You are on page 1of 7

WEST AFRICA CIVIL SOCIETY INSTITUTE

POST-WORKSHOP ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLICY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY WORKSHOP FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS IN WEST AFRICA

VENUE: WACSI SECRETARIAT, ACCRA, GHANA

DATE: 23-25 MARCH, 2011

1|Page

Evaluation Questionnaire Compiled Introduction The Policy Research Methodology Workshop organized by WACSI in partnership with SIPRI from the 23-25th March 2011, attracted 25 civil society practitioners from across the West African Sub-region. The training workshop focused on Policy Research Methodology, Data Analysis Techniques, Writing and Communicating Research. At the end of a 3-day training programme, participants’ were given the opportunity to assess the overall outcome of the workshop. Participants were asked to complete an evaluation questionnaire. Below is a compilation of the ratings and responses of the participants’:

Section One I: Overall Course Delivery Percentage Rating Outcomes of Participants Areas of Assessment Very Satisfied What is your overall impression of the workshop? Were your objectives for this workshop met? Rate your satisfaction with the course training materials Taking into account your knowledge of policy advocacy before the workshop, did the workshop help to build your knowledge and skills in this area? How effective was The Discussions the methodology used in the The Exercises workshop? 63% 50% 58% 63% Satisfied 37% 44% 42% 37% 6% Not Satisfied

56% 47%

44% 42% 11%

The table above shows the percentages ratings of the participants at the workshop. The total number of participants at the workshop was 25. Total number of respondents was 21. The percentage ratings of the participants’ responses were calculated based on the total number of responses to each question. Although 21 participants’ completed the questionnaires not all 21 provided an answer to every question.

2|Page

II: Participants Response to Rating 1. Overall impression of the workshop The following represents a summary of participants response to the ratings outlined in table 1.0 above. The participants’ impression about the workshop is documented below:  Well organized with excellent sitting arrangement and adequate space for group activities (5);  Relevant and worthwhile (2);  The time frame for the workshop was limited (2);  Assisted participants’ to plan better in future activity;  Provided the opportunity to learn new things and explore new ideas;  Enlightening and covered all aspects of research;  Could not meet all the expectations set;  The materials are voluminous and demand more time to absorb the information;  Educative and insightful; and  Provided a clear structure to guide researchers in policy research; 2. Objectives for the workshop Below is a summary of responses to the percentage ratings on whether the participants’ expectations were met:  The report writing component did not focus on policy presentation (3);  The workshop delivery met the set objectives (7);  The workshop achieved the objective of deepening knowledge on research and communicating research reports (2); and  The objectives were met but had difficulty in understanding the quantitative data analyses. 3. Level of Satisfaction with the Course Training materials The participants’ responses to the above question include:       The course training materials were adequate (2); Satisfied with the workshop materials (2); Very satisfied with the materials; Good and educative (4); Awaiting the materials but the mode of presentation meets the standard; Voluminous with requisite research techniques, but contains more general research methodology (2);  The content is perfect but the slides should have a clear background;

3|Page

4. Did the workshop help build on your knowledge and skills in research? Participants acknowledged the relevance of the workshop and indicated how beneficial it was in terms of knowledge acquisition and skills enhancement. Below are a summary of their responses:        Acquired knowledge on policy research; Enhanced knowledge in report writing; Ability to participate in discussions concerning policy research methodology; Training identified and clarified essential communication tools that CSOs underestimate their relevance; Augmented previous knowledge on policy research methodology (5); Enhanced knowledge and capacity in research (3); Gained adequate knowledge for proactive research work;

5. How effective was the methodology used? The workshop employed theoretical and practical delivery approaches. In the assessment the participants indicated that: I: Discussions       The methodology employed assisted in exhaustive examination of issues discussed; The discussions were effective (6); The discussions were fruitful but the time was limited; Discussion was impressive and targeted; Discussions were mostly trainee generated; This was essential and helped create a friendly atmosphere;

