1. Virtual Conferencing Technologies: A survey of users
Report of a survey on the use of Access Grid technologies
across tertiary based participants
David Thorns
Mary Allan
Bindy Barclay
Gina Chamberlain
Roslyn Kerr
Jenna Scott
Social Science Research Centre
University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand
ssrc@canterbury.ac.nz
http://www.ssrc.canterbury.ac.nz/index.shtml
SSRC Director: Professor David Thorns
david.thorns@canterbury.ac.nz
Page 2 of 96

2. Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the contribution made by those who responded to the
invitation to participate in the survey and also to those who participated in the piloting
& testing stages of the survey. Gratitude is expressed towards members of the BRCSS
College for their support. We would also like to thank our funders who enabled the
research to take place – the BRCSS Network, REANNZ and the Social Science
Research Centre, which provided two summer studentships
Page 2 of 96

3. Contents
Acknowledgements...................................................................................2
Contents.....................................................................................................3
List of Figures ..........................................................................................5
List of Tables.............................................................................................7
Executive Summary..................................................................................8
Introduction............................................................................................................8
Methodology..........................................................................................................8
Key Findings..........................................................................................................9
Demographics.........................................................................................................9
Collaboration..........................................................................................................9
Simulation / Non-Simulation of Face-to-Face Interaction...................................10
Protocols...............................................................................................................10
Socio -Technical Spaces.......................................................................................11
Introduction............................................................................................12
Rationale......................................................................................................14
Methodology ...............................................................................................14
Design of Questionnaire.......................................................................................15
Question Design...................................................................................................15
Piloting and Testing ............................................................................................16
Sample Identification...........................................................................................16
Data Collection and Recruitment.........................................................................16
Analysis.......................................................................................................17
Demographic Characteristics................................................................19
Age and Gender....................................................................................................19
Institution and Location.......................................................................................20
Academic Discipline and Role.............................................................................21
BRCSS Membership............................................................................................23
Access Grid Nodes...............................................................................................23
Attendance of Access Grid Sessions....................................................................24
Number of Access Grid Sessions Attended.........................................................24
Findings and Analysis............................................................................25
Using the Access Grid for Collaboration..................................................25
Respondent’s Definition of Collaboration...........................................................25
Perceptions of the Potential of the Access Grid for Enabling
Collaboration..............................................................................................25
Access Grid as a Communication Tool................................................................25
Interaction and Networking using the Access Grid.............................................26
Overcoming Geographical Distances...................................................................27
Domestic and International Collaboration using Access Grid.............................27
Sharing of Information and Knowledge...............................................................28
Encouraging Interdisciplinary Research..............................................................28
Expectations and Reflections about the Use of Access Grid....................29
Positive Aspects of the Access Grid Environment...............................................29
Cost and Time Saving Aspects of the Access Grid..............................................29
Carbon Footprint..................................................................................................30
Perceptions of Limitations of Access Grid..........................................................31
Page 3 of 96

4. Practices......................................................................................................32
Types of Access Grid Sessions Attended ............................................................32
Reasons for attendance in Access Grid Sessions ................................................32
Contributing to Access Grid Sessions .................................................................33
Forms of Contribution..........................................................................................34
Information and Knowledge Gained from Access Grid Sessions........................35
Interacting Using the Access Grid.......................................................................36
The Nature of Interaction During Access Grid Sessions.....................................37
The Nature of the Atmosphere During Access Grid Sessions.............................38
Simulation / Non-simulation of Face-to-face Interaction.........................40
Aspects of Similarity with Face-to-face Interaction............................................42
Body Language....................................................................................................42
Aspects of Difference from Face-to-face Interaction...........................................43
Interactive Style....................................................................................................43
Body Language....................................................................................................44
Level of Formality................................................................................................45
Informal Chat after a Face-to-Face Meeting........................................................46
Influencing Factors...............................................................................................46
Prior relationship with other participants.............................................................46
Protocols......................................................................................................47
Facilitation............................................................................................................47
Room Set-Up........................................................................................................48
Time and Information...........................................................................................51
Socio-Technical Spaces...............................................................................53
Interacting with Others in your Node...................................................................53
Screen Placement and Overload...........................................................................54
Who is ‘the Group’?.............................................................................................58
How to Use the Grid.............................................................................................59
Camera Positioning..............................................................................................59
Rooms...................................................................................................................59
Comfort Levels with Technology........................................................................60
Use of Other Media Conferencing Tools.............................................................61
Recommendations...................................................................................63
Future Research......................................................................................65
References...............................................................................................66
Appendices..............................................................................................67
Survey .........................................................................................................68
Letter of invitation to BRCSS College:.....................................................90
Letter of invitation to BRCSS List:...........................................................91
Project Information Cover Sheet..............................................................92
Access Grid Calendar.................................................................................94
Page 4 of 96

5. List of Figures
Figure 1: Age of Participant..................................................................19
Figure 2: Gender Distribution of Participants....................................20
Figure 3: Type of Institution Participant Associates with..................20
Figure 4: Role of Survey Respondents..................................................22
Figure 5: BRCSS Membership..............................................................23
Figure 6: Does your Institution/Workplace have a node for Access
Grid Sessions?.........................................................................................23
Figure 7: Number of Access Grid Sessions Attended..........................24
Figure 8: Expectations for Outcomes of the Access Grid Sessions....30
Figure 9: Type of Access Grid Session Attended.................................32
Figure 10: Reasons for Choosing to Attend a Particular Access Grid
Session .....................................................................................................33
Figure 11: Did you Contribute to the Access Grid Session................33
Figure 12: Reasons for not Contributing.............................................34
Figure 13: What Participants Took Away From the Access Grid
Session......................................................................................................35
Figure 14: Interactions Between the Participants in Access Grid
Sessions were:..........................................................................................37
Figure 15: Atmosphere During an Access Grid Session.....................38
Figure 16: "It is possible to participate in Access Grid sessions in the
same way as you would in a face-to-face session”...............................40
Figure 17:"Meeting on the Access Grid changed the way people
interacted in the session compared with a face-to-face meeting”......41
Figure 18: "The Nature of the Access Grid Session was Sociable"...42
Figure 19: The Nature of the Interactions Between Participants in an
Access Grid Session was Formal/Informal...........................................45
Figure 20: The Facilitation/Chairing of the Session Resulted in the
Following Outcomes:..............................................................................47
Figure 21: Feelings About Seeing Own Image.....................................50
Figure 22: How did you feel about seeing the other people in your
physical node over the Access Grid?....................................................50
Figure 23: BRCSS Meetings are Usually Scheduled for Two Hours. Is
this:...........................................................................................................51
Figure 24: Node Image Displayed in Session.......................................53
Figure 25: Size of Presenter/Facilitator Image Relative to other Node
Images......................................................................................................54
Figure 26: Size of the Power Point Presentation Relative to the Node
Images......................................................................................................54
Figure 27: Amount of Movement of Displayed Images During the
Session......................................................................................................57
Page 5 of 96

6. Figure 28: Who is Considered Part of the Group in a Session...........58
Figure 29: Have you Used Other Media Conferencing Tools?..........62
Page 6 of 96

7. List of Tables
Table 1: Location of Institution Participant Associates with.............21
Table 2: Discipline of Participant.........................................................22
Table 3: Reason for Choosing to Attend a Particular Access Grid
Session......................................................................................................32
Table 4: Forms of Contribution............................................................35
Table 5: Other Media Conferencing Tools Used.................................62
Page 7 of 96

8. Executive Summary
Introduction
A survey to gauge experiences of the use of the Access Grid video conferencing technology
within the BRCSS1
network was undertaken as part of a collaborative interdisciplinary
research project between social scientists from the Social Science Research Centre, and human
computer interaction scientists from the HIT Lab2
NZ Ltd. Both groups are based at the
University of Canterbury and the project is funded by BRCSS and the Capability Build Fund
of REANNZ3
. The survey is part of The Role of Virtual Technologies in Creating New Forms
of Knowledge project, which explores new research methods and analytic tools designed for
computer-based information distribution, such as Advanced Video Conferencing and high-
speed internet connectivity.
Methodology
The survey was designed to provide quantitative and qualitative data. Multi-choice questions
were intended to provide descriptive information. Open-ended questions were intended to
provide reflective and interpretive responses. The survey was initially distributed to 180
members of the BRCCS Research College community and received a 37.8% response rate. A
second invitation was sent to 274 members of the wider BRCSS network, and resulted in a
25.2% response rate. Various computer software programmes including SurveyMonkey,
TextSTAT, and Microsoft Excel were used in the analysis of the data. The quantitative data
was processed using Survey Monkey’s analysis tools, together with Excel spreadsheet
functions. Using the Quantitative Content Analysis (QCA) method, the research team
categorised all of the qualitative responses, first around the four research themes used in the
design of the survey: collaboration, socio technical environment as simulating face-to-face,
socio technical spaces, and protocols. The second tier of the categorisation followed a
grounded analysis of the data revealing six further categories; cultural aspects; familiarity and
comfort levels in relation to the technology; technical issues - usage, and faults; comparison of
Access Grid to other teleconferencing platforms; importance of content of sessions;
miscellaneous. Both quantitative and qualitative data from the survey was incorporated to
produce this report.
1
Building Research Capabilities in the Social Sciences
2
The Human Interface Technology Laboratory New Zealand
3
Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand
Page 8 of 96

