Research Community Building
Activities and Events
A GUIDE
Produced by
Connectivity Working Group
May 2014
Version 1
CONTENTS
Introduction by Professor Lars Sundstrom
Guide to Community Building Activities and Events
1. Academic Presentations - Data Blitz
2. Sandpits and Focus Groups
3. Open Space
4. World Cafe
5. Partnering and Dating Systems
6. Contacts and Links
Introduction - How to use this guide
This guide has been compiled to help you develop and explore
new ways of bringing groups of people together across the
GW4 community.
It is intended as a practical guide to help you and your
colleagues explore new methods of networking people and
also a guide to tools that are available and can help you build
new communities.
Sections 1-5 describe different ways of running events that you may wish to try. Not everything has
to be done by PowerPoint presentations (though these have their place too).
In section 6 we list where you can get help if you want to try these methods and provides links to
other relevant resources you can access via your university or GW4.
This is not a definitive or authoritative guide and it should be built upon by the GW4 community as
a living document. It’s a start listing few methods we have found useful over the years. We very
much welcome your feedback and experiences on these approaches under Comments.
Professor Lars Sundstrom
Former Lead GW4 Connectivity Working Group
Director for Partnerships Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research, University of Bristol
Director of Enterprise and Translation, West of England Academic Health Science Network
Guide to Community Building Activities and Events
1. Academic Presentations - Data Blitz.
How it works (description):
Classical academic presentations probably do not need any description as they will be highly familiar to
most academics. There is nothing wrong with this tried and tested format, where individuals are asked to
introduce their topics for 30-45 minutes, however there are variants that may not be obvious to all.
One variant which I have used is the lightening presentation method sometimes known as a data blitz.
Participants are asked to speak for a very short period of time e.g. 5 minutes and maximum 3 slides and get
key points across in that time. You should not normally allow questions during the blitz and ask people to
follow up after the presentations.
Advantages and outcomes:
The advantage of the standard academic presentation is that most people are familiar with the format and
they provide a level of detail that may be necessary to understand and appreciate a piece of work. The
disadvantage is that often these override time available for an interactive group discussion. Networking
time is sometimes sacrificed for presentations as these often overrun, resulting in outcomes and follow up
not being recorded and acted upon.
Advantages of the Blitz method are that the audience is exposed to a greater number of presenters and
also they have to get key points across quickly. It is important to note that content here is less important
than the interaction and following up on those.
When it works best:
The most appropriate place for this type of event is where you need to cover a lot of ground in a short
period of time Where the group is relatively heterogeneous this can works quite well, but remember that
more time is later required to explore areas of overlap. Where there is a highly homogeneous group (e.g.
where most people are in the same field) this can also work fairly well but there is often a temptation to sip
into detailed discussions, so try to avoid that.
What to consider:
It can be useful to provide slide templates beforehand with key points e.g. my group, what we do, what we
are looking to collaborate on etc.
Try loading presentations beforehand!
Lightning talks can be fairly tiring to listen to and the listener needs to concentrate, so avoid running these
for too long or people will switch off.
Provide plenty of opportunity for networking for those who want to follow up on presentations.
What to avoid:
Cut the presentations if they overrun, keep discussion to after the presentations, it’s always difficult to
control the length of responses to questions.
Can be used with:
Standard academic presentations e.g. after a lecture on a specific topic.
This can also be used very effectively with dating or partnering activities (see below). If each speaker later
provides the opportunity for further one on one partnering meetings this can be quite effective.
Size of groups:
Works with most group sizes. The only limit is the number of presenting slots.
Examples/Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_talk
http://www.tedmed.com/
Comments:
Feedback your comments and experiences
2. Sandpits and Focus Groups
How it works (description):
Sandpits are a favourite method with research councils and therefore also relatively familiar to many
academics. They generally involve bringing together expert groups to reach a consensus on a research
question or a research direction. They do not necessarily have a specific format but a common feature is
that questions have been put to the group beforehand for them to consider. Sandpits are usually in
response to a specific challenge and often have a carrot of some resource (e.g. funding, studentships etc...).
The EPSRC and the KTN have recently attempted to systematize this method and are proposing a 5 stage
process to define areas of investigation for new calls for funding.
1) Stakeholder workshops to bring multiple groups together to define a problem or a challenge
2) Horizon scanning, identify what is known about the area and what current trends are
3) What if scenario planning, to identify areas for further investigation
4) Articulation of a challenge
5) Sandpit events to bring together potential groups able to address particular challenges.
