187 SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE Figure 1. Evaluation scores for workshops. Mean score 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 Workshop activity Group 1 Group 2 Group 6 Group 7 Group 3 Group 4 Food & venue Relaxing time Closing Group 5 However, it is noteworthy that all groups on all items reported mean scores were all in the range fair to good. This can only be interpreted to mean that the participants found the work useful at the least. This conclusion is bolstered by the findings reported in Table 2. As can be seen, all groups produced overall rankings for all aspects of the workshops very close to a good rating.d In addition, the participants were asked a number of open-ended questions as follows: T O R T U R E Vol um e 19 , N um b er 3 , 2 00 9 shops over the project period. As can be seen from Appendix 1 and the table below, their evaluations of the workshop were highly positive. For each phase of the workshop process, participants were asked to rate that phase on a three-point scale (1=poor; 2=fair; 3=good). As can be seen from Figure 1, the mean group rankings for each part of the workshop process were highly consistent, with the exception of relaxing time and food & venue where there was some marked variance. Empowering Witnessing Childhood Body Work Roots Going to the tree Opening 0