and positive aspects of visit.
As a whole
- Working as a team
towards the end when it came to mounting the work was a good exercise
in teamwork and problem solving.
- The talk given
about each organisation was very positive and important to all parties.
Those that turned up to it, found it very interesting. We let down some
by the usual apathy from parties who would have found it very interesting
and informative. Perhaps an AFH style organisation could be started
up in Sheffield and, had more of the relevant people come, a discussion
may have arisen about the actual possibility of it.
- From discussions
with the visitors, these are the positive aspects we hope they got from
- Although it wasn't
as relevant as it could have been getting to see struggles and team
operations of another organisation was important for the visitors, especially
how thing work in the UK and how we overcome problems.
- Interacting with
Access participants and meeting different people with different issues
important to them and their cause.
- Having the opportunity
to explain about themselves and their organisations and answer questions
relating to them.
- Getting involved
in some of the duties relating to the space.
of the visit for RTI/Access.
- Hearing the visitors
talk about their work and there organisations. Seeing the work they
brought, their inspirations and aspirations were very encouraging and
- Finding out about
different approaches to work and problem solving.
- Learning a little
about the place of 'community arts' in the USA.
- Having a diversity
of people visit the space and interacting with the participants.
Problems with the
visit and what would have made it more successful
- More pre-visit
correspondence about what visitors wanted to get out of the partnership
would have helped both sides understand each other better and prepare
for what had been planned. We felt that the visitors where unaware of
what Access/RTI was about and correspondence by email was ineffective.
This I think was because during the time I was trying to communicate
with them before the visit, they were very busy preparing to travel
abroad and couldn't give it their full attention. Had we been able to
contact them earlier, communication may have been more effective.
- During the 2.5
days with us visitors were tired and without time to orientate or compose
themselves. The visit would have been a lot more effective if it had
- At least a day
at the beginning and end would have made all the difference, (to build
up and wind down); especially because of their jetlag and the lack of
time we had with them. As a result they seemed detached and at first
unmotivated. This did improve greatly half way through the visit, although
everybody felt a pressure to get something underway.
- With two extra
days, for example, the first day could have been an informal and relaxing
way to get acquainted with the environment and people, it also would
have given us all time to discuss realistically what we were hoping
to achieve, together, without feeling the pressure of rushing on with
- More involvement
from other community groups and arts organisations would have been relevant
and appealing to the visitors. More information could have been exchanged
and Access RTI could have then played a part in organising online collaborations
and the distribution of information via the web. Had the local arts
groups, who had expressed an interest, turned up during the visit, aspects,
such as, the painting workshop would have been a lot more excited and
with further dimension. This also relates to the talk at the end of
the visit, but this also related to the time it was happening (5.30
on a Friday) and due to the fact we didn't know if it was definitely
happening until the visitors arrived. (This was nobodies fault as organisations
were contacted, they just didn't come).
- We should have
scheduled the talks at the beginning of the visit. This would have broke
the ice and encouraged discussion Those people who had come for the
talk, we found out, wanted further communication with the visitors and
would have had that opportunity, and to join the following activities.
- I think the disorientation
of the visitors also made it difficult for us to understand or know
how they were feeling (I don't think they knew either) while they were
- Some of the participants
didn't like using computers and I don't think were at home in this environment.
- As the visitors
didn't come to the space until the afternoon of the first day, several
hours later than planned, the time we had allocated for introductions,
explanations, a visit discussion and so on, was missed. Due to the time
pressures and initial busyness it didn't seem important that it had
been neglected, especially as everyone was chatting, however, in hindsight
we now realise that it could have changed the way the visit had gone,
especially with regards to clarity throughout the space, it's staff,
uses and the visitors themselves.
- I'm don't think
this was a very relevant partnership. Partnership with an organisation
that wanted to set up a similar trash lab would have been much more
effective, for all parties, and in the short time available, would have
involved a bigger, more important exchange of information, especially
on RTI side.
- Further to this,
somebody wanting to learn about the network, operating system and software
at Access, would have encouraged more enthusiasm from the staff at Access/RTI.
This was by no means a fault of the participants; rather the relevance
- I had thought before
hand that we would have been most important to Street Level Youth Media,
as they were also dealing with technology, but they use Microsoft and
Windows OS and there was little relevance to them for this technology.
- It also felt, that,
had we not scheduled extra, none day to day activities, the visitor
s would have been rather bored with the everyday running and activities
in the space.
- Successes and positive
aspects of visit.
Technology Initiative / Access Space
1 Sidney St. Sheffield S1 4RG Tel: 0114) 2495588