II: The Practical Sessions

       

The session encouraged interactions among participants’ except the group composition remained the same throughout the workshop (2); The practical sessions were effective (4); Encompassing and involved participants’ without being one-sided; The points were applicable and relevant (2); This session helped in assimilation (2); Underscores the essence of group learning and experience sharing; Acquired the ability to formulate policy research issues, undertake research and communicate outcome; The session was good, but the familiarity and experience level was inadequate;

4|Page

Session Two Course Content How effective were the workshop components (listed in the box) in building your knowledge and skills. Table 1.1 Policy Research Methodology Workshop Rating in Percentages Very useful May be useful 10% 14% 5% 19% 10% 10% May not be useful 5% 5% 5% -

1
2 3 4 5 6 7

Defining the Policy Research Problem Research Design Exploratory Research Design: Quantitative Research Exploratory Research Design: Qualitative Research Data Processing Report Preparation and Presentation Communicating Research to Policy Makers

95% 86% 81% 90% 76% 90% 90%

Write one or two sentences to describe what you learned from the workshop. Participants’ were required to provide specifically the benefits derived from participating in the workshop and the responses are summarized below:          Participants’ acquired a better understanding of the typologies of public research, methods/methodology, and using the data analysis techniques; Participants’ gained insights into report writing; Acquired a better understanding of the methods and methodology in research; Learned about the stages in policy research and writing; Learned about the significance of using simple language instead of complex language in report writing; Presenting evidence based findings; Acquired new knowledge and skills in policy research; Gained insight into policy research and presentation of findings (2); Learned how to put together reports for policy makers;

5|Page

         

Learned the comprehensive process of conducting research, defining and reporting specific research issues; Acquired basic skills and knowledge on writing, presenting and using policy research as an advocacy tool (2); Learned that engagement with government and stakeholders on policy should not be based on unfounded assumptions but evidence based; Gained an understanding of the components of policy briefs and the difference between policy briefs and scientific research methodology (2); Learned that research is about logical analyses of the information obtained; Broadened knowledge on neutrality in policy research; Learned about the research design and improved on writing and communicating reports (2); Built confidence in research methodology; How effective policy research can change society and draw attention to national problems; Acquired knowledge on viable communication strategies and reporting styles.

Advice for the trainer in adapting and delivering this workshop                  Energizers should be used in delivering future trainings and revise the assessment forms; Maintain the quality of presenters in all workshops; Provide information on how to prepare research tools such as questionnaires; Give practical examples/scenarios and allow participants’ time to analyze; Organize the training workshop within a longer time frame (3); Give participants’ the opportunity to write a research report during the workshop; Training should focus on addressing CSOs ability to conduct policy research and concentrate on specific needs of CSOs rather than general research principles; Practice exercises are required in data processing specifically, Excel data analysis; The quantitative research session was very technical; Excellent delivery methods, coordinators should ensure that the participants understand the delivery methods of trainers; Great job, keep improving on it; The programme was hectic; Facilitators should adopt a more participatory approach; Clarification on quantitative approach would be necessary to assist participants’ understanding; In the case of using figures in calculation, the practical use of examples with participants’ should be encouraged; Additional timing should be allotted for the presentations; More discussions should be encouraged in future workshops.

6|Page

Assessment of the Facilitators           Excellent transfer of knowledge, used relevant examples and engaged the participants’ (3); The facilitators were resourceful (4); Should employ gender sensitivity in examples and expression; Excellent presentation, should provide clarification on the quantitative data analysis; Difficulty in locating themselves in the midst of the participants and was similar to the lecture room setting; The facilitators did a great job (4); Good communication skills and interacted well with the participants’; There was a cordial relationship between facilitators and participants’. The use of power points and flip charts was very good (2); Good delivery but should give participants’ the opportunity to share ideas; and The facilitators were complementary.

Assess duration of the course in Percentages Too long Too short 43% About right 57%

7|Page