The 6^th national Metropolis conference, held in Edmonton from March 21- 24, 2003 was based on the theme Immigration and Diversity: Research Policy and Practice in an Era of Globalization (see program attached). The conference organizers received grants from Canadian Heritage, ISAP – CIC, and SSHRC. In addition, the Metropolis Project team secured funds from the Rural Secretariat, Industry Canada and the Department of Justice to support the conference. Finally, each of the Metropolis Centres provided travel monies for some of their affiliates and students; PCERII, in particular, made a substantial financial commitment to the conference.

This conference was the first opportunity for many Metropolis partners to meet in over a year and a half. The project had lost some momentum with the difficulties in obtaining funding for the second phase. There was a general sense of optimism following the 6^th national conference that the Metropolis project had been re-energized; several cross-centre projects were envisioned over the four days (for example, in the Housing and Neighbourhoods Domain, and the Economic Domain; in addition, a cross-centre study of religion also found support) and the levels of enthusiasm on the part of many participants were very high.

The conference departed from standard format in that it ran over a weekend. A preconference event, sponsored by Citizenship and Immigration, was held on Thursday afternoon. On Friday, Saturday, and Monday participants were involved in both plenaries and workshops (between 7 and 9 concurrent workshops were held in each session). A dinner meeting for all domain leaders was held on Saturday evening while the Centre Directors met with the Metropolis Project Team and representatives from SSHRC. There were two plenaries Sunday morning, but the afternoon was reserved for meetings of domains, research groups, centre directors and so on. Conference goers who were not involved in meetings had the afternoon free. Finally, on Monday, following the close of the conference, the Commissioner of Official Languages hosted a citizenship ceremony. The conference organizers were anxious to know whether this format suited the needs of the delegates. We distributed evaluation forms to all conference participants and encouraged their submission. We also surveyed the domain leaders and centre directors from each centre, as well as the head of the Metropolis Project Team.

Evaluation forms were received from government representatives (35%), service providers (26%), academics (26%), students (9%) and others (4%). A total of 43 evaluations forms were received, which represents less than 10% of participants. However, all the directors and domain leaders provided feedback, as did the Executive Head of the Project team. The comments and recommendations were similar across all groups. The overall consensus was that the conference was an unqualified success. Most of the workshops and plenary sessions were highly rated, and some were singled out as being superb.

Here are some representative excerpts from the feedback we received:

• I really enjoyed this tour. More field trips should be incorporated into the national conferences. The discussion and overview at the Edmonton Mennonite Centre for newcomers was excellent.

• The preconference tour was excellent.

• I heard that the preconference event was excellent and I was sorry to miss it.

• The plenary sessions were well planned and speakers were carefully selected. The topics ranged from current debates of immigration to practical guides of data sources, all of which was relevant and important to the participants.

• The plenaries presented and debated current issues. I especially liked the ones on regionalization and security.

• The plenaries were interesting, a little bit less political and VIP than usual, that is, with more content.

• I think I found the plenaries the most valuable. They were topical and included people knowledgeable about the subjects being addressed. The speakers in the plenary concerning immigration and refugee controls since 9/11 were not kept within the time constraints however, which resulted in the unfortunate situation that there was no time for discussion.

• The plenary sessions were mercifully better than they have been in the past.

• The plenary sessions had interesting and informative speakers, representing multiple perspectives and disciplines. Their presentations were short and crisp.

• Very well prepared and good presentation.

• Appreciated the films developed by youth.

• The ones I attended were excellent with perhaps one or two exceptions. These work best when organized by the domain leaders. The data workshops organized by the Stats Can folks were also very good.

• My gratitude to the technical staff who were proactive asking in advance if all the equipment was in place, and ensuring that everyone knew how to use what had been provided.

•Some of the workshop rooms were too small and overheated.

• The Domain Leaders’ dinner and the education domain meeting were very helpful in getting to know each other and plan cross-centre research. In fact, several members of the Education Domain have already started work on one project and plan to follow up initial discussion at the Intersections of Diversity Conference.

• From a Housing and Neighbourhoods Domain perspective, the conference was a success.

• It was wonderful to have dedicated time to our domain meeting – a secure time where you know that here would be opportunities to network, stay informed about colleagues’ work, welcome new colleagues and create new collaborative links. I found the Saturday dinner meeting of the Domain Leaders informative. It was the first time I had the opportunity to hear about the nature of the connections among members of other domains. I think that what is unique in education is that there is really no national government presence and so these sessions do help us in an important way to connect in spite of this.

• The new network on religion was a good initiative. … The special evening for Domain Leaders was also useful to know every other domain.

• I found the meeting very useful in terms of finding out more about the activities of those in cognate domains to that which I lead. It was very valuable to have had the chance to meet and get a better sense of the activities and interests of those from other centres.

• The Domain Leader dinner was a useful exercise, however it would have been better if a slot had been scheduled in the program in advance of the dinner when Domain Leaders in each group could meet first.

• Allowing meeting time was an excellent idea that permitted some teams to work without incurring additional expenses.

• The pricing was such that the graduate students could participate.

• The conference accomplished a level of success and maturity not seen before.

• The conference provided a tremendous opportunity for establishing new contacts and bridging complementary interests. The strengthened ties among researchers, policy makers and NGO representatives will prove to be precious for advancing policy research in the Metropolis.

• The Edmonton conference was a huge success in terms of the organization and programming.

• Very well run and productive.

• For the first time it was a genuine national conference, thanks, for instance to the exchange we had in our domains.

• For me, the conference was a great success.

• I have attended two international Metropolis conferences and two national ones. I found this one to be the most useful.

• A fine conference with much food for thought.

• The overall organization of the conference was very good.

An examination of the evaluation forms and the comments from the domain leaders and centre directors indicated that the most frequently made suggestion had to do with time management. In both plenaries and workshops the moderators must ensure that presenters stay within the stated time limits in order to allow for open discussion.

Presenters should be encouraged to avoid jargon, and, in the case of fairly complicated studies, it has been suggested that presenters provide handouts for purposes of clarity.

The responses with regard to the format of the conference with time set aside for meetings on the Sunday afternoon were mixed. Almost everyone who participated in meetings on the Sunday found the allotment of time very useful, but some of those who were not involved would have preferred a shorter conference. The organizers of the next conference might consider putting the meeting times either at the beginning or end of the conference.

Domain Leaders should be encouraged to do some planning for individual domain meetings in advance; if possible, it would also be useful to bring all the Domain Leaders together again.

Organizers should try to ensure that there are conference rooms of sufficient size to accommodate all delegates comfortably.