought provoking plenaries, workshops very lively
30. What were the unsatisfactory features of the Conference?
- Confusing venue layout
- Not much representation from religious view point
- Location of conference was average
- Cost of conference seems high considering presenters are not compensated in any way. AABHL has been lucky to continue to attract good quality speakers considering no compensation, and I hope that this does not become an issue in the future.
- Venue: poor signage and break out rooms too far away from main conference room
- I would have preferred a less narrow focus – to encourage a greater range of topics
- The venue was a little unhelpful in terms of bookings and modifications of stay.
- Wide separation of break out rooms made it almost impossible to more between concurrent sessions
- Computer glitches, however they seem to be a universal, standard feature of I.T.
- Venue, Location – beach nice but not many amenities
- Some rooms for concurrent sessions were too small. I appreciate that this may not be easy to deal with at a venue, but it made some of the workshops a bit difficult in practical terms.
- Long distance between 2 break out rooms (opal and renaissance): divider is not sound-proof and this is distracting to audience and speakers
- Size of breakout rooms too small and crowded
- Catering was hit and miss, buffet lunch was poor however tea and coffee breaks exceptional
- PowerPoint not loaded for presentations
- Not enough info on restaurants
- Some rooms noisy and too small
- Paper slots too short to present in depth ideas and allow for discussion time
- Program was not easily accessible beforehand
- Failed to keep to time
- Theme was too narrow
- Some presenters were hidden from view by laptop on lectern
- Not enough chairs in some workshops
- The concurrent sessions could have cohered better together by topic rather than by discipline
- Distribution of materials should have been through website rather than CD-ROM or USB
- Venue problems (audio, organisation, room location)
- Concurrent sessions were equally valuable. Time allocation was limited for substantial subject matter, but still helpful and informative (not unsatisfactory, as such)
- Visions for plenary sessions
- Travelling between rooms was difficult – especially if you had a disability or mobility issue
- Food was poor (with the exception of dinner)
- No identification of solutions or “where to go from here” for topics initiated in conference
- Sound – Both kitchen background and microphone pickup in the visions room was problematic. Very hard to hear at the back
- Air conditioning often too cold, some rooms not ideal – but nothing to serious!
- Incorrect information on the website about time and cost of a taxi, poor systems for uploading presentations, sessions were too short, time keeping in some sessions was poor and unfair. Hecklers at Ray’s paper were disgraceful.
- Poor vegetarian catering
- Tea and coffee should have been at the side of the room with outdoor area to facilitate networking and conversation.
31. Do you have any suggestions to improve future Conferences?
- Signs to venues would be helpful
- Keep sessions together – location
- Student/new researcher sessions
- Tight program – would prefer that sessions were 15 mins talk and 10 mins discussion (or 25-30 mins total)
- A “where to from here” board for each session where people can put ideas on when they are unable to ask questions
- Set-ups of groups who would not otherwise get a chance to meet. Networking is difficult when large numbers of people already know each other.
- Some presenters could not be heard and the microphone issue was not well managed. Guidelines for presenters on PowerPoint presentations as some had no idea – could read them (font too small)
- A wider theme to accommodate for more topics
- Venue at a University or better conference centre, although it was helpful having everyone resident.
- Concerned RE: 2012 dates, as they are very close to IAB at the end of June 2012. Any chance of moving it to Nov/Dec?
- No – Well done and Congratulations
- More open debate and discussion time, specific post grad networking session
- Less breakout sessions
- How about a debate?
- Given the attendance to Grant Gillett’s presentation talking of the soul and potentially could there be a spirituality and ethics stream?
- If the conference is going to continue to be held in the middle of flu/cold season, some antiseptic hand gel should be supplied.
- Stricter observance of timetable would be better
- Choose a venue with all the rooms in more or less the same general area
- Make sure there is some quality theoretical/ foundational scholarship from people publishing in that area
- Would be useful to have some additional info about delegates in material – such as qualification or area of work
- Debates open to people who hold supernatural beliefs, e.g. Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus etc.
- It may help if people had to identify which breakout they would like to attend – so that rooms can be sized appropriately.