I’m really interested in other people’s views on this.

He backs this up by suggesting there should have been more market research into what added value this network can offer (given that there are so many existing networks) and whether networks created ‘top-down’ can ever be successful as those that emerge spontaneously. In fact, is it inherent in the nature of networks that they need to be bottom up?

Another critical point is the notion of fluidity – there is a lot of research around why people join on-line communities and how individuals and the network as a whole operates over a time period. Networks come and go as do participants. Should we just accept this or try and intervene to stabilise and sustain it?

Erik also stresses that we should be searching for the added value this network offers – his suggestion was the transnational dimension but points out this is limited by the fact it is an English language network.

He seemed to think it would be difficult having local language versions but I think that using the software we are currently using, this would be fairly easy. We could set up very simple to use local network pages on this site in any language we want to but we would be reluctant to do it if there was no content to populate it. Please leave a response if you would like a page for your own national network.

Finally he was unsure about the value of e-conferences as a direct way of strengthening the network.

Erik has raised 3 or 4 new evaluation questions as a result of answering the ones I originally posed so I shall write these up as a new post.

thanks Erik!

Firstly he is saying that trainers should be talking more and exchanging ideas. How do you think this should happen? More face-to-face meetings? Conferences? On-line discussion? What role does this site play? How could it be organised so that it becomes a space for exchanging ideas about practice? Are there other sites that already do this?

Secondly, he is asking if the network truly represents trainers – and implies that it does not.
“stop pretending it is something that it is not”

He seems to be arguing that the network is dominated by theoreticians, academics and researchers rather than practitioners.

So…..do you think the nature of the network should be changed so that it lives up to its name and takes steps to include practitioners or do you think it should stick with its current user group and change it’s name to reflect the reality? Or something else?

I’m interested that someone was saying let’s have less questionnaires and enquiries! As I remember, the questionnaires were part of your internal evaluation. Do you think they are saying that the evaluation data you are collecting is not necessary or do you think they are objecting to the data collection method? What are you going to do about this – if anything?

1. What should the network do more?

concrete, comparative action research in partner countries, best practicies
more common goals and commitment to these
free hands has been good but the focus has divided
staff exchange between partner countries
continue to maintain the web-sites and network
econferences, flash-meetings, contacts have been successful

2. What has the network not done?

to change training skills in practice
focus in Finland in cooperation between schools and industry/companies

3. What has the network done it should do less of or stop doing

inquires, questionnaires for all the European countries
to try to get neighbour countries to participate

I think those people who profit most from the network are those without a local / national supporting structure within their country. In countries with a developed infrastructure on trainers (no matter how effective it is), it is difficult to bring people to a network on a European level.