9. Key Findings
Demographics
• The majority of respondents (78.9%) were between the ages of 26–55.
• A larger number of females (65.7%) than males (34.3%) completed the survey.
• The majority (90.5%) of the respondents associated themselves with a university
institution and 97% were from a New Zealand institution.
• 85.2% were associated with institutions located in the North Island compared with
23.3% of respondents from the South Island.
• The most commonly reported discipline was geography with 23.4% of respondents,
followed by sociology with 16.1% and psychology with 9.5%.
• 41.6% described themselves as researchers, followed by 36.5% as lecturers.
• 80.3% stated that they were a member of BRCSS, while only 8.0% said that they
were not a member.
• 79.6% stated that their institution or workplace had a node for Access Grid
sessions.
• 81% had attended at least one Access Grid session.
• Almost a third of the survey respondents (31.5%) stated they had attended 1-2
Access Grid sessions, 28.8% had attended 6 or more sessions and 27.0% stated
they had attended 3-4 sessions.
Collaboration
• Respondents defined collaboration as meeting with other researchers and
colleagues in order to exchange ideas and information.
• The three most commonly selected outcomes of the Access Grid sessions were to
listen to the lecture, listen to the presenter and to discuss or exchange ideas.
• Collaboration and interaction with other researchers was seen as the main
advantage of using the Access Grid. Many of the respondents saw the Access Grid
as enabling frequent communication with colleagues and other researchers. Other
respondents suggested that there was the potential for the Access Grid to be used
for stakeholder dialogue sessions in multiple sites.
• The Access Grid was seen as being of benefit to collaborative projects with other
researchers who were based at different locations.
• The technology was seen as being “better” for the environment as it did not require
extended travel in order to see, or participate in, the presentations, which
subsequently affected the “carbon footprint.”
• The most frequent forms of contribution within sessions included sharing views
(80.3%), asking questions (78.9%), and the discussion of ideas (55.3%).
• The majority of respondents took away new information (73.6%) or new
understanding (67.0%) from their Access Grid session/s.
Page 9 of 96

10. • The potential for collaboration that the Access Grid offers was confirmed by
‘collaborative’ being often used to describe the atmosphere with 52.8% agreeing
that it was pleasant and 42.5% agreeing that it was friendly.
• A large majority of participants (99.3%) highly agreed (64.5%), agreed (27.5%) or
agreed to a limited extent (7.3%) that they attended sessions due to interest in the
topic.
• 69.5% of respondents had used some form of other media conferencing tools.
• Overall, the majority of the respondents were positive regarding meeting and
talking to people through the Access Grids video screens and images.
Simulation / Non-Simulation of Face-to-Face Interaction
• The survey found that in response to the statement “it is possible to participate in
an Access Grid session in the same way as you would in a face-to-face session
82.4%, agreed with the statement to varying extent, while only 17.6% disagreed.
• A total of 91.7% of respondents who had participated in an Advanced Video
Conferencing session agreed to varying extent that meeting on the Access Grid
changed the way people interacted in the session compared with a face-to-face
meeting.
• The most commonly reported aspect of similarity of Access Grid sessions
compared to face-to-face interaction, was the ability to see participant’s body
language and reactions to ideas. This comment places Access Grid as a technology
enabling the simulation of face-to-face interaction.
• Access Grid sessions were commonly described by those who discussed the
differential aspects of the interaction compared to face to face as: “impersonal”,
“artificial”, “distant”, “detached” and “un-engaging”.
• A large number of the respondents regarded Access Grid sessions as requiring a
different interactive style, and accordingly, a different style of conduct, or
development of a different set of protocols for this.
• Difficulties in discerning body language resulted in a feeling of the Access Grid
session being more formal and lacking the sense of spontaneity that a face to face
interaction may have. The formality of Access Grid sessions was the third most
common theme derived from the data.
Protocols
• Many respondents focused on facilitation as the key for improving sessions,
suggesting that the chairing of sessions could be more effective. The largest
number of comments focused on the difficulty in getting the facilitator’s attention
and understanding who was being addressed.
• Several respondents expressed a wish for sessions to begin with some form of
introduction between participants to create a more comfortable atmosphere within
the Grid.
Page 10 of 96

11. • Many respondents commented on the difficulties of co-ordinating the large
numbers of people and technologies together into a working format. It was
acknowledged that the particular assemblage of these technologies needed more
specific and definite protocols to work to best effect.
• The majority (65%) of respondents were positive, very positive or neutral about
seeing the image of their own node on the screen, although respondents also noted
the difficulties interacting with participants in their own node owing to the set up of
facing the viewing screen rather than each other.
• A number of respondents also suggested that more definite protocols for booking
and attending sessions would be useful.
• The majority (65.1%) of respondents who had attended BRCCS meetings felt that
the two hour time frame was about right for these meetings.
Socio -Technical Spaces
• A common comment involved the difficulty of interacting with people within their
own node owing to the placement of the chairs which were all facing the screens
rather than each other.
• Several respondents commented on a feeling of overload during an Access Grid
session.
• The large number of screens and people present potentially created confusion about
who was part of the Access Grid session. Although 69.5% agreed that both the
people in the room and all of the people seen on the screens were considered to be
part of the group, there was not strong agreement about whether other people, such
as technicians, should be considered part of the session.
• There was considerable concern about the reliance on the skills of technicians for
sessions to proceed effectively.
• Many respondents commented on the strangeness of the camera being in a different
place to the screens on the wall, giving an impression of no eye contact.
• It was clear that the atmosphere of the room strongly influenced respondents’
overall experience of the Access Grid.
• A strong theme that emerged was the way participants’ familiarity or comfort level
with the technology influenced their view of the Access Grid and how they
conducted themselves within sessions. There was almost unanimous agreement that
there were certain aspects of the Access Grid, in particular the presence of the
camera, which required some getting used to.
Page 11 of 96

12. Introduction
Research and education institutions in New Zealand are seeking to enhance their ability to
collaborate and share knowledge and resources in order to compete in the global knowledge
economy. ICT4
infrastructure such as KAREN, the New Zealand high speed internet, is
devoted to the connection of New Zealand research facilities and institutions to support e-
research projects (Ministry of Economic Development et al. 2004). The KAREN infrastructure
enables New Zealand researchers to collaborate national and internationally using advanced
video conferencing applications such as Access Grid, EVO, and LifeSize5
. It is expected that
through the use of these technologies, New Zealand researchers will be able to compete
globally as equal partners in the Global Knowledge Economy.
The survey described in this report focussed on the study of the use of Access Grid
technology. The Access Grid in New Zealand currently connects all of the country’s
universities and research centres, and also allows for international communication, connecting
to universities in the USA, Europe, and Australia. By connecting through the Access Grid
people situated at different geographical locations can talk to each other as if they were
sharing the same physical location. Using the technology, participants are able to share
resources such as PowerPoint presentations, video clips, slide shows, and real time drawing.
The survey is part of The Role of Virtual Technologies in Creating New Forms of Knowledge
project, which explores new research methods and analytic tools designed for computer-based
information distribution, such as Advanced Video Conferencing and high-speed internet
connectivity. The project, funded by the New Zealand social science research network
BRCSS6
, and REANZ7
- the KAREN8
Capability Building Fund, is part of a wider set of
initiatives to build research capability. Both agencies work towards enhancing collaborative
research networks, KAREN by providing the technological infrastructure and BRCSS by
supporting links between researchers nationally and internationally.
Access Grid (AG) is a collection of resources assembled for the purpose of supporting
collaboration across different locations. Because the Access Grid is based on the Grid9
infrastructure it has the potential to allow for sharing dimensions that were not available using
previous technology. Access Grid provides a near-real face-to-face experience in which people
can experience “being there” in a shared space with others without having to travel. Generally
Access grid ‘nodes’ are specifically equipped rooms at each university. Desktop applications
are also sometimes used where specifications allow this for individual users.
4
Information and Communication Technology
5
Access Grid and EVO are open source software. Life Size is a proprietary product for high definition
video collaboration. For more information see www.avcc.karen.net.nz
6
Building Research Capabilities in the social Sciences
7
Research and Education Advanced Network New Zeeland
8
Kiwi Advanced research and Education Network
9
The Grid - a computing and data management infrastructure that provides electronic underpinning for
a global society in all walks of life. Grids integrate networking, communication, computation and
information to provide a virtual platform for computation and data management in the same way that
the internet integrates resources to form a virtual platform for information (Berman, Fox, & Hey, 2003)
Page 12 of 96

