EADI-IMWG: Looking Back - Looking Forward

Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, UK
September 27-29th 2006
 

In this final session, we started by looking back at our experience of the group over the years, and asked ourselves three questions:

  • Why did we join the group?
  • What has worked best?
  • What has not worked well?

Three longstanding members of the Group were asked to share their thoughts to start the discussion off (Kirsti Andersen, Svend Eric Lindberg-Hansen, and Jacques van Laar). Thoughts were gathered on three flip charts, and the list built on by other participants. We then 'voted' with stickers to get a sense of which comments resonated most with the group in relation to the last two questions.

Why did people join the group?
People expressed a number of personal reasons for coming to their first meeting: "to find out more about what it had to offer"; "because I was new to the field"; "because I wanted to expand my network"; "because my boss told me"; "because it was a unique group, combining a European focus with information management".

What has worked best
Quite a range of positive views were mentioned. The voting showed which were most widely held.

Score

What has worked best

100 !

We have fun at workshops and have made many friends

22

The networking benefits - getting to know counterparts

15

It provides a place to exchange experiences and challanges (and shows 'we all cook with water')

13

It meets every Year in Person

12

The participatory sessions

10

Getting to learn about new approaches and technologies

10

It provides a way of benchmarking your organisation (which can be reassuring)

6

We always learn something new at meetings that we can apply back in the office

6

It provides a useful technical education

6

It helps motivate us to take action

6

The high level of trust generated among members

5

Several important joint projects have emerged from the group (IDN, ELDIS, ELAND... etc.)

3

The wide ranging set of issues on the agenda

3

It provides a source of contacts and partnerships

2

It provides a testing ground for new ideas

1

The link to the wider EADI development agenda (especially via conferences)

1

It creates a peer group

1

It provides professional validation

0

It provides useful advice to the EADI secretariat

0

The co-convenors provide a clear leadership team, which keeps the group moving forward



What has not worked well

18

Some European countries are absent from the group (Austria, France, etc.)

11

We have not managed to fully integrate francophone countries, Eastern European countries, or ICCDA partners

10

Presentations are sometimes boring

8

We don't make much use of the electronic discussion list

5

It takes time for new members to feel fully integrated

5

Having to operate with no budget

3

Limited range of participating organisations (not enough academic)

2

Link to the rest of EADI is unclear

0

Some of the projects have not taken off

Looking forward
Participants then broke into small groups to consider where the IMWG should go in future, and what it might look like in five years time if our ambitions work out. Ideas were then fed back to plenary.

A variety of ideas were put forward. The main common themes were that:

  • The Group definitely has an ongoing role. 'We are alive and kicking!'
  • The core characteristics of the Working Group should stay the same. People like the:
    • Informal and friendly nature of the Group
    • The fact that it includes a mix of information professionals (librarians, communications people, and others)
    • The networking and learning opportunities it provides
    • The annual meeting cycle
    • The scope it provides for joint projects and initiatives
    • The openness of the Group to new members
    • And the other core features that have worked well in the past
  • We should work to extend the membership of the Group, particularly to re-establish membership from the Francophone world.
  • We should continue to look for appropriate ways of linking with Southern counterparts, such as through the ICCDA network.
  • We should maintain the IMWG D-Group as a means of communication within the Group. Even as an un-moderated circulation list it is serving a useful purpose.
  • We should do more to publicise IMWG on the EADI website, and do better to link to the work of other working groups (poverty and governance were mentioned, in particular).
  • We should organise a plenary session at the next EADI General Conference (2008).
  • One concrete challenge was that we should work towards a common policy on open access archiving for our publications (seen as a five year goal). Individuals will need to tackle this at the organisation level, and should report back on progress at the next IMWG meeting. Caroline Knowles offered to circulate a follow-up note during the course of the next year to keep the discussion going.

"It's not broken so don't fix it", was one of the comments made that rang a bell for many. Another said "don't underestimate the work needed to maintain what is good about the group now, which is an achievement in itself." On that positive note, we ended the session.

Note prepared by Geoff Barnard, with input from Bridget McBean