Horizon Centre for Doctoral Training Blog
To share our activity, progress and successes
Nick Tandavanitj is a second-year PhD student at Horizon CDT. His research explores the relationship between technology, community and participatory art, with a focus on Blast Theory’s Rider Spoke. Nick’s PhD examines audience responses to uncover insights into belonging, vulnerability and AI’s role in shaping human connections.
To learn more about Nick’s work, check out this article: Audience agency & AI: Insights from Nick on lessons in Rider Spoke
post by Rachel Saunders (2021 cohort)
Conference: Sexuality, Nationality and Asylum – The New Plan for Immigration
Motivation
I was motivated to do this conference because I wanted to use the research later in my PhD. The conference was an opportunity to engage with experts in the field of asylum and queer rights. This included Dr Alexander Powell who organised the symposium, and who also organised the special edition which my paper was originally submitted to.
My desire to learn more about LGBTQI+ refugees was to explore narrative hospitality, as well as utilise mixed methods approaches for exploring rights. In this case, I draw on my media studies and doctrinal legal experience, enabling me to develop mixed methods I employed in my PhD.
Paper preparation
I undertook the first draft of the paper in the two months prior to the conference. I did this by conducting a media review of relevant news articles, as well as conducting an in-depth doctrinal analysis of relevant legislation and case law. This formed the basis of my presentation at the conference, which I then submitted to Dr Powell two weeks after as the first draft of the emerging paper.
Due to editorial deadlines and confusion with version control, the paper was not accepted in the original special edition. I submitted a revised version to Societies as part of their ‘Gender and Class: Exploring the Intersections of Power and Inequality’ special edition. This has spent eight months in editorial processing, working with the editor to finalise a version we were both happy with. It was accepted this week pending final amendments.
Details of process of responding to reviewers’ comments
This paper went through two rounds of reviewer comments. The first was conducted by Dr Powell and peer review related to the special edition. It was a fair process, but due to time constraints, the feedback was minimal. There was an editorial version control problem where my revised version was not peer-reviewed due to the prior version being sent to the second reviewer. This meant that I only had two days to submit changes, and even then those changes were based on a rushed review. In the end, the editorial decision was made that my paper would not be submitted for the conference special edition.
This left the paper in limbo. I sat on it for three months to decide what the next step would be, then decided to submit it to Society based on the journal’s reputation and the special edition’s subject matter. The journal accepted the paper, though asked I make substantive changes to better fit their editorial style. This changed the style and flow of the paper, with six rounds of editing prior to final acceptance. While I accepted the majority of reviewer comments, there were several that I pushed back on because they would have altered the paper beyond the confines of the research.
Reception of paper at conference
The reception at the conference to the paper was overwhelmingly positive. I was asked detailed questions which helped sharpen my understanding. Refugee participants enabled me to engage with the core discourse in a grounded way that was not otherwise possible. The paper sparked a good conversation in the after-conference chat, through which I built connections I used for other opportunities after the conference.
Role of paper within PhD
My thesis features a case study of LGBTQI+ asylum seekers in Part 5, looking at how narrative hospitality is used in the mediating process between asylum seekers and immigration agents. It is the capstone of my research and would not otherwise have happened without the conference. Dr Powell’s critique of my paper played a significant role in helping me find the sources and processes for this section of the PhD, and without it, the case study would have been significantly weakened.
The paper also helped shape my understanding of resistance in the role it plays before the law, especially in how civil rights groups resist dominant narratives. Many of the sources I have used in the paper flowed into the PhD, as did the understanding of case law. Without the paper, I would have spent an extra two months looking for sources.
Follow-up activities or contacts that have resulted from presenting the paper
Off the back of the conference, I was asked to be involved in a High Court case as an expert researcher, and my advice was included in the final submissions on the case. I also worked in a research role which directly involved research from this paper. I also gave lectures at the Law School’s summer school in 2023 and 2024 based on this paper to prospective students looking at how the media frames asylum seeker identities.
post by Ana Rita Pena (2019 cohort)
For the past year, I have collaborated with the Centre for Responsible Credit (CfRC); a charity working to improve consumer credit regulation and lending practices with a particular focus on lower-income households.
Our collaboration made possible with an EPSRC Horizon CDT Impact Grant, has explored whether trusting and contextualising an individual’s financial situation offers a potential alternative to the traditional ‘data surveillance’ approach of credit scoring. Could borrowers be trusted to be honest about their financial circumstances, and, if so, could this information accurately predict their default risk?