Advantages and outcomes:
The advantages of sandpits are that they allow a very focused discussion around key topics that have been
identified as a priority. They can also be great ways to build potential teams around key areas of interest.
A key difficulty with sandpits is capturing and recording outputs clearly. Use of tools such as dotmocracy
boards (http://dotmocracy.org/sheets) or other aids can often be helpful.
When it works best:
Generally this does not in my view yield highly positive outcomes if there is not a focus for the discussion at
the outset. Usually works best if key topics questions have been articulated beforehand (as in the EPSRC
process). Also without some motivation for the group – some reward – it can be difficult to get good
outcomes. Good facilitation of discussions is often helpful to avoid straying from the key questions.
Having a structure to the sandpit event is usually very helpful i.e. agreeing the process and the how the
outcomes will be recorded before the meeting is often beneficial.
What to consider:
If there is competition for limited resources/funding, some may not be completely free with their ideas at
the sandpit point. This is why some research councils prefer to use stakeholders that won’t be applying for
the funding (not in all cases though and some councils encourage the stakeholders to become applicants).
These require time so are difficult to do if you have less than half a day, or preferably even longer.
What to avoid:
Avoid these becoming talking shops with no agreed outcomes so build this in before you start.
Can be used with:
Sandpits are generally stand-alone events.
Size of groups:
This tends to work best with small, highly focused groups (20 max).
Examples/Resources:
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/routes/network/ideas/Pages/whatisasandpit.aspx
Comments:
Feedback your comments and experiences
3. Open Space Events
How it works (description):
Open space meetings are unusual as they start without an agenda. What then follows is a step wise
process to define one with the group and then break people out into smaller groups to work on areas of
importance to them. In essence it is a way to generate teams with similar interests and get group
ownership of an agenda item.
It is one of the more difficult ones to run if you are unfamiliar with the process and have never done it
before, so I would recommend using a facilitator who has done it before for your first attempt. The results
can be quite surprising, though, and it can be a very effective way to create teams where people don’t
know each other at the outset. Harrison Owen who first developed it uses the motto ‘be prepared to be
surprised’.
People are invited to sit in a circle with a facilitator at the head of the circle or in the circle. The facilitator
has previously placed some strips of paper and pens in the centre of the circle.
The facilitator starts the meeting by posting the purpose of the meeting on a flipchart or other board and
reminds the participants that there are 5 rules (It can be useful to posts these around the room as
reminders).
1. Whoever comes are the right people
2. Whenever it starts is the right time
3. Wherever it happens is the right place
4. Whatever happens is the only thing that could have
5. When it's over, it's over
The facilitator invites participants to step into the circle (one at a time) and write down an agenda topic and
read it out to the group. If you write down an agenda topic you must believe it is important to you and you
must agree to lead a discussion group on that topic. You have to write your name on it. This goes on until
all slots of the agenda are filled (i.e. all bits of paper are used up). This normally takes about 30 minutes to
achieve.
The facilitator then collects the agenda items orders these in time slots of usually 30-60 minutes on a
bulletin board and assigns a space for the meeting to take place. This could be a good time for a
refreshment break while this is organised.
The facilitator asks Individuals to attend those sessions they find most interesting or useful and reminds
them of the rule of 2 feet. If you are not in a place where you are learning anything or contributing then go
somewhere where you can. Let participants and facilitator know that it is okay for people to move around
as they please.
There must be a rapporteur or note taker on each table, and all those attending a table should sign up to
the discussion group (if they stay for more than a few minutes).
At the end of these sessions everyone regroups into a circle and provides feedback to the group as a whole
on that discussion topic.
Advantages and outcomes:
The big advantage of open space meetings is that it sets the agenda on those topics that matter to the
participants.
The people raising the topics and those that congregate around a discussion are frequently able to outline
plans of how to solve a problem together.
The outcomes can be whatever the group wishes them to be. Previously I have used this as a way to
generate new teams to apply for funding challenges. I once ran a multidisciplinary event (medicine and
engineering) with participants from 4 universities who had never met and they self organised into teams
and eventually generated 15 joint project applications to a funding call in 3 hours.
When it works best:
I have found this works best where people generally don’t know each other and it is a particularly good way
to get people from different disciplines to talk to each other. Having a particular goal is good e.g. if there is
funding available at the end of the process.
