CARDICIS's survey responds to three objectives and is organized based on them:

1) To make a new evaluation of the first workshop, longer after  the event, to understand if positive workshop evaluations corresponded more to an affective result rather than to an effective impact.  Due to this, questions will focus on the essential aspects and circumstantial elements, tied to the organization of the event, will not be considered. We will also take the opportunity to make an evaluation of the period following the first meeting, as well.

2) Try a first approach of an impact evaluation, to measure invisible, deeper and lasting effects in the behavior of community members.

The first two sections are aimed at persons who attended the first workshop, and will serve as an indirect feedback for the design of the new workshop, as well as an indirect input to the new workshop.

3) To build a foundation that serves as an input for the next workshop, both at evaluation level of the  knowledge base of the context - (based on the established programming), as well as a collection of expectations and recommendations. 

This part is aimed at everyone, first meeting attendees as well as to the entire CARDICIS community, and it will serve as a direct input for the workshop and its design process.

In order to complete the questionnaire, it is necessary to know the original proposal for managing the workshop:  Work document ( and to have visited the Website (

Qualification Scale

NA: Not applicable
0 Null / without importance / Null
1 Very few / Very little importance / Very Weak
2 Small / Small importance / Weak
3 Some / Some importance / Correct
4 A lot / Very important / Good
5 Great / Essential / Very good

Coordination comments are in italics throughout the entire document so as to separate a non-biased reading of results without comments and subjective reading of coordination

According to this scale the average value is 2.5.
An average above 4 denotes strong appreciation.
An average above a 3 denotes notable appreciation.
An average between 2 and 3 calls for consulting variance and can show either a weak appreciation (if the variance coefficient is low) or else a point of lack of consensus between the people that responded (if the coefficient variance is high).


The questionnaire contains three sections:

  1. Evaluation of Cardicis1 "cold ", one year later
  2. Cardicis's impact "behind the curtain"
  3. Inputs for the meeting CARDICIS 2

A total of 24 persons tried to respond the questionnaire and only 16 were able to conclude the process with answers in at least one of the parts.

The absolute sample total is 49 persons (subscribers of the CARDICIS list), of which the CARDICIS team must necessarily be eliminated, that is, 9 persons, which leads us to a figure of 40, and thus a total participation of 40% which is a high representative figure, taking into account the short advance notice.

Parts 1 and 2 had 11 participants, and Part 3 had 10 of the same 11 plus 4, for a total of 15.

It should be noted that only one of the persons who participated in the first meeting, and did not participate in the second has responded, and that 5 of the new persons in the group did so.


Name: (optional)

The fact that all of the people mentioned their names and did not choose to be anonymous testifies a high degree of trust in the group.

Respondents: (in parentheses, names of those who unsuccessfully attempted to respond)

Armelle Chatellier, Chanzo Greenidge, Daniel Prado, Deirdre Williams, Errol Hewitt, Esteban Dominguez, Gaetan Inimod, Inmaculada Madera, (Jacqueline Morris), (Javier Pinzón), (Jennifer Britton), Karole Gilzome, (Maria de Lourdes López), Olivier Moreau, (Roderick Sanatan), Rose-Lourde Elysée, (Pedro Ureña), Taran Rampersad, Thomas James, (Valérie Gordon), Vidyaratha Kissoon, Yacine Khelladi.

Huge acknowledgement for all of you, especially for those who offered comments (and it is true, Karol, answering with comments took more than 20 minutes. J).

You will find out by reading the document that your effort was truly worth while, and that the product will benefit the entire community, first of all coordination, giving it guidelines to come match more closely the wishes expressed by the group.

It seems clear to coordination that conducting this survey so close to the date of the meeting has had two negative consequences:

  1. It didn’t allow all of the people to participate.
  2. It did not give people who responded the time to make qualitative comments.

In spite of this, the results, as you will see, are extremely valuable and show a coherence of messages that will be essential to adjust programming in the next coming days, rendering it more effective and more in keeping with the group’s concerns.

As for the delay the described situation has caused, Funredes, would like, publicly, to assume responsibility and, given that it has a budget to do this work, and that the workload has been lower than estimated, it take the commitment in front of the group and the funder, AIF, to organize, at no cost (based on the existing budget), a new survey after CARDICS2, between the second and third quarter of 2006.  We hope we can count on the entire CARDICIS group, in counterpart, to commit one hour of their time, to respond.


Native Language:

The ratio of response per linguistic groups is:
English: 44%
Spanish: 19%
French: 25%
Others: 13%

Perhaps denoting a greater sense of discipline among the Anglophones?


Men: 69%
Women: 31%


This part of the survey is for all of the people who participated in the first meeting-workshop.

The main objective of the first CARDICIS meeting is to make all of the actors of the civil society and entities aware of the importance of the subject of cultural and linguistic diversity in building a Caribbean information society.

In terms of this proposal:

1.1- How convenient was the idea of this meeting? (Organize a meeting on THIS subject at THIS moment)

Average/Variance :

4.5 [1] 0.3

- It was essential to do that , especially since there are concerns about the preservation of culture, and the overwhelming  'Englishness' of the Information Society.
- Moment opportun compte tenu de globalisation et problèmes posés en TIC au niveau mondial. Il ne faut pas que la région soit noyée ou absorbée par la globalisation.

