Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
SharePoint

Skip Navigation LinksICRF Conference Evaluation

Respond to this Survey Respond to this Survey
   
View:  Graphical SummaryUse SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).Open Menu

1. a) How did you join the conference?

 Virtual
 74 (60%) 
 
 In person
 37 (30%) 
 
 In person and virtual
 12 (10%) 
 
Total: 123

2. b) Select the campus you represent?

 ARC-AP
 12 (10%) 
 
 ARC-BTP
 0 (0%)  
 ARC-CO
 24 (20%) 
 
 ARC-GC
 7 (6%) 
 
 ARC-INFR-NVB
 10 (8%) 
 
 ARC-OVR
 25 (20%) 
 
 ARC-PHP
 11 (9%) 
 
 ARC-SG
 3 (2%) 
 
 ARC-TSC
 5 (4%) 
 
 ARC-NRE (AE)
 7 (6%) 
 
 ARC-NRE (SCW)
 8 (7%) 
 
 ARC-VIMP
 11 (9%) 
 
Total: 123

3. c) Select your role in ARC

 Research
 86 (70%) 
 
 Support services
 37 (30%) 
 
Total: 123

4. d) How useful was the information presented?

 The information was very useful. I got some insights on what campuses and other researchers are doing and where hey are based
 1 (1%) 
 
 The information was very helpful and indeed provided an opportunity for further collaborations with the rest of the researchers across the country.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Relialized that ARC is very diverse and one can do collaborations with most Institutes and the research would still be valid.
 1 (1%) 
 
 very useful. For the first time I could actually get first hand information on what other campuses are doing research on.
 1 (1%) 
 
 a) very informative about the programmes in all other institutes. b) interesting info about the number of cultivars etc developed over the years - that we eat every day! BUT did not know they can from ARC.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Overview of the ARC research activities, services and products was great. Knowing who to contact for any field or equipment will be beneficial
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very useful to understand what research colleagues are doing and what equipment is available.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very informative
 2 (2%) 
 
 Very informative and enlightening.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very useful. However, too scientific for ordinary South Africans to understand
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very useful, we got to know about different research outputs.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very useful
 9 (7%) 
 
 extremely useful, as an administrator, i now have an insight of the organization i am working for.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Opened up possibilities for research
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very interesting.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Useful
 4 (3%) 
 
 Very useful and further emphasized the importance of collaboration
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very informative as we got understand what other campuses do and wee if we can be able to partner for equipment's/or research collaboration.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very insightful and interesting.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very useful and stimulated collaboration
 1 (1%) 
 
 general overview on selected work done in ARC. Good to know what ARC researchers are doing
 1 (1%) 
 
 it was very useful, made it ease to identify potential collaborators for projects and also where to request information for technology transfer purposes
 1 (1%) 
 
 The information was very informative and well presented.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Great opportunity to see what other institutes are doing and paves the way for inter institute collaboration projects.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The Information presented could have been obtained from the website. In-depth scientific discussion would have been more valuable.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Interesting to see what everybody is doing. Saw a few opportunities for collaboration.
 1 (1%) 
 
 It was interesting to find out about research at other campuses. We have already identified potential inter-campus collaborations.
 1 (1%) 
 
 improving diagnostics
 1 (1%) 
 
 good
 1 (1%) 
 
 Quite useful
 1 (1%) 
 
 The information was very useful, especially for collaborative purpose. The interaction was good, conferences like these allows us to learn what other institutions research is about.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very interesting overview of what each institute is doing in the ARC.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The staff found the information very useful and informative.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Good
 1 (1%) 
 
  It was informative because you could get an overhaul idea of what research is being done at the ARC.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very informative.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The information was good regarding the research activities from the different campuses
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very informative, put into perspective how we interact with each other.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The information was very useful and will most certainly facilitate better collaboration cross campuses in future.
 1 (1%) 
 
 It was good to see work from other institutes
 1 (1%) 
 
 It was very useful.
 1 (1%) 
 
 I was not able to attend the whole session but was positively surprised at the various projects and quality thereof. In quite a few instances mention was made to Climate Change as well as the absence/access to weather data in general and dire need of weather data. The work of NRE-SCW was absent.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very useful. Enjoyed the positive atmosphere and comradery which has been missing from ARC for a long time. Felt like it was worth working in ARC again because there is a purpose and a role to fulfill, not just doing it because you have to have a job and a paycheck.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very useful, the conference gave an in-depth view of the research conducted, this was quite interesting and eye opening. really enjoyed it
 1 (1%) 
 
 Mostly informative regarding obtaining a better idea on the research activities at other ARC campusses.
 1 (1%) 
 
 I had the opportunity to learn what other researcher are doing in the different campuses.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Not really
 1 (1%) 
 
 Knowing what other institutes are doing, learning about different research programmes, was beneficial. One is able to know which institute to contact for collaboration.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Moderate to very informative
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very useful information. Such information needs to be presented to new personnel during their induction. As a new person (Which I was in Dec 2010) the information presented makes one know what other branches/ campuses are exactly doing.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Not useful to me
 1 (1%) 
 
 Extremely useful
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very useful( 100%)
 1 (1%) 
 
 The information presented was useful as one had an opportunity to learn about work done at campus level.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very interesting
 1 (1%) 
 
 It was good to be informed on what research is going on in the different ARC campuses
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very useful in aspects of what other campuses is doing.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Somewhat - I could not attend everything
 1 (1%) 
 