What to consider:
Make sure you have enough space for breakout groups to discuss comfortably, It can work by dividing up a
room (in which case rearrange chair in a circle).
Make sure you have plenty of flipcharts for people to write ideas on, and that someone has agreed to feed
back to the group.
Prepare materials such as paper strips to write agenda items on and the bulletin board for the completed
agenda. I.e. pre-divide the time slots you have available by the number of breakout sessions you can
manage.
The start of the meeting is critical and it is almost always the case that everyone feels shy to be the first to
write down their ideas. Don’t worry if it takes a while for the first person to step up, this is normal, I usually
just sit there in silence waiting for the first volunteer an often this can take 10-15 minutes.
It often very worthwhile to collect contact details (e.g. email) at the start of the meeting and hand these
out so people can follow up afterwards.
What to avoid:
Try not to constrain the agenda or prefabricate an agenda as you won’t get the same buy in or ownership.
If there is no actionable output possible then avoid using open space.
Can be used with:
Generally best done as stand-alone meeting
Size of groups:
Some claim this works with groups up to 1000, the largest I have done is 120. There is probably a minimum
size though I have not tested that, if there are too few participants there will probably not be enough
diversity to justify an open space approach so I would guess below about 15-20 this will not be a great way
to get interaction happening.
Examples/Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology
http://www.openspaceworld.com/
For a practical guide see http://www.openspaceworld.com/users_guide.htm
Comments:
Feedback your comments and experiences
4. World Café
How it works (description):
The principle behind the café style meeting is to break discussions into small groups as one might find in a
café style environment. The principle is to encourage small group discussion around predefined topics and
generally involves rotating participants around tables in an organised fashion. The discussion topics can
remain the same at each table and participants rotated around the discussion topics or participants can be
pre-assigned to tables in view of their choices or their particular expertise.
The convenor usually starts the meeting by describing the process and outlining etiquette and also
introduces the topics to be discussed at the event.
Usually participants are then invited or directed to sit at tables in small groups (20 max) and are asked to
debate an issue for a period of time (typically 20-30 mins). The views of the participants are then recorded
by a rapporteur or table host. Participants are then asked to move to another table. Typically this process is
repeated 3 or 4 times and enables the facilitators to capture a very wide variety of opinions in a fairly short
time frame.
At the end of each round or each set of rounds, each table is asked to feed back to the group as a whole,
usually with the rapporteur standing up and giving a summary of the discussion outputs so far.
The rapporteur may or may not be asked, depending on your preference, to remain at the table and can
update the new group on the previous conversations.
One way which can be quite effective is to have a topic per table and ask people to pre assign themselves
to the topic that interests them. This requires people to select the topics of interest before the meeting e.g.
during registration. It is frequently the case that some topics are oversubscribed and this can present a
problem so allocating this on a first come first served basis is sometimes necessary.
Advantages and outcomes:
The main advantage of the world cafe style of meetings is that they are able to capture a lot of views in a
small amount of time.
This is a great method if the topics are wide ranging or if you really don’t have a clear idea at the outset of
how far the topic ranges.
To get the best outcomes requires clear capturing of thoughts and ordering these in terms of priority.
When it works best:
World cafe works best when the issues require broad canvassing of opinion and consensus is need to reach
a common agenda or a common set of objectives.
I find it useful to use a flipchart or a large piece of paper to write down the key points and reflect these
back to the group more or less continuously to see if they agree. Another way is to use sticky notes and get
participants to write them down and they try to get consensus in terms of the order of importance.
I also find it useful to ask the participants to rank points as to whether they are enablers, barriers or key
priorities etc... (Can use different coloured post-its if you like).
What to avoid:
Let discussion flow but try to avoid discussions that stray from the topic you wish to look into and make
sure you capture key messages. This relies on the rapporteur or table host making sure that this happens. If
there are several issues you need to cover, make sure you spend enough time on each (e.g. don’t dwell on
the first topic).
Make sure you build in enough time to order and reflect priorities to the group on the table before they
disappear.
Size of group:
It can work with a large number of people, I have run some with over 100 participants but it is key to break
the discussion group down to a manageable size (10-15 max).
Can be used with:
A variant of this is known as the Knowledge Cafe. The main difference is the discussion is allowed free reign
with no facilitation, and participants still rotate to different tables. The facilitator then manages a
discussion with the whole group at the end, drawing out all key points and getting the whole group to
comment. The main advantage is that the conversation is less constrained by the agenda, but in my
experience you need to be a great facilitator to get anything out of it at the end.