1.2-How effective was the meeting? (how HAS ACHIEVED its objective)


3.8 0.4

- There was a lot of input required to obtain the objective, and in our evaluation of the first meeting, I suggested that less time be spent on esoterics and some more time on work.
- Many sectors have been touched. Good representativeness, where the multiplying effect should make itself felt.

1.3- How efficient was the meeting? (what PRODUCTIVITY was obtained to reach the objective)
3.6 0.4

- There was a little too much “group forming” for my taste
- Had the tangible products enough diffusion ?

1.4- How affective was the meeting? (its capacity to create EMPATHY among people and with its primary objective)


4.5 0.4

- Good valuation of cultural diversity of the countries of the region, e.g. of participants, and very good sensitization towards the targeted objectives.


1.5- How far did the meeting reach YOUR EXPECTATIONS?


3.9 0.5
1.6- How far do you consider that the results were at the level of YOUR INVESTMENT OF TIME?


4.3 0.4

- I think in many instances my investment was well rewarded. However, when I did not understand some activities, I tuned out.

1.7- How do you generally evaluate the SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS? (quantity, quality, competence, respect for diversity, gender, languages, sector)


4.3 0.4

- There is no doubt that there should be a limitation on number of participants. I regret that circumstances prevented more participation from the indigenous cultures, and from the descendants of the Indian immigrants - significant cultures in Trinidad, Suriname and Guyana. Again, we need to discuss how more people could be involved as the discussions progress.
- It was interesting, coming from this part of the Caribbean, to notice that race was not particularly a selection criterion, in fact seemed largely irrelevant

1.8- How do you generally evaluate the WEB SITE (aesthetics, navigation, contents, maintenance, managing the focus)?


4.1 0.5

- but some of that is my fault for not keeping up with translation :-(

1.9- Have you read the REPORT carefully? Yes/No

Percentage of positive responses, of total: 42%
Same percentage, for those who responded to the question:  73%

1.10- How do you evaluate the PRODUCTS of the meeting (including the report of the meeting)?


3.9 0.4

It is noted there were only 9 answers.

1.11- How do you generally evaluate the MANAGEMENT OF THE VIRTUAL COMMUNITY POST MEETING? (Bearing in mind that it has been an action in solidarity on the part of FUNREDES, animation / moderation of discussion lists, website, automatic translation, discussion in general)


4.1 0.5

- I think the overlap with Mistica and Civic removed some of the life from Cardicis, but the management is impeccable.

1.12- How useful is the AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION? (answer NA if you do not use this service)


3.1 0.7

- When I'm tired (often) I find it very helpful.

1.13- How do you evaluate in general - including this one - the CARDICIS processes of EVALUATION?


4.0 0.4

- sigh.. this is way way too long! I appreciate the need for the evaluation however.


1.14- Mention 3 things about the meeting that YOU LIKED THE MOST:
- St Lucia, the work put in by the organizers.. everything went smoothly
- Meeting people of similar interests.
- It was focused and productive
- Diversity of participants
- Quality of participants
- That it happened at all
- The linguistic, cultural and regional diversity of all participants.
- Cultural interaction
- Methodology (to link the creative process and the play to the thinking

- Participation, translation worked well all the time
- Learning more about other languages; Spanish, French, et al.
- Interpretation was effective
- The desire from participants to reach tangible results and to collaborate
- Objective 4 : intermediation (=infomediation)
- That so many strangers could develop such a strong sense of common purpose so quickly
- Professional and human quality of participants
- Debates on contents
- The fact of being in the same place for three days was above all agreeable.

- the energy of facilitators and participants.. there are really much more
- Gaining a better understanding of how non-English or non-native English speakers deal with predominantly Anglophone technology
- Fun
- Good conducing from the organizers
- Becoming aware of cultural diversity among the islands
- Vive Lawoz!
- The meeting place
- Relaxing activities and bonding
- Participation of participants

1.15- Mention 3 things about the meeting that YOU LIKED LEAST:
- Some of the activities were very esoteric and I could link them with the objectives of the meeting
- I got stuck writing a lot!
- Size of the plenary group of participants-- too large
- Excessive exercises ???
- Objectives not very concrete (see my mail of 14/09/2004 for details – include below)
- The final evening - I'm no good at "singing for my supper" ?
- Days were too long
- The fact that one does not truly know the occupations of participants, their present projects

- In some ways, discussion was not technical enough.
- Because of the size of the group, participating was difficult
- Interpretation was always excellent
- Too many sessions "babacool" (though useful for group cohesion)
- Some of the ice-breaking activities, while charming, took a long time
- The pressure to do energetic exercises
- The feeling that the media is being given priority over the content

- There weren't as many people involved in technology as there were people who just talked about it.
- Few instructions for the working groups is what caused work with little balance.
- Little consideration for scientific culture
- Excessive directions from coordinators
- The rhythm (difficult for me but may be a consequence of jet lag)

1.16- List 3 SUGGESTIONS for the coordination in regards to the first meeting
- There should be an ongoing evaluation, every day so as to be flexible to change activities, etc to reach objectives
- Some aspects related to a more technical core.
- If the plenary group is large then have most discussions in the smaller sub-groups
- Focus more on the content rather than socialization
- All of the participants should prepare their questions in writing on computer (how much trouble for the reporting!)
- Tighten the time control (I think that's happening)
- To be equally efficient while appearing less directing
- Mid-day break time to be enlarged
- Propose forming small groups that can work on a precise topic, after Cardicis

- Some aspects related to a more technical and marketing core as related to the internet.
- If plenary meetings are bogged down, quickly have a smaller group from the plenary re-draft
- Supporting better the working groups (giving them all the elements and insure logistical presence from organization)
- Each participant should come with a small resume for distribution
- Have someone/a signal to slow the speakers to help the interpreters
- Limit interventions which were sometimes too long

- More actual deliverables.
- A small break at the sun during the day would be welcomed


1.17- Mention 3 things from the post meeting process that YOU LIKED THE MOST:
- The CARDICIS mailing list and the posts on it
- Friendship
- Follow up is excellent
- Holding a Cardicis 2
- The debate for the final statement
- That the community continues
- Communication among the group has been kept
- Cardicis Forum
- The discussion list

- Sharing of information.
- Web site use is most efficient
- Some participants showed they kept ???
- Filled directory and very useful contacts
- That it was able to come to life as necessary and lie dormant in between
- Moderation is very good
- Process for final statement

- Continued discussion
- Secretariat is pleasant, patient and encouraging
- Sharing the photos bring souvenir

1.18- Mention 3 things from the post meeting process that YOU LIKED LEAST:
- I thought we would have had some structured discussions on initiatives and ideas
- Not much in quantity of continued discussion.
- Not many participants have interact during the process
- No objectives were reached!
- That it wasn't more vibrant (but I think that's because of Civic and Mistica)
- Particularly, I could not perceive concrete results of the many proposals defined.
- I don’t know who has done what

- Not much in quantity of demonstrated interest in some of the outputs of CARDICIS 1.
- Not many practical realizations after Cardicis 1
- No feedback from AIF (Agence Intergouvernementale de la Francophonie)

- Decreased participation in list over time.
- No news from several participants

1.19- List 3 SUGGESTIONS for the coordination in regards to the post meeting process:
- Probably need to have some structured discussions
- Setting concrete goals.
- Ask from every one what concrete results has been obtained after Cardicis 1
- Transform recommendations into a task list for participants
- To expose the results attained by specific groups

- Meeting concrete goals.
- Set a knowledge base (email is not enough)

- More surveys, more often.
- Do this questionnaire 3 months later (anyway better now than ever)

Express yourself spontaneously on everything you wish from the first meeting and/or consecutive process: comments, criticism, praises, suggestions, recommendations, screams, caresses, laughter, cries, good humor, ill humor...

- I plan to read the report carefully before the next meeting. - I suggest that we learn from CIVIC how to create a virtual community of people who work on Cultural Diversity, so that there could be greater participation.

- It was great to learn more about patois and la rose

- I congratulate and thank Funredes for initiating this idea, and for the hard work which has been put into it.

- I'm usually the one who is pushing for more... so I will continue to do so. :-

- It was a great group, knowledgeable but still fun. The coordinators were brilliant in laying out a program which engendered the full integration of the group in an entertaining way while still maintaining a focus with productive results-- full marks and five stars *****

- Hello Claude.MAINGE you wrote 13/09/2004 > agenda of who does what for the ? > detailed actions and task sharing? Transform recommendations into a task list will not be easy. It's not going to be easy but let's try it following plan a) Under an auto-organization scheme. Let’s try 1. To advocate increased support for civil society organizations efforts in the construction of multicultural Caribbean information societies. The advocacy for increased funds and greater accessibility is to be directed at governments, international cooperation agencies, civil society and private sector. Time : in progress Action : many People : all Notes : not very precise for a start ! 2. Estimular y apoyar a nuestros gobiernos en el diseño e implementación de mecanismos e instrumentos efectivos para la organización, planificación y uso de las TIC para el desarrollo, a través del aporte de expert@s locales. Quando : en progresso Que : participar a la democratia Quien : todos 3. Créer un conseil caribéen des cultures avec appui de l\'UNESCO qui s’appuie sur lutilisation des TIC. Calendrier : 2005-2006 Actions : montage dossier, obtention subvention, mise en oeuvre Responsable : ? Notes : Cette tâche est concrète mais il reste a définir la mission du CCC 4. Promote the creation and strengthening of intermediation within the framework of the MDG for the Caribbean, with ICTs as a dynamic cross-cutting perspective. Time : 2005 - 2008 Action : Construction of a prototype for infomediation People : I'm volunteer 5. Develop base line studies on Caribbean ICT4D that collect (quantitative and qualitative) information, and conduct analyses about the multicultural and multilingual realities of the Caribbean. Strengthen existing and planned clearinghouses and observatories which use and provide open content. Time : in progress Action : Cardicis was a qualitative study, Pedro\'s questionary is quantitative one, Wikipedia a third case... People : Pimienta, Urena, Rampersad, etc... 6. Promouvoir un cadre législatif, régulateur, harmonisé pour les TIC au niveau de la région pour une meilleure convergence. Calendrier : en cours Actions : par exemple, participation au "8th Telecommunications Policy Seminar\" Ã la Barbade Responsable : ? Notes : Internet est un gros facteur de convergence technique mais il reste beaucoup à faire sur le plan juridique 7. Construir una red de organizaciones, individuos e instituciones de la sociedad civil, apoyada por las TIC y dirigida por una de las organizaciones existentes u otra nueva creada a partir de la reagrupación de las existentes, para tales fines. Quando : en progresso Que : red Quien : civic, mistica, cardis, etc... 8. Actively promote consciousness-raising, lobbying and education to help Caribbean peoples including our governments understand and respond to the importance and potential of ICT4D through media, popular culture, Internet fiesta, ICC World Cup 2007, Fete de la Rose etc. Time : 2007 - forever Action : Internet fiesta, ICC World Cup 2007, Fete de la Rose etc. People : see point 3 Notes : almost a GANT chart here!