 The content presented highlighted the key strengths as well as potential collaboration research areas that one could consider in future projects.
 1 (1%) 
 
 very
 1 (1%) 
 
 Extremely useful and insightful.
 1 (1%) 
 
 We learnt a lot about the work done by the ARC research teams. Also noting the ongoing intercampus collaboration. Hearing researchers sharing information and committing to putting together or expanding collaborating teams to include other areas of research which was shared during the conference was great.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very useful and interesting
 1 (1%) 
 
 The information was very professional and useful.
 1 (1%) 
 
 It will help to effect collaborations on projects
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very important and useful
 1 (1%) 
 
 THE CONFERENCE WAS INFORMATIVE AND I LEARNT A LOT .
 1 (1%) 
 
 very useful
 2 (2%) 
 
 Very useful information.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Highlighted many facets of research in the organisation no everybody is familiar with. It was very useful and should definitely be repeated in the future with more specifics
 1 (1%) 
 
 interesting
 1 (1%) 
 
 Was useful to know what other research is being done at the ARC, and gave insight to possible collaborations/information sharing
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very relevant and useful. Could see the research of different groups and identify collaborative opportunities.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The information was useful because I have been at the ARC for 6 months. I presented to me a well-rounded description of the ARC's functions and competencies
 1 (1%) 
 
 Learned more about what the ARC as a whole do, brilliant work!
 1 (1%) 
 
 The information presented at the conference was very much useful and relevant from day-to-day challenges farmers face. There were solutions in addressing those problems during the presentations.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The information was very useful because we now know what other researchers in other campuses are doing and this will help to know who to collaborate with to prevent working in silos and duplication of effort. It was also eye opening on other information that was shared because it looks like other campuses or individuals within campus are well informed about what is happening in the ARC while others are not, one need to know someone in other campuses who can share information or else one remains in the dark. I am just hoping there can also be collaboration within campuses because this opened up opportunities between campuses but we still have problems within campus.
 1 (1%) 
 
 extremely useful. It made a comprehensive review of what ARC really does
 1 (1%) 
 
 The presentation was useful, had chance to know each department and their responsibilities for future collaboration.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Nothing was useful as long as the farmers, women and children are not involved. We must start to engage farmers nothing for the farmers without the farmers.
 1 (1%) 
 
 It contributed to my understanding of the ARC
 1 (1%) 
 
 The information enlightened me on how we can improve our research activities and showed me some possible areas of collaboration with other institutes.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The information was extremely useful, it allowed not only the infrastructure to be highlighted that could potentially have uses across various campuses but also highlighted some areas were groups could collaborate
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very informative and well presented
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very useful. I recommend that the event should be annual.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The information was generic, it could have been more in-depth project related presentations.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very enlightening
 1 (1%) 
 
 multidisciplinary research and career path within the ARC. Also the Q&A on how finance and supply chain affect research output within the ARC
 1 (1%) 
 
  I found the information presented to be incredibly useful. Thanks to the conference, I now know which compass does what, something I wasn't aware of before. Overall, it was an enlightening experience that left me feeling much more informed.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Informative
 1 (1%) 
 
 It was extremely beneficial because it gave us an opportunity to understand the work done by other researchers as well as opportunity to engage with experts in various fields of work.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very useful and informative
 1 (1%) 
 
 it was very informative.
 1 (1%) 
 
 We learned about what other campuses are doing, which is important.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The conference was very useful and made me learn few things about whar ARC is doing and aiming to do for the future.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Information was very useful and enabled all internal stakeholders to know better about the research and work done at ARC.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very useful, I've learned a lot about our research.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The information was very informative and appreciated.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Interesting information regarding all aspects of research undertaken at the ARC. The panel discussions was most valuable with regards to comments made that we experience as research staff which Finance, SCM, and head office seems to constantly ignore or dismiss which holds up our research.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Interesting
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very useful
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very interesting and useful in terms of planning
 1 (1%) 
 
 very much. Got to appreciate the full scale of ARC's services and contribution to the agricultural sector.
 1 (1%) 
 
 It was really interesting but many presentations were not relevant to my research but was good to hear what was going on at other Institutes. For example a lot of animal science and horticulture presentations had no bearing on my work. Maybe sometime in the near future we can have more specific meetings and present more detail?.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The presentations were well presented.
 1 (1%) 
 
 To create a platform for more collaborative opportunities
 1 (1%) 
 
 It was useful in closing the gap between our core business and support. We got to understand the "why" of what we do and the necessity for teamwork is more apparent now than ever.
 1 (1%) 
 
 It was very useful in showing the various research being carried out at different campuses. Some of the presenters even highlighted areas where they required socio-economic analyses to be carried out.
 1 (1%) 
 
 I got the information from other campuses.
 1 (1%) 
 
 I found all that the presentations shed light on to what the ARC encompasses.
 1 (1%) 
 
Total: 123

5. e) What was most useful for you?

