Table of Contents

Six Principles or Questions


On review papers -- Plus: Appreciated the effort and result of the synthesis work.
Delta: Provided questions/suggestions useful for revising the draft papers. Began to raise issues of kinds that became clear in the Six Principles/Questions responses (see below).

On keynotes: The Deltas show how much the audience was stimulated. The issues raised in the deltas could form a checklist to test whether any research agenda emerging from the workshop is dealing with difficult & cutting edge issues.

On creativity session as a whole: Delta: "The objective of the activities could be more clear from the outset (what are we trying to achieve? what are we supposed to get out of each exercise?)" PT's response: Next time plan to remind participants of the framing not just verbally but with visual aid
Workshop aims: 1. formulate new approaches to health intervention research &
2. maximize investment of participants in further development and implementation
This session: stimulate fresh thinking &
foster connections
conducive of #1 and #2.

_believing & doubting_: PT: Next time plan to sequence it: write, discuss with neighbor, share (&discuss) with table

dialogue hour: The power of compelling stories in affecting change. / I appreciated the opportunity to share ideas in the breakout group using the playing cards to stimulate thematic discussions rather than people just popping off. / I really liked how it was well organized / Opportunity to consider the purpose of OHS in broader societal context. / Great conversation and useful exchange of ideas. It was an effective way to generate dialogue. / Using the playing cards to organize our discussion. / THE DIALOGUE/CARD PART WAS VERY GOOD, MANY INTERESTING IDEAS CAME FORTH / Liked that all had the chance to contribute / People got into the swing of the turn-taking dialogue and the discussion evolved & felt worthwhile. / Liked the free writing; allowed me to think thru a half-formed issue / I appreciated the innovative approaches. It seems that an effort has been made to appeal to all types of adult learning. / "Free writing for 5 mins was excellent........ Really worked for me.... And the group I think.... / Check in and dialogue process was really good too / Did not have time to do 4 &5 sadly / Will definitely use ! / the opportunity in the first group discussion to hear the various perspectives and backgrounds / "- free writing / - group discussion and range of topics in conversation" / Organization, enthusiasm, and the creation of a safe environment for sharing ideas. / Small group discussions offer an opportunity for deeper exploration of themes raised in the presentations. The techniques provided some structure to ensure a degree of fairness for everyone who wants to speak. / I found the one hour dialogue were interesting. The different methods used for the development of the discussion was quite helpful in the development of constructive discussions. / Group session with cards. I think the free writing did help people engage / Great opportunity to share perspectives and to help form a share mental model./

PT: Suggestion 1: Given that there are scribes and the assumption that organizers (&volunteers?) will work afterwards to synthesize what has been raised, perhaps the breakout groups could use the dialogue hour process again, primed by, say, 20 minutes reviewing the delta suggestions from the keynotes, the six PQs, and the organizers' agenda for the morning.
Suggestion 2: Because people were engaged when freewriting and in small group dialogue (than in the plenary format of the panel), continue to invite people to formulate in writing their contribution to an ideal research agenda [in wordprocessor or on paper before submitted to] then share in pairs (with someone you don't know) and discuss/explain/interrogate (and perhaps revise & resubmit). (This will help participants in their ongoing work, even if they are not involved with the workshop's project afterwards.)

Six Principles or Questions

In a time-constrained first pass, the categories below were discerned by PT. Some participants had most points in one category (e.g., Objectives or Methods) and some had a mix. (Conjecture from PT: for a research agenda to enlist the participants in this workshop, it would need to make room for development in each category and for cross-challenges among them.)