- I do not have three suggestions or recommendations for each case, therefore, I would like to be given the freedom to write within my own limits.  Thank you.

- Excellent coordination by Cardicis 1 (Logistics, etc...) Excellent management of the production of reports.

- I doubt seriously about ICT even if I use them To bow together made me realize I was not alone using it for the sake of promotion of cultures and differences. However, to be with people so convinced was not appropriate for questioning our convictions. My strong doubts derive from the lack of interest of who govern locally in the region...


This part of the survey is for all of the people who participated in the first CARDICIS meeting-workshop.
2.1- How CONCERNED WERE YOU BEFORE the meeting regarding the topic of linguistic and cultural diversity in the Caribbean?


3.1 0.6
2.2- How CONCERNED ARE YOU NOW regarding the topic of linguistic and cultural diversity in the Caribbean?


4.5 0.4

Gaining 1.4 points in the scale, and the second highest grade of all is noteworthy.

2.3- How DIFFERENT were your EXPECTATIONS at the beginning of the meeting from the explicit objectives in the meeting?


2.6 0.8

The high variance showed there was no homogenous pattern to be noted.

2.4- How far do you consider that the objectives of the meeting FILLED directly or indirectly your expectations, or you could ADAPT THEM naturally, without feeling pressure?


4.0 0.4
2.5- How much have you CHANGED YOUR ATTITUDE AFTER the meeting?


3.1 0.8

It is noted that the grade for the change is lower than the grade for concern which is 1.4 points in the scale, the same gain value for concern. There is an evident gap between awareness and action, reflected with great sincerity by people who responded and confirmed in the more specific response, as follows...

- I was already very committed to this topic before the meeting

2.6- How HAS YOUR ATTITUDE CHANGED regarding the USE OF LANGUAGES in multicultural meetings?


2.9 0.8

- My original feelings were strengthened

2.7- How HAS YOUR ATTITUDE CHANGED regarding your DISPOSITION with people who use ANOTHER LANGUAGE?


2.6 0.9


  1. Not much, although I'm now working here to push Chinese and Japanese :-)
2.8- How HAS YOUR ATTITUDE CHANGED regarding your DISPOSITION towards persons of OTHER Caribbean COUNTRIES?


2.3 0.9

It is noted that there were only 9 answers and high variance.

- I now know more about them, but I was already interested in a positive way


Percentage of total positive responses: 50%%
Same percentage, of those who responded the question: 80%

  • Much more respect for non-English speaking peoples who have learnt English.
  • I am more sensitive to communication problems.
  • Reconfirmed the importance of enhancing cultural values in striving for economic and social development
  • I don’t understand the question well, but according Lao Tseu, the sole constant is change...
  • I have a greater sense that I might be able to do something about the things that concern me - empowerment :-)
  • To look at people and their culture and language as a whole and still feel that something continues to bring us together, which is precisely diversity.
  • A lot of more motivation insofar as management of websites, the contents to appear  ...the importance and impact of the presence of each country, each culture on the web, therefore, accessible worldwide.
  • I am thinking now that meetings with as many attendees with diverse cultural codes could be efficient and reach something.

2.10- HAVE YOU UNDERTAKEN ACTIONS as a direct or indirect result of your participation? Yes/No

Percentage of total positive responses: 56%
Same percentage, of those who responded the question:  82%

Give precise examples such as decision to learn languages, change, to collaborate in projects, etc:
  • Tried harder to develop my Spanish and French.
  • It encouraged me to go out and visit Spanish-speaking countries for a period of 5 months.
  • I have woven into my work the importance and essential of maintaining cultural values
  • Pay strong attention of cultural differences in the INFOMEDIO project in preparation stage
  • Initiated a proposal to teach Chinese at SALCC Involved the languages teachers in other projects this year. Become more involved with the management of Mistica
  • Direct work with the francophone space of superior education, especially the Caribbean.
  • Sensitization of students for foreign languages learning, especially languages spoken in the Caribbean, motivation for getting closer to other cultures and cultural activities in the Caribbean. Sensitization for the production of web contents.
  • To take into account diversity with regards to on-line articles of « People from the Caribbean”.  Report on Cardicis for Radio Martinique.
2.11- HAVE YOU TRANSMITTED SOMETHING from this first meeting to third parties? Yes/No

