About EHRD
> EHRD Network
 

The questionnaire posted to the EHRD Network 5 January 2005 produced a wealth of feedback. The main outcome of responses to the questionnaire is summarised below, with further details related to each question attached in the annex.

SUMMARY
Main outcome of questionnaire

1: Amount of messages received via the EHRD mailing list

Most respondents find the amount adequate, a few find it too much; therefore, a somewhat smaller amount of messages (average two per month) would be desirable.

2: Types of messages posted in the EHRD mailing list

Information on conferences, projects and publications is regarded as more useful than communication on EHRD activities. The actual frequency of messages posted in the list matches these preferences. Altogether, the pattern of subjects seems to meet the needs of network members and should be maintained.

3: Proceedings of discussion referred to in the EHRD mailing list

The interest in the proceedings is spread fairly evenly across the themes addressed. This outcome confirms the broad thematic approach adopted in the EHRD Network activities. There is a need, though, for finding more efficient ways of publicising the proceedings.

PARTICIPATION

The questionnaire was sent to 655 network members, 71 responses with data were received. While this is a small sample (11%), it is representative in its national composition: the countries from which the responses arrived (18) represent 2/3 of all EHRD Network countries, incl. the major ones.

QUESTION 1
You received 30 messages via the EHRD mailing list in 2004.
How did you find this amount?
Replies (x):

    (61x) adequate
    (8x) too much
    (1x) too little

Outcome: The large majority find the amount adequate, a few regard it as too much. The latter come mostly from the UK. A likely reason for their particular concern, actually addressed by one respondent, is the experience of cross-posting with the UFHRD mailing list (which the two list moderators have tried hard to minimise!). In total, the responses suggest that a somewhat smaller amount of EHRD messages (average two per month) would be desirable.

QUESTION 2
The following types of messages were posted in the EHRD mailing list in 2004.
Which of these did you find most useful?
Replies (x), number of messages [ ] and reference number:

    (54x) call for papers at conferences [ 8] 1
    (47x) call for contributions to projects/ publications [ 9] 2
    (43x) info on programmes/ publications [ 6] 3
    (31x) report on proceedings of discussion in the EHRD Base [ 2] 4
    (16x) request for/ report on update of the EHRD Base [ 5] 5

Outcome: Most useful, according to the replies, is general information (types 1 to 3), especially calls for papers; this emphasis corresponds to the high proportion of these messages (23 out of 30). Reports or requests concerning EHRD activities (types 4 and 5) are considered less useful (it should be added, though, that the entries in the EHRD Base, especially for Who's who, are the major topic of individual correspondence between network members and coordinator!). Altogether, the pattern of subjects seems to meet the needs of network members and should be maintained.

QUESTION 3
The proceedings of discussion referred to in the EHRD mailing list up to 2004 included the following themes.
Which of these did you find interesting?
Replies (x), year of publication [ ] and reference number:

    (45x) Theory, policy and practice in lifelong learning [2003] 1
    (38x) HRD practice: A comparison of European and US models [2002] 2
    (36x) The European perspective of HRD [2002] 3
    (34x) 'Action research' and a VET framework of innovation [2004] 4
    (32x) Methodological approaches in European projects [2003] 5
    (15x) International comparative analysis of HRD Masters programmes [2004] 6

Outcome: Interest in the proceedings of discussion is spread fairly evenly across the themes, with only two exceptions: lifelong learning (top) and HRD Masters programmes (bottom). The balance of interest between HRD specific themes (2,3,6) and broader themes (1,4,5) is nearly equal. Two thirds of all respondents selected themes across these two groups. These results seem to confirm the broad thematic approach adopted in the EHRD Network activities. There is a need, though, for finding more efficient ways of publicising the proceedings.