13. The Access Grid is an open source application which was introduced to New Zealand in 2005.
At this time, BRCSS was searching for a way of creating a national research college, and to
network universities and CRI across the country to enable more opportunities for collaborative
research (Thorns, 2006). Initially the BRCSS network linked six of the universities and the
Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit. This network operated on limited bandwidth but
allowed experience to be built up prior to the Advanced Network being commissioned in
February 2007. The increased bandwidth of the Advanced Network - KAREN supports a
wider range of Access Grid applications, as well as providing more robust and stable
connections. These advanced features are expected to increase the reliability of the technology
and hence allow greater and wider use.
The Access Grid technologies are useful for:
 Meetings between a large number of people
 Creating a fluent near-real life conversation
 Sharing large amounts of data and transferring it across the different
Access Grid sites (Nodes)
EVO is a desktop video conferencing technology allowing people to connect without
leaving their office and with no requirement for expensive equipment. However it
does require the large bandwidth of KAREN. In addition to the audio and visual
transmission of people, video conferencing can be used to share documents,
computer-displayed information, and whiteboards.
LifeSize attempts to create the feeling of a natural face-to-face meeting, using high definition
video systems to provide high quality images and so enhance the immersive experience of
communication across geographical distances.
Video conferencing is useful for:
 Where live conversation is needed;
 Frequent meetings linking people separated by distance are needed;
 Where visual information is an important component of the conversation
The survey was designed to gauge experiences of the use of the Access Grid Video
conferencing technology within the BRCSS network, and deepen the inquiry of some of the
issues arising from the observations of Access Grid based BRCSS sessions made during 2006-
2007.
The survey is part of the research into the practices and potential use of this relatively new
technology. Its findings will contribute to the wider picture of the research project undertaken
by this research team to explore ways of optimising the potential use of the technology as well
as inform further developments to enhance usability and effectiveness.
The survey questions were reviewed and approved by the University of Canterbury Human
Ethics Committee (Application 2007/82).
Page 13 of 96

14. Rationale
The survey questions were designed to provide information around the following areas:
1. Do researchers collaborate using Access Grid networks?
– How available is Access Grid, are researchers aware of it, are they using it,
how prevalent is the use of Access Grid, are researchers networking? Do they
see potential for using Access Grid?
– What do researchers want to achieve through the Access Grid? How do they
perceive collaboration in these networks? Are there emerging practices; are
there differences between various communities of users?
2. How is the Access Grid environment perceived?
– Simulated face-to-face?
– What in the Access Grid environment is supporting those elements? – what
socio-technical networks are working?
3. Is the Access Grid environment facilitating the creation of socio-technical spaces of
trustful exchanges of ideas and the emergence of environments conducive for new
knowledge to emerge?
Methodology
This report is based on data gathered through an online survey hosted on
www.surveymonkey.com. The online survey method enabled quick and convenient access,
allowing participants to complete and submit the survey at a time most convenient to them. It
was anticipated that the online option would increase response numbers. Surveymonkey.com
facilitated good management of the data, and freed the research team from the time consuming
data entry stage. Furthermore, Surveymonkey.com provided initial analysis and spreadsheet
downloads for further data mining.
It was initially envisaged that the survey would be distributed as hard copy material to
participants of Access Grid sessions across the various nodes up and down the country.
Participants would have been required to devote approximately 20 minutes of their time to
complete the questionnaire and hand it to the Node operators, who would then dispatch those
to the researchers. This approach was to enable participants to report their feelings in
proximity to their involvement in the Access Grid interactions. However, the implementation
of this method involved a long chain of actions and consequently an increased risk of failure.
A methodological compromise, the use of online survey methods, allowed for a simpler mode
of dissemination of the questionnaire had to be made, and it was decided to invite participants
to complete an online questionnaire.
The survey was designed to utilise quantitative and qualitative approaches. The incorporation
of structured and unstructured responses enabled the construction of a more comprehensive
data-set in which the quantitative inquiry generated descriptive data which provided some
empiric information, whereas the qualitative inquiry provided reflective and interpretive data
revealing aspects unobtainable through the structured multi-choice type questions. Through
the use of open-ended questions, the qualitative sections were designed to capture unstructured
Page 14 of 96

15. informal comments and ideas and allow for criteria, categories, issues, and questions arising
from the participants.
A range of computer software programmes including SurveyMonkey, TextSTAT, and
Microsoft Excel were used in the analysis of the data. The quantitative data was processed
using SurveyMonkey’s analysis tools, alongside Excel spreadsheet functions. Using the
Quantitative Content Analysis (QCA) method, the research team categorised all of the
qualitative responses first, around the four research themes used in the design of the survey:
collaboration, socio technical environment as simulating face-to-face, socio technical spaces,
and protocols. The second tier of the categorisation followed a grounded analysis of the data
revealing further categories. Both quantitative and qualitative data from the survey was
incorporated to produce this report
Design of Questionnaire
The survey was constructed using online survey software ‘SurveyMonkey’
(http://www.surveymonkey.com/Default.aspx). This software allows for comprehensive logics
for both qualitative and quantitative questions.
A draft survey was imported from an MS Word document, using a basic template. The first
section of the survey sought data about the respondent. The following sections asked
respondents to convey their experience of the interactions, express their opinions about the
Access Grid environment, including the physical and electronic aspects, share their
perceptions, expectations, and the potential for further use of the technology, as well as
describe the pitfall and limitations experienced .Where possible respondents were given the
option to add qualitative opinion. Whenever a survey question inquired about a choice of
action, the responses were partitioned according to their relevant content, for example
respondents who attended Access Grid were partitioned differently from those who had not
attended. Respondents who had attended at least one Access Grid session were asked to
consider the most recent Access Grid session they attended when completing their response.
Question Design
The survey was designed to provide quantitative, descriptive information through the use of
multi-choice questions alongside open-ended questions, which were intended to generate
qualitative, reflective and interpretive responses. The multi choice questions were designed to
construct a quantitative data set, which would enable the identification of some macro
processes.
The qualitative open-ended questions were constructed so that they would provide:
1. Contextual depth to the quantitative material,
2. Micro level insight of individuals’ perceptions
3. Feedback and critical evaluation of the experiences of the participants
The survey software allowed for a number of splits dependant on responses to previous
questions. This allowed those who had not attended an Access Grid session to contribute their
opinions.
Page 15 of 96

16. Piloting and Testing
The online survey was pilot tested with eight university based social scientists and modified
where appropriate as a result of their feedback. For one of those assisting at this stage, English
was a second language, an important consideration for several of the communities in the
network.
Sample Identification
The BRCSS network was the first to initiate an Access Grid connection across universities to
enable the support of collaboration across researchers in New Zealand. It was only natural to
begin our inquiry by investigating this pioneering network. Furthermore, although the
community of users of the Access Grid has now grown beyond BRCSS, the relevancy of its
network is still primary to this project, and its focus on the capability building briefs of
BRCSS.
The BRCSS network is a collaboration of social scientists that began in mid 2004 and
originally linked six New Zealand universities10
and a community organization11
. Since that
time it has grown to include all eight universities. (Otago and AUT were added). The network
was built upon a collaboration that brought together a portfolio of research excellence from
thirty-six already funded medium-term strategic research projects as a basis for building
capability in existing areas of social science research, and for the development of new research
areas and themes that contribute to the development, implementation and monitoring of
research-grounded public and social policy. Over time this platform of research has grown to
include 57 funded research programmes.
Data Collection and Recruitment
The survey was distributed via an email invitation.12
The initial mail out was to 180
individuals who had given consent to receive communications from the BRCSS College.
Sixty-eight (37.8%) recipients of this mail-out responded and completed the survey.
To broaden the population of study, a second round of invitations was distributed to the whole
of the BRCSS network mailing list, which included all those who had registered out of general
interest in the Access Grid. Duplicates in the lists were eliminated and the final number of
mail invitations came to a total of 454 invitations in both rounds. The second round produced
an additional 69 (25.2%) responses, making the total number of survey responses 137, of
which 128 (93.4%) were completed. The survey was also made available on the Social
Science Research Centre web site. No respondents were collected from this source.
10
The universities involved were: Lincoln University, Massey University, University of Auckland,
University of Canterbury, University of Waikato, Victoria University of Wellington.
11
Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit
12
See Appendices
Page 16 of 96

17. It was not possible to assess the extent to which emails may have been blocked by ‘spam’
filters. This is one disadvantage of using a survey tool that sends surveys from a remote
server.
Analysis
The initial steps of analysis involved the exploration of the SurveyMonkey platform to gain a
broad overview of the general trends of the survey. Once this was completed, the full set of
responses was downloaded as spreadsheets from SurveyMonkey for further analysis of the
quantitative sections.
The quantitative data was downloaded from the SurveyMonkey site and tables and graphs
were produced using Microsoft Excel. This process generated the overview of trends and
highlighted specific areas for cross analysis. The filter tool on SurveyMonkey was used for the
grouping of respondents and comparing responses across the various groups. For example,
respondents from a similar discipline were grouped to highlight variance of the number of
sessions attended and then crossed with level of participant contribution. Some of the filters
available through the survey’s platform were of higher value than others; however, the overall
process was particularly useful.
The qualitative sections presented the challenge of analysing a large amount of semi-
structured data. In search of a way of making the data more accessible for analysis it was
decided to apply text mining techniques. A Web search for a suitable mining tool was
conducted and the Text-mining programme, TextSTAT, was located as a suitable tool for
initial mining of the data. TextSTAT was used to measure word frequencies and recognised
commonly used words or phrases for the purpose of identifying topics or issues arising from
the comments made by the respondents. This process highlighted a number of key terms used
by respondents. This initial sweep of the qualitative materials formed a preliminary level of
analysis of the data, and created a broad brush outline of arising themes. This enabled the
clustering of similar notions and concepts expressed by the respondent, although not always
expressed in the same wording, but conveyed similar meaning that is beyond semantic
similarities. The semantic mining enabled by TextSTAT contributed to a grounded approach
in identifying emerging clusters, converging into emerging concepts. These were used for
further developing the Quantitative Content Analysis (QCA) phase of the qualitative analysis.
QCA techniques were applied to structure the qualitative data around key concepts. The initial
concepts were contrived through the design of the survey and additional ones were identified
through the grounded work of the text mining process.
The following key concepts were developed through the design of the survey
1. Collaboration
a. trust
2. Perceptions of the socio technical environment
a. Simulating face to face
3. Protocols for the use of Access Grid Technologies
4. Socio technical spaces in the Access Grid environment
The grounded analysis of the data revealed the following concepts:
1. Cultural aspects
2. Familiarity and comfort levels in relation to the technology
Page 17 of 96