I first became aware of the CfRC’s work at the end of my first year of PhD when I was about to start working with the credit card company, Capital One UK. While at Hallward Library, I discovered a book titled ‘Britain’s Personal Debt Crisis’, written by CfRC’s Chief Executive, Damon Gibbons. The book outlined the evolution of the UK’s credit industry, and following further research about the Centre, I was drawn to their holistic and innovative approaches. In particular, their FlexMyRent (‘FMR’) project caught my attention. The FMR scheme provided social housing tenants with the opportunity to personalise their rent payments over the course of a year: paying less rent at times when their finances were tight, and more when things were, relatively, less stressed. This flexible payment option was aimed at helping tenants to manage their cash flow without having to use credit (which for this group of consumers would likely incur very high and potentially predatory interest rates and charges). Application to the scheme was based on a proposed rent payment plan (how much the tenant would pay each month), rent account details and tenant answers to a questionnaire about their wider financial circumstances and ‘support needs’. There was no use of credit reference agencies or third-party data.
The information provided was risk-assessed and fed into decisions by Housing Officers regarding admittance to the scheme. This application process has some similarities to underwriting decisions within the credit industry. Specifically, information about the applicant is used to create a measure of default risk (failure to repay in line with the agreement). In the credit sector, the risk assessment (usually based on someone’s credit score, which is in itself a risk measurement) combined with the lender’s credit policy, which sets their risk appetite, and determines which products – if any – are offered.
The most significant difference between these two application processes is the provenance of the financial data. In traditional credit applications, the data is much more extensive and detailed, related to past payment behaviour, and combined with public information (e.g., county court judgments, time on the electoral roll etc.) For the FMR scheme, the data is directly requested from the applicant and is a lot less granular, i.e. “How often, in the past three months, have you had money left over after you have paid for food and other essentials including bills and credit repayments?”.
This alternative approach to risk assessment based on voluntary disclosure of an applicant’s financial information, was what caught my attention and made me interested in wanting to work with the scheme’s data. I thought it had a lot of potential to benefit consumers. The exploration of possible alternatives to traditional approaches complemented my PhD work well, where I was mainly studying and critically reviewing the current credit system.
The first step was to have an initial chat with CfRC. This served to enquire about their interest, for me to get a better understanding of the FMR scheme, and to discuss potential research inquiries that would particularly benefit from the expertise I had developed throughout my PhD.
Based on the initial conversations, I decided to apply for a project using Machine Learning (ML) techniques, as these hadn’t been used on the dataset before and could help identify unexpected behaviours. I also thought that an approach based on ML analysis of the data could be appealing to both the industry and the regulator (Financial Conduct Authority). As with my PhD, I also wanted to include an element of qualitative work to complement the quantitative analysis.
I planned a project based on two phases: an initial data analysis using ML models, and a subsequent series of interviews with applicants to gather rich and complementary data. To be able to put together the budget, I created a timeframe for the project and estimated the hours needed to complete the tasks within this. As I would be engaging tenants in the qualitative phase, it was also important to create the draft topic guide, estimate the timeframes of the interviews and include adequate remuneration for research participants.
The most challenging part of the application process was understanding how I could evidence and measure the impact of the work. Working with CfRC, we defined the outputs from the project (a freely available report) and defined some initial metrics concerning its dissemination – such as the number of views and references to the report. However, the desired outcomes are to be achieved over a much longer period. The ambition for the project is to create interest in a ‘trust-based’ alternative to credit scoring and to advocate for further exploration, which could lead to changes in policy and practice. As such, the wider the distribution of the report, the greater the chance of other institutions and stakeholders following up on the work done.
As a start, I am now working with CfRC to plan and hold a stakeholder event at the University of Nottingham in March 2025. The event will provide an initial opportunity to share our findings and discuss potential next steps. We hope to engage academic, industry, regulatory, and third-sector stakeholders and to catalyse longer-term working relationships on this topic. A link to express your interest in attending can be found at the end of this blog.
The impact activity I proposed aims to create a positive impact in the credit industry by fostering global economic performance, increasing the effectiveness of policy, and enhancing the quality of life for consumers. The activity builds on results from my PhD and the FMR Project. The output of this activity describes a new approach to default prediction based on trust and disclosure by applicants, providing an alternative avenue for the future of default prediction and risk analysis.
Reflecting on my experience, I found applying for and subsequently carrying out the impact grant’s work, has been a great development opportunity. I learned how to create a grant application and lead a research project in a much more independent manner. But more importantly, it has given me the confidence to keep pursuing projects that I deeply believe are important (to me and others). I have since applied this in other areas of my life — looking out for funding opportunities and new partners or figuring out ways to make projects happen with the resources already available. I cannot overstate how much I recommend this experience. It has been incredibly fulfilling to apply the skills I have been developing for the last five years to work that I truly believe can have a long-lasting impact on society for the better.
Stakeholder Event:
Insights from the FlexMyRent trial – Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:30 AM
post by Giovanni Sciazza (2020 cohort)
In this blog post, I will talk about two conferences I attended as part of widening study participation and networking with future collaborators. First, I will discuss my preparation process for conferences and outreach, then discuss the two events and conclude with some take-home points for you to have a better experience when outreaching-networking-conferencing.
