|
|
|
Pacific Islands Networking Meeting Survey, Results, and Comments: 2) How many new professional contacts did you make? 4) Will you be pursuing possible grant opportunities you learned of during the meeting? 8) What two (2) things did we do well in putting on this meeting? 9) What two (2) things can you suggest that we need to improve on? 13) Are there particular funding sources that are interested in Pacific issues? 14) Besides PEACESAT, what other communication avenues or technology are you using to network with Pacific colleagues.
Question 1: Approximately, how many of the meeting attendees did you know or previously work with, before the meeting started? · 9 · About ten · 5 · 8 · 4 · about 15 or so · About 1/3 · 15 · About 20 of them, some I work with regularly. · 20 people · I'd say I knew about 10% · None · I knew a few of the attendees but did not work with any previously. · Of the order of 10-12 · Approximately half · Perhaps 25%. · 6 · 3 people · Perhaps two dozen. · 10-15 · one · Ten · Maybe about a third.
Question 2: How many new professional contacts did you make? · 2-3. I thought the contact list is great. · FIVE OR SO · 3 · 10 · 4 · ABOUT 5 OR SO · 2 · 3 · I wasn't able to stay very long, but met 2 - 3 people whom I may contact in the future. · 0 · about 5 · 5-10 · Approximately, 5 or 6 new contacts. · Relatively few · none, but there is one particular fellow I am hoping to follow-up with · I met a couple of people, but wanted to follow up on contacts at a later time · 10-12 · 5 new interesting people · 5 or 6 · 5-10 · 8 · Five · I [Mark Merlin] networked with Eileen Herring of UH Library and upon request will be donating some more of my Micronesian environmental education texts to Hamilton Library. · About 6 significant ones.
Question 3: Was the conference format and venue appropriate for a networking meeting? If not, what would have worked better for an introductory meeting of the size? · Great idea – unique and innovative · YES · More time for networking. It's hard with so many people · No. 5 minutes per presentation, in a "cattle" call situation was 1. not enough time; and 2. to many people. · I think it was. One thing to build into this type of meeting, if there’s sufficient time, is to allow the participants time to interact and network. · I think it was best that could be done with a group this size. It would have helped to have Q&A and maybe 5 minute longer talks but then we are talking a 2-day meeting. · Yes · Because of folks going longer than their alloted time, I felt we didn't get to the most important part - the what next, how can we work together, etc · I thought that so many presentations would not work, but from what I've heard you were able to get though most, so I think it was successful · As I was not there except to hear 30 minutes prior to and after my talk its hard to say. A pau hana might have helped but then the luncheon, which I did not attend, might have served that purpose. · Worked very well to my surprise. · Yes · The format was OK in getting to know a little about the many organizations. There might have been an opportunity for some breakout sessions so that we could talk with people that represented specific areas. (ie. Education, etc.) · There really wasn't an opportunity for discussion, and though many of the ppt were interesting and informative, the number and repetition got quite tedious. · I think it was a bit too much of a hodge-podge of presentations. I appreciate the idea of having an opportunity to find out what is happening outside of my field, but would still like to see more organization of presentations, i.e. by topic area. That way I could have planned to attend the presentations I knew I would be interested in. As it was I had to spend an entire day when I think I could have actually learned what I wanted to in a much shorter time span. · I thought it worked well, but heard dissatisfaction from another participant. · Considering the size, excellent. · It was well organized. · Yes, although more time might have been provided for the networking. · Less lengthy presentations (with some taking more time than others) and more time for talking with people and actual networking · I thought the format was appropriate. · Perhaps try a giant poster session next time. This meeting worked fairly well but I would anticipate that the number of presentations would only increase and would continue to cut into networking time. A poster session allows more Q&A between interested parties. · There was just so much so that we did not really have time to discuss the issues with each other or with the general assembly. Unless we expand the conference to 2 days or drastically reduce the number of presenters, I do not know how else we could get more quality time on each activity.