18. 3. Technical issues- usage, and faults13
4. Comparison of Access Grid to other teleconferencing platforms
5. Importance of content of sessions
6. Miscellaneous
The qualitative data was compiled into lists, printed, and then colour coded by the research
team to highlight the content relating to each of these categories. Similarly coloured sections
were then compiled into conceptual clusters constructing each of the key concepts identified.
This process proved an effective method as it allowed the research team to view the
respondent’s comments in their original context, as well as identify emerging themes
additional to those around which the questions were initially designed. It also allowed further
insight not possible with the use of some software programmes.
A preliminary analysis of the data collected was presented to the Research College at the
Meeting in November 2007. Survey findings will be used to assist in furthering the
development and use of the technology within the BRCSS network.
13
While this research is mindful of the technical issues, this was not placed as a focus of the objectives of the
survey. However, information collected from the survey regarding technical problems was distributed to the
relevant individuals, departments and technical support networks for their information.
Page 18 of 96

19. Demographic Characteristics
Potential users of the Access Grid Technology were identified through the Social Science
research network BRCSS (Building Research Capability in the Social Sciences). One hundred
and thirty seven individuals completed the online survey on the topic of Advanced Video
Conferencing and Access Grid technology as a collaborative tool for social science
researchers. This section will detail the demographics of the study collated from the responses
to the online survey.
Age and Gender
The age of the survey respondents was evenly distributed across three main categories. These
age categories were 26-35 (26.3%), 36-45 (26.3%) and 46-55 (26.3%) years of age. Figure 1
illustrates that the majority (78.9%) of the respondents were aged between 26 and 55 years
old. The 18-25 year age bracket was the least represented demographic group in the survey,
with only 5.8% of respondents placing themselves in this category. 15.3% of the respondents
were in the 55 and above category.
Figure 1: Age of Participant
Page 19 of 96
5.8%
26.3% 26.3% 26.3%
15.3%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 55 and above
Response%(N=137)

20. There was a significantly higher number of female than male respondents. 34.3% were male,
and 65.7% were female, almost double that of the male respondents.
Figure 2: Gender Distribution of Participants
Institution and Location
The majority (90.5%) of the respondents associated themselves with a university institution.
The open ended component - “Other” was the next frequently chosen category with 8.0%.
Most of the respondents who selected “Other” specified that they were associated with various
government departments. The type of institution, which was the least represented in the
survey, was polytechnics, which had only one respondent.
Figure 3: Type of Institution Participant Associates with
Page 20 of 96
65.7%
34.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Female Male
Response%(N=137)
(N=137)
90.5%
8.0%
2.9% 2%
0.7%
University
Polytechnic
CRI
Business
Other

21. Over 97% of the respondents indicated that they were associated with institutions located
within New Zealand. 2.1% of the respondents associated themselves with institutions
overseas, namely UK, (Bristol), Singapore, and Fiji (Suva). Most of the respondents were
located in Auckland with 29.9%. Wellington was next at 21.9%, followed by Christchurch
with 20.4%. The locations of the institutions the respondents associated with were dispersed
geographically throughout New Zealand. Further, more respondents were associated with
institutions located in the North Island (85.2%) than in the South Island (23.3%).
Table 1: Location of Institution Participant Associates with
Academic Discipline and Role
Table 2 displays the academic disciplines of the respondents. The most visible discipline was
geography with 23.4% of respondents, followed by sociology (16.1%), and psychology with
9.5%. Other disciplines with notable representations in the survey were anthropology (7.3%),
social sciences (5.1%), economics (5.1%) and education (5.1%).
Page 21 of 96
% #
Auckland 29.9% 41
Wellington 21.9% 30
Christchurch 20.4% 28
Waikato 10.2% 14
Palmerston North 4.4% 6
Hamilton 3.6% 5
Dunedin 2.9% 4
Napier 0.7% 1
Lower Hutt 0.7% 1
Massey (undefined) 2.2% 3
Suva 0.7% 1
Bristol 0.7% 1
Singapore 0.7% 1
N/A 0.7% 1
Total Answered Question 137
Location of Institution

22. Table 2: Discipline of Participant
Respondents were asked to state their current role. As seen in Figure 4, 41.6% said that they
were researchers, followed by 36.5% who were lecturers. A significant number of those
surveyed (32.1%) were PhD and Masters Students. Those who regarded themselves as
consultants and advisors also had a presence in the survey, at 6.6% and 8.0% respectively.
Their roles were largely based within the private and public sector, such as government
departments.
Figure 4: Role of Survey Respondents
Page 22 of 96
% #
Geography 23.4% 32
Sociology 16.1% 22
Psychology 9.5% 13
Anthropology 7.3% 10
Social Science 5.1% 7
Economics 5.1% 7
Education 5.1% 7
Health 3.6% 5
Linguistics 2.9% 4
Social Work 2.9% 4
Political Science 2.2% 3
Developmental Studies 2.2% 3
Communications 2.2% 3
Management/Business 2.2% 3
History 1.5% 2
Applied Demography/
Population Studies
1.5% 2
Planning 1.5% 2
Interdisciplinary 0.7% 1
Other 2.9% 4
None / n/a 2.2% 3
Total Answered Question 137
Discipline
6.6%
8.0%
3.6%
0.0%
0.7%
36.5%
41.6%
14.6%
17.5%
15.3%
3.6%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%
Lecturer
Researcher
Masters Student
PhD Student
Post Doc
Consultant
Advisor
Teacher
Psychologist
Counsellor
Other
Role
Response % (N=137)

23. BRCSS Membership
The survey shows that the majority of the respondents were members of the social science
research network, BRCSS. 80.3% stated that they were a member of BRCSS, while only 8.0%
said that they were not a member.
Figure 5: BRCSS Membership
Access Grid Nodes
79.6% of respondents stated that their institution or workplace had a node for Access Grid
sessions. This showed that the majority of those who responded to the opt-in survey had
access to Access Grid sessions. While 12.4% did not have access to an Access Grid node,
5.1% stated that they “Don’t know” whether there was an Access Grid node in their institution
or workplace. A small number of respondents in the “Other” category (2.9%) specified that
they had had to travel to another institution to use the Access Grid node, as there had not been
one available in their institution or workplace.
Figure 6: Does your Institution/Workplace have a node for Access Grid Sessions?
Page 23 of 96
5%
12%
80%
3%
Yes
No
Don't know
Other
(please
specify)
11.7%
8.0%
80.3%
Yes
No
Don't Know
(N=137)
(N=137)

24. Attendance of Access Grid Sessions
A large proportion of the respondents, 81% had attended an Access Grid session. 19% of the
survey sample had not attended an Access Grid session.
Number of Access Grid Sessions Attended
The number of Access Grid sessions the respondents had attended varied from those who had
attended 1-2 Access Grid sessions, 3-4 sessions and more than 6 sessions. Almost a third of
the survey respondents (31.5%) stated they had attended 1-2 Access Grid sessions. The next
most commonly stated amount was 6 or more sessions with 28.8% respondents saying that
they had attended this amount. Thirty respondents (27.0%) stated they had attended 3-4
sessions. The least frequent number of Access Grid sessions attended was by those individuals
who had attended 5-6 sessions, which received a 12.6% response rate.
Figure 7: Number of Access Grid Sessions Attended
Page 24 of 96
31.5
27.0
28.8
12.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 - 2 3 - 4 5 - 6 More than 6
Number of Sessions
Response%(N=111)

25. Findings and Analysis
Using the Access Grid for Collaboration
Respondent’s Definition of Collaboration
The aggregated qualitative comments showed that the respondents defined collaboration as
meeting with other researchers and colleagues for the purpose of exchanging ideas and
information. Collaboration with other researchers was seen as assisting in the development of
research.
Perceptions of the Potential of the Access Grid for
Enabling Collaboration
Access Grid as a Communication Tool
One hundred and eleven (81.0%) respondents had used the Access Grid in order to participate
in seminars, forums and presentations at different nodes across New Zealand. Of the forty
respondents who commented on research interests that could be assisted through Access Grid
technologies, 36 (90.0%) acknowledged the potential of the Access Grid as a communication
tool, which could increase collaboration and assist research projects amongst social scientists
within New Zealand. Twenty-five (62.5%) respondents stated that they were interested in how
the Access Grid could assist them in communicating with fellow researchers and colleagues at
other institutions both nationally and internationally.
One respondent stated that sharing social science research experiences with other colleagues
would encourage them to attend the Access Grid sessions. The majority of respondents
thought that the Access Grid has the potential to develop collaborative research efforts
amongst social scientists using interactive sessions on the ‘Grid.’
The respondents showed interest in the potential of the Access Grid technology to increase
collaboration with researchers and colleagues at other institutions, as well as developing cross
site studies. The possibility for increasing networking opportunities with other researchers
using the Access Grid was mentioned by several respondents. Respondents who were already
involved in some teamwork saw the Access Grid as a technology that could enable team
meetings across cities in New Zealand.
meeting with people who have a similar research interest. The national
connections that are so difficult to make otherwise.
Page 25 of 96

26. Those not yet involved in teams expressed an interest in using the Access Grid to meet with
co-researchers to discuss joint projects, or collaborate with overseas colleagues.
Of those who commented on the potential of Access Grid technology, all of the respondents
saw the Access Grid as being able to assist research projects through collaborating with
colleagues in various locations and exchanging information and ideas through the sessions.
22.5% of respondents thought the Access Grid could be of assistance to their research in the
form of meetings, presentations and seminars on research practice methodologies. One
respondent suggested that there was the potential for the Access Grid to be used for
stakeholder dialogue sessions in multiple sites.
The majority of respondents saw the Access Grid as a communication tool which could
encourage collaboration between researchers, academics and wider research projects. Of the
forty responses, eighteen (45%) discussed how the Access Grid could allow for the planning
of collaborative research projects between colleagues at other New Zealand universities. The
Access Grid was seen as benefiting collaborative projects with other researchers who were
based at different locations.
Other mental health researchers are based in the North Island. If a future
project involved cooperation with these researchers, the Access Grid could
help.
Collaboration and interaction with other researchers was seen as one of the main advantages of
using the Access Grid. Twenty-one respondents commented on what it was like meeting and
talking to people over the Access Grid. Of these, 66.6% of respondents saw the Access Grid as
enabling frequent communication with colleagues and other researchers. One respondent, who
thought the Access Grid environment was collaborative, expressed interest in how the Access
Grid could be used to “best support researchers to make the most of this environment for
research collaboration.”
Several respondents discussed how the Access Grid increased the possibilities for
collaboration with other colleagues and researchers.
AG does allow for multiple sites to feed into discussions in a way that would be
not necessarily possible.
a good way to connect people that would be hard to duplicate.
One respondent who had been using the Access Grid regularly for their research project
thought that it could be used to develop social sciences in New Zealand.
Interaction and Networking using the Access Grid
The majority of comments relating to the Access Grid environment were about the exchange
of ideas and interaction between colleagues, researchers and students. Out of eighty-eight
responses, forty-six (52.2%) respondents thought that the Access Grid could be used as a
communication tool that could build networks, collaboration and comradeship amongst
researchers, academics and students in New Zealand. Numerous responses commented on how
the Access Grid helped build “stronger links across institutions” and encouraged inter-
Page 26 of 96

27. disciplinary sharing and discovery of others interested in similar areas of speciality. The
Access Grid environment was liked by some of the respondents because it allowed people
from institutions around New Zealand to meet and discuss topics of interest more regularly
than they would normally be able to. Many respondents discussed how the Access Grid
provided networking opportunities, the chance to exchange ideas, and see what other social
science research was being done in New Zealand. The Access Grid was seen as a
communication and “networking tool”.
The potential for simultaneous connection and collaboration across
geographical space and time zones is immense
One of the commonly reported positive aspects of Access Grid sessions was that the sessions
expanded ideas and knowledge in academic disciplines, as well as being able to connect with
other researchers at different geographical locations.
access to a broader range of research topics and methods, and to colleagues
in other institutions.
sense of an academic community across the country.
Overcoming Geographical Distances
The overcoming of geographical boundaries and the ability to unite people across
geographical space using technology was seen as a major benefit of the Access Grid.
provides a chance to interact with another/others that would otherwise not be
possible because of distance and time.
It’s an easy way to keep in touch with people around the country.
great to have a session with an Auckland contributor that would not have
otherwise been possible.
Linking other universities and accessing speakers was seen as a positive attribute of the
Access Grid.
I think it is a fantastic tool for making important seminars/presentations that
are taking place at other locations accessible to people around the country
Domestic and International Collaboration using Access Grid
The Access Grid was seen as a way of encouraging collaboration and interaction between
colleagues and other researchers at different geographical locations. It was suggested that
forums and discussions could take place both domestically and internationally using the
Access Grid. The Access Grid was seen as saving travel costs, especially if researchers were
based at different islands in New Zealand, or in different countries. A number of responses
mentioned how the Access Grid could assist their research interests by linking them to
international researchers and participants.
Page 27 of 96

28. Respondents noted that the Access Grid could assist them in closing the geographical distance
between themselves, and the other researchers on specific projects, or assist in liaisons with
colleagues in other parts of the country. Others commented that the Access Grid could assist
“international collaborative research” or international studies.
Sharing of Information and Knowledge
The results showed that the Access Grid was currently used for various projects and meetings
with research collaborators at other institutions.
Many of the respondents saw the Access Grid as enabling the sharing of data and research
with other colleagues, while saving “vast amounts of time and resources.” Participants were
interested in using the technology to assist in the co-writing of papers, the saving and sharing
of data, as well as presenting “findings and ideas to collaborators and networks beyond
physical location – particularly overseas.”
A suggestion was made that visiting international academics could give a presentation and
make it available to a wider audience via the Access Grid.
Students and participating staff created the environments by which people
could work to create a safe forum for presenting, discussing, critiquing and
responding to wide sets of cultural and academic issues.
Another respondent said that the Access Grid had given postgraduate students the opportunity
to present their work to a larger number of people across different disciplines and institutions
other than their own. A further idea would be for research supervision over the Access Grid.
One respondent thought that the Access Grid could be used to hold researcher and practitioner
seminars that “facilitate the knowledge and sharing that this initiative entails.”
Encouraging Interdisciplinary Research
From the responses in the survey, there was interest in using the Access Grid to develop
interdisciplinary research on a variety of topics. Respondents saw the Access Grid as
providing networking opportunities with other researchers. When respondents were asked to
detail what research interest could be assisted through Access Grid technology, some
suggested that the Access Grid could hold discussions on trans-disciplinary research
collaboration. In particular, one respondent thought that the Access Grid could “assist in
collaborative work on museum studies with major universities and museums nationally, as
well as aid in research projects with international museums.”
Page 28 of 96

29. Expectations and Reflections about the Use of Access
Grid
Positive Aspects of the Access Grid Environment
When the respondents described what they liked about the Access Grid environment, four
themes emerged. Individuals liked how the Access Grid saved time and monetary expense; the
Access Grid was seen as being ‘better’ for the environment as it did not require extended
travel in order to see the presentations, and subsequently affected the ‘carbon footprint’; the
exchange of ideas, networking; and overcoming geographical boundaries frequently occurred
in the comments regarding what the respondents liked about the Access Grid environment.
Cost and Time Saving Aspects of the Access Grid
A theme that emerged from the responses was that the Access Grid technology was seen to
save time and money. Not having to travel in order to interact with fellow researchers and
colleagues at multiple sites was seen as being a major advantage of the Access Grid and was
mentioned in thirty (34.0%) of the eighty-eight responses. When discussing what they liked
about the Access Grid many respondents referred to the monetary expense it saved by not
having to travel in order to participate in sessions.
people from different locales meet and talk with one another without having to
pay high!
Overall, the respondents saw the advantage of the Access Grid as being able to collaborate
with fellow researchers and colleagues without having to travel, thus saving resources such as
“time” and “money”. This could include making international visitors more accessible and
maintaining contact with them over time.
The specific convenience of not having to fly to locations in order to interact with colleagues
was an aspect that was liked by many of the respondents, with 43% of respondents mentioning
that it saved them from having to travel to locations in order to hear presentations.
Respondents explained that the Access Grid enabled meetings and forums that would
otherwise have not occurred “because of the expense of getting people together from different
cities”.
Many respondents discussed how they liked how the Access Grid gave them access to new
forms of information, relatively quickly. One particular respondent said they liked the fact that
it gave students and researchers the opportunity to listen to presentations and seminars
“without having to ship people around the country.”
A particular aspect of Access Grid sessions that was commonly enjoyed was the discussion
between colleagues and researchers on various topics. The Access Grid was seen as a suitable
alternative when face-to-face meetings were not an option due to restrictions such as time and
money.
Page 29 of 96

30. [we] were struggling to discuss complex issues via email…holding two Access
Grid sessions enabled us to sort out these issues and get the application in
one time; I do not believe that this would have happened without the Access
Grid sessions.
Overall, the Access Grid sessions were seen to be an “efficient use of time” as it did not
require the respondents to travel to different locales around New Zealand to be included.
Many respondents liked the fact that communication over the Access Grid was “instant” and
that they did not “have to fly everywhere”. The Access Grid was acknowledged by many
respondents as being a “convenient” and “inexpensive” way to interact with other social
science researchers in New Zealand.
Carbon Footprint
The extent to which the Access Grid could decrease the ‘carbon footprint’ emerged as an
important factor in why the respondents liked the technology. Lowering the ‘carbon footprint’
was seen to be of importance to a number of respondents who were concerned with lowering
carbon emissions from aircraft travel. Several respondents commented that a positive aspect of
the Access Grid was that it was of benefit to the natural environment as it saved carbon
dioxide emissions, as people did not need to travel far in order to attend meetings or
presentations: “Fantastic CO2 savings by not travelling”.
Figure 8: Expectations for Outcomes of the Access Grid Sessions
Page 30 of 96
What did you hope to achieve in attending the most recent Access
Grid session?
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
Solve problem
Listen to lecture or get more information about the subject
Listen to presenter
Discuss of exchange ideas
Negotiate solutions
Negotiate meaning
Talk to people on other sites
Meet new people
Network with colleagues at other locations
Network with colleagues at my location
Explore the use of the AG technologies
Explore new ways of learning
Explore new ways of working
Other (please specify)
Response % (N=106)