The first conference I will discuss is the Government Science and Engineering Profession (GSE) conference, and the second is the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) Conference. The GSE conference attendees are civil servants and scientists who work with the civil service from many different Gov’t departments. AoIR attendees were multidisciplinary from a diverse range of disciplines, with a common thread being studying the internet in many different forms and using as many diverse methodologies as possible.
While conferences last a few days, the preparation process to prepare for a conference is a bit longer. As a PhD candidate, much admin and planning is involved, including applying for travel funding, booking conferences, accommodation and transport. The main aim of attending these two conferences was to widen participation, so before the conferences, I had to make sure my survey and QR codes were ready and stuck to my business cards to maximise the chances of getting more participants to do further interviews.
Another daunting task to prepare for a conference is choosing what to bring with you and what to wear during the conference. There is no specific dress code for the events I went to, so I just wore smart-ish clothing; choose outfits that you feel comfortable in, as going to conferences to outreach, network and recruit participants is already a stressful task, and you don’t want to put more pressure on yourself by wearing something you aren’t comfortable in.
Here, I am not saying to wear pyjamas or tracksuits to a conference; wear something you like and are comfortable in with a smart/casual vibe. I always choose comfy trousers and jeans, a polo or patterned shirt and a jumper if it’s cold.
The GSE conference was held in the London Science Museum in October; this was the view from one of the conference rooms👇.
Two conferences happened at the same time, GSE and TAS’24 (which I have written another blog post on here), so I could only choose one conference to go to, and I chose the GSE because it was my first civil service conference, the potential of access to policymakers to involve in my studies and also networking with people outside of academia. I really liked this conference, and it was an excellent opportunity to learn more about the GSE profession and current trends in the Civil Service; however, I felt out of place as I was one of the most junior people there, and I was pretty nervous to talk to higher-ups.
The event was organised very well, with the sessions you signed up for written on your pass so as not to miss them. I attended all the sessions I signed up for and learnt so much from these talks. In one of the sessions, a senior civil servant presented work that was close to what I am doing with the PhD in terms of engaging with people about transformative technologies. After the session, I was quite hesitant to approach the person on the panel and went back and forth in my head (and in real life) if I should go and talk to them. In the end, I spoke to them, and it was a fascinating conversation. Why was I so hesitant?
There was a session I wanted to attend, but it happened at the same time as another one I was scheduled to be in, so unfortunately, I could not attend it. Destiny would have me meet this person, and it did! In the last session, I was finding a place to sit, and while going to a seat, I kicked and broke a glass under a chair. One person saw me break the glass, and we laughed about it and started to talk. To my surprise, it was the person who led that session that I missed! We got to talking and sat down while the staff was sorting the broken glass. We had a stimulating conversation about sewage ethics, and it was fascinating to see how ethics is applied in this unusual (to me) area.
The best connections I made during this conference were the people I talked to who were next to me while waiting for the following sessions to start and the person I spoke to after breaking a glass and having to wait for the staff to dispose of the broken glass safely.
I did get some sign-ups for the interviews, but not as many as I would like. That’s how these things go (I think?). Anyway, do not be afraid to talk to people at these events; we are all stressed, trying to network and have fun!
The AoIR conference was held in the University of Sheffield’s Student Union. The aim of this conference was again to network and widen participation.
This conference lasted for a few days and was very interesting and inspiring. On the first day of the conference, I presented at a workshop organised by my supervisor on safeguarding researchers from reactive/hostile online communities. As a meme researcher, I am very mindful of this, and after interviews with participants, concerns were raised in the interviews and later discussed with the supervisors. I presented my experience, including the steps taken to minimise risk and my feelings surrounding my experience. I felt pretty nervous before presenting personal experiences, which I had not shared in a setting like this, but it was a validating experience.
I met with many internet and meme researchers during the conference, which was very exciting. I also met prominent academics in the area to exchange views, struggles and aspirations for the future of internet meme studies. At this conference, I could network and talk to more people than at the previous one, maybe because it was an Internet conference and there were many people at the same level of academia as me.
The best connections I made at this conference were queuing for a drink and the reception, waiting for the bathroom, walking around looking for people and meeting more people, and dinners, coffee breaks and in-between sessions.
In conclusion, I had fun outreaching and networking, but it is a mentally draining job. I made connections in the weirdest places by breaking glasses and talking to queuing for a drink. I think networking is difficult, but once you understand we are all here for the same purpose, all stressed and struggling to make connections, it lowers expectations and makes it easier for you to enjoy the conference and make lasting connections. You must also consider your energy, as networking uses lots of energy. Building yourself up to talk to people is as much about yourself as it is about everyone else; we are all in the same position. Also, keep track of people’s names with notes or selfies as you meet many people at these events, and you will end up forgetting people’s names and research interests.
Go out there and network! It’s as difficult for you as everyone else! We are all in the same boat!
post by Ramneek (Athwal) Rai (2023 cohort)
What a great 3 months!
I completed my internship over the summer with Obu Invest, a business that is dedicated to addressing the inequalities that exist within the entrepreneurship and investment space. The impact business works towards closing the gender investment gap by creating an angel investment platform to demystify, democratise and diversify angel investing.
I started my internship at a time when Sarah, the CEO, was innovating new ideas to realise Obu Invest’s vision. Our first meeting covered a recap of their upcoming exciting projects, my ideas and what I hoped to achieve from this placement opportunity.
I still remember the motivation I gained from this first meeting. I felt my entrepreneurial spirit was in action and I was in a space where I could share all my crazy and wonderful ideas with Sarah who radiated the same energy. A particular highlight was Sarah asking me to share my ‘out there ideas’, where I got to share anything that I thought would be great for the business both short and long-term without any judgement! We also discussed the microlearning content that Sarah was working on to build know-how and understanding of angel investing.
By the end of the meeting, we agreed on my placement goals, which included:
We both decided it would be best to have at least one regular weekly check-in, where I could update my progress and discuss the upcoming tasks to focus on. Due to my expertise and placement aims, many of the tasks were research focused such as on partnership and collaboration opportunities and various sectors.
A key learning was understanding the different types of angel investors that exist:
I was not aware of the different categorisations that existed for angel investors, this new knowledge will be pivotal for my research as the different types of angel investors may influence who I interview, generalise data about and the recommendations I make.
Sarah informed me of an event of interest – Louder Than Words: The B Corp Festival. This was the largest-ever gathering of B Corps, which are companies that meet high social and environmental standards, as verified by B Lab. On the first day, I sat in my seat in the theatre, notepad and pen in hand, ready to make notes on panel discussions and keynote speakers. Whilst this happened, I did not expect the opening of the event to be an impactful theatrical performance which instantly had the audience engaged.
I also attended an interesting seminar at the event on the topic of reframing diversity, which was very relevant for my PhD. In the seminar we discussed the impact of Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) in this area, covering issues such as ‘checkbox’ in recruitment, understanding the different terminology and how to reduce bias in the recruitment process. This was topical for my research, as I explore the bias in the investment process for female entrepreneurs and ways to reduce the bias in this process. Additionally, it enabled reflection on the importance of diversity which I will explore further in my research. In general, I gained an insight into the work of B Corp, but also realised how many items I buy on a regular basis are B Corp! Furthermore, I also gained ideas on the research I could conduct on the topics of social & environmental impact, business and diversity.
Sarah kept me involved on the current projects that Obu were working on, invited me to events where she would be speaking and was kind enough to let me sit in meetings.
Key takeaways from my experience:
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed my experience of working in a start-up culture. I further developed professional skills such as time management to complete tasks by the set deadline and learnt the importance of creative problem-solving and the benefit of different leadership styles. These are also relevant skills that can be applied to my academic career as I need to focus on prioritisation of tasks to meet research deadlines, potentially find creative methods of displaying my research and how to work effectively in different group projects.
post by Szymon Olejarnik (2023 cohort)
My placement was conducted under the NHS Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber Trust, in partnership with the University of Sheffield. This placement gave me an excellent opportunity to join a team of researchers working in industry and academia, working on an existing project looking into how cognitive load is affected by hoarding. Although hoarding disorder is a recognised diagnosis that could be comorbid with other mental health disorders like anxiety or depression, its consequences on human cognition are not well understood. This project aimed at unravelling the impact of hoarded environments on the latency of cognition, specifically visual, motor and memory processing.
My supervisory team and I decided that this placement would be the best suit, bearing in mind my research experience and my own research interests. My research focuses on the relationship between video games and multidimensional wellbeing. As part of the investigation, I use virtual reality to assess the degree of comfortableness of social interaction. Since gamers can find online social interactions easier, here’s an interesting question: what if the interaction happens in person, but the other person is represented by a 3D model of their body or an avatar? With that in mind, it might be tempting to ask how this placement was at all relevant to my own work? Well, accessing the house of someone involved in hoarding behaviours is not easy! Instead, this project employed virtual reality (VR), using an app where participants get to explore the house of a person engaging in hoarding behaviours. It’s not only more practical but also more ethical that way, since the participant can be pulled out of the environment in an instant, should any distress occur. The way VR was used in this project provided an ideal opportunity for me to get more accustomed to VR research, with first-hand experience on how proprietary VR applications were developed, in case I wanted to prepare an entirely new procedure for my own VR research.
I joined the research team relatively late into the project’s development, with the role of an experimental design consultant and experimenter. Initially, I was asked to assess the existing experimental protocol on its practicality and psychological validity, for example, the number of experimental trials or the type of task the participants will be taking part in. Once we established that everything looked good on paper, we began work on the app that would be used as the experimental environment. Shortly after this, I was put in charge of the project, with the main goal of getting the app to a usable state, ready for data collection.