Question 4: Will you be pursuing possible grant opportunities you learned of during the meeting? · No, but I have had three of the attendees request grant funds from the EDA program. · No · N/A. Grant provider. · Possibly · PROBABLY · Yes · not at this time · Probably not -- I am currently overcommitted. · NO · No · No · Possibly. · Yes, in a couple of cases which I suppose justifies putting the time in at the meeting. · Not likely. · Probably not · Yes · Yes, we have meet with one person that may help us to get grant money we need. · No · n/a · I learned about where funding opportunities might exist in the future but none that were appropriate at the moment. · Yes · Only if we can get partners to go along with us.
Question 5: Will you be pursuing a collaborative relationship with any agency or program you met during the meeting? · Yes · YES · Yes · Yes. EPA/UH for a potential renewable energy/ag. conference. · Yes · YES · Yes · we have actually started some conversations with folks on how we can support them · Possibly, but nothing definite. · No, unless contacted by someone. · Yes · Yes · Yes · Unknown at this time. We will see what develops · We already collaborate with several of the presenters. We may be entering into some new ones but I can't say they would be as a result of the meeting. · I hope so. · Yes · Yes we will continue to work with and share information. We also got invited to have a table at a health fair which will help to get the information out. · Possible. · Yes · Perhaps at some point in the future. · Yes · Definitely.
Question 6: What are your ideas to foster further inter-disciplinary, inter-agency, and inter-collegiate relationships? · Updated contact list, central 'clearinghouse' (like your website), perhaps a quarterly newsletter. · More conferences like this one. · Host these [meetings] on a quarterly basis--once a year in person, otherwise via tele/video conferencing. · Keep offering events that will bring the participants together to support new or established collaborations and offer opportunities for networking. · The handouts helped immensely. Circulating the list of attendees a few days before the meeting would help to foster contacts. · Let the center for pacific islands studies be connecting point so that research/ers across the uh system can notify them of current projects/grants received/etc. Maybe a simple form or website form to let people share their research and enter it into a database, especially with project products/reports/etc. · On-going dialogues of this type. · Perhaps a list serve to keep the group connected. · Identify an issue that people from different disciplines can relate to and then appeal to their needs/ desires to gain their collaboration. · I suspect that the best idea might be a similar follow up say a year from now with a similar format. I'm not sure that you can force relationships - bringing people together like you did is what is critical. · Smart teams, or action groups to pull specific agencies together to discuss/work different topics. · First, continue to talk and share ideas regarding possible partnerships; secondly explore the possibility of setting up a consortium of different providers in going after projects jointly. · The range of areas covered was very broad, by design. Future meetings could I think narrow the focus so that those with similar concerns could converse more directly. · I feel that a document which briefly summarizes the activities of the many programs being carried out in the Pacific can be quite useful, and you've made a start, but their are gaps in the listing that need to be filled in (see my comments in e-mail message above). I think some thought should be given to how such a document is organized. For instance, a fair number of presenters seemed to be from very UH centric programs whose main mission was to promote educational programs of the University or run support services for foreign students who want to attend UH, vs. programs that are actually conducting research or educational programs in the Pacific region outside of Hawaii. I think it would be helpful to organize a PI resource document in such a way that the user can easily identify the primary mission of each program, and not have to wade through each programs description to figure out what it is they really do. · The website should offer some strategies for further connection and collaboration. Reminders and updates from your office about new information, new directions, etc. on the part of meeting participants would help me to remember to check the website. · More networking meetings per topic, such as health or environment · A list serve for relevant proposals and messages might be useful · KPHC works with many pacific island people and we need to form more collaborations to help with the needs of these people. · More venues like this but see #3 above (Less lengthy presentations (with some taking more time than others) and more time for talking with people and actual networking.) · Hopefully, people will build their email distribution lists from the meeting attendee list to better inform us of possible opportunities. · There needs to be some way to increase Pacific Islander participation without a giant travel budget - maybe PEACESAT/conferencing capabilities could be demonstrated by patching pacific island agencies in by videoteleconference. · Our CIBER program is already doing quite a bit of this but we certainly intend to pursue more such relationships.