Resources:
http://www.theworldcafe.com/method.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Cafe
http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/run-kcafe
Comments:
Feedback your comments and experiences
5. Partnering and Dating Systems
How it works (description):
Partnering and dating systems are usually designed to generate one on one meetings. These can be
prearranged where participants have expressed a wish to meet prior to the event (Partnering) or where the
meetings happen on the day either by a selection process (dating) or selected at random (blind dating).
Meeting are initially very short to allow an exploration of mutual interest. The idea is that once contact has
been made participants can agree further contact by mutual agreement. It can be used in break times
during scientific presentations or with a partnering run at the same time as presentations (people have to
step out for a few minutes if they wish).
For partnering meetings I have found the best way to do this is to collect details beforehand of what the
participants are looking for in a partnership. This is best done at registration by asking them for a couple of
sentences of what they are looking for or what it is that they do (i.e. what they can offer). This is then sent
out prior to the meeting, asking participants to let the organisers know with whom they would like to have
a meeting. In its simplest form this is just a list (e.g. on a spreadsheet). A more sophisticated version uses
web based tools to allocate slots and do it on-line (if you are lucky enough to have one of these).
As an organiser you can allocate times and places for a meeting prior to the event so that people know
where to go to meet their contacts.
For organised dating this can be done on the day and people can in fact self-organise. All you have to do is
put up a list of available slots on a large table (on paper) and ask people to fill them out themselves. The
best way to do this is for people to write down what they are looking for or offering and post this on a
bulletin board. They then choose a person they want to meet and self-allocate to a free table and time slot.
The trick here is to get the information to people so they know where to be and when. You can do this as
an organiser (with an excel spreadsheet) and organise a timetable (for example during a break) and post it
at a specific time or another neat way to do this is by text message (if mobile coverage permits).
Blind dating is in some ways easier. There are 2 easy ways, e.g. speed dating where you allocate people to
tables and get them to rotate at random, using name badges with different colours is a good way. For
example get people with a green badge to meet people with red badges (can use numbers to rotate round
tables to make sure everybody meets everyone depending on size) , finally get people with the same
badges to find each other. Typically this will take less than 5 minutes per encounter, with the ability for
people to meet later if they wish to pursue the discussion. A fun variant we have sometimes used and
which works well is during coffee breaks is ask people to find the nearest person with a particular coloured
badge and talk to them, then five minutes later ask them to swap to a different colour etc...
Advantages and outcomes:
The main advantage of partnering meetings is they allow individuals who have some common interests to
connect. This can be a very productive way to build new academic collaborations.
The main advantage of dating is that this maximises choice encounters especially blind dating. I have found
this can be surprisingly effective and even works connecting people in the same institution.
A downside is it can be very difficult to know what the outcomes are and to track these. One way is to ask
people to use a feed-back sheet, i.e. did you make any useful contacts.
Another tactic is to email people some time after the event and ask them if any actions resulted.
When it works best:
If you allow people time and space to aggregate outside the partnering/dating session it will be more
productive. . This way they can have more in depth and longer discussions where it is appropriate.
Make sure you provide contact details for the participants before the meeting. Providing participants with
aide memoires e.g. for them to write down what the agreed follow up was can be helpful.
What to consider:
For partnering meetings it is best to have pre-assigned meeting spaces and, if possible, separate tables.
Number these tables so that people can find them. The number of meetings will depend on the number of
tables and time slots available.
Self organised dating can go very wrong if you don’t plan it ahead of time.
What to avoid:
Avoid doing this where space is too restricted.
Try to avoid not having something for people to do in between partnering sessions (i.e. if you have one 5
minute meeting at 1.30pm and another one at 4pm, they are likely not to stay for the last one.
Can be used with:
An advantage of these one on one type of meetings is that they can often run in parallel with other forms
of networking such as presentations and doing this during breaks is easily feasible. This also avoids the
issue of not having things to do between one on one meetings.
This can be run successfully with lightning talks, for example if the presenters give meeting slots for the
audience to follow up on later.
Size of groups:
In most cases this works best if there are sufficient numbers. There is no specific upper limit but with
groups of less than 50 it probably makes less sense than some of the other formats.
Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_networking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_geeking
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/speed-dating-helps-conference-academicsmix/2011517.article
Comments:
Feedback your comments and experiences