 Research Team Presentations
 26 (21%) 
 
 Retired/Distinguished Guest Presentations
 6 (5%) 
 
 Q&A and Panel discussions
 2 (2%) 
 
 Press Interviews
 1 (1%) 
 
 Marketing content (pop ups, exhibitions etc.)
 2 (2%) 
 
 Research Team Presentations; Retired/Distinguished Guest Presentations; Q&A and Panel discussions; Press Interviews; Marketing content (pop ups, exhibitions etc.)
 12 (10%) 
 
 Research Team Presentations; Retired/Distinguished Guest Presentations; Q&A and Panel discussions
 23 (19%) 
 
 Research Team Presentations; Retired/Distinguished Guest Presentations
 21 (17%) 
 
 Research Team Presentations; Q&A and Panel discussions
 17 (14%) 
 
 Research Team Presentations; Q&A and Panel discussions; Marketing content (pop ups, exhibitions etc.)
 4 (3%) 
 
 Research Team Presentations; Retired/Distinguished Guest Presentations; Q&A and Panel discussions; Press Interviews
 2 (2%) 
 
 Research Team Presentations; Marketing content (pop ups, exhibitions etc.)
 2 (2%) 
 
 Research Team Presentations; Retired/Distinguished Guest Presentations; Q&A and Panel discussions; Marketing content (pop ups, exhibitions etc.)
 3 (2%) 
 
 Research Team Presentations; Retired/Distinguished Guest Presentations; Marketing content (pop ups, exhibitions etc.)
 2 (2%) 
 
Total: 123

6. f) What should we keep?

 Research presentations
 2 (2%) 
 
 Everything that took place was on point, and obviously there is room for further improvement.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research Team presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 everything, just allow more time for presentations even if the conference have to be extended another day If it is still possible, could add a questions in here where you ask, what actions in response to what transpired at the conference will those who attended take. E.g. I am building a new collaboration with SCW
 1 (1%) 
 
 Distinguished guest presentations - as there are many others and they are inspiring
 1 (1%) 
 
 Increase time for Q&A and panel discussions or workshops. Thats where a great deal of issues surface
 1 (1%) 
 
 Overviews of research teams with one presentation/team of a specific project; give early-career researchers an opportunity.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Further engagements and continuation of these events and processes
 1 (1%) 
 
 Everything. It was a very well planned and compiled event.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Retired / Distinguished Guest Presentations should be kept. However, there has to be representativity across color lines. We do have African Black Researchers/Scientist who were not considered eg Dr Ephraim Matjuda, or were they considered and not accept the invitation?
 1 (1%) 
 
 All the campuses should be presented so that we can make the InterResearch more known to other upcoming young researchers.
 1 (1%) 
 
 All content presented was good.
 1 (1%) 
 
 everything must remain
 1 (1%) 
 
 Retired guest presentation
 1 (1%) 
 
 All was good.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Both of the above
 1 (1%) 
 
 Everything
 7 (6%) 
 
 Research - innovations
 1 (1%) 
 
 All
 8 (7%) 
 
 Research team presentations More time for Q&A
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research Team presentations Guest presentations (on actual research and impact of research, NOT a general overview of for example What is animal breading and What is entomology - some such presentations are masked with a title that does not reflect a contents. (input to research, implication of research for agriculture: benefits for different sectors and to small scale and subsistence farmers. Q&A
 1 (1%) 
 
 definitely keep representations from different research teams
 1 (1%) 
 
 Presentations, Q and A and Panel Discussions
 1 (1%) 
 
 The programme was well presented. More time should be allocated to the Q&A and Panel discussions cause this is a platform to discuss the challenges faced within the institutes and the ARC at large.
 1 (1%) 
 
 All of the above, it was a great programme.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Overview of lifetime achievements from retired / distinguished researchers.
 1 (1%) 
 
 There was something for everybody. Good content.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Keep as-is
 1 (1%) 
 
 all
 2 (2%) 
 
 the format
 1 (1%) 
 
 Don't know, Was not involved
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research team presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 The hybrid method was very useful since not all of us could be present in person. The guest presentations was inspirational for career achievements
 1 (1%) 
 
 All of the above. Exhibition should also be showed virtually.
 1 (1%) 
 
 What research in being done currently and what was done.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The conference must be a yearly thing.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research presentations; Q&A and panel discussions
 1 (1%) 
 
 Presentations, Guest Presenters, Q&A, Marketing
 1 (1%) 
 
 We should keep all of it
 1 (1%) 
 
 Scientific work
 1 (1%) 
 
 Everything.
 1 (1%) 
 
 This whole initiative should happen on a regular basis, more invite of industry. Research presentation should be delivered with the emphasis for marketing purposes - thus on a "lower" level. Support personnel should be included in the presentation so that they understand their support responsibility.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Inviting support to understand research Talks by experienced scientists presentations from campuses
 1 (1%) 
 
 all of the above, each activity has its own unique role to play in the process
 1 (1%) 
 
 The research team presentations and Q&A sessions
 1 (1%) 
 
 The presentations were excellent. I think that the conference should be held twice a year.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research team Presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 Retired/distinguished guest speakers Q&A Panel discussions
 1 (1%) 
 
 Everything for now, the content of the presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 Scrap the whole conference or take it to the farmers.
 1 (1%) 
 
 All categories were interesting and I think should be kept.
 1 (1%) 
 
 We should keep on inviting the retired to come and share with us some of the things they have achieved while working for the ARC or as Researchers. This could motivate the young Researchers to work harder in their research profession.
 1 (1%) 
 
 All of the above.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The guest presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 All key areas that were covered
 1 (1%) 
 
 Presentation highlighting the different aspects of each campus and the work that they focus on.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Presentations but maybe limited to allow for more discussions in form of Q&A and panel discussions.
 1 (1%) 
 
 All of it
 2 (2%) 
 
 My view is that we can keep everything as is and removed the retired guests from the list. The reason be that we live in a new technology era, and most of the retired people comes with information that is not relevant to the new generation. Maybe there should be another platform for when the experience people are needed. Or something relevant from them, only at the beginning and the end, because of time constrains.
 1 (1%) 
 
 This kind of conference should be done every to strenthen research collaborations
 1 (1%) 
 
 Keep the summarised projects per group by RTMS
 1 (1%) 
 
 EVRYTHING
 1 (1%) 
 
 we need to keep the collaboration going
 1 (1%) 
 
 Everything is fine so far...
 1 (1%) 
 
 RT presentations; retired/Distinguished guest & Q&A
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research Projects For possible collaboration
 1 (1%) 
 
 All
 2 (2%) 
 
 Research team, retired/distinguished presentations, and definitely Q&A sessions.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research presentations.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research team presentations.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Having the retired or distinguished guests added a personal journey of the ARC and how it meant to them. I thoroughly enjoyed the talk from the gentleman who talked to the younger professionals about a career in research.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Everything.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Team research presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 Keep the hardworking researchers and support services who put in long hours in ensuring the organization meets it mandate.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research Team Presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 Everything should be kept.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Retired/Distinguished Guest Presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 Marketing pop ups
 1 (1%) 
 
 Nothing, scrap the whole thing. Our farmers are suffering without information and you are siiting with it on your desk and you share it among yourself. Please go out to communities and make an impact. Don't you see what Dr Maponya is doing? Please move away from the desk and start to do community based research.
 1 (1%) 
 
 research presentation Panel discussions Press interviews
 1 (1%) 
 
 I think you should keep everything as each served its main purpose very well.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research focus of the conference and show casing the work being done
 1 (1%) 
 
 All presentations, just was a pity that the Q&A sessions were skipped due to time constraints
 1 (1%) 
 
 distinguished guest presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research Team presentations Distinguish Guest Presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 All is worth keeping. Just try to start on time.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Distinguished guests' presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 Useful
 1 (1%) 
 
 all of the above.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Keep everything as planned
 1 (1%) 
 
 Retired/Distinguish guest Presentation.
 1 (1%) 
 
 I think this conference should continue for the next years to come
 1 (1%) 
 
 The theme was great, the idea should be kept the same.
 1 (1%) 
 
 All of the above
 2 (2%) 
 
 Exhibitions Presentations Press interviews
 1 (1%) 
 
 Panel discussions
 1 (1%) 
 
 The format was ok
 1 (1%) 
 
 Everything, all presenters must be there in person
 1 (1%) 
 
 the format was fine but perhaps more time allocation to speakers could be considered?
 1 (1%) 
 
 I did not see the exhibitions as I was online so can not comment there. The research team presentations can be longer and incorporate more researchers rather than one representative of a large group. The short time available and a single presenter representing a large group a lot of information slips through the floorboards. The panel discussions I found were more individuals perspectives and ideas than the groups. These were least helpful.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research outputs as they form part of the intellectual property.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The conference needs to happen annually and bi-annual follow-ups need to be made
 1 (1%) 
 
 Keep the exhibitions. The visual representations of the research work complimented the oral presentations so well. To be truthful, this conference was AMAZING, so most things can stay.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research team presentations, keynote presentations as well as panel discussions, press interviews, and marketing content.
 1 (1%) 
 
 This was a winning formula - keep it up
 1 (1%) 
 
Total: 123

7. g) What should we remove?

 Press interviews
 1 (1%) 
 
 Nothing
 18 (15%) 
 
 None
 15 (12%) 
 
 nothing I thoroughly enjoyed myself. thanks to all involved.
 1 (1%) 
 
 a) give more time for discussion. b) be surethtaChairpersonis a good timekeeper.
 1 (1%) 
 
 I doubt interviews (outside the auditorium) received much attention. Perhaps we could still circulate to employees through po ups. In future let's position the interviews for impact
 1 (1%) 
 
 less emphasis on presentations by retired researchers - keynotes should focus on an aspect of research.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Nothing. It was a very well thought out event.
 1 (1%) 
 
 I think everything in the Programme was just good. However, we need to keep a good balance between African Black Females and White Females and Males
 1 (1%) 
 
 Nothing, just improve and ensure that everyone is involved.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Nothing should be but have updates on collaborations that have started because of conference.
 1 (1%) 
 
 nothing at all
 1 (1%) 
 
 Short conference time and conference in March
 1 (1%) 
 
 Loadshedding.
 1 (1%) 
 
  Nothing
 1 (1%) 
 
 Red tape
 1 (1%) 
 
 the online streaming of presentations had glitches, screens were not fully visible and presentations were also delayed. Streaming is ideal in these days age, just investigate the cause of the glitches and everything will be fine. The media wanted to feature presentations/speakers, I suggested that in future, they should send us general questions which can be asked before hand, so that we prepare for that as well. It becomes overwhelming when you are not prepared.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Panels should include researchers, not only management
 1 (1%) 
 
 Remove Q &A after every speaker and perhaps make it Q &A for the Session
 1 (1%) 
 
 Key note speakers who talk only about themselves
 1 (1%) 
 
 Nothing at this point, however there is always a room for improvement.
 1 (1%) 
 
 All items should be kept. There should be an embargo on administrative meetings so that more staff can attend conference in person to increase networking opportunities.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research Team presentations, since this information is available on the website. Rather let the researchers present their science.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Nothing specifically.
 1 (1%) 
 
 N/A
 2 (2%) 
 
 none
 3 (2%) 
 
 Don't know, Was not involved in planning
 1 (1%) 
 
 nothing
 1 (1%) 
 
 None.
 2 (2%) 
 
 Not sure what should be remove, for me personally it was fine.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Nothing.
 3 (2%) 
 
 press interviews; pop ups ?
 1 (1%) 
 
 Overviews of different groups
 1 (1%) 
 
 cannot comment on this as I did not attend all sessions.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Very difficult to say, the whole package was very successful and contributed to the changed vibe which was the most encouraging thing overall. I think the program should in future also reflect the space the ARC is in, just like this one did. so maybe some of the issues that were addressed will fall away and be replaced by other
 1 (1%) 
 
 nothing
 2 (2%) 
 
 It is not necessarily the removal but in addition to the RTM, researchers should also be given chances to present their work. By doing so, more knowledge will be gained and it will be easier to identify areas of collaboration.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Pop ups
 1 (1%) 
 
 Overview of divisions research, rather focus on individual research
 1 (1%) 
 
 Nothing for now
 1 (1%) 
 
 The whole conference it seems it a meeting of old friends who can meet and use the ARC funds for their own benefits. There was no farmer participation. Are we taking decision on behalf of the farmers.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Q&A and Panel discussions
 1 (1%) 
 
 Too many pop ups
 1 (1%) 
 
 keep it the same
 1 (1%) 
 
 Generic presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 Retired guests
 1 (1%) 
 
 Nothing specific. The researchers' interviews could be played but the programme was too tight to accommodate them.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Personally, I think we should keep everything as it was, but maybe a little less questions and answer. Maybe the Q & A could be made up in the form of a survey, like this one.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Keep everything as it is
 1 (1%) 
 
 Nothing, this is a good start. I enjoyed the conference, but there is always room for improvement
 1 (1%) 
 
 NOTHING TO BE REMOVED
 1 (1%) 
 
 nothing that comes to mind
 1 (1%) 
 
 The Q & A after every presentation.
 1 (1%) 
 
 All was relevant, some more than other
 1 (1%) 
 
 think it was adequate
 1 (1%) 
 
 Cannot think what could be removed
 1 (1%) 
 
 The videos of individuals talking about their research career. Unless the person is A-rated scientist or achieved amazing things in the career that people can be inspired by.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Distinguished guests.
 1 (1%) 
 
  I think the conference was too concentrated. Trying to package everything into two days was impractical. The ARC is a large entity and it should have been three or more days. We are almost or always running out of time. Time constraints have a tendency to reduce the essence of the event at hand.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Include younger up and coming researchers too. Consider the time of the year of the conference. March is a very busy time for researchers and close to the the financial year end.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The idea that the organization is a brand that does not need to marketed. We need to make farmers and the general public aware who is ARC, what are our researches going to assist them from improving their livelihood by presenting at platforms such as Farmers' days, Farmer group discussions.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Retired/Distinguished Guest Presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 Nothing should be removed.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Retired guest presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 Remove the whole thing.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Don't remove anything.
 1 (1%) 
 
 I would remove the over arching over views of the teams as this has now been done and move more towards individual research projects and the work that is achieved. I would likely also remove the panel discussion as i did not find the current panel discussions very useful
 1 (1%) 
 
 Not sure about the panel discussions
 1 (1%) 
 
 Broad research team projects
 1 (1%) 
 
 Marketing content
 1 (1%) 
 
 The cold AC
 1 (1%) 
 
 Everything was relevant as this was the first conference.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Not to put many presentation for a slot
 1 (1%) 
 
 For me nothing needs to be removed except that the presentations should be accessible on our media platforms like Youtube to enable external engagements on the work we do.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The camera 360 degree, our researchers don't appreciate seeing money spend on such when they don't have branded shirts to look presentable when they do their presentation. It would be appreciated to consult with PROs to ask what researchers would like or need. Working together for a good support.
 1 (1%) 
 
 nothing yet
 1 (1%) 
 
 Guest spekers talking about there careers
 1 (1%) 
 
 Nothing
 2 (2%) 
 
 Cant think of any.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Keep as is but see comments in f above.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Allocate sufficient time for presentations and interactions
 1 (1%) 
 
 Can't think of anything
 1 (1%) 
 
 The exhibitions can be removed or if they are kept, a dedicated time slot in the program should be made when participants can visit the stalls to get more information. As it was in the past conference, participants did not have enough time to visit the exhibitions. The only time available was briefly during tea and lunch breaks.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Everything was fine as it was
 1 (1%) 
 
Total: 123

8. h) Should we host an annual Intercampus conference?

 Yes
 112 (91%) 
 
 No
 11 (9%) 
 
Total: 123

9. i) Please give any suggestions you have for the next conference

 The next conference should focus on presentations of research particularly where the researches already have significant results to share. This might be from a completed project or a project that has run its course such that the results already obtained are worthy sharing in the opinion of the researchers.
 1 (1%) 
 
 So far am good with the previous arrangements.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Include a few young students in the presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 Theme based conference, whereby research campuses present on how they are tackling a theme? E.g.. all research that are related to climate change. Other themes could include land reform, one-health, ecological restoration, regenerative agriculture/conservation farming, indigenous knowledge systems, transdisciplinary research, science into policy, etc. I also would like us now to invite maybe a keynote on these themes from ARC or non-ARC experts. Then, we need to think what do we want to achieve with such a conference. We can all put our heads together for this but for example, we could come up with a few resolutions, as many international conference do at the end of such a meeting, the inter-campus research committee can then ascertain how resolutions could be implemented by the research units as well as those who straddles the policy arena, commercialisation, marketing, etc. Our M&E team can also monitor progress on such resolutions and do regular evaluations. Just some thoughts regards, Igshaan
 1 (1%) 
 
