Post-Assembly Feedback Survey

This was the first of what we hope to be many more Movement Assemblies to help us all to 'walk the talk' and learn more about each other, hear more voices and share ideas across the whole of XR.

We asked people for feedback on the assembly and have produced a summary.

Introduction

Following the first Assembly, a post-assembly feedback survey was launched using Qualtrix. Forty-one respondents completed the survey, of which 55% had actually taken part in the assembly.

Reasons for not participating in the Assembly
Of the people who hadn't taken part in the Assembly, the main reasons were:

• Other commitments
  
• They had joined the meeting too late and not been able to enter (5 people)
  
• The assembly was too late in the day
  
• They didn’t know about it

How did you hear about the Assembly?

Sixty-eight percent of respondents had heard about the Assembly via the email, 32% through the Rebellion Broadcast and 15%, 17% and 12% through the Rebel Toolkit, another rebel and another way respectively (please note, rebels could select as many options as they wanted, so the total does not sum to 100%).

Past participation in assemblies

Only 31% of respondents said they had never taken place in an assembly before. Fifty-eight percent had taken part in a previous XR survey, 11% with Assemble, 11% in a local initiative and 3% with a different organiser. The local initiatives people stated they’d been involved with were Hay Community Assembly, York XR and Oxford Youth XR.

pol.is

pol.is was used to identify the question for the Assembly and also to feed back on the ideas generated. The feedback on the use of pol.is was:

Positive comments

• The process was easy
• There weren't too many statements (post-assembly)

Negative comments

• Similar statements should be grouped
• There were too many statements (pre-assembly)
• Statements weren’t actionable
• Needed to see all the statements before voting
• Statements shown first would get more votes
• Disappointment about how the first round results were fed back

Instructions

Respondents were asked whether they thought the instructions given at the start were clear.

Positive (69%)

• The process was clear
• The pre-Assembly email was useful
• The whole process was well-administered

Negative (31%)

• Questions being discussed should be more prominent in the breakout room
• There should be a ‘remaining character’ function on the pol.is statements
• There should have been a more prominent 15-minute warning
• Less information in the meeting/shortened intro for more time in the breakout rooms

Breakout rooms

Respondents were asked what they thought of the breakout rooms.

Positive (64%) One comment really summarised the positive feedback.

It was wonderful being with experienced activists, sharing ideas and exploring options. It was great to have so much time for this, as usually sessions are far too short for in-depth conversations. Our facilitator was excellent."

Negative (36%)

• Needed more time
• Conversations were too wide-ranging and off-topic
• The statements developed weren’t that useful
• One group didn’t have a note taker
• Minority views weren’t represented by the note taker

Suggestions for future assemblies

At the end of the survey respondents were encouraged to make suggestions for future assemblies. These are all included here:

Assembly Format

• Make the aim and outcomes of the assemblies clearer and more specific.
• It was too long - 2.5 hours suggested and an ‘after-party’.
• Too much focus on working out the ‘rules’.
• A second round asking the groups to make their ideas actionable/actions. Probably also give a good example before a second round.
• Maybe have two assembly sessions, one during the day and an evening one.
• Make it relevant to the law.
• Don’t have a cut-off after 5 minutes as this excludes people with computer issues.
• It seems far removed from the north - reach out to other parts of the country more.
• More diversity of people on screen.

Speakers and Q&A

• Cut or improve Q&A session, as questions weren't satisfactorily answered.
• Open Call for all teams to explain their role as assembly isn’t the place.
• Make the input/speakers section more relevant to the topic.
• Make the slides more interesting.
• Include relevant research.
• More speakers.
• Fewer speakers. 🙂

Breakout Rooms

• Longer character limit for pol.is statements.
• Set a timer on the breakout rooms.
• Have more people helping to facilitate/note taking.
• More time in breakout rooms.

Conclusion

Overall, people were more positive than negative about the Assembly, but there were clearly people who either didn’t enjoy the event or were not able to get into the event due to the cut-off point who were disappointed with how it went. There was a general feeling - even among positive comments - that the output of the assembly might be hard to implement, and that this could be refined in future.

The information collected in this survey will be used to iterate and improve future assemblies and pol.is polls.

It was a wonderful experience, so glad I did it. The longer time length to really engage with rebels I'd never met before and explore ideas was truly inspiring. Thanks to all the organisers!”