31. Figure 8 shows that the three most commonly selected outcomes of the Access Grid sessions
were to discuss or exchange ideas, (62.3%); listen to the lecture, (59.4%); listen to the
presenter, (54.7%). The next set of frequencies of outcomes referred to networking with
colleagues at other locations, (44.3%); and talking to people at other Access Grid nodes,
(38.7%); are exclusive to Access Grid technology.
Perceptions of Limitations of Access Grid
When asked to describe what they did not like about the Access Grid environment, two
respondents commented about the physical proximity of the nearest node’s location. One
individual had to travel two hours in order to attend an Access Grid session at their nearest
node. Other respondents commented on institutional difficulties, such as the bookings of the
Access Grid room, reliance on technical support staff and ease of access to facilities. One
individual commented that they felt isolated if they were the only person in their node
attending an Access Grid session. The technological limitations of the Access Grid were seen
as hindering the expansion of the network by one respondent, as they had to attend sessions at
one of the core ‘Grid’ sites. One respondent thought that the level of interaction may “have to
be toned down” but that the Access Grid was a good way to increase exposure to research and
collaboration efforts around New Zealand.
While the majority of comments were positive regarding using the Access Grid to
communicate, some respondents saw it as the next best option to face-to-face communication.
In regards to collaboration, one respondent thought that the Access Grid was “better than
nothing at all,” while another stated it was “ok when you can’t meet in the ‘real world.’”
Two respondents specifically commented on how they thought the Access Grid was “good for
presentations and questions” as well as “Great for meetings,” but felt that it was not as
effective for meetings and focus groups where “there is a need to get group interaction.”
Many of the respondents saw the Access Grid as providing the opportunity to interact with
colleagues and researchers at other geographical locations. For many this outweighed the
negative aspects of the Access Grid sessions.
Page 31 of 96

32. Practices
Types of Access Grid Sessions Attended
Figure 9: Type of Access Grid Session Attended
The type of session most commonly attended on the Access Grid was a presentation, attended
by 85.3%. All the respondents who attended a forum, and all but one who attended teaching
sessions, had also attended another type of session.
Reasons for attendance in Access Grid Sessions
The most prominent consideration for attending an Access Grid session was the topic of the
session. An overwhelming majority of participants (99.3%) highly agreed (64.5%), agreed
(27.5%) or agreed to a limited extent (7.3%) that they attended sessions due to interest in the
topic. Although there was some interest in attending sessions because they were on the Access
Grid, most indicated interest in the topic which suggests that the mode of presentation and the
technologies involved are far less significant than the topic being discussed.
Table 3: Reason for Choosing to Attend a Particular Access Grid Session
Page 32 of 96
85.3
29.4 32.1
10.1 7.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Presentation Forum Meeting Teaching
Session
Other
(please
specify)Type of session
Response%(N=109)
Highly
agree
Agree
Agree to a
limited
extent
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Response
Count
I find the topic interesting
61.5 27.5 7.3 2.8 0.9 109
I heard that the speaker is
interesting 32.1 33.0 21.1 6.4 7.3 109
I went along with a
friend/colleague 15.6 21.1 21.1 20.2 22.0 109
I wanted to experience an
AG session 24.8 20.2 22.0 18.3 14.7 109
Total Answered Question 109
Reasons for Attendance
90.0
100.0

33. Figure 10: Reasons for Choosing to Attend a Particular Access Grid Session
Contributing to Access Grid Sessions
Figure 11: Did you Contribute to the Access Grid Session
Page 33 of 96
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ifindthetopic
interesting
Iheardthatthe
speakeris
interesting
Iwentalongwitha
friend/colleague
Iwantedto
experienceanAG
session
Response%(N=109)
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree to a limited
extent
Agree
Highly agree
30.3
69.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Yes No
Response%(N=109)

34. For those who did not actively contribute in an Access Grid session, the most commonly
reported reason was the uncertainty of knowledge on the topic discussed. However, this is not
specific to Access Grid technology. Comments made in the “Other” category most frequently
addressed the limited time frame allocated, followed by technical problems, which restrained
contribution.
Figure 12: Reasons for not Contributing
Forms of Contribution
The survey highlighted the various forms of contribution in Access Grid sessions, the most
frequent of which was ‘sharing views’ (80.3%), followed by ‘asking questions’ (78.9%) and
‘the discussion of ideas’ (55.3%). The overall response shows that participation in the form of
challenging the presenter was the least frequent means of active participation, with only 5.3%
engaging in this form of contribution.
Page 34 of 96
42.4%
9.1%
3.0%
9.1%
12.1%
12.1%
0.0%
6.1%
9.1%
48.5%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
Unsure of my knowledge of topic discussed
Don’t like sharing my views in public
Felt uneasy because of the size of the group
Felt unsure because do not know anyone in the group
Felt insecure because of the cameras
Did not feel comfortable in this technological environment
Couldn’t see myself on the screen
Could see myself on the screen
Don't Know
Other
Response % (N=33)

35. Figure 13
Table 4: Forms of Contribution
Information and Knowledge Gained from Access Grid
Sessions
The majority of respondents took away new information (73.6%) or new understanding (67%)
from their Access Grid session. Responses in “Other” described specific individual highly
focused sessions with a particular outcome, a demonstration session or sessions in which the
technology did not work.
Figure 13: What Participants Took Away From the Access Grid Session
Page 35 of 96
2.8
73.6
67.0
14.2
27.4
38.7
7.5
44.3
26.4
6.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
New information
New understanding
Nothing
Frustration
New contacts
New ideas
New friends
Different ideas
New perspectives
Other (please specify)
Response % (N=106)
% #
Asked questions 78.9% 60
Shared my views 80.3% 61
Shared experience 40.8% 31
Challenged others 17.1% 13
Challenged the presenter 5.3% 4
Asked for more information 28.9% 22
Asked for clarification 26.3% 20
Discussed idea 55.3% 42
Suggested an idea 30.3% 23
Suggested a solution 17.1% 13
Raised a point 32.9% 25
Raised a problem 19.7% 15
Clarified idea 23.7% 18
Added information 25.0% 19
Facilitated/Chaired 15.8% 12
Other 6.6% 5
Total Answered Question 76
Forms of Contribution

36. Interacting Using the Access Grid
Overall, the majority of the respondents were positive regarding meeting and talking to people
through the Access Grid’s video screens and images. In the words of one respondent, the
Access Grid was; “a very good way to meet, discuss, work with colleagues across the nation.”
The Access Grid was seen by many of the respondents as being a convenient and effective
way to communicate, discuss, work, and meet with other social science researchers “without
having to leave town.” Participants in the Access Grid could “pop into a local room and
connect up to people many miles away”. When commenting on interacting with others over
the Access Grid, many respondents found it “enjoyable” to see other people from other
institutions and had gained new perspectives.
A large number of respondents thought that one of the benefits of the Access Grid was the
communication and networking opportunities it provided.
a great way of communicating and meeting people
Comments were made about the “enjoyable” aspects of listening to other colleagues and
researchers presentations and views on a variety of topics during the Access Grid sessions.
The survey showed that Access Grid sessions helped to foster collegiality amongst New
Zealand social scientists.
The intimacy and collegiality of the sessions is adding to the richness of being
in the social sciences in NZ
However, some comments showed that not everyone was getting the same level of interaction
between participants from the Access Grid sessions. Responses indicated that the Access Grid
was “another way of holding a meeting”. Another said that the setting worked well for
functional activities such as meetings and conducting business.
The most positive comment from a respondent said that the Access Grid sessions were akin to
seeing and hearing others “as if they were in the same room,” while others commented that
the presentations from around the country were “rather flat” and “not highly debatable” and
felt as if they were formalised.
In cases where there was no continuity and respondents participated in one-off seminars, the
Access Grid environment was considered ‘more formal’, and that in order to cultivate
relationships over the Access Grid people would have to meet in numerous ‘Grid’ sessions. A
few respondents commented that they had not experienced collaboration and networking over
the grid due to the formalised settings of the sessions that they had attended. Because of this,
one respondent said that they had not “met anyone really.” Some respondents expressed that
they felt the Access Grid sessions were too formalised and mediated, which often differed
from face to face meetings with colleagues and fellow researchers.
Face-to-face meetings were described as being more informal than meeting people in the
Access Grid sessions. Many of the respondents saw the Access Grid as an acceptable
alternative to face-to-face meetings, as was stated in one comment “at least this way we don’t
miss out.” (Refer to ‘Simulation / Non-Simulation of Face-to-face Interaction’ section for
further discussion)
Page 36 of 96

37. The Nature of Interaction During Access Grid Sessions
There was general agreement that the sessions tended to be informative, educational and
cooperative. There was lack of agreement over whether sessions were formal or informal with
similar numbers of participants arguing for each case. This suggests that there is a large
amount of variety regarding the degree of formality between sessions. What respondents
considered as a formal or informal session was not further elaborated. (For further discussion
refer to ‘Level of Formality’ under the ‘Simulation / Non-Simulation of Face to face
Interaction’ section).
Figure 14: Interactions Between the Participants in Access Grid Sessions were:
Page 37 of 96