 Should be EVERY 6 months. Perhaphaea"theme" next time to pull it together. Could have discussion groups in break-away sessions. Do "speed TED-EX talks. Should rotate to other centers. Pity Climate & Agromet did not feature?
 1 (1%) 
 
 Choose a different venue e.g. Roodeplaat
 1 (1%) 
 
 Make it one day and select specific projects, or schedule Horticulture/corps research for one day and animal research for another day or try themes to focus presentations. Move conference to another quarter - Q4 is very busy considering that it is a very busy time (fruit harvesting, admin re financial year). Here is my motivation for NO (not annually) If annually, then it can become just one more thing on the agenda and people will ask "what is new". They will assume more or less the same information will be presented (and they will be correct as the various research focus areas by teams do not change substantially from year to year, if at all.
 1 (1%) 
 
 None
 3 (2%) 
 
 Add live demonstrations if possible.
 1 (1%) 
 
 However, the CSIR has a Biennial (every second year) Conference that runs over two days and it includes both internal and external stakeholders. Exhibitions also form part of the Conference. On the first day, they invite the Minister, Portfolio Committee and other high profile people. I think we can learn a few things from them. Secondly, I think we can better consult with regard to the theme. A theme is not an expression, it has to communicate our current programmes in a nutshell - Thabiso Mudau.
 1 (1%) 
 
 All the campuses should be presented so that we can make the InterResearch conference more known to other upcoming young researchers. This will allow for more collaboration within the ARC.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Where to source funding and how to market our current services to funders in south Africa and Africa to generate more income and increase our footprint in the industry.
 1 (1%) 
 
 we should be ready for the next event because i am sure there will be excessive number of people who will want to attend.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Expand conference duration, host at off season like June or July, introduce non-senior session chairs. its about the researchers not those that manage. Have proceedings and see if it cannot be registered with SACNASP
 1 (1%) 
 
 Include Agromet
 1 (1%) 
 
 More info on specific contacts within ARC that will help staff locate a specific skill or expertise area quickly, without having to go through several contacts to get the information.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research outcome presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 Progress on collaboration
 1 (1%) 
 
 Once a year is OK
 1 (1%) 
 
 Open opportunities/slot for students and potential students. Please take into account dietary preferences.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Was well managed - more people to attend in person - if possible
 1 (1%) 
 
 More emphasis on success stories for example on programmes that were run for many years and how they benefitted agriculture and rural farmers.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Need a dedicate spot for young researchers perhaps in a panel discussion
 1 (1%) 
 
 Have personnel responsible for those attending virtually so that questions can be asked online during the presentations instead of waiting for to point out a few at the Q and A sessions.
 1 (1%) 
 
 it would be interesting to have researchers show casing some of their research work, including the PDP students particularly those funded by ARC.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Overview of possible multidisciplinary projects for all ARC programmes and how multi Institute projects (MIPs)can be managed within ARC systems. Guidance on how to setup MIPs and training on applying for MIPs from international funders.
 1 (1%) 
 
 More researchers presenting their research.
 1 (1%) 
 
 If you want to make it virtual, make sure everything is working beforehand. On the first day, almost all presentations was out of focus or keep going in and out of focus.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Maybe the conference can be held at different campuses on a rotational basis.
 1 (1%) 
 
 improve on connection technology
 1 (1%) 
 
 Maybe less for a shorter period
 1 (1%) 
 
 No suggestions.
 1 (1%) 
 
 For Virtual presentations the recorded video or presentations should be audible and visible slides presentations should be emphasized on presenters.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Slides on the virtual presentations were not readable and blurry probably due to the quality of the camera used to film the screen. Perhaps it will be better to share them on the meeting platform.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Not to host it just before the end of the financial year but rather later in the year,
 1 (1%) 
 
 All the chair person used this time were either executive members or Senior managers, I don't understand why it so. Next time include researchers ( could be Senior, Specialist, or Principal) who are capable/ experts in the topic under discussion to chair the session. Improve also the selection of panelists for the panel discussion.
 1 (1%) 
 
 If possible, could you supply the names of the researchers with what they are currently doing research on. It does not have be in detail but just to give and idea so if we as librarians come across some current or previous information, we can let the researchers know. Thank you.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Make it compulsory for everyone, they could benefit.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Attend in person
 1 (1%) 
 
 Discussion forums, Interactive exhibitions
 1 (1%) 
 
 Suggest there are three full days set aside and that there be more time for engagements and networking in between sessions. Arrange for another time of the year e.g. early August. March is in the season and also very close to year-end with lots of year end processes ongoing. Mix of teams presentations and actual research work done in the next one. Could think about specific thematic areas and arrange prestation around that, but keep the focus around the intercampus collaboration, hence presentations that demonstrate the intercampus collaboration should be featured. We should consider to have a gala dinner in the middle evening and that could then also become the ARC annual reward ceremony where we give the annual rewards and recognition that must be reignited. In between there can be quarterly sessions arranged around the themes that could be identified (4 per year)
 1 (1%) 
 
 Start planning earlier and choose a few researchers to give more in depth talks
 1 (1%) 
 
 N/A
 1 (1%) 
 