Question 7: What were two (2) things (new ideas/contacts) that you took away from the meeting, or two biggest "Aha!" moments? · Pesticide poisoning/availability of 'experts' for helping educate people in the Pacific · The potential in the pacific - It's huge. Lots of room for great work and ideas. · 1. EPA contact & 2. UH Hawaii Natural Energy Institute Contact · The scope of work that was being done by such a diverse group of individuals and agencies in the Pacific & these individuals and agencies understood the challenges and logistics associated with working in the Pacific. · Would rather not say right now. · Differences in Compact funds between RMI/FSM, how little cultural training and preparation all the various researchers/agencies, etc. sought · Some similarities of projects - so if we collaborated, might get more "bang for the buck" · Amazingly diverse activities throughout the region & Interesting health initiative, which I may tap into. · None for me · Regrettably, none hit me as massive aha moments tho' there were interesting ideas that I'm working on. · That pesticide smuggling was in-line with terrorist actions & That the various agencies were heavily employed across Oceania, which is a good thing. · 1. The number of agencies, groups that are working with Pacific Islanders & 2. The broad range of activities that are being worked on and the funding opportunities that are out there. · New contacts with the East/West center and with diverse groups · I am working with cancer control programs in Guam, CNMI and American Samoa, and I want to follow-up with the fellow who presented on misuse of pesticides since this is a critical issue for the newly established Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs in each of these jurisdictions, which are forming local coalitions that could help in raising public awareness about these problems, which are widespread in the Pacific. On a personal note I learned from Christina Higa about a certificate program which I would like to enroll in sometime in the near future. · There were a couple of people at the meeting who have been involved in international collaborative agreements, and I'd like to reconnect with them about their content presentations because I learned about new directions from them and these new directions are ones that connect with work our office is interested in doing. · Contacted Burt Lum for my upcoming Telecommunications Program; already working with PEACESAT, and Contacted Scott Mitchem for my upcoming Safety & Security program. · Wanting to get information out about our project and find source of help to decrease the STD problems with in the pacific island population. · 1) illegal insecticide use in the Pacific and 2) discussion (during lunch) with Debbie Quinatata on Chamorro Rights issues and Human Subjects Research · Lots of UH offices that work in the Pacific · Other people in Hawaii interested in stuff in the other US affiliated Pacific Islands. The best “aha” moment was the presentation on banned pesticides in the US affiliated Pacific Islands. · As I am looking for people who can point me to contacts in the ADAP countries for the current project I am involved with, my Aha's came from identifying people who could help in that regard. · (1) Found out about a project that has funding and needs the skills of my underfunded employee & (2) Contact #s for people who are much further along in distance education than my own agency. · We will be pursuing some collaborative work with the Homeland Security folks. As to the "aha" moment, it was amazing to know, see and hear the amount of work that is being done in the region. We sort of suspected it but the conference was a confirmation.
Question 8: What two (2) things did we do well in putting on this meeting? · Logistics, being inclusive with UH programs · Bringing such a variety of folks together in one place in an organized fashion & The 4-minute presentations were an excellent way to introduce programs, ideas, etc. to everyone. · 1. Getting people together & 2. Broad spectrum of projects. · Organizing the meeting on short notice & Getting the word out to the participants · Easy-going format; lunches included · Time-keeping, tech success with all the PowerPoint presentations · Reaching out to the entire pacific community & Providing opportunities for everyone to speak. · Brought together a diverse group & Good venue at EWC. · Well organized, good food even though I didn't eat, good rapport with speakers. · The location, the lunch, broad based group, good A/V support · Pulling the various organizations together for the meeting & Holding everyone to the time limit on briefings. · 1. Organizing and conducting it & 2. Providing a way for people to stay in contact with each other. · Communication about the meeting was very good, as was the organization on the day of the meeting. Email and phone contacts were very pleasant and helpful. · To my knowledge, this is the first meeting of its type, so just getting folks together was a good idea, and it was apparent that you did cast a wide net. The venue was good and at least attempting to have very short presentations was also a good idea for the first meeting. · First that you got such a good response for presentations; second the setting was very conducive; and third, the lunch was GREAT! I'd not realized that Andy's could do catering. THAT was a new idea! · People invited and a contact list with e-mails. · The location was very good and the organization and the web site. · Organizing the event itself was great! · Within the proposed guidelines, time was well managed · Great communication and very inclusive · Venue was good · Broad participant interest list. & Keeping the speakers on a schedule that allowed everyone to participate. · (1) Crosspollination between disciplines (Health, Business, Natural Resources) & (2) Free admission & free food