38. The Nature of the Atmosphere During Access Grid Sessions
The potential for collaboration assumed to be offered through Access Grid was supported, and
the notion of ‘collaboration’ was used by respondents to describe the atmosphere in the
sessions by 56.6%. Furthermore, 52.8% agreed that it was ‘pleasant’, and 42.5% agreeing that
it was ‘friendly’. The “Other” responses included a range of answers, some stating other
variables such as topic or room arrangement as important, with two noting that familiarity
with the Access Grid played a large part in the atmosphere.
Figure 15: Atmosphere During an Access Grid Session
Page 38 of 96
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Informative
Educational
Sociable
Formal
Informal
Cooperative
Response%(N=106) Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree to a limited
extent
Agree
Highly agree

39. Page 39 of 96
0.9
52.8
56.6
10.4
42.5
19.8
13.2
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Pleasant
Collaborative
Rigid/tense
Friendly
Unfriendly
Detached
Other
Nature of Atmosphere
Response%(N=106)

40. Simulation / Non-simulation of Face-to-face
Interaction
An objective of the survey was to discover if the Access Grid environment simulates face-to-
face interaction. The frequency of comments reporting non-simulation of face-to-face
interaction in the Access Grid environment was substantially higher than that of the comments
reporting simulation, with 78.3% of total comments highlighting the differences. Reponses
regarding the differences also tended to be longer and more in depth comments, compared to
the short and concise comments regarding the similarities. However in response to the
statement “it is possible to participate in an Access Grid session in the same way as you would
in a face-to-face session”, a significant proportion of respondents, 82.4%, agreed with the
statement to varying extents while only 17.6% disagreed. This result seemingly contradicts the
comments made across the survey, where an overwhelmingly higher number of responses
pointed the differences between face-to-face and Access Grid interactions rather than the
similarities. It is possible that this may indicate a gap in the perceptions respondents have of
the possibility for Access Grid interactions to occur in the same manner as face-to-face
interactions, and the actual practice experienced at present. Some support for this assumption
may lie in Figures 16 and 17.
Figure 16: "It is possible to participate in Access Grid sessions in the same way as you
would in a face-to-face session”
Page 40 of 96
4.6% 5.6%
13.0%
40.7%
36.1%
Highly agree
Agree
Agree to a limited
extent
Disagree
Strongly disagree
(N=108)

41. Figure 17:"Meeting on the Access Grid changed the way people interacted in the
session compared with a face-to-face meeting”
A total of 91.7% of respondents who had participated in an Access Grid session agreed to
varying extents that meeting on the Access Grid changed the way people interacted in the
session compared with a face-to-face meeting. Half, (50.0%) of the respondents said that they
“Agree” with the statement that meeting on the Access Grid changed the way people
interacted in the session compared with a face-to-face meeting, while 24.1% “Agree to a
limited extent”. Less than 10% of those who had experienced an Access Grid session
disagreed that meeting over the Access Grid had any influence on the interaction in
comparison to a face-to-face meeting.
Figures 16 and 17 illustrate an interesting difference in the perception of Access Grid sessions
as simulations of face-to-face interaction. While 82.4% of respondents agreed that it was
possible for Access Grid interaction to occur in the same manner as face-to-face interaction,
Figure 17 shows that almost all respondents, (91.7%), agreed that meeting on the Access Grid
altered the way in which people interacted in the session when compared with meeting face-
to-face. This finding may support our earlier assumption about a possible gap between
perceptions of potential to actual experience. Or it may point to differences perceived by the
respondents in their conceptualisation of face-to-face when transferred to the Access Grid
environment.
Page 41 of 96
17.6%
50.0%
24.1%
5.6%
2.8% Highly agree
Agree
Agree to a limited
extent
Disagree
Strongly disagree
(N=108)

42. Aspects of Similarity with Face-to-face Interaction
A number of comments were made regarding the Access Grid sessions being similar to face-
to-face, some further describing the ‘naturalness’ of the interaction.
As a virtual meeting room the sense of interaction was more similar than
dissimilar to a face-to-face meeting room
Figure 18: "The Nature of the Access Grid Session was Sociable"
Collected quantitative results illustrated a crucial factor of face-to-face interaction, sociability,
as being a strong component of the nature of the interactions between participants in an
Access Grid session. Of the respondents who had attended an Access Grid session, 44%
agreed or highly agreed that the nature of the interaction in the session was sociable, with a
further 42% agreeing to a limited extent. Only 14% thought the nature of interaction across the
Access Grid technology was not sociable.
Body Language
The most commonly reported specific aspect of Access Grid sessions relating to the similarity
of Access Grid sessions to face-to-face interactions was the ability to see participant’s body
language and reactions to ideas. This distinguished Access Grid technology from forms of
audio conferencing as being a closer simulation of face-to-face interaction.
Ability to see a person’s reactions help with making the sessions closer to face-
to-face meetings
Page 42 of 96
2%
12%
42%
29%
15%
Highly agree
Agree
Agree to a limited extent
Disagree
Strongly disagree
(N=106)

43. Aspects of Difference from Face-to-face Interaction
Several respondents indicated that the Access Grid was an excellent alternative to face-to-face
interaction; however, several commented that it was not quite the same or as good. Many
respondents still preferred face-to-face interaction.
an excellent alternative. still prefer face to face
It is not a natural experience, but it is getting closer to being the next best thing
Of those respondents who discussed the differential aspects the Access Grid sessions in
comparison to face-to-face interaction, several commented that the Access Grid sessions were
“impersonal”, “artificial”, “distant”, “detached” and “unengaging”.
The session was more formal, and less engaged/ connected
Detached is a good description
Formal and not real
I would liken it in a real face to face situation to somehow being able, in
spite of social conventions, to crawl on all fours along the room viewing
people’s sitting positions, watching for restless legs syndrome and watching
people in the room talk to one another while the speaker talked ‘out front’.
Interactive Style
A large number of the comments made also regarded Access Grid sessions as requiring a
different interactive style, and accordingly, a different style of conduct, or development of a
different set of protocols for this (see protocols section for further discussion). The most
commonly reported area, which needed more set forms of conduct, was in the area of speaking
and protocols for turn-taking.
it is difficult for many people to act in the same way as they would in a face-2-
face session
it requires a different interactive style than one would expect in a face to face
meeting
It does require some adaptation to multiple sites and participants
Participants need to develop skills in listening in a multi site environment.
Convenors need a new set of skills to maximise the pluses and minuses of the
configuration
We were able to watch each other in ways I haven’t experienced before. Sort of
like a security camera operator, just that the watched is also a watcher
It was also highlighted by some respondents that the “access grid requires exaggerated and
more proactive participation – gestures, verbal and visual cues”.
Page 43 of 96

44. Body Language
The most frequently reported theme to emerge in responses was that of the difficulty in
reading body language and cues in Access Grid sessions when compared to face-to-face
meetings.
Not as able to pick up visual cues to body language
In face to face encounters everyone knows her/his physical location in a social
space and it is easier to observe conventions such as not staring at people,
keeping a degree of physical space from others, the disinterested gaze etc.
Inside the access grid space these conventions break down as lines of people …
stare at a screen only to find … that the screen has lines of people inside
windows staring back at you from strange angles
Within this category, the most commonly reported issue was around speaking and turn-taking.
Many discussed it as being more difficult to gauge who is speaking, or who should speak next.
The turn taking cues and keeping track of who was speaking at any time was considered a
more difficult task when compared to face-to-face interactions.
It remains highly impersonal and the inability to read peoples body
language, know who is talking and where from can be quite disconcerting
although everyone can see each other [sic] and contribute you don’t [sic] get
the same body language cues when someone wants to speak
it can be somewhat more difficult to pick up turn-taking cues and,
occasionally, keeping track of who is speaking
Another thread of this theme focussed on the inability of participants in the sessions to make
eye contact. Often the gaze from other participants was reported as “staring back at you from
strange angles”. This was the result of participants looking at the screen to speak to the
audience rather than the cameras, which were often positioned at a different angle, and thus
Access Grid interactions would lack the ‘real’ component of eye contact as in face-to-face
interactions.
Just slightly miss the sense of being able to “look the audience in the eye” or
meet the speaker’s gaze
When people spoke they looked at the screen (rather than the camera)- which is
completely natural, but it looks like people aren’t speaking to each other
Comments were also made regarding body language and the number of participants and nodes
in any one session. It was suggested that the larger the participant group, the more difficult
reading body language becomes.
Page 44 of 96

45. Level of Formality
Difficulties in discerning body language resulted in a feeling of the Access Grid sessions being
more formal and lacking the sense of spontaneity that a face-to-face interaction may have. The
formality of Access Grid sessions was the third most common theme derived from the data.
There are other, less formal, aspects of meetings that work face to face, but not
online
Access Grid interactions are also quite impersonal and lack the warmth and
spontaneity of face to face meetings
Some respondents attributed this heightened sense of formality to the general conduct of the
session where only one person speaks at a time.
Only one person can talk at a time in the grid (not that this is a bad thing) but it
does introduce and [sic] element of formalism to a grid meeting/presentation
Figure 19: The Nature of the Interactions Between Participants in an Access Grid
Session was Formal/Informal
Page 45 of 96
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Response % (N=106)
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Agree to a
limited extent
Agree
Highly agree
Strongly disagree 2.8 3.8
Disagree 21.7 30.2
Agree to a limited extent 36.8 39.6
Agree 32.1 25.5
Highly agree 6.6 0.9
% Formal % Informal