 Senior Support personnel should attend in the presentation so that they understand their support responsibility.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Rotate researchers form campuses so that the campus is represented by a researcher who was not at the first conference in person. Allow staff to "ask" for talks by specific research aspects/programs they were introduced to this year, but would like to learn more about. Don't fiddle too much with a winning formula, just make sure it keeps up with the current issues in the organisation and grows with the direction the ARC is taking.
 1 (1%) 
 
 maybe extend the conference with a day extra, to allow for Q&A sessions and critical discussions
 1 (1%) 
 
 Maybe something on enhancing collaboration between campusses
 1 (1%) 
 
 I suggest that the next conference should be 5 days and more researchers should present their work. I also suggest that the conference should include poster sessions.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Please communicate better. Giving Indvidual presentation for protect allows for better collaborations.
 1 (1%) 
 
 We should incorporate/invite regulatory bodies (Department of Health, DALRRD, SABS and NRSC and certifying bodies such as FoodBev Seta and Agri Seta, we can all benefit by keeping ourselves abreast with the changes in our regulations. Maybe also invite funders to hear what their funding focus is , how can ARC assist in terms of research.
 1 (1%) 
 
 conference to focus on a research science field eg. breeding, plant protection
 1 (1%) 
 
 Cutting-edge science, services and technologies(e.g. Equipment used)
 1 (1%) 
 
  Take the research to the people, rural women and children. make the impact in the communities. Create women and youth in Agriculture to share knowledge and information with.
 1 (1%) 
 
 For those attending virtually, we missed out on the Press Interviews as well as exhibitions. It would have been nice to somehow include those during the lunch breaks or possibly having a live feed at the exhibitions.
 1 (1%) 
 
 We must encourage everybody in the ARC to attend the conference.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The theme for the next conference should be focused around the impact of climate change, how that affects the research done within the context of the ARC.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Try to stick to time more naturally, otherwise it becomes the main focus.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Feature principle/specialist researchers that are bring in large amounts of external income
 1 (1%) 
 
 Include some extra days for research highlights on inter-campus projects
 1 (1%) 
 
 One or two keynotes (externally) - more discussions, less generic presentations, how does these presentations translate into solutions for agriculture in South Africa, Africa and globally - what are the opportunities, what are the main themes, where are the commercialization opportunities, what are the main challenges, the big wins.....the lessons learnt
 1 (1%) 
 
 Every team is to present a poster on each of their research projects, where these posters can be exhibited during all breaks. This will encourage team building and exchanging of ideas. These may be converted to a e-proceedings for the conference. Also consider a student poster competition - this will encourage to participate in sharing their research and ideas to ARC as a whole.
 1 (1%) 
 
 include more new specific research results
 1 (1%) 
 
 Have a table discussion where researchers can come up with ideas on collaborations with other institutes.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Provide opportunity for collaborating teams to share on their work to encourage intercampus collaboration. Panel discussion from support on how support teams can support the research teams more efficiently. Researchers interviews can be accommodated in the future programme. The presentation prerecording can be coordinated and recorded for enhanced quality to ensure good virtual experience.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Focus on general research also
 1 (1%) 
 
 All the speakers were really good and professional, but I think there should be a kind of a training for other personnel that want an opportunity to present at such a Conference. It is really a good platform and opportunity for younger Researchers and those that want to better their presenting skills. To overcome the fear of presenting in front of a big audience.
 1 (1%) 
 
 We are a big research organization, please extend the conference to 2 days
 1 (1%) 
 
 Also involve upcoming researchers' segment to present their projects in respective groups, the RTMs are already established. Give room for the next generation to be recognized. Celebrate, give the awards to young people who have dedicated their time and work to the ARC. Also have a segment on money generated per year per team. Another segment to show only international projects and researchers involved in those (both nationally and internationally) can be added. Give an opportunity to teams like SCM and finance to also present, infact each presenter from every support staff group.
 1 (1%) 
 
 IT WILL BE GOOD TO SEE MORE PRESENTATIONS FROM STUDENTS . SHARING WITH US THEIR WORK THEY DOING AT THE ARC
 1 (1%) 
 
 we can also present proposals
 1 (1%) 
 
 We can have a Q & A session before break (Lunch), and at the end of the day. Also, synchronize the topics. Another idea: if possible, group the virtual presentations together. Not sure if that will work, but we can give it a go. We still have a year to run some tests.
 1 (1%) 
 
 More specs on specific projects, now that we have a broad outline.
 1 (1%) 
 
 none
 1 (1%) 
 
 Biannual
 1 (1%) 
 
 The video/sound quality should be improved. During breaks perhaps play video of interviews had on various campuses with researchers. I know videos were made but as a virtual attendee I could not see this.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Please create a session where campuses discuss research and collaboration opportunities and come up with draft proposals/ brainstorms which can then be further fleshed and finalized after the conference.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The official start time of the speakers should be later to accommodate travel in traffic, load shedding etc. so that the conference does not start late. Chairpersons had to rush the sessions to catch up with time resulting in not enough time or in some cases no time for Q&A session. More time should be allocated for questions after each presenter. Better to schedule longer Q&A time to accommodate delays.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Speakers on specific important topics or research findings.
 1 (1%) 
 
 I think the ARC community was not really well-informed about the intention of the conference. Everyone I conversed with about the conference was unclear about the objectives of the ARC. The next conference should include the Intellectual Property & Commercialisation Unit in the programme in order to sensitize the ARC community on IP Issues which are critical in the ARC. Furthermore, the catering situation was terrible. We cannot be an entity of excellence and cannot afford to provide appropriate lunch and also have a shortage of food - it reflects badly on us as an organisation.
 1 (1%) 
 
 We like to see more collaborative work between ARC campuses, to break the silo working practice.
 1 (1%) 
 
 This depends on how the budgets and times space are. Please can attention be given to the facilities at CO. There are no toilet seats and it is gives a bad impression.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Let us expand by inviting Farmers, universities and relevant agricultural stakeholders.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Include diagnostic laboratory presentations. It will assist us in assisting customers and guiding them to the correct diagnostics laboratories. This will make us look more professional instead of being clueless as to what diagnostics other laboratories can offer.
 1 (1%) 
 
 All research teams need to be represented.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Maybe invite funders and partners
 1 (1%) 
 
 Master of ceremony must limit their comment/speech/jokes after the presentation because we still have time to ask presenters questions.
 1 (1%) 
 
 There should no conference, unless we go to the communities and share knowledge with them. I am not talking about farmers Day I am talking real staff where the CEO and excutive go out to communities and perform AI on animals. Dr Motswaledi can go and do rounds to patients but our Doctors are siiting in their offices planning inter research campus. No remove this thing.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Include support presentations to improve understanding of their services and contribute to service improvement.
 1 (1%) 
 
 You can include some content from industry or policy makers if possible. Increase the duration to about 4days or the whole week and have more presentations. Also change the venue; you may use UP or CSIR that can accommodate more people. Advertise the conference while there is still time so that different teams prepare themselves and select representatives and give more details in presentations. There is no way research activities for a department can be compressed into a 10 minute presentation. Some of the activities will be left out and in some cases the presenter will be biased towards their own activities. I am not sure if ARC services had a space in the conference. I think they should be included as they can invoke some research ideas and collaboration.
 1 (1%) 
 
 That the conference focus more on scientific content and that researchers are given a platform to show case the work done
 1 (1%) 
 
 More advanced notice of the conference so that one can plan accordingly
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research findings, highlights and challenges
 1 (1%) 
 
 Presentations should be on specific research projects. No programme managers presenting on behave of people who do the actual work. Where were the young researchers? Does the ARC not have young researchers? Should we have a separate conference highlighting the work done by permanently employed young researchers within the ARC (not the PDP students conference)?
 1 (1%) 
 
 Research team presentations should involve more people representing each of the different divisions
 1 (1%) 
 
 Invite one or two guest speakers from government and/ or industry, to highlight some of the regulations that we need to adhere to.
 1 (1%) 
 
 none at this point
 1 (1%) 
 
 Based on my personal experience, I found everything about the conference to be perfect. However, for future events, it could be beneficial to consider incorporating student presentations, as they often conduct fascinating research and produce valuable work at the ARC. This could add an additional layer of insight and diversity to the conference program.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Bi-annual conference to enable researchers to get enough time in doing research and reporting
 1 (1%) 
 
 Give better guidelines to presenters on what to include in presentations
 1 (1%) 
 
 Allow each campus a chance to host the conference. Perhaps after 5 years of success, we can extend the invitation to other institutes.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Keep up the good work regarding the planning of the conference
 1 (1%) 
 
 Involve students Put more emphasis on multidisciplinary research & developments
 1 (1%) 
 
 improve marketing strategies.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Include a presentation on PDP program. Invite external speakers so that we have an external view/perspective of the importance of ARC.
 1 (1%) 
 
 the next conference should also give chance to young ones to show their experience iun working here and the work they do.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The conference can benefit a lot with the inclusion of student research and invitation of external panelist to help us improve where there is need for improvement. Stream the conference on media platforms to enable external engagement an advertisement of the ARC research
 1 (1%) 
 
 Encourage Support Staff to attend as well
 1 (1%) 
 
 Final year University students
 1 (1%) 
 
 Do not have the conference near the end of the financial year.
 1 (1%) 
 
 All contrabutions to be publiched in a proseeding. Only need to be available electronically. Direction of the ARC for next 10 years highlighted perhaps
 1 (1%) 
 
 Perfect execution
 1 (1%) 
 
 Presenters to be there in person
 1 (1%) 
 
 This one was very well organised. No suggestions
 1 (1%) 
 
 I think it would be best to host the conference every second year to enable new research output to be shared. In addition, stakeholders and potential funders (even venture capitalists) could be invited to showcase/market the extend of ARC's offering.
 1 (1%) 
 
 See f above.
 1 (1%) 
 
 PDP students should be involved in the conference hence so that we can know of what they are doing.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Committees or platforms must have been established which focuses on looking at possibilities to suggest the combination of projects to have a huge impact. In addtion, an innovation platform needs to be established where employees can submit proposals yearly and the ARC can allocate funds for proposals that will make a huge return on investment
 1 (1%) 
 
 Regulate the registration and name tag process and limit access to the conference venue only to those who are attending to avoid food shortages.
 1 (1%) 
 
 The conference can be hosted over three days to allow more engagements. More time should be allocated for panel discussions because that is when people get to engage and share ideas. The timing of the conference should be when researchers are relatively available, probably just after the financial year-end. The conference should also be advertised and marketed in advance to allow proper planning for those interested in participating physically. The organizing committee can also look into the possibility of having parallel sessions or breakaway sessions grouped by research interests or points of collaboration. It would also be interesting to include a session or maybe a panel discussion that discusses sourcing external funding by experienced researchers (to share their experience) to help young and upcoming researchers with external income generation.
 1 (1%) 
 
 Having conference every 2 years
 1 (1%) 
 
 I liked the 10min presentations. Maybe the head from each institute could give an overview of their respective institute to start off a session.
 1 (1%) 
 
Total: 123