Percentage of total positive responses: 63%
Same percentage for those who responded the question:  100%

State shortly what, where and how
  • some of the emails, I cannot remember which!
  • As much as possible, and the Wikipedia entry in English was an example.
  • In my consultancy in several countries
  • Final reporting to the members of RIVELO
  • Presented a paper at CSA (thank you AIF) Involved my students and others in various considerations and discussions
  • On the job, a university, where formation is opening to the concept of multi cultures, thus favouring multi-linguism among students.
  • The Cardicis statement to University decision makers
  • Some lines about and the link in our monthly newsletter sent to 1500 selected persons
2.12- Explain briefly WHAT IT HAS CONTRIBUTED TO YOU at personal or institutional level and/or what lessons you have learned through your participation:
  • I think I recognize the challenge faced by the non-English speaking world and am more committed to working on collaborative projects. I wish we could do something with Brazil, and learn Portuguese.
  • I'm now able to speak intermediate Spanish, and have since always made multilingual capacity in projects to be possible.
  • Reconfirmed the importance of enhancing cultural values in striving for economic and social development
  • Better knowledge of the situation and stakes of the region
  • Many useful contacts (ex : Bruce, Taran, Margarita) Paid due attention to cultural differences in INFOMEDIO project in  preparation stage
  • I learned a lot about organizational management - I would do better next time :-)
  • A new Caribbean unfolded for me.  I am a broader being from my Caribbean condition, which I had not contemplated. I discovered another Caribbean.
  • At the personal level, results of the learning and corrections to be proposed.
  • Pay attention to diversity in online papers of Gens de la Caraïbe. Discovered innovative and clever methodology. Crossing again the gap between civil society and institutional, even after3 days spent together.
2.13- How far have you been able TO FULFILL the commitments you acquired?


3.5 0.7

It is noted that there were only 6 responses and a high variance

2.14- What DID YOU LACK that would have allowed you to fulfill your commitments better?
  • time!
  • Money :-)
  • Nothing
  • A plan of action followed by one coordinator per group.
  • Time
  • TIME
  • Truly, nothing was established.  There was talk of networks, creating pages, etc., but I don’t believe a clear route of expected results was defined.  Possibly, that was not the real objective of the moment, rather more oriented towards awareness.
  • Money! We have need for writers, translators, developers for our

State freely anything what you consider about the impacts of the Cardicis Project

  • My attitudes to diversity have always been positive.. so no change was necessary!
  • Little global impact, but undoubtedly a lot of local influence.
  • I think it was an excellent experience which I have tried to share back into my College community. I think that some of my enthusiasm has transferred to my students. I wish I had done/been able to do more about general publicity in St Lucia
  • There is a small world broken by language and the sea, and there is a supra space where unit is necessary and possible.  That is what CARDICIS is all about.
  • May be a restart, 6 months later, on the chart, the house of culture project, would have obliged us to come back to work. The issue is that participants are overloaded with work, not a lack of good will, but too many operated on tiny budgets…


3.1- Are you a member of the MISTICA discussion list? ( Yes/No

Percentage of total positive responses: 50%
The same percentage for those who responded the question:  53%

3.2- Are you a member of the CIVIC discussion list? (

Percentage of total positive responses: 56%
The same percentage for those who responded the question:  60%

3.3- How much do you know about the website CARDICIS? (


3.0 0.7
3.4- Has you read deeply the CARDICIS Report?

Percentage of total positive responses: 44%
The same percentage for those who responded the question:  47%

3.5- How well do you know the other products of CARDICIS?


3.1 0.7
3.6- What do you think about the decision to ORGANIZE A SECOND workshop for CARDICIS?


4.4 0.7

I believe it’s an excellent decision. This initiative needs to be acknowledged by more agents of the society. It is also necessary within the framework of a process that goes from reflection (first meeting) to practice (second one).

3.7- How do you evaluate the decision of having a MORE CONCRETE ORIENTATION aimed at the articulation of field projects for this second meeting-workshop?


4.8 0.3

It is the highest grade of the entire questionnaire.

- YES! definitely.. lets do something!

3.8- How much does it concern you that CIVIC is explicitly mentioned as one of the articulation spaces focused on for this meeting?


2.6 0.9

It is the grade with the highest variance of all results. The question was badly structured and ambiguous (5 should mean a greater concern and 0 the total absence of concern…and we thing some people understood the opposite.).

- This is one of my major concerns

3.9- Are there any other spaces that we should consider during the workshop? Yes/No

Percentage of total positive responses: 31%
The same percentage for those who responded the question:  56%

Please provide more information about those spaces:
  • We should brainstorm the cultures which were left out of the workshop and develop a mechanism of engagement with them.
  • Spaces not run by NGOs, as well as international spaces which are available.
  • A censing
  • Probably
  • Examples of projects using ITCs from a standpoint of diversity, in operation or which has succeed or failed
3.10- Do you think that there are important REGIONAL projects which have not been mentioned that we should know and discuss in this workshop? Yes/No

Percentage of total positive responses: 19%
The same percentage for those who responded the question: 27%

Please provide more information about those projects:
  • A censing
  • E-links CKLN?? CSME - Dr Lewis may speak about that
  • Initiative on Conflict Prevention Through Quiet Diplomacy--Greater Caribbean component
  • OECS portal, Gens de la Caraïbe, Pierre Gotson’s project ...
How do you evaluate the 3 objectives of the second meeting?:
3.11 - 1- Reinforce the outcomes and impacts of the first meeting?