Question 9: What two (2) things can you suggest that we need to improve on? · Keeping 4-minute presentations within 4 minutes. I realize that you requested that everyone keep it to four minutes. It's hard to get people to stay in line. However, while I know it's a challenge, it can be done. I timed my power point so that each slide was on for 11 seconds, this kept my presentation to 3-1/2 minutes. When the slide moved on, I had to as well. For folks who don't time their power point presentations, or for those who just speak, then having visible cards with minutes/seconds remaining might help. I used to be in Toastmasters and we had a set of lights - green, yellow and red. The yellow light came on when the speaker had a minute left, red came on at the end. · 1. More time for presentations and on-site networking & 2. Less of a "UH" concentration. · More effort on keeping things on track & Allow some time for participants to network (if possible). · No suggestions but see remark on length. (I think it was best that could be done with a group this size. It would have helped to have Q&A and maybe 5-minute longer talks but then we are talking a 2-day meeting.) · Use the breaks to assign groups to introduce themselves before heading over for coffee. · Stricter time limits & discussion on the “what next.” · Not an improvement, but at future meetings, more targeting of speakers and longer time periods. · Pau hana kava and music. · Perhaps the key thing would be to persuade people that you mean your time limit. · 1. Help groups to maintain contact via a website or other online connection system & 2. Help groups to identify opportunities for further collaboration. · Opportunities for face to face interactions, meetings with narrower focus. · 1) I really think you should do some screening or at least prioritization of presenters. This relates to my comments on Question 3 and 6, as I feel that there is quite a bit of difference between presentations from Homeland Security or The summer PI study program in Tahiti and Easter Island (which seems to be of benefit only to well financed UH undergrad students) vs. a presentation on the Cancer Research Center of Hawaii's 5-year Minority Institution Partnership Grant with the University of Guam to provide new opportunities for Pacific Islanders to conduct cancer research in the region. I know this is a challenge, but I think it will add more credibility to your efforts. And 2) Provide more clarity on what your long range goals/expectations are for this network. · I don't have any ideas now, other than checking for accuracy of information in your handout for the day. As noted, our office information had some errors, which I hope can be corrected. · Contact list with telephone numbers, as well. · It was very interesting. · Powerpoints might be posted on a website. · Larger contact list, with more lead time before the event. · Expand size to include more groups · The timing of the presentations … Don’t allow any PowerPoints except one for name, project, etc … those people with PowerPoints took up too much time as if it was necessary for them to do an academic presentation and this should not have been the venue for that. · (1) More networking / Q&A Time & (2) More Pacific Islander participation
Question 10: Who else should be on our Pacific contact list? (please provide name, organization, and email address) · Kokua Kalihi Valley (cares for a large number of Chuukese, Samoan patients) · Hawaii Primary Care Association: Charlene Blair or Beth Geisting (Exective Director) · Papa Ola Lokahi: Nia Aitaoto (Diabetes Today project, others)
·
U.S. Embassies in the region. · Mike King, Coalition of Reef Lovers (CORL), mike@corl.org · Karolyn Braun, American Samoa Community College, k.braun@ascc.as · Can't think of any · PIDP at EWC · FEMA · US Coast Guard · Department of State · Dr. Carl Vogel, Director, Cancer Research Center of Hawaii cvogel@crch.hawaii.edu · Hali Robinett, Program Director, Cancer Information Service, Pacific Region hali@crch.hawaii.edu · Angie Mummert, Partnership Program Coordinator, Cancer Information Service, Cancer Research Center of Guam amummert@guam.uog.edu · It's hard to know who is currently on your list. As I understood it, you contacted 300 persons/groups/agencies/etc., and 55 came to give presentations. Who are the other 250 folks/etc.? · East-West Center PIDP Program Contacts; see http://www.eastwestcenter.org/pidp-ab.asp · If you want to get the conference divide by medical and environmental issues. Health Centers that are working with pacific island people. · PIHOA (Pacific Islands Health Officers Association · Pacific Basin Medical Association · Pacific Nursing Leadership Council · Micronesians United · Chuuk Women's Association |
