Hi Marianne. In response to your question - there was no resistance from partners in the planning / invitation stage, and in fact we had much strong registration than I expected (50 people in total from a starting invitation list of about 50 - not all the same people, quite a few emailed to ask if they could join; about 75% registered for all sessions). But I think it is true that some people found the format disconcerting - as I said in the blog, we lost quite a lot of people at lunch, so that the afternoon sessions were much smaller - for the last afternoon, only about 15 people. But this smaller session was probably the most active discussion (groundwater) - I think the format works best with a smaller group. If I were doing it again, I would target the invitations much more carefully, and try to keep the groups to about 20 - 25 or less. If anyone has any suggestions as to how to get round the problem of people registering and then just not turning up, do let me know!
Hi Marianne. In response to your question - there was no resistance from partners in the planning / invitation stage, and in fact we had much strong registration than I expected (50 people in total from a starting invitation list of about 50 - not all the same people, quite a few emailed to ask if they could join; about 75% registered for all sessions). But I think it is true that some people found the format disconcerting - as I said in the blog, we lost quite a lot of people at lunch, so that the afternoon sessions were much smaller - for the last afternoon, only about 15 people. But this smaller session was probably the most active discussion (groundwater) - I think the format works best with a smaller group. If I were doing it again, I would target the invitations much more carefully, and try to keep the groups to about 20 - 25 or less. If anyone has any suggestions as to how to get round the problem of people registering and then just not turning up, do let me know!