4.5 0.5
3.12-  2- Establish and confirm procedures – its duration in the time


4.2 0.5

- I have the same opinion of the three objectives. I see them as an essential follow up within the objective of reaching a consensus on cultural diversity. What concerns me is that the objectives speak of “laying the foundations”, and I understand this as “a beginning”; and I believe this is perhaps already included such as, for example, defining the next concrete steps.

3.13-  3- Open the community to the Diaspora and the non-insular Caribbean


4.2 0.5

- I think we will need something more pro-active by way of outreach. What about Venezuela, Colombia and the rest of Central America? "The Diaspora" is very general.
- Diaspora integration is an important claim for people who got remote from birth ground for economical reasons. Diaspora keeps tight to its original culture and by solidarity and affectivity to the other cultures of the region. ICT offer to them a way to be close at distance.

3.14- How do you evaluate the general architecture of the proposed agenda?


4.0 0.5
Make suggestions to get closer to what you consider better:

- I liked the points that Vidya made, and agree with them.

-  First of all, thanks to the organizing team for the work and effort put into organizing CARIDCIS2. I have just submitted the very long evaluation! It took a while..
I saw the agenda.. based on my own limited experience of managing time and trying to do presentations of any value, I would suggest that the organizing team carefully think whether 5 minutes is good enough time to make an impact in terms of the information.
On the first day, there are many , many presentations which will run over..
Just some ideas to share...
1) See if the group forming activity could be done on the night of 4
December.. and then some brief consolidation on Monday morning.
2) Why don’t we do an exhibition or 'shopping gallery'. of the topics we present. so that after lunch, when most of us are going to be sleepy or jet lagged we could instead, walk around, and speak to the 'exhibitors of the topics' in which we are interested.  If we  develop some simple posters, these could be left up throughout the meeting so that people could check with them at any time? 5 minutes for Deidre on UNESCO and the CD not enough for me, I will want to know more!!!!
So , for example...  if I know some things already, and I would like to know some more about another thing.. I don’t have to sit through a presentation which I already know.
3) Why don't Ramon and I share the spot on CIVIC and CIVIC statistics?
4) Please no relaxation exercises in the afternoon! We need energizers!
5) Could there be some detail as to the process of the working groups on Day 2 and Day 3 morning? It might be good to set an agenda so that the groups work to time.. especially if we are to have concrete projects coming out of the groups.
Thanks again

3.15- How do you evaluate the concept of a whole day of work in 3 groups?


3.4 0.6
Write your suggestions about what you would consider to be better:

- The group composition shall be flexible

3.16- Do you prefer a division into 3 groups (IO, ICT4D, CD) or a division into 3 mixed groups? Selection 1/Selection 2

3 groups(OI, TICpD, DC):    11%
3 combined groups: 81% (87% de lo que respondieron)

Strong majority for option 2

Explain your preference
  • concentrating expertise means that any one group will have a focus only on what they know, and will not be guided by more open discussion. (1)
  • Very easy to concentrate on key aspects when participants are homogeneous. (1)
  • Better exchange of points of view  (2)
  • I originally supported 1, but I think, considering the matter for discussion, 2 will be more productive because of cross-fertilization of ideas (2)
  • Allow a better closeness of various members. Allow each sector to be exposed to each other so to better understand the stakes in actions to be considered. (1)
  • avoid homogeneity in one group (1)
  • Mix approaches

If you choose Selection 1 state in which group of work you would rather be: Institutional group / ICT4D Group / CD Group

GI: 4
GDC: 2
Note there were only 7 responses.

3.17- What do you think about the number of topics and presentations of the first day?


3.3 0.5

- Some reservations - it's an awful lot of material for one day. If possible you should have material available for review at the end of the day - difficult with so many presentations???

Write your suggestions of what you would consider to be better.
3.18- How do you evaluate the strong ruling set regarding time management and the approach towards summarized communication?


3.8 0.6
3.19- Will you accept this ruling? Yes/No

Percentage of total positive responses: 81%
Same percentage for all of those who responded the question:  93%

3.20- What expectations do you have from this second meeting? Mention the 3 most important outcomes you hope to be achieved:
  • Breaking down of borders between ICT4D, CD and IO
  • Concrete and applied realizations
  • Concrete measures for objective 4
  • Consolidation
  • A web space by Caribbean students
  • Knowledge of ICT4D group so to participate in a timely and efficient manner.
  • Understanding the goals of CARDICIS
  • To know better the area of action of others
  • To acknowledge the cultural and linguistic diversity of the region
  • Synthesize workshops
  • Continued focus on cultural and linguistic issues.
  • Coordinators per working groups after the meeting to have propositions and realizations followed.
  • Contact for INFOMEDIO project.
  • Follow-up
  • Valuing linguistic diversity and space to allow all cultures to be exposed
  • Represent the ACS/Human Rights Internet
  • Better understand the mechanisms of institutions Caricom, Interreg, etc etc
  • Understanding clearly how cultural diversity bears on regional TICpD projects.
  • Final Report
  • More focus on practical.
  • Capitalize on actions started and establish feedback for better follow up.
  • Opening out to new things
  • Incorporate issues of conflict prevention into the debate
  • Strengthen  Cardicis in order to be present in decision making.
  • To know and, to the extent possible, become personally involved in current regional projects.
  • Contact, networking.
3.21- Do you think that the proposed methodology is capable of facilitating this achievement?


