1.Thank you for completing this evaluation. All information collected through it is collected anonymously. Please note that the data collected will be used to evaluate QPR2026 and to improve future conferences. It may also be used in external presentations and publications. Should this be the case, any data collected will be reported so as to ensure that any individual responses remain confidential and to ensure that no individuals are identifiable. If you do not want your responses used in external presentations or publications, please let us know by ticking the appropriate option below.

I am happy for my responses to be used in any external publications that may result from this evaluation

Please do not use my data in any external publications that may result from this evaluation

2.Overall, how would you rate your QPR2026 conference experience?

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

3.How would you rate QPR2026 in terms of value for money?

Good value for money

Poor value for money

4.How well organised did you find QPR2026 in terms of pre-conference administration and communication?

Extremely well organised

Well organised

Somewhat disorganised

5.How would you rate the conference location?

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

6.It has previously been suggested that QPR could be mobile and be hosted across different cities/universities around Australia. Could you please provide us with your preference below.

Keep the conference in Adelaide at the National Wine Centre

Host the conference across different cities

7.How would you rate the conference catering?

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

8.How would you rate the quality of the following aspects of QPR2026?

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

I did not engage

Keynote presentation Day 1 - Professor Louise Sharpe

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

I did not engage

Keynote presentation Day 2 - Dr Karen Clegg

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

I did not engage

Keynote presentation Day 3 - Dr Nigel Palmer + Panel

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

I did not engage

Paper presentations

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

I did not engage

Roundtable presentations

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

I did not engage

SIGs (Special Interest Groups)

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

I did not engage

Poster presentations

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

I did not engage

9.At QPR2026, presentations took one of a number of different formats. These are listed below and we would like you opinion about whether the balance between these different formats was about right or should be changed. Could you please complete the following matrix?

There was about the right number

Would like to see more

Would like to see fewer

Roundtables

There was about the right number

Would like to see more

Would like to see fewer

SIG (Special Interest Group) sessions

There was about the right number

Would like to see more

Would like to see fewer

Posters

There was about the right number

Would like to see more

Would like to see fewer

10.For this conference, we kept the program model first introduced in 2024 in which presenters were given a 25-minute session in which to both present a paper and answer questions on it, to one in which to one in which 2 or 3 papers were presented one after the other as part of a panel after which all three were discussed in a joint Q&A. (The panel approach allowed us to accept more papers.)
Could you please use this textbox to tell us how well you think this new format worked and let us have any comments about the way papers are presented at QPR.

11.QPR's Special Interest Groups (SIG) have been operating since 2014 and these SIGs now meet at the QPR conferences and have a variety of forms outside the conferences. Do you have any comments on the SIGs, how they have operated, and how they might be improved and their impact enhanced?

12.Overall, how would you rate the social event held on the first evening of the conference (Wednesday)?

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

I did not attend

13.How would you rate Wednesday's conference social event in terms of value for money?

Very good value for money

Good value for money

Reasonable value for money

Poor value for money

I did not attend

14.This year was the second time QPR has used a downloadable app rather than a printed conference book. Could you please let us know what you thought about this change and let us know how you found the app in terms of usability.

15.QPR conferences welcome people from a variety of different roles in higher education. To allow us to understand the patterns of feedback better, would you please tell us what was your primary role when you attended QPR2026?

Dean of Graduate Studies or other senior academic manager

Research manager or administrator

Professional staff member directly supporting the learning of research degree students and/or their supervisors

Professional staff member researching in the area or discipline of research degrees/doctoral education

Academic staff member researching in the area or discipline of research degrees/doctoral education

Academic staff member directly supporting the learning of research degree students and/or their supervisors

Conference sponsor

Research student - volunteer

Research student - delegate or presenter

Other (please specify)

16.What, if anything, did you particularly like about QPR2026?

17.What, if anything, did you particularly dislike about QPR2026?

18.To help us understand the delegate experience at QPR2026 better, could you please tell us with what gender you identify.

Woman

Man

Non-binary

Prefer not to say

19.To help us understand the delegate experience at QPR2026 better, could you please tell us which age group you are in?

30 or below

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71 and over

20.And, just before we finish, could you tell us in which country you are based in terms of work or study?

21.And finally, if you have any further comments, please let us have them using this text box.