TWAS-ARO 6th annual meeting overall attendance and active participation of eminent invited members, non-members and young affiliates
TWAS-ARO 6th annual meeting overall attendance of eminent invited members, non-members and young affiliates among different Arab countries
Public Participation during TWAS-ARO 6th annual meeting: Students: 82 Academia: 93 Others: 142 Total: 317
Male to Female public participation during the TWAS-ARO 6th annual meeting: Total: 317 Female 181 Male : 136
TWAS-ARO 6th annual meeting paid participants: Students: 104 Academia: 115 Others: 165 Total: 384
TWAS-ARO 6th annual meeting male to female paid participants: Total: 384 Female: 228 Male 158
A total number of 25 participants attended the workshop, 12% were females while 88% were males.
Regarding the participants educational level, 68% of the participants were Postgraduate researchers, while 32% of the participants were Postdoctoral researchers.
The majority of the participants were of the age group 20-30, reflecting the young researchers eagerness to understand the new science of the Biorobotics, thus accounting for 56% of the total attendees, whereas nearly the other half of the attendees were aged from 30 to 40 years old.
The workshop gathered researchers and university professors from 3 Arab countries and the majority of the participants were from Egypt. The workshop assembled its participants from 7 different governorates within Egypt. Exactly half of the participants were Alexandria residents, 20% came from Cairo and the remaining came from all over Egypt.
Feedback (Pre-workshop Issues) When the participants were asked about pre-conference issues, 77% agreed that they have received sufficient information about the workshop in advance, while less than 6% disagreed and 17% remained neutral. As for the information via e-mail, 88% thought that it was effective and 12% were neutral. Regarding information provided on the website, 61% agreed that it was useful and easy to access, while 39% were neutral. 95% of the participants thought that the registration procedures were easy, while 5% were neutral.
Feedback (Workshop Preparations) When the participants were asked to rate the organization and logistics of the workshop, 78% agreed that the duration of each session was appropriate while 22% were neutral. As for the duration of the coffee and lunch breaks, 94% agreed that it was sufficient and 6% disagreed. When it came to lunch and coffee break quality, 88% were in favor and 12% disagreed. Regarding adherence to schedule, 89% agreed and 11% were neutral. As for the halls, 83% thought that the halls had enough light in them while 17% were neutral. Last but not least regarding the staff and volunteers, 89% agreed that they were helpful and11% were neutral.
Feedback (Sessions evaluation) When asked to rate the sessions' program, 61% found the session topics useful and updated, 22% were neutral and 17% found it poor. Regarding the selection of the speakers, 72% found it remarkable while 17% were neutral and 11% rated it poor. When it came to the sessions themselves, 61% found it motivating and interesting, 33% were neutral and 6% found it poor. When asked to rate the workshop fees, 67% thought that it was excellent, 28% were neutral and 5% found it expensive. As for the networking and collaborative opportunities the workshop provided, 61% thought that it was excellent, 33% medium and 6% poor.
When asked about pre-conference issues, 45% of the participants agreed that they have received sufficient information about the conference in advance, while less than 20% disagreed and 38% remained neutral. As for the information via e-mail, 68% thought that it was effective, 26% were neutral and 6% disagreed. Regarding information provided on the website, 55% agreed that it was useful and easy to access, while 10% disagreed and 35% were neutral. 70% of the participants thought that the registration procedures were easy, while 10% disagreed and 20% were neutral.
When the participants were asked to rate the organization and logistics of the conference, 62% agreed that the duration of each session was appropriate while 34% were neutral and 4% disagreed. As for the duration of the coffee and lunch breaks, 84% agreed that it was sufficient, 13% were neutral and 3% disagreed. When it came to lunch and coffee break quality, 58% were in favor, 34% were neutral and 8% disagreed. Regarding adherence to schedule, 72% agreed, 21% were neutral and 7% disagreed. As for the halls, 69% thought that they had enough seats in them, 14% were neutral while 17% disagreed. 88% thought that the halls had enough light in them, 10% were neutral and 2 % disagreed. Last but not least regarding the staff and volunteers, 87% agreed that they were helpful, 11.5% were neutral and 1.5% disagreed.
When asked to rate the sessions' program, 79% found the session topics useful and updated, 19.5% were neutral and 1.5% found it poor. Regarding the selection of the speakers, 83.6% found it remarkable while 14.9% were neutral and 1.5% rated it poor. When it came to the sessions themselves, 67.9% found it useful, 26.6% were neutral and 5.5% found it poor.
When asked to rate the conference fees, 85% thought that it was excellent, 13.5% were neutral and 1.5% found it. As for the networking and collaborative opportunities the conference provided, 64% thought that it was excellent, 32% medium and 4% poor. 78% of the participants wanted to download the sessions from the conference website, while 18% were neutral and 4% didn't want to. In reference to Science Supercourse future events, 92% wanted to follow up on them, 7% were neutral and less than 1% didn't want to.
At total number of 750 participants attended the conference, 48.9% were males while 51.1% were females.
A total number of 90 participants attended the workshop, 50% of them were Postgraduate researchers, while 43% of the participants were Postdoctoral researchers. The workshop's hot topic also attracted undergraduates who formed a 7% of the attendees.
The majority of the participants were of the age group 20-30, reflecting the young researchers eagerness to understand the new science - Nanotechnology - thus accounting for 43% of the total attendees, whereas nearly the other half of the attendees aged from 30 to 50 years old.
The workshop gathered researchers and university professors from 9 different governorates. Exactly half of the participants were Alexandria residents, 30% came from Cairo and the remaining came from all over Egypt, in addition to 1 international participant who was among the attendees.
When R-G 2005 applicants were asked to rate the "announcement" process for the research grants 2005, 45.5% thought it was very proper, 27.3 % rated it as proper, 15 % were indifferent and 12.2% thought it was improper.
When R-G 2005 applicants were asked to rate the reviewing process of their researches, 81.2 % agreed about their confidence regarding it, 9.4 % were in different and 9.4% were unconfident about it.
When R-G 2005 applicants were asked to rate their interest in applying to R-G 2006, 76% were interested, 8% were indifferent and 16% were not interested.
When R-G 2005 applicants were asked to rate their interest in recommending BA/CSSP research grants program to their friends, 94% agreed they would recommend it, while 6% were not going to recommend it.
The chart demonstrates: Number of speakers in BVA04 = 73 vs. number of speakers in BVA06 = 120 Number of online registered participants in BVA04 = 1511 participants vs. number of online registered participants in BVA06 = 1878 It is worth to mention that BVA04 registration was sponsored by BA Board of Trustees free registration- while BVA06 registration was paid by the participants.
Participants responses to the value of money for their conference registration fees: Their responses varied according to the fees they paid [fees changed with the time of registration, early bird registered paid lower than on site registration .. etc] - Less than 100 LE registration fees payment generated 90% high satisfaction on the value received at the conference. - 100-1000 LE registration fees payment generated 60% high satisfaction on the value received at the conference.
92% of BioVisionAlexandria 2006 attendees agreed they want to attend BioVisionAlexandria 2008
