Evaluation of the conference
Fifty project summaries were submitted to cAIR10. Their authors lived in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, United Arab Erimates, the UK and the USA. Most of these countries were also represented at the conference.

An evaluation form was distributed at the start of the conference and submitted at the end. An analysis of the responses will appear here.


Open space and workshops
The open space yielded four major areas of interest which became the topics of the workshops. These were terms and concepts; media; awareness; and networking. Further details will be presented here.

Panel discussion
On the last day, the keynote speakers discussed various aspects of the conference in a plenary session. A transcription will appear here. Some highlights of the discussion:

Positive things about the conference
The program of the conference was as diverse as its topic.
Conference participants did not feel like outsiders. They could not, because there were no insiders.
The conference had a personal feel and offered many opportunities for professional and academic contacts.
The conference promoted interdisciplinarity. There was a surprisingly high quality of communication and level of agreement among academics from contrasting disciplines.
The conference simultaneously addressed positive aspects of intercultural communication and negative aspects such as racism.

Negative things about the conference
The conference needed a more concrete goal and focus to enable bridge building and academic outcomes in specific areas. If there is a second conference it should have a more specific theme such as for example "migration" or" transculturality in modern cities".

Suggestions for the future
Many universities now include gender studies in all study programs. Could much the same be done for interculturality?
Given the problematic nature of the word "culture" (we often tacitly assume cultural superiority), could the word "conviviality" be used instead?
When addressing racism,                                 we should ask underlying central questions such as: What are our values? What is our identity?
Future conferences could make specific recommendations concerning specific current issues.



Procedure for evaluation of submitted project summaries

All submissions to cAIR were subject to a quality control procedure that was fair, thorough, constructive and helpful. Each submitted project summary was evaluated anonymously by at least two international experts corresponding to the submission’s specific academic discipline and area of practice or intervention (see committees). Members of local practice and research committees recommended evaluators, but did not evaluate submissions themselves. Authors' identities were withheld from evaluators and vice-versa (double-blind peer review).

The acceptance or rejection of submissions, and the classification of accepted submissions into talks or posters, depended on the following criteria:
On this basis, evaluators sorted submissions into excellent talks, regular talks, posters and rejects. When two evaluators disagreed significantly, a third was consulted.

Each evaluator was also be asked to briefly describe their relevant expertise, and - for each submission -
 Apart from keynotes, all talks and posters at cAIR, including all local submissions and all submissions from committee members, were subject to the same evaluation procedure.