Following the “Support Your Idea: Project Preparation and Application Processes Symposium,” a survey was conducted among 30 participants who attended the event in order to evaluate their opinions and experiences regarding the symposium. A total of 14 participants responded to the survey, corresponding to a response rate of 46.7%. The collected data were analyzed within the framework of thematic categories. The survey findings are presented below with an interpretative approach that reflects not only quantitative results but also participants’ perceptions and evaluations of the event.

According to the survey results, an examination of the participants’ academic status indicates that a significant portion of the group consisted of members of the academic community. Among the respondents, 50% were professors, 21.4% were associate professors, 14.3% were undergraduate students, and 7.1% were research assistants. This distribution suggests that the symposium was able to reach participants from different academic levels and provided content that was particularly appealing to researchers at the early stages of their academic careers. The percentage distribution of participants according to their academic status is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of participants’ academic status.

When the participants’ project experience was evaluated, 78.6% reported that they had not previously taken part in any national or international research project, while 21.4% indicated that they had prior project experience. This finding suggests that the event served as an important source of information and awareness, particularly for researchers with limited experience in project preparation and application processes. Accordingly, the symposium can be considered to have functioned not only as a platform for experienced researchers but also as a guiding resource for individuals at the early stages of their academic careers.

An examination of the results related to funding applications indicates that participants have had varying levels of experience with different funding sources. 71.4% of the participants reported that they had previously applied for BAP (Scientific Research Projects), 42.9% for TÜBİTAK projects, 35.7% for European Union projects, and 35.7% for other international funding sources. However, the fact that 21.4% of the participants had never submitted any funding application suggests that there remains considerable potential for improvement within the academic community in terms of project writing and access to funding opportunities. Furthermore, the post-event evaluation revealed that 92.9% of the participants stated that they had gained information about new funding sources through the symposium, clearly demonstrating the symposium’s strong role in raising awareness and providing information in this field. In this context, it can be argued that the symposium created a platform that increased participants’ awareness of project preparation processes and encouraged them to engage in project development. The results related to this question are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Funding sources previously applied to by participants.

When the duration and flow of the event program were evaluated, the majority of participants reported that the program length was sufficient. 92.9% of the participants stated that the program duration was appropriate, while 7.1% indicated that the event could have been longer.

Within the scope of the event, several subtopics related to project preparation and funding application processes were addressed. When participants were asked which sessions they found the most academically beneficial, a considerable proportion (57.1%) stated that all sessions were similarly beneficial. This finding suggests that the event program was designed in a holistic manner and that the different topics complemented each other from the participants’ perspective.

However, the session titled “International Funding Sources” stood out as the most beneficial session with a rate of 21.4%. In addition, the sessions on TÜBİTAK ARDEB application processes and the NEU-BAP project application process were also identified by participants as important and useful components of the program.

When the effect of the symposium on participants’ motivation to submit project proposals was examined, 92.9% of the participants reported an increase in their motivation. Similarly, 92.9% of the participants stated that they had gained information about new funding sources through the event. These findings indicate that the symposium functioned not only as an informative event but also as a platform that encouraged academic productivity and enhanced motivation for project development.

Participants’ evaluations regarding the academic contribution of the symposium revealed a highly positive overall picture. All participants (100%) indicated that the overall content of the symposium was academically beneficial. Likewise, all participants (100%) reported that the event enabled them to gain new knowledge about project writing and application processes. Evaluations concerning the clarity of the presentations and the relevance of the content to academic needs also demonstrated that all participants (100%) expressed positive opinions. These findings indicate that the content of the event was structured in line with the expectations and needs of the participants and that the presentations maintained an appropriate academic level.

The discussion and question–answer session held at the end of the event was also reported to be highly beneficial by participants. All participants (100%) stated that this section was useful. This finding demonstrates that participant interaction during the event was strong and that knowledge transfer was supported not only through one-way presentations but also through interactive communication. In addition, all participants expressed their desire for similar events to be organized again, indicating that the symposium was positively received by the academic community.

When the overall satisfaction level with the event was evaluated, 50% of the participants reported their satisfaction level as “high,” 35.7% as “very high,” and 7.1% as “moderate.” These results suggest that the vast majority of participants evaluated the event positively and that the symposium generally met participants’ expectations.

When responses to the question regarding how frequently such events should be organized were examined, 42.9% of participants indicated that such events should be held twice a year, 35.7% suggested that they could be organized every semester, and 21.4% stated that once a year would be sufficient (Figure 3). These findings suggest that participants have a need for regular knowledge sharing regarding project writing and funding opportunities.

Figure 3. Distribution of participants’ responses to the question “How often do you think such events should be organized?”

An examination of the participants’ open-ended responses reveals that the most beneficial aspects of the event included the sharing of up-to-date information, the introduction of different funding sources, the transfer of experiences, and the creation of a supportive and interactive environment where participants were able to ask questions. In addition, some participants stated that the event provided a platform that broadened their research perspectives and contributed to the development of new project ideas.

Nevertheless, several suggestions were also expressed regarding the improvement of the event. These recommendations included announcing the event earlier, increasing the number of practice-oriented examples, making the presentations easier to follow, and sharing project experiences from different academic disciplines. Such feedback may contribute to strengthening the content and organization of similar events to be held in the future.

Overall, the symposium can be considered an academically beneficial, informative, and motivating event. Considering that the majority of participants had limited experience in research projects, it can be argued that the event created significant awareness particularly in areas such as project writing, access to funding opportunities, and the development of academic collaborations.

Furthermore, the structure of the event content, the clarity of the presentations, and the interactive discussion environment were positively evaluated by participants, and a strong demand emerged for the organization of similar events in the future.

On 27 October 2025, within the scope of SDGs 4, 8, and 9, the “Fikrî Mülkiyet Farkındalık Toplantısı,” organized in collaboration with DESAM Research Institute and NERITA at Near East University Hospital Classroom 101, was evaluated through a post-event survey. The results of this evaluation are presented below.

At the end of the meeting, a total of 8 questions were directed to 33 participants, and 11 participants completed the survey. Of those who responded, 90.9% were academics, while 9.1% consisted of other participants (students/researchers/non-academics).

Regarding the overall content of the meeting, 72.7% of respondents evaluated it as very beneficial, while 27.3% found it beneficial. The duration and program flow were considered appropriate by 90.9% of participants, whereas 9.1% stated that the topic could have been delivered in a shorter time. All respondents indicated that the topics addressed during the meeting would contribute to their research outputs and patent processes.

According to the survey findings, 63.6% of participants reported that they currently have a product or idea that could potentially qualify as a patent candidate, while 36.4% stated that they do not have such a product or idea at this stage. When asked about their intention to apply for a patent based on such a product or idea, 72.7% indicated that they plan to submit a patent application.

All participants expressed that a similar “Fikrî Mülkiyet Farkındalık Toplantısı” should be organized again. Analysis of the suggested topics for future events revealed a strong demand for more detailed and practice-oriented content, particularly concerning patent and utility model application processes. Specifically, participants emphasized the need for comprehensive explanations of institutional and individual application procedures, application stages, documentation processes, and case-based examples. Additionally, there was a clearly expressed need for practical and guiding information on how to carry out patent applications effectively.

Statistical Overview of Survey Results: