Horizon Centre for Doctoral Training Blog
To share our activity, progress and successes
Nick Tandavanitj has recently begun his PhD journey as part of the Horizon CDT 2023 cohort.
Nick is a leading member of the artist group Blast Theory, which is one of the CDT’s supporting industry partners and whose work combines interactive media, digital broadcasting, and live performance.
Nick’s research will explore the meaning of asking for audience involvement. You can read more about this on Nick’s original post on the Blast Theory Blog.
post by Edwina Borteley Abam (2019 cohort)
My internship at Capital One started mid-November 2021 and ended mid-May 2022. Capital One is a credit card company originally situated in the US with two branches located within the UK in Nottingham and London specifically. I interned at the Nottingham branch over a period of 6 months, on a part-time basis.
The company has several departments and units. I was placed within the Data Science team which forms part of the wider Data group within the organisation. There are three main sections within the Data Science team namely Acquisition, Customer Management and the Bureau team. The Acquisition team concentrates on building models to score new credit card applicants. The Customer Management team focuses on managing and monitoring the behaviour of all existing credit card customers and credit line extensions and the Bureau team manages all data and information exchanged between credit bureaus and Capital One. For my daily work, I was placed within the Customer Management team and collaborated on two related projects- (Onescore2 and Challenger Model).
The internship:
Onescore2 project involved creating machine learning models to manage the behaviour of existing credit card customers. I worked together with my manager to build models to predict customers likely to default on their cards over a defined period of time. We used R (a statistical programming software) as the main tool for the project. The specific activities assigned to me on the project involved creating the R program files for executing the models, monitoring the progress of the models’ execution, collecting and interpreting model results, and updating the GitHub repository with project outputs. The previous knowledge and skills acquired from the Data Modelling and Analysis course in year two of my PhD helped me understand the technical details involved in the analysis and to carry out my assigned duties effectively on the project.
The second part of this project is the Challenger Model project and it involved building different models in Python to compare their performance with Onescore2. The project was an exploratory study of different conventional models in predicting the likelihood of default. The Challenger Model project serves as a baseline to compare with results from my PhD work, which potentially could form part of my PhD thesis. As this phase of the project is linked to my PhD work, I benefitted from the guidance and input of my supervisor. While working on the Challenger Models, I held periodic meetings with my manager, supervisors and other members of the Data Science team where I presented on progress and discussed possible directions for the project. I also took part in weekly stand-up sessions where all associates within the Data Science team shared updates on ongoing projects.
My reflections:
Looking back on my internship, overall the experience has been insightful, an exciting journey and a time of personal development. I have grown and evolved in several areas in terms of interpersonal and professional skills.
Upon arrival in the first week of the internship, my manager was deliberate to arrange informal meetings and chat sessions with other members of the Data science team. These introductions and chats exposed me to a range of people in various roles and at different levels of leadership in the team. It helped to quickly integrate into the team to create new connections and meet new people. Despite being naturally reserved, I enjoyed the conversations much as everyone was friendly. I was encouraged to step out of my shell to interact with more people. During my interactions, I seized the opportunity to ask all the lingering questions I had on the topic of credit scoring which is also at the heart of my PhD research. Each person was friendly and particularly eager to answer all my questions and chat about the work they do.
Apart from the Data Science team, I had the chance to speak with other associates in other departments of the company and that experience was reassuring and enhanced my confidence at the workplace. I got first-hand experience in mixing with different people from different backgrounds in an office setting and learning to blend with them. The conversations in the first couple of weeks opened up my understanding more on the details of credit scoring and credit cards. I got more understanding of how the different teams work together to make credit cards available to people and how customers are managed and credit lines extended. I had the opportunity to join major meetings and to hear updates on projects being worked on within the different departments of the organisation. This also gave me a wider view of other aspects of the business. I was able to connect how the theory of credit scoring I had read in books and research articles played out practically in the real world through this experience.
During my internship, I worked both from home and the office. Every week during the first few months, I worked three days at home and two days in the office. I found commuting to work on time a discipline to develop as this was my very first time working outside of industry. Although challenging initially but got easier with time. The regular catch-ups and progress updates with managers and my supervisor were sometimes strenuous and nerve-wracking, however, it trained my communication and presentation skills.
The work culture in Capital One challenges associates to give their best on the job but at the same time encourages relaxation and places such high priority on wellbeing. Unlike other work environments, I was surprised to find several fitness and relaxation points like the gym, tennis and pool table strategically placed in the Capital One building to support associates. In addition, during my internship, the company observed a day of fun activities for its associates every quarter of the year just to have a break from work. This shaped my perceptions about the working environment.
Capital One is the industry partner for my PhD and I was privileged to have access to their data for my PhD work. Through my connections with the team members, I was able to easily recruit participants for my first PhD study which I believe would have been difficult otherwise without the internship. Overall, I enjoyed the internship and the experience has been beneficial not only for my PhD but for my personal development.
Experiences of an Early(ish) Adopter in the Algarve
post by Charlotte Lenton ( 2020 cohort)
The Algarve is a tourist destination located on the south coast of Portugal which is incredibly popular with tourists from across Europe including the UK. The area is famous for the guaranteed sunshine, sandy beaches, and welcoming hospitality. According to Statista (2023) the region received almost 4.8 million tourists in 2022, close to pre-pandemic figures. Popular resort areas include Albufeira, Lagoa, Carvoeiro, and Vilamoura. The latter is the place I am currently calling home for the next couple of months – Picture of the villa I have ended up in below (long story with a lot of complications and incredibly stressful moments involving several accommodation providers letting us down but it turned out well in the end bagging a massive villa with pool!).
I have visited the Algarve many times with my family whilst growing up and it was actually the first abroad destination I travelled to on holiday with my husband over ten years ago. It’s safe to say that the destination has a special place in my heart. But due to the pandemic and our finances being used to renovate our house for the past couple of years, my university exchange visit would be my first time back in the Algarve for almost seven years!
Those of you that know my PhD research area will know that I am most interested in exploring the impact that the digital tourism environment has on tourist mobility, accessibility, and experience for people who do not or are not able to use digital technology for whatever reason. I believe that being a ‘late adopter’ of technology is an ever-changing and evolving factor of people’s lives as we all make decisions about what technology we want to use, why we use it, and also why we choose not to use it sometimes. This will depend on the technology of course, someone might want to use a smartphone application to help them to travel by train if they are a frequent user of the railways. Likewise, they might also decide they do not want to have a digital ticket on their smartphone when travelling by plane as they are concerned the battery might run flat and feel more ‘secure’ with a printed version of the boarding pass. So, you can see how the extent to which an individual is a late or early adopter of technology can vary a lot between different technologies, the travel situation, and their personal circumstances. I consider myself to be on the early adopter side of the spectrum for most things like smartphones, but also a late adopter of many other innovations that I am more sceptical of.
There’s also a lot of research available that has explored destinations in terms of their ability, willingness, and innovativeness to adopt and use new technologies (see Buhalis and Deimezi, 2004; Spencer et al., 2012; Collado-Agudo et al., 2023) . This isn’t my research area as I am more interested in individual passengers and tourists, but nevertheless it is an interesting topic. Again, the technologies adopted at destinations vary between countries, regions, and businesses. Generally, lots of destinations in Europe have adopted technologies such as card and contactless payments as this has been widely available for a number of years. I raise this point as this has been an area of considerable challenge for me since arriving in the Algarve a couple of weeks ago.
When I am at home or travelling domestically within the UK, I hardly ever use cash nowadays. In fact, I find myself asking businesses if they accept cash as many places like restaurants, bars, and cafes only accept contactless or card payments. This move to a cashless society seems to have picked up pace since the pandemic in the UK. Admittedly, since the pandemic, I haven’t actually travelled outside of the UK until now, but I assumed (wrongly) that other countries in Europe were also following suit with fewer establishments accepting cash. In preparation for my travel, I took out a fee-free credit card and a new bank account which would also allow me to use the debit card abroad without incurring any fees. In my naivety, I thought that 100 euros in cash would be more than enough to see me through eight weeks abroad as ‘everywhere takes card nowadays’…. I wonder how many other British tourists have the same mindset as me in this regard?!
Upon arriving in the Algarve, I realised that I had made a terrible mistake in not bringing more cash with me as I encountered a number of places that only accept cash within the first few days. In addition to bars and cafes that only accept cash, there were also cash-only car parking machines! Coming from a country where several councils are moving their parking charges to ‘app only’ payments I couldn’t believe that the car parking machines here did not even accept contactless card payments.
A few days later it was time for my first visit to the Universidade do Algarve for a tour, to see my office, and have lunch with some colleagues. As my bag was heavy, I decided to leave it in my office and just take my phone with me… after all I have Apple Pay on my phone so why on earth would I need my purse?! (You see where I am going with this!) On arrival at the university canteen, I ordered the chicken dish for lunch with the help of my lovely Portuguese colleagues to translate this for me! When we got to the till to pay, I noticed that everyone else was inserting their bank card into the machine and realised that the machine was not contactless. Luckily my colleague and friend Professor Dora paid for my lunch as I explained that I was intending to use Apple Pay. This was not the end of the card payment saga for me at the university though… A couple of days later I attended an event which was followed by a self-paying lunch in the much fancier university restaurant. I made sure that I had my purse with me on this occasion so I could pay using my credit or debit card. On presenting myself at the till to pay for my food the staff member looked at my credit card, and told me it was a foreign card so was not accepted by the university so I would have to pay cash. I tried to reason with her by saying that it would be accepted as it would pay in Euros, it was a Mastercard, etc. but she was having none of it. So, for now, at least, it appears that I will need to pay in cash for my meals at the university too.
I guess my point here is surely I cannot be alone in my approach with assuming that European popular tourist destinations, like the Algarve, would be as keen to move to a cashless society as the UK. I am not saying that I agree with the UK moving to a cashless society, as I do think this will have negative consequences for many people including those whom my research focuses on giving voice to. But as a tourist who is so used to using contactless cards and Apple Pay in UK daily life, I wonder how many other Brits are caught out by this and end up using cash points (ATMs) with appalling exchange rates to get by when abroad. Maybe the tourists who are later adopters of this sort of thing would in fact be better prepared for travelling to the Algarve as they may prefer to use cash, who knows?! In any case, I am lucky that my parents are coming out to visit me this weekend, so I have asked them to exchange more cash at home where there’s a decent exchange rate and bring it out to me!
post by Emma Gentry (2021 cohort)
In November 2022 I was accepted to present my PhD plans at Mindtrek’s Doctoral Consortium in Tampere, Finland. With the exception of one prior conference, until this point, I had only presented to academics and peers within the CDT, so I was delighted to be given this opportunity. Mindtrek is an international technology conference held every year in collaboration with Tampere University. With its strong focus on human-computer interaction and future technology, I was eager to immerse myself in all that the conference had to offer during this stage of my development as an early career researcher. In what follows I reflect on my experience of attending a doctoral consortium for the first time, offering key takeaways for PhD students looking to attend similar events in the future.
The event was brought to my awareness when I came across a post in the CDT impact group written by one of our Horizon alumni, Velvet Spors. Velvet offered a great deal of insight about the benefits of attending such an event. Reflecting on this moment I feel grateful to be part of the CDT community with access to an abundant network of researchers and alumni. I would strongly advise talking to PhD students/alumni in similar areas to see what kinds of events and conferences they recommend. I’m very glad to have established a connection with Velvet before attending Mindtrek.
The conference lasted a total of three days and was set up as a hybrid event, though I was fortunate enough to attend in person. For the doctoral consortium itself, we were asked to deliver a 10-minute presentation followed by a 10-minute discussion with four panel experts. Trying to explain your PhD in 10 minutes or less is always a challenge (especially when it’s a 2-minute flash presentation on Industry Day), but it is a skill that is so important to develop for effectively communicating and ‘selling’ your research to others. Reflecting on this experience I realised the importance of prioritising what you talk about, placing emphasis on why the contribution is important, and illustrating what other people might gain from your work.
The depth of the feedback I received from the doctoral consortium exceeded my expectations and each panel expert had a different angle of the PhD to comment on. I ultimately learned the importance of saying what’s out of scope for the PhD and being ok with not knowing the answer to a question, especially in the very early stages when you are still ironing out the specifics of your project. The doctoral consortium panel provided extensive suggestions for where I could take my research based on their expertise. I think the exposure you have to go through in the early stages can be quite daunting but also necessary for your development as a researcher. It’s helpful to think that everyone on the panel started somewhere and probably had a similar experience at their first doctoral consortium/conference.
The following days comprised the main part of Mindtrek’s academic conference where I came across many exciting tracks relevant to my PhD topic. The tracks I found particularly interesting were “Understanding and Designing for the Socio-Technical” and “Fictional, Speculative, and Critical Futures”. The focus of my PhD was still very much open at this point, and I felt inspired by many of the talks in these tracks. As part of the Horizon CDT program, we are encouraged to take awareness of upcoming, novel, and creative methods given the interdisciplinary nature of the training centre. The Mindtrek conference was ultimately a perfect opportunity to expose myself to a range of creative methods and to broaden my horizons in this way. Networking events were held in the evenings after conference hours which provided a more relaxed environment to speak with researchers and panellists. I always find it helpful to ask PhD students in the later stages of their doctorate, and even those with many years of experience after their PhD, what they wish they’d done earlier on.
The event enriched my career as a researcher in a multitude of ways. As well as developing my presentation skills further, I learned how to effectively communicate my project to an audience outside of the CDT. I was encouraged to think about the impact my PhD might have afterwards, and how I might engage with key stakeholders. For example, how might I disseminate my recommendations in a way that would make the most impact? It’s easy to get caught up in the theory of a PhD but recognising the real-world impact you can achieve is essential.
To sum up, I would highly recommend attending a doctoral consortium to anyone in the early stages of their PhD. I ultimately learned the importance of keeping an open mind in the early days and accepting that your project may change a lot from your original plan. You also need to have the exposure to be guided in the right direction. It may feel challenging to take this step but expanding your comfort zone is necessary for growth.
post by Jenn Layton Annable (2020 cohort)
Working as an autistic autism researcher can sometimes be a lonely and distressing experience. Daily contact with academic literature that consolidates pathologising or stigmatising beliefs and constructs can be traumatising. Luckily there is a growing community of autistic autism researchers who, although widely dispersed geographically, come together through digital technology and virtual spaces to offer peer support and collaborate in academic writing and work that counter such narratives with alternatives, grounded in our self-knowledge and awareness. This digital network of neurodivergent researchers, activists and thinkers has also crystalised into the academic disciplines of neurodiversity studies and critical autism studies, containing both scholarship and activism in equal measures.
My first published peer-reviewed paper emerged from this need to counter potentially harmful, clinically situated perspectives. An autistic autism researcher acquaintance Nick Chown raised the matter of the paper Neurodevelopmental disorders and neurodiversity: definition of terms from Scotland’s National Autism Implementation Team within an autistic autism research group asking for collaborators to respond to the publication, specifically dealing with a number of flawed assertions contained the text.
These included:
The collaborative writing process within a neurodivergent research group can be complex, with much consideration given to the different sensory or communication needs of each individual as well as the ongoing stress they may be experiencing at any time. Often there are occurrences that would be considered rude or inappropriate, such as abruptly leaving a meeting with no explanation, were they to occur in an equivalent neurotypical workspace. Our team of writers and advisors included those who had a range of neurodivergent differences; autism, ADHD, dyslexia and mental health challenges, so as much time went into managing these with compassion and understanding toward one another as the actual writing itself. Although conflicting needs can cause frustration and difficulty, the shared experience of stigma and ignorance from others that neurodivergent people hold together is a strong foundation to work from to overcome them.
Additionally, the neurodivergent status of several contributors is not known publically outside of our research community (individuals holding prominent or senior academic positions would still experience discrimination were they to publically disclose). Others who worked on the response are publically known as autistic clinicians who have to be seen to not be challenging their professional status quo too much. This risk is such, that meeting recordings that included such individuals were transcribed and then deleted to avoid exposure of them to harm, professionally or personally.
We worked virtually using email, and shared documents for writing, commenting and editing, together with the occasional face-to-face video call. These styles of working have of course become much more prevalent since the Covid pandemic, however, their benefits to neurodiverse writing groups extend beyond the convenience of meeting without travel.
Neurodivergent communication preferences span many media and dimensions beyond that of written language. One of our group creates TikTok content incorporating signing for the deaf ADHD/autistic community, opening up lived experiences such as these to others who might be excluded because of intersectional disabilities. There was much lively debate about the inclusion of graphically based examples of neurodiversity and how far we would be able to challenge the publication boundaries of a very traditional medical journal such as the British Journal of Psychiatry and still be considered credible. On this occasion, an alternative format such as this was deemed to be too far to be included. Our work shows how different social and communication styles implicit in neurodiverse/neurodivergent groups demonstrate the value they can add to the democratisation of academic knowledge through variable dissemination, both from within the academy to the outside and from the outside in, via the insider/outsider perspective we hold and express through our output, whatever form it takes.
Overall, the process of containing the very different perspectives and styles within even a small neurodivergent group such as ours can be a challenge in and of itself, ensuring that they are all included in enough substance whilst still creating a coherent narrative. Nick and I worked on this refinement and translation process, with the agreement and ‘member checking’ of the wider team. This is how I came to receive the second author attribution in the writing process.
The first challenge we faced was the rejection of the paper’s original format as that of analysis, instead being considered as a commentary, with a word count and citation limit of half of what we had submitted. We decided as a group to reformat the original writing, to ensure a timely response to the original article with a commitment to submitting an expanded version at a later date. Upon resubmission, we received thoughtful reviewer feedback which improved the overall quality and style of the paper. These included challenges to “better capture the nuance and undoubted controversy in the field of biomedical vs social paradigms of neurodiversity and disability” which we managed successfully, whilst remaining within the wordcount and inclusive of the many different frames of neurodivergent reference included in our authorial group.
The final submission was well received by the BJP, whose editors and reviewers thanked us for our thoughtful and considerate responses both to their comments and the original paper. Although we were disappointed to have to shorten our original writing there was a commitment between a smaller group of those who contributed to further our thinking in a later piece, alongside others who produce and curate digital content for social media to adapt what we had created to make it suitable for audiences in these different contexts. We felt that this would be the best approach overall. In coming together we were able to express and explore a range of different ways of thinking, expressing and depicting our ideas. All are valid and worthy of use, however, the delineated nature of certain specialities like academic publishing means that, unfortunately, certain ways of being and communicating are still valued above others. We hope our work, as neurodivergent academics, will champion a breaking down of these barriers of in/validation between different styles and types of communication, along with greater acceptance of neurodivergent ways of being and knowing.
post by Farid Vayani (2020 cohort)
Introduction:
The “Safe and Trustworthy AI” (STAI) summer school, which Imperial College held in July over three days, brought together renowned academics, industry experts and students, providing a platform to learn the cutting-edge research and developments in artificial intelligence (AI). It fostered critical thinking about the ethical issues of AI and its influence on society. The event included discussions on the ethical challenges, advances in Explainable AI (XAI), deep reinforcement learning, AI-driven cybersecurity risks, and the importance of integrating ethical considerations and interdisciplinary collaboration for the development of safe and trustworthy AI systems. The event also provided an opportunity to reflect on the methodologies and constraints of the research paper titled “BabyAI: A Platform to Study the Sample Efficiency of Grounded Language Learning”.
AI’s Ethical Challenges:
The talks and subsequent discussions focused on the effects of AI on job displacement and workers’ rights, where we discussed the delicate balance between artificial intelligence automation and its influence on the work market. Concerns over pervasive surveillance, as well as the necessity for transparent AI governance, were debated. The ethical implications of AI’s inclusion into the legal system were of participants’ interest because of the potential bias and discrimination of AI-driven decision-making.
The speaker used real-world examples that raised serious ethical problems, such as the highly criticised algorithm COMPAS (CorrecEonal Offender Management Profiling for AlternaEve SancEons) which is used in the US criminal justice system allegedly perpetuating systemic racial bias. The Cambridge Analytica scandal where data from 87 million Facebook users was exposed via a quiz app, which took advantage of a flaw in Facebook’s API, leading to security and privacy problems which was exacerbated by its use for political purposes. The event surfaced the complexity of the AI landscape and equally the significance of translating legal provisions into efficient business practices.
Explainable AI (XAI):
The event also drew attention to XAI, a key aspect of AI research aimed at improving transparency and interpretability of AI systems. Speakers showed various techniques for interpreting AI models and understanding their decision-making processes, ensuring trustworthiness and accountability in AI applications. XAI has emerged as a significant field of study, addressing the black-box (see Figure 2) nature of complex AI algorithms, and striving to make AI more understandable and explainable to end-users and stakeholders.
Deep Reinforcement Learning:
Speakers discussed the progressions in deep reinforcement learning (DRL), which has garnered significant attention for its notable capabilities in enabling AI systems to learn complex tasks through trial and error. DRL combines deep learning and reinforcement learning, allowing AI agents to learn from experience and decide in dynamic environments. Discussions revolved around the potential of DRL to revolutionise various domains, such as robotics, gaming and more. However, ethical considerations were highlighted as DRL presents challenges in ensuring safety, fairness, and accountability.