46. When comparing the comments with the quantitative data, a conclusion on the level of
formality becomes unclear. Formality was a theme mentioned frequently in respondent’s
comments, and Figure 19 shows that 75.5% of respondents agreed that the Access Grid
session experienced was formal. However, varying levels of agreement to the interaction being
informal was also selected by 66.0% of the study population.
Informal Chat after a Face-to-Face Meeting
Often in face-to-face conferences and meetings, there is the opportunity for informal chat
outside of the conference setting after a session. This does not occur in Access Grid sessions
and was highlighted by a few respondents;
I usually find that after a face-2-face session people discuss a lot of issues
informally-this is not possible witj [sic] access grid since time is limited and
people are at diffrent [sic] places.
While not highlighted by a large number of respondents, this may be a significant factor
effecting collaboration when comparing Access Grid sessions with face-to-face interactions
(see Protocols section for further information).
Influencing Factors
Prior relationship with other participants
A significant contribution to the effectiveness of meetings in Access Grid sessions was
whether or not participants had met face-to-face prior to the session. A number of respondents
suggested from experience that they found the sessions to run more effectively if they had
previously met the participants at other node locations in a face-to-face situation.
Having an existing relationship with some/all participants definitely helps to
overcome any glitches
…better if you have met them face to face before- then it is much more informal
and conversations flow easier
Page 46 of 96

47. Protocols
There was strong agreement amongst all the respondents that their Access Grid experiences
could have been improved through the introduction of more definite protocols.
Facilitation
Many respondents focused on facilitation as the main method for improving sessions. When
asked about the chairing of their session, almost all of the respondents highly agreed, agreed
or agreed to a limited extent that the chairing of the sessions led to ‘focused’ (93.4%) or
‘good’ (94.4%) discussion, as described in Figure 20.
Figure 20: The Facilitation/Chairing of the Session Resulted in the Following Outcomes:
Despite the predominantly positive feeling about the chairing, specific issues were raised
concerning chairing along with suggestions for more effective chairing. Several respondents
mentioned how various groups were overlooked unless the chair was particularly strong.
The sessions I attended were supposed to be post graduate sessions but were
dominated in the discussions by senior academics
Page 47 of 96
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Focused discussion
Task-orientated outputs
Indecisive or inefficient session
Effective problem solving
Good discussion
Rich debate
Raised more questions than answers
Ancknowledged access grid requirements
Did not acknowledge access grid requirements
Outcome
Response % (N=106)
Highly agree Agree Agree to a limited extent Disagree Strongly disagree

48. Access grid enables participation from more extroverted people. More difficult
for introverted people to enter the conversation unless well facilitated.
These comments point to the need for facilitators to be aware of the aims of the sessions and
the roles of those participating.
The largest number of comments focused on the difficulty in getting the facilitator’s attention
and understanding who was being addressed. Respondents spoke about the need for “hand
waving” to attract attention before speaking, and the way the Access Grid only allowed one
person to speak at a time in a “turn taking” fashion, which limited discussion. Three
respondents summarised how these issues needed to be addressed by the facilitator at the
beginning of the session:
All sessions need an active facilitator [sic] who tells people at the beginning
[sic] how to participate in that environment- hand up for signal to talk, wait till
you are asked to speak to avoid speaking over the top, pause and make time for
others who have not spoken.
My experience, however, was of confronting another set of 'protocols' to learn.
I would have liked some introduction [sic] to those protocols and some
transparent discussion about them.
best session I attended in terms of getting people to contribute was one where
the presenter got everyone to introduce themselves at the beginning of the
session and explicitly asked for comments/questions from each site when he had
finished
Several respondents also expressed a wish for sessions to begin with some sort of “ice
breaking” or introductions between participants to create a more comfortable atmosphere
within the ‘Grid’. A few commented on how they found Access Grid interaction a lot easier if
they were already acquainted with other participants.
A few respondents noted that it was not only the facilitators who needed to develop specific
skills in the Access Grid, arguing that participants also needed to learn to act accordingly and
“to develop skills in listening in a multi site environment.” Many respondents described
various distracting practices by others on the Access Grid, which limited their ability to hear
the discussion: “People feel free to have discussions as asides if they can't be heard. They
wander in and out of the meeting.” This suggests that specific written protocols about how to
run a session would be beneficial for both facilitators and participants.
Room Set-Up
Many respondents commented on the difficulties of co-ordinating the large numbers of people
and technologies together into a working format. It was acknowledged that the particular
assemblage of these technologies needed more specific and definite protocols to work to best
effect.
The camera angles at all sites need to be coordinated to create virtual round
table, if possible. The integration of the technology, camera angles, flags to
Page 48 of 96

49. speak etc have to be managed alongside or WITH the usual meeting
facilitation/chairing.
This respondent commented on the need for all parts of the assemblage to work together
seamlessly in order for the session to flow more effectively. Another respondent suggested a
very definite method to achieve this during a presentation session through using techniques
developed for film:
A way to address this might be for the grid technicians and researchers to
develop a template whereby there are agreed conventions regarding camera
angles, screen sizes, foci, lighting, representation of ‘audience’, etc. Thus the
technician is also a choreographer of sorts who assembles the encounter in a
coherent way across all nodes so that the contrivance of the event becomes
less so – and less distracting. one way of more naturally mimicking the
experience of face to face interaction in spite of separate locations is to use the
convention and metaphor of both the cinema and the film director. So we have
multi-screen (windows) ‘establishing’ shots of the various locations and
participants as well as audience for the first few minutes of a presentation
while various sound and visual checks can be done etc. Then rather than
‘dimming the lights’ so as to represent the ‘audiences’ in their various
locations fading out as the presentation begins, instead the screens /windows
representing the audience, are reduced in size so that distracting detail is lost
but there is still a sense of an audience out there. So we see groups of people’s
faces ‘dimmed’ or subordinated by virtue of window/screen sizes but we know
they are still there in the dynamic and we are authentically denied voyeuristic
witness to scratching legs and the oversized mug of coffee which threaten to
intrude. The main screen/windows now ‘zoom in’ on the speaker(s) and the
PowerPoint presentation etc. so these two screens (or more as appropriate)
are the overall focus with other screens now constrained to the periphery. I
think the images/windows seen on the screen need to be choreographed and
‘directed’ so as to mimic more the perspective of presenter (dominant) and
audience (passive but watching) during a presentation at least.
This detailed response offers a different but potentially effective way of running a presentation
session, although different protocols would be necessary for running other types of sessions.
Another question raised was which screens should be shown on the wall to create an effective
session. The survey included two open questions asking respondents to describe, in their own
words, how they felt about seeing their own image and the image of their node on the screen.
The majority of respondents gave very brief answers to this such as “ok” or “sweet as”, which
could easily be categorised and graphed (see Figure 21).
Page 49 of 96

50. Figure 21: Feelings About Seeing Own Image
There was more negativity towards seeing “your own image” in comparison to seeing other
people, but interesting that 13.3% agreed that they were uncomfortable at first but soon
became accustomed to seeing themselves. The majority (65%) of respondents were positive,
very positive or neutral about seeing the image of their own node on the screen, with several
comments about how this created a feeling on inclusiveness,
it would have been strange not to have seen our image on the screen as it puts
you in context with the other sessions.
Figure 22: How did you feel about seeing the other people in your physical node over the Access
Grid?
Page 50 of 96
8.9%
44.4%
18.9%
8.9%
4.4%
6.7% 7.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Comment
Response%(N=90)
Very positive
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Strange/Weird/Funny
Other
N/A
1.1% 1.1%
33.3%
14.4%
21.1%
6.7%
8.9%
13.3%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Response%(N=90)
Very Positive
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Odd/Strange/Weird
Uncomfortable at
first, but got used to
it
Other
N/A

51. Respondents also noted the difficulties interacting with participants in their own node owing
to the screen shot.
Most of the people at the session were at our node and seeing them only
through the screen (we were at the front), while hearing them from behind, led
to a feeling of being split. Attention was split, and disengagement resulted.
Suggestions to improve communications within the node tended to involve the rearrangement
of their room, rather than the use of the screens: “Set up involved speaker facing away from
audience in the room. Perhaps speaker and facilitator could sit at back of room, instead of at
front?” This arrangement could potentially solve the feeling of disconnectedness that several
respondents commented on towards those in their own node.
Time and Information
A number of respondents also commented that more definite protocols for booking and
attending sessions would be useful. Several described problems with booking sessions while
others identified concerns with knowing whom to contact for more information.
It's no easy to work out who to contact to rsvp your attendance [sic]
Other respondents indicated they would have liked more time for informal discussion: “when
connection stopped, the whole meeting just stopped with no further or follow on discussion.”
This was compared with physical meetings, which were described as often including informal
discussion at the end. Several described how they would have liked to know how to contact
the speaker to follow up on the session.
By contrast, the majority (65.1%) of respondents who attended BRCCS meetings felt that the
two-hour time frame was about right for these meetings, with the next largest percentage
(14.2%) feeling this was too long, as detailed in the graph below:
Figure 23: BRCSS Meetings are Usually Scheduled for Two Hours. Is this:
Page 51 of 96
2%
6%
13%
14% 65%
About right
Too long
Too short
Don't know
Other
(N=106)

52. This suggests that although respondents who attended BRCSS meetings were generally happy
with the time allocation, there are other types of sessions, which could be improved by
including more discussion time.
Page 52 of 96