PREBEM Conference Evaluation 2008 | | Responses to Evalution Form: 10th PREBEM Conference,
10th November 2008
What did you like the most about the conference?
Ø |
Research session (chair: Paul Vlaar) Strategic management |
Ø |
The Keynote speeches and the workshop of Van de Ven |
Ø |
Good feedback during presentation |
Ø |
The workshop and the constructive feedback during the research session |
Ø |
Workshop/ keynote speeches and Research session |
Ø |
Practical contribution for PhD starters |
Ø |
Workshop, very clear and presentation of the beginning (My presentation and the comments I received and the attending) |
Ø |
The presentation of Niels Noorderhaven |
Ø |
Lost of interesting presentations |
Ø |
Very relaxed atmosphere |
Ø |
Exchange, new ideas, interesting questions from audience |
Ø |
The presentations of the Keynote speakers and the workshop. Besides the exchange between other PhD’s |
Ø |
Noorderhaven and Van de Ven were excellent guest speakers! |
Ø |
Very good keynote speakers and workshops |
Ø |
Keynote speaker Van de Ven |
Ø |
The open communication, the networking, the good (excellent) timing! |
Ø |
Getting enough time to meet the other PhD-students and do some networking |
Ø |
Presentation of Research. Networking opportunities |
Ø |
Workshop on Designing Process Research and plenary session by Prof. Van de Ven |
Ø |
Research sessions – constructive positive feedback. Very useful for PhD students in the early stages of their project |
Ø |
Workshop and Second session (strategy) good active chair/ |
Ø |
Keynote Andrew Van de Ven and meeting fellow PhD’s |
What did you lik the least about the conference?
Ø |
Research session (Methodology I) |
Ø |
I had expected that I could informal speak with the keynote speakers but they left early! |
Ø |
Personal feedback on paper by reviewer |
Ø |
That I needed to get out bed very early |
Ø |
Personal feedback on paper. Maybe next time ask for reviewers per session (or feedback before session). |
Ø |
Posters: not much place should be upstairs |
Ø |
The workshop, since it was more of a presentation than a workshop |
Ø |
The plenary session topic was too specific |
Ø |
The fact that I missed to look into the papers for the research sessions. Maybe a reminder mail would be good |
Ø |
The fact you could only choose one workshop |
Ø |
First Research session (low level) |
Ø |
The research sessions were not of a high level |
Ø |
Research session were of mixed quality |
Ø |
Very different levels of PhD presentations |
Ø |
The fact that the workshops were held parallel. It would have been nice to attend all workshops |
Ø |
The HRM II track was much better moderated (better & more valuable feedback from the moderator than the HRM I track. |
Ø |
No good briefing for the case in the morning. No real discussion. Missed a goal! |
Ø |
The poster sessions, not enough space |
Ø |
Poster sessions, did not provide the presenters with enough feedback I think. Definitely not in relation with the effort they put in it.. |
Ø |
First methodology session, chair could make it more active |
Ø |
Communication about the workshop. Did not receive the process research fill out form early on |
|
Contact
Sitemap
Search