3.8 0.4

- Yes but it will take much hard work and concentration

Make suggestions to improve it:
3.22- Do you have support material (slides, photos, posters, videos, case studies) that relate to the topics of the meeting, that you would like to contribute or to share with the group? Yes/No

Percentage of total positive responses: 6%
The same percentage for those who responded the question: 9%


- poster du festival international de contes de Saint-Laurent du Maroni (Guyane)

3.23- How much do you know about global mechanisms such as the WSIS?


3.3 0.7
3.24- Are you familiar with the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity?


2.9 0.6
3.25- What do you know about the mechanisms of regional integration?


3.3 0.5
3.26- What do you know about the panorama of ICT4D regional projects?


2.9 0.7

- cf question 3.20

3.27- What particular expectations do you have of this meeting - workshop?


4.2 0.3

It is noted there were only 10 replies. There was a mistake: it was a question for comments, not for a quantitative result. Answers showed great patience in the group… and some tiredness at the end of the questionnaire :-)...

State freely anything what you consider to be an input for the meeting.

  • - One of the problems is regional projects that are not published, so it is difficult to ascertain what I know and what I do not know that is being done.
  • - This is going to be super!!
  • I finally spent more than 20 ' ! But it was necessary. Thanks.! If had no read the Cardicis 1 report it is because I never found it ! Except in the questionnaire… I will read it right away or better before C2....another abbreviation I did not know was “CD” for Cultural Diversity.


There are several messages that arrive very clear and other that perhaps deserve more thoughts.

Consensual messages:

The appreciation of the first Cardicis meeting-factory stays very high (including the Web site) and the empathy of the group has not diminished with the passed year. Also, the management of Funredes to have maintained the discussion list is appraised.

Nevertheless, it is equally clear that the group, in spite of recognizing that the nature of the first effort of sensitization could justify a work centered in the affective with the corresponding techniques for facilitating, wishes, in a strong and consensual manner a new workshop to be focused to the concrete and effective, with less top down facilitating techniques and allowing free breathing and time for mutual interactions (to know better what the other people make in order to allow synergy). Also the group wishes a consecutive period with a plan of action with defined responsibilities and clear commitments. There, it does not appear clearly until what level each participant is ready to assume its corresponding part and this will be a subject of important discussion, the one of the coherence between doing and saying as well as the space between the wished and the possible...

The mutual appreciation of participants and the criteria of diversity that operated their selection, added to the fact that not all the people were active implicitly confirms the decision to  capitalize in the first group, giving priority to the more active ones and leaving space for new people from Continental Caribbean and Diaspora.

The defined goals, methodological directions and the approach for the second workshop correspond enough then to the wishes expressed by the CARDICIS group although it appears that some adjustments are required to allow breathing and to open the participant the possibility to know each other activities and mutualize them. Given to limitations of time and the amount of participants some facilitating process will be required (may be a wallpaper announcement which could evolved into a web page).

The efficient time management will turn to be a key element to determine the success of this workshop clearly and without a doubt an essential cultural challenge: to get, without making violence to the Caribbean culture, with a balanced dose of determination and flexibility, the group where it wants to conduct itself, but with a bearable rhythm and a greater efficiency...

Large majority messages

Although a minority keeps reluctant to a strict management of time, the large majority supports and accepts it, with perhaps some degree of skepticism from some people. We maintain then that orientation and we will contact the presenters to offer methodological support; we will organize the nicest method to have participants and expositors respect the ruled timing. An important proportion of work in group also corresponds to a strong desire and will be the space where self governing shall demonstrates its values and capacities.

As far as the decision workgroup composition, in clear contradiction with the first option of coordination :-), the people of CARDICIS prefer in large majority a mixed approach... and so it will be! The message on flexibility will have also to be applied in this aspect and in the new architecture that we are going to elaborate now:  we will have agile process to allow people to change groups during dynamics which will possibly contribute creatively to the process. The will to assume commitments that have been expressed will have to be materialized in a serious and organized effort and of note taking and synthetical and consensuated reporting.

Implicit messages

Although it appears to any person making sense that the first day is overloaded with information to share on the global and regional contexts, it is clear that the need exists and that the only way to make it digestive is in a conduction that takes the expositors solely express the synthesis without entering details that can along tire the audience and disperse the attention. Direct and informal contacts as well as readings of the link in clearinghouse shall allow to fill the existing expectations to enter into more details. Once again, the time management will be crucial in the first day and it belongs to the facilitation and the coordination to give the coherent example of a democratic management (that is to say respectful of the time of the others and the accepted commitments).