The app was developed by XRTherapeutics, whom I liaised with over the next few months. The initial prototype of the app was already promising – it looked and (mostly) worked like what we were imagining it, and the initial piloting revealed that the hoarded environment should make at least some difference in cognitive processing! Although we were happy with the prototype, we wanted to make it as realistic as possible, to ensure we replicate the clinical benchmarks of hoarding disorder. Over the next few months, we worked with XRTherapeutics to revise the app, implementing changes we thought would make it better. This involved me receiving a prototype, uploading it to the VR headset and setting it up, testing it for bugs and checking the looks of the environment, relaying this to the rest of the team and providing feedback to the developer for the next round of revisions. Although it does not sound like a lot, it took us a few rounds of revisions over the next few months to dial into the right balance of performance and aesthetics.
By the end of my placement, we arrived at a fully working 3D environment that replicates a hoarded environment well, giving participants an experience of hoarding as close to reality as possible. We conducted the last round of piloting, walking through the procedure step by step, and marking the project ready for recruitment.
Though this placement did not make me change the scenery from my day-to-day job much, it taught me two valuable lessons about working in the industry. One is that although we might think that industry and academia are two different worlds, research practice is more or less the same. This is especially true of the NHS, where medical research and clinical trials are very much overlapped with the standard procedures we would follow in academia. The other is that working with external organisations can be rewarding, but also tough. External collaborators can allow us to push our research forward and provide valuable insight we might not have as academics. But an external organisation also means “another team to manage”, meaning that as the research lead, you must have what it takes to ensure deadlines and expectations are met. Working on this placement gave me immense insight into how to manage industry-focused research involving multiple collaborators, and I am incredibly grateful to the NHS for providing me with this opportunity to push my own research forward.
post by Iris Jestin (2023 cohort)
Introduction
I began my placement with BLUESKEYE AI over the summer of 2024, as a Human Factors Engineering Research Assistant, working as part of their Research and Development Team, guided by my industry supervisor Michel Valstar. Working on the placement felt like a good switch-up of going back into the industry after a year of being in academia and I was excited to return to the familiar fast pace of moving towards business goals and deliverables. Over the course of the placement, I was able to work on several projects to make valuable contributions and further my learning experience.
What The Company Does And Relevance To My PhD
BLUESKEYE AI is a spin-out from the University of Nottingham, based in the Sir Colin Campbell building on Jubilee Campus. They specialise in machine understanding of facial and eye behaviour using machine learning and computer vision technologies, to detect a user’s expressed emotional states. While they have different product offerings in the health and wellbeing space, I had the brilliant opportunity to work on their projects in the automotive space. Their product B-Automotive allowed different automotive customers to integrate their technology into vehicles to help with safe driving by detecting driver expressed emotional states that might be undesirable in a driving context. This felt specifically relevant to my PhD which explores advanced vehicle technologies, including driver state monitoring systems for the ageing population in future vehicles. What I looked forward to the most was perhaps the understanding I would gain regarding the industry application of the area my PhD explores. While it is not possible to get into specific details and findings of the projects I carried out as they are commercially sensitive, I hope to give a brief overview of my placement research activities and learnings in this reflection.
Research Activities
i) Familiarising with the company’s automotive product offering, SDK, and working – The first couple of weeks involved getting to know the company’s ways of working, and getting familiarised with their B-Auto software development kit (SDK) which uses analysis of facial expressions to estimate dynamic expressed emotional states. I soon learnt about the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) which is a comprehensive, anatomically based system for describing all visually understandable facial movement. It breaks down facial expressions into individual components of muscle movement, called Action Units (AUs). Facial Emotional Expressions (FEE) at the most basic level, is a combination of AUs. Each AU is a distinct muscle movement, and combinations of these units represent different expressed emotions. BLUESKEYE worked to accurately understand which AUs tend to co-occur, what the combinations signify, and how to label them accurately. This involves identifying combinations of active AUs that correspond to an expressed emotion which indicates a felt emotion.
ii) Familiarising with already existing data – During the first part of the placement, I had the opportunity to play around with their existing video data of drivers inside a car that captures facial behaviour, eye gaze behaviour, head movement and yawns. Each of the drivers had a driving video in the morning and in the evening after work. This involved me doing some early analysis using Python to explore trends in the behavioural data that may indicate fatigue, in the morning versus the evening. The behavioural data included eye blink rate, eye blink velocity, eye saccade velocity which is the speed with which the eye moves between different fixed points, head movement angle and head movement velocity. This phase mostly prompted me to get stuck back into Python after not having used it in a while, and helped me familiarise myself with the type of data that the company worked with. The analysis further helped me understand the importance of accounting for individualistic differences before coming to conclusions when working with behavioural data.
iii) Driving fatigue study – As part of a study that evaluates the BLUESKEYE technology which detects driving fatigue, I created the information sheet and consent form that was used for it. Further, I conducted a literature review that worked to define sleepiness and fatigue. This involved trying to identify from literature facial and eye behavioural and physiological indicators that indicate fatigue that may not have been explored by BLUESKEYE. This also included documenting the ways in which these indicators have been measured in literature and the average rate of these indicators when a person is fatigued. Keeping in line with my PhD’s area of focus, I was able to find literature that explored how some of these indicators of fatigue varied for an older versus a younger driver.
iv) Data analysis of in-house data – The last phase of the placement involved data analysis using Python on in-house data, to find trends within a specific parameter – the driver’s head turn, that indicates fatigue while driving. These were checked against a questionnaire that the driver filled to self-report their fatigue. Different types of head turn were identified from the video data. Then the speed and angle of the head turn were compared against the types of head turn for low versus high self-reported fatigue. This was used to identify patterns in the head turn data that would correspond to high or low fatigue that could potentially be built in for detection by the technology.
Conclusion And Next Steps For Continued Collaboration
This placement has been an invaluable experience as it gave me a snapshot of what working in the industry in the area of my PhD research would entail. It was decided due to the close alignment of the PhD with some of the company’s projects, to have meetings with the R&D team every couple months to identify any opportunity for continued collaboration. Further, it is expected that the experimental study of the PhD may potentially use BLUESKEYE’s technology in some capacity. I close with a special thank you to Mani and Adrian from BLUESKEYE’s R&D team without whom much of my learning would not have been possible.
post by Yang Bong (2021 cohort)
In the summer of 2023, I had the privilege of working as a Visiting Fellow at the University of Technology Sarawak (UTS) in Sibu, Malaysia. This three-month placement, hosted by Dr. Tariq Zaman at the Advanced Centre for Sustainable Socio-Economic and Technological Development (ASSET), aligned directly with my PhD research on digital inclusion with Indigenous communities, which was a core research interest of ASSET.
ASSET’s focus on ICT for development (ICT4D) in Sarawak provided a unique context to apply my research on human-computer interaction (HCI) and digital marketplaces for rural microenterprises in real-world settings. As part of the optional placement module under my doctoral training, the placement was generously supported by the Horizon Centre for Doctoral Training (CDT).
As a PhD candidate with a research interest in digital inclusivity in developing economies, my initial anticipation of this placement was that it would provide access to local stakeholders and communities. The hope was that interacting with local communities would enhance my understanding of how local cultures interact with digital technologies.
ASSET’s work in ICT4D and HCI within Indigenous communities aligned very well with my PhD in creating inclusive digital platforms for rural microenterprises. Through the placement, I aimed to gain insights into designing technology that respects and reflects the values, needs, and infrastructure of Sarawak’s rural communities. My goals included learning from established academics in the field, expanding my local network for data collection, and exploring community-based research models. I also approached the placement with an open mind, knowing that some aspects of the experience, such as connections with specific stakeholders, would unfold organically.
During my time at UTS, I led a short-term project as a Visiting Fellow at UTS, in partnership with the Sarawak Development Institute (SDI). The project focused on mapping the digital entrepreneurship ecosystem in Sarawak. The aim was to map out the then multi-fold, often seemingly repetitive efforts in digitalising entrepreneurship across different stakeholders in Sarawak. The work involved leading a team of researchers through a desk study, followed by the conducting of interviews with key stakeholders across the region. This research, which has since been submitted to a journal, gave me invaluable insights into the local digital entrepreneurship landscape.
Alongside this project, I was also the internal communication chair for the ACM conference: Participatory Design Conference, held in Sarawak. Responsibilities included organising meetings, finalising conference schedules, and scouting suitable venues with the organising committee in and around Sibu. Through these activities, I had the opportunity to engage with a broad network of stakeholders: including local councils, government agencies, research institutions, and local entrepreneurs, all of which significantly expanded my understanding of Sarawak’s digital entrepreneurship scene.
The placement provided a platform to enhance and re-orient several of my academic and professional skills. First, my communication skills were improved, particularly in engaging with stakeholders from varied backgrounds, from city council officials to rural entrepreneurs. It also helped me refine my Malay language skills, essential for rapport building and further fieldwork. Additionally, leading a multi-stakeholder project honed my project management skills, where I have gained confidence in both leading and coordinating research with senior academics and research institutions: from proposal writing to weekly catch-ups and finally, publication. Lastly, my academic writing skills were also strengthened. As I took the lead on writing the research paper, the experience not only built my confidence for my PhD thesis writing but also better prepared me to undertake similar projects in the future.
Spending three months in Sibu immersed me in Sarawak’s local culture and work environment, offering firsthand insights into local perceptions of digitalisation, digital platforms and digital entrepreneurship, all instrumental to the findings of my PhD.
This experience has improved my understanding of not just the local perspectives of digital platforms, it has also expanded my vision for both research and professional possibilities within the region in the future. Beyond professional skills, this placement taught me to embrace new opportunities and approach uncertainties with courage. From an initial blind email to Dr. Tariq Zaman via Google Scholar, to signing a Memorandum of Understanding between our respective institutions, this experience has taught me the value of taking bold steps and trusting the process, even when the present path may seem uncertain.
I would like to thank Dr Tariq Zaman for his generosity and support throughout the attachment, and for his wisdom and guidance in the many conversations we have had the pleasure of. My gratitude also goes to Dr Gary Loh, Dr Ghazalam Tabussum of ASSET, Dr Kok Leong Yuen and the wider team at the Sarawak Development Institute, who worked on the mapping research project together. To the community partners in Bawang Assan, especially Marcathy Gindau and Stanley Marcathy, thank you for partnering and supporting the various research projects conducted in the community.
Lastly, a huge thank you to the Horizon CDT for financially supporting the whole of my placement in Sarawak.
post by Nasser Alkhulaifi (2021 cohort)
As an AI researcher deep into my PhD journey, I recently had the opportunity to attend the Forum for AI Research Students (FAIRS) at the University of Cambridge. This preliminary event to the AI-2024 SGAI International Conference offered invaluable insights into “How to be an effective AI researcher” and navigating the final stages of doctoral research. The FAIRS event was not just about preparing for a PhD viva – it was about understanding what it means to be an effective researcher in the dynamic field of AI. For fellow AI researchers, whether preparing for their viva or earlier in their journey, the key message is clear: success in research is not just about technical brilliance – it’s about effective communication, professional maturity, and the ability to place our work within the broader context of scientific advancement. Among the many inspiring sessions, Professor Max Bramer’s talk stood out for its depth and practical relevance, especially on navigating the often-daunting PhD thesis writing and viva preparation, which I will be reflecting on in this blog.
Professor Bramer introduced Rule 1: “Avoid the Killer Examiner” – a partisan examiner who might be overly critical or biased against research outside their niche. While we can’t choose our examiners directly, we can express preferences. The key is building networks and working with supervisors to make suitable choices. The external examiner should be an expert in areas relating to yours, but not necessarily precisely your area, with good general knowledge potentially being more valuable than narrow expertise. Building a network of contacts to identify fair and constructive examiners is crucial. As he explained, “You are the leading expert in your area (temporarily)” and ensuring examiners respect diverse methodologies is key to a fair evaluation. This advice underscored the collaborative nature of academia and the importance of proactive preparation. As researchers, it is our responsibility to not only produce rigorous work but also anticipate the context in which it will be evaluated.
It’s our job as authors to “make the thesis as interesting and clear as possible for someone in a hurry” which is Rule 2 in prof Bramer’s talk. “Think of a busy professor reading your thesis on a train,” Professor Bramer warned. This hypothetical professor, juggling a packed schedule, won’t have time/patience for convoluted writing or unclear arguments. So, start with a killer Chapter 1 because first impressions matter! This chapter gives examiners everything they need to know upfront. Also, throughout the thesis, signpost clearly and use repetition to reinforce key points. As Professor Bramer said, “Repetition and redundancy are helpful”. The takeaway? Respect your reader. A well-written thesis not only communicates your research but also demonstrates professionalism and attention to detail. And let’s not forget the basics: good grammar, proper punctuation, and consistent formatting. Small details make a big impression.
Remember that your thesis is the sole evidence of years of research work. “A well-written thesis is essential. A badly written one can be ruinous” he stated. This was not just about writing quality – it was about allowing sufficient time for the iterative process of drafting, reviewing, and refining. A compelling thesis not only captures the attention of examiners but also builds their confidence in the candidate’s work. Key tips included:
Preparing for the Viva – Rule 3: “Make the External Examiner Confident Enough to Pass You”
The viva is a chance to reassure the examiners that you fully understand your work and the research process. It is not a test of survival but rather a professional discussion aimed at validating years of dedication. Examiners want to pass you – it is your job to make that decision as easy as possible for them. Prof Bramer provided practical strategies to navigate this critical stage:
What to Avoid – Rule 4: “Do Not Defend the Indefensible”
Prof Bramer also shared horror stories and pitfalls that candidates should avoid. From making unsubstantiated claims to failing to credit sources properly, these cautionary tales served as reminders of the standards required in academic research. He shared a few cautionary tales of candidates who undermined their credibility by defending indefensible positions. One claimed their algorithm was “1000 times faster” than a benchmark without providing any sufficient supporting data. Misleading claims, such as “No one else has ever worked on this” can undermine credibility. Bramer’s advice was clear: avoid careless blunders, maintain scientific integrity, and always substantiate claims. The lesson? Be realistic and honest. Modest, well-supported claims will always be more persuasive than exaggerated or unsupported ones.
What to Avoid – Rule 5: “Do Not Claim Too Much”
This ties into Rule 4 but deserves its own focus – avoid overclaims! Modesty and accuracy are key. Rather than overstating the impact of your work, provide substantiated claims supported by evidence! Prof Bramer emphasised that your thesis does not need to solve all the world’s problems because nobody does! Examiners are looking for a solid, original contribution to knowledge – not a miracle breakthrough! So, focus on what you’ve achieved, and be clear about its limitations.
Rule 6: “Context Matters”
Examiners expect you to understand where your work fits within the broader research landscape. Be ready to answer questions such as “Why did you choose this approach?”, “In what ways does it differ from or resemble alternative methods?”, “What is the significance of your contribution or the new scientific understanding of your research?” Demonstrating this broader awareness will reassure examiners that you’re a well-rounded researcher with a good grasp of the field.
Final Thoughts
Professor Bramer’s talk was a refreshing mix of practical advice and candid insights. Writing a thesis and defending it in a viva might seem daunting, but with preparation, scientific integrity, and a clear structure, it’s absolutely achievable. And remember, your examiners want to pass you!
post by Giovanni Shiazza (2020 cohort)
Meta-Meme, a responsible researcher’s tool for analysing internet memes, is a short position paper and poster my supervisors and I published at the second Trustworthy Autonomous Systems (TAS’24) Hub conference (2024).
In this short position paper 👆, I establish the grounds for the PhD: Responsible Research and Innovation, Internet Memes and Information Science. I illustrate the theoretical and practical motivation of the project as well as the practice-research gap I seek to help bridge.
In the RRI section, I illustrate how I got to this point, including the AREA exercises and theoretical thinking done on RRI and internet memes. The paper then demonstrates the methodology and its operationalisation into Delphi questionnaires and workshops. The paper concludes with the importance of such a project in today’s AI industry, which is primarily iRRIsponsible.
The purpose of this paper was to publish the grounding and approach of the PhD whilst obtaining feedback and reviews from peers on the specific elements of the research project. Overall, publishing this paper in a trust conference was beneficial and validating.
Okay, so then I prepared for the conference, which involved preparing a poster and survey to collect participants with a QR code printed on the poster.
Scanning the QR code (bottom left) leads to a survey to sign up for evaluative interviews as part of the project, widening participation from multidisciplinary researchers and RRI scholars.
Attendees liked the poster; its visuals and colours could draw people in, so the supervisors had further conversations about the project with my supervisors.
My supervisors (proud parents)👆 attended the TAS conference in Texas and presented my poster while I was at the GSE conference, networking and recruiting more participants for the evaluative interviews.
Unfortunately, I could not go to the conference in Austin, Texas, as there was another conference happening in London, the Government Sciences and Engineering Conference, where I went to reach more policymakers and civil society stakeholders.
I started preparing the paper months before the deadline by reading and selecting parts of the documents ready for the PhD’s annual progression reviews. This reading was also done with the materials I prepared for the Delphi workshops, which helped me shape the structure and content of the paper. Most of the content of the paper came from annual review documents. There were a few iterations of the paper based on feedback from supervisors to clarify, restructure, cut out and modify specific parts of the paper. Specifically, for this paper, I found it challenging to find the right tone for a position paper, express the background of the PhD without going into too much detail and balance that against the maximum word count.
It was my first time writing a paper with a specific LATEX template (ACM paper template), and I found it challenging to start, but once I started, it got easier to understand. I have to say I do not particularly like using a template, but it made some things easier to do (referencing, paging and structure) but others more difficult (placing tables, images and making the first page of the paper pretty) and others that were just interesting to do (adding images, creating alternative text for accessibility and screen readers). Latex is a tricky system to get used to, but once you do, you will never go back to MS Word.
I decided to include 👆 what Latex calls a “Teaser image” which appears at the start of the paper as a visual illustration/summary of the paper. The image illustrates where the PhD is positioned in relation to the related disciplines and fields of research. For accessibility reasons, I also produced an ALTXT for the image (as per ACM requirements) which is only available for screen readers. Describing this Venn diagram was quite challenging, as many overlapping sections made the description lengthy. This was a complex but necessary and essential step to do in order to allow more people to be able to access the paper fully.
The reviews pointed towards a weak acceptance and minor corrections to the paper. The reviewers pointed to adding some clarifications around internet memes, RRI, more specific inclusions, and more concrete examples. As this is a position paper, no new data was produced to go with the paper, so I could not satisfy some of the reviewers’ comments on adding results and data. The paper also needed to be tidied up both in the writing and visual senses. In the review process, there was no way to ask questions to the reviewers or comment on the reviews; you just had to update the paper to match their comments, but there wasn’t another round of reviews. Of particular importance for my research, the reviewers commended the approach and grounding of the PhD, as methods and the proactive stakeholder engagement focused on common understandings of internet memes, answering researchers’ needs and proactively seeking societal acceptability. I was very happy the reviewers could see this in the paper and the positive comments on the approach and methods.
As this was a short paper, it also included preparing a poster which is included below👇.
In conclusion, I think you should always try to publish something as a PhD student and if your paper is rejected, then use the peer’s comments to shape the next iteration of the project or paper. I know getting a paper rejected that you have worked on for months is soul-crushing.
My advice (based on personal experience) is to take a week or two to process the rejection and the feelings, then go back to the paper when you feel ready to face reviewer 2’s comments with a fresh mind and eyes; chances are you will actually understand the comments and make your research better so that next time you submit a paper you will have a better shot at publishing.