Analysis of impact

As far as the first study of impact, for being late, it does not arrive at the fineness and the precision that the coordination wished to reach; it offers however several promising indices for our process and, in any case, quite satisfactory for those who made the investment of resources and time.

First remarkable quantitative element: the progress between the concern before and after goes from 3,1 to 4,5 that is to say a progress of 1,4. There is no doubt that the sensitizing vaccine CARDICIS has tangible effect although it could be just a placebo effect :-)... To sort out perceptions from facts it is necessary to analyze the specific questions with their high dispersion exposed by the Variance coefficient. The answers are a little shy, which we anticipated as a consequence of the format and the short delay, although it does show tangible impacts in the acts of most of participants. We are aware,  knowing the people and their performances, that several very tangible impacts (as association to establish projects or notes of press) were not reported accurately. In order to catch the impact properly a questionnaire in the Web is not the best way; ours experience indicates to us that a survey is required but direct (by phone or even better direct interview) with a researcher with the freedom to improvise from a script to search carefully the information. This will be part of the next survey that Funredes has committed to make...

In conclusion, from now it is already possible to discerned that CARDICIS has had impact not only in the mental  of "sensitized" people but, beyond, and naturally, in their performances within their institutional contexts and beyond, as well as personal ones. This allows to defend the firm principle and the corresponding methodology of the first workshop that decided not to show impatience in triggering products but  was rather centered in the mental and education gains, as investments for the longer term and deeper change.

From there to try to perceive a visible impact at regional level, although the selection of participants has been oriented towards active people, is a very difficult stretch to jump because the challenge of the sensitization of decision-makers is opened, first of all for governments. Will it be necessary a next multistakeholder stage for Cardicis where private sector and governments join? The subject is open for discussion...

Evaluating the evaluation, one customary rule in Funredes, leaving besides the negative effect of not having done it earlier, as planned, the effort seems to be correctly calibrated (too many questions cause lassitude and lost of motivation, few questions without crossing criteria and opening spaces for qualitative commentaries does not allow to go beyond the evident diagnose of satisfaction).As compensation of the effect of being late, is the benefit  to have transformed this survey  into a key piece for the preparation of the new workshop and the incentive for the participants to get into document, without forgetting the expensive in energy and management but so valuable process of participation for am incremental design of the event.

Finally, there is the sufficient material so that every one makes its own analysis and draws its own conclusions in a effort that will not be more subjective that the one of the coordination in this subtle and creative game of collective construction of knowledge in networks.


Soy ahora un ser mucho más ancho desde la caribeneidad.

The essence
Hay un pequeño mundo roto por el lenguaje y el mar, y hay un supraespacio donde la unidad es necesaria y posible. De eso se trata CARDICIS.
How so many strangers could develop such a strong sense of common purpose so quickly?
How come it was able to come to life as necessary and lie dormant in between?

The people
Race was not particularly a selection criterion, in fact seemed largely irrelevant.
Envie des participants d'arriver à des résultats tangibles et de collaboration
It was a great group, knowledgeable but still fun.  :-)
Le fait qu'on ne sache pas vraiment les projets des participants :-(

The methodology
When I did not understand some activities, I tuned out.
Some of the ice-breaking activities, while charming, took a long time.
Lier creatif et le jeu à la reflexion.

The (lack of) follow-up
Je ne sais pas qui a pu faire quoi.
Le pb c'est que ts les participants sont débordés de boulot, ce n'est pas de la mauvaise volonté, mais bcp fonctionnent avec des bouts de chandelles...
No creo que se definió una ruta clara de resultados esperados. Posiblemente no era el objetivo real de este momento, dirigido más a la sensibilización

The will to do
Mettre en place une base de connaissance
More surveys, more often.
Why don’t we do an exhibition or 'shopping gallery' of the topics we present?
I regret that circumstances prevented more participation from the indigenous cultures.
Il ne faut pas que la région soit noyée ou absorbée par la globalization.
Les TIC offrent le meilleur moyen à la Diaspora d'être "proche" à distance.

The impact
I have a greater sense that I might be able to do something about the things that concern me: empowerment :-)
Je pense maintenant que des reunions avec autant de participants, dans des codes culturels différents, peuvent être efficaces, arriver à quelque chose…

Vive Lawoz!
YES! definitely.. lets do something!

The final word (sweet trick)
 J'ai quand meme passé plus de 20 ' ! mais c'était nécessaire. merci ! :-)


1 El coeficiente de varianza es el valor calculado como la raiz cuadrada de la deviación estandar al cuadrado dividido por el promedio al cuadrado. Un valor de 1 muestra una distribución regular. Un coeficenjte bajo muestra una coherencia en los resultados expresión de consenso, un coeficiente alto muestra una dispersión y la ausencia de consenso. Siempre hemos considerado que exponer datos promedios sin este valor es esconder una parte esencial de la distribución de resultados pues si bien los resultados (5,5,0, 0) y (2.5, 2.5, 2.5,2.5) tienen el mismo valor promedio tienen significados radicalmente distintos que sólo la lectura de la varianza permite entender.

2 En rojo las valores promedio las mas altas y las valores de varianza las mas bajas.
En azul las valores promedio las mas bajas y las valores de varianza las mas altas.