Review of “BabyAI” Research Paper:
The student-led activity involved reviewing the research paper titled “BabyAI: A PlaBorm to Study the Sample Efficiency of Grounded Language Learning.” The paper introduced the BabyAI research platform, designed to facilitate human-AI collaboration in grounded language learning. The platform offered an extensible suite of levels, gradually leading the AI agent to acquire a rich synthetic language, similar to a subset of English. The research presented in the paper highlighted the challenges of training AI agents to comprehend human language instructions effectively. The platform could serve as an important tool for researchers to test methods for DRL, it would suffer from scaling and the opacity of the algorithm which raises the question of whether AI agents learnt the language for human machine interaction or did they just learn to solve the test presented. It calls for further research to improve sample efficiency in grounded language learning to interact with and understand natural language instructions more proficiently.
AI-Driven Cybersecurity:
Speaker from the industry devoted to AI-driven cybersecurity. They showed novel ways that adversaries could exploit AI-generated attacks for automatic discovery of zero-day attacks, methods of malware propagation, and adversarial attacks on defensive systems. The event underscored the necessity for vigilance and collaborative efforts to safeguard digital infrastructures from the evolving AI-based threats. While AI has shown potential to enhance cybersecurity measures, it clearly has introduced new challenges, that demand sophisticated countermeasures.
Ethics and Interdisciplinary Collaboration for Safe AI:
Throughout the event, the importance of integrating ethical considerations into AI development and deployment was emphasised. Ethical AI frameworks are essential to ensure that AI technologies align with societal values and protect individuals’ rights and privacy. Moreover, interdisciplinary collaboration between scientists, engineers, ethicists, policymakers, and other stakeholders is vital for a consistent approach to AI development that prioritises human well-being and safety.
The Way Forward:
The various talks and discussions during the event revealed that regulation and policy alone cannot fully address the complex challenges in managing AI risks such as the European Union’s AI regulation is an important step in the right direction, however, the speakers and participants underscored that more comprehensive approaches are needed to ensure that AI systems function ethically and responsibly. These approaches include integrating solid safety engineering principles into AI development and embedding ethical considerations in the impact assessment, design, validation, and testing.
In conclusion, the STAI event shed light on the ethical challenges and advancements in AI research, emphasising the significance of integrating ethics into AI development, considering distributive fairness, privacy protection, and responsible practices. The quest for ethical AI remains an ongoing journey, where interdisciplinary collaboration, solid safety engineering processes, and thoughtful regulation play pivotal roles in shaping the future of responsible AI technology, one that benefits people.
post by Jenn Layton Annable (2020 cohort)
As an autistic PhD student, the benefits and opportunities gained at Postgraduate Summer Schools are of course the same for me as everyone else. As an autistic person though, the travel, overwhelming venues and intense social interaction can make attendance often challenging and sometimes impossible. The chance to participate in the two-day online ‘Fundamentals of Qualitative Research’, part of the wider 20th Annual Qualitative Research Summer Intensive, which was delivered digitally was a chance to attend a summer school avoiding the associated difficulties I have because of my neurodivergence.
The classes were led by Johnny Saldana across both days; a highly experienced qualitative methods researcher and author, with content adapted from his book ‘Qualitative Research Analyzing Life. Prior to registering for the summer intensive class, I discussed the course with my supervision team, sharing its outcomes along with the background and professional experience of Johnny. Specific points of connection to my own work were Johnny’s focus on arts-based methods, an area of research which had emerged as relevant to my academic disciplines, positionality and aspirations.
The fundamentals class was advertised as being suitable for beginners, to gain a wider understanding of qualitative methods, as well as a refresher for more experienced academics who also wanted to develop skills and experience in teaching qualitative enquiry in the context of their practice. These different aspects of the course and its convener made it applicable to my current PhD research stage. As I am writing my year one progression review document, I am required to complete a methods and methodology statement. Despite engaging with different texts, I felt I lacked confidence and knowledge in this area because I had yet not been able to find a taught course relevant to what I was interested in. The fundamentals course offered the chance to evaluate the conclusions I had reached about which methods I hoped to use, learn more about how to develop a research study design that included them and justify the choices I had made, or not, in my progression review.
Having started my PhD journey six months into the pandemic I have engaged with numerous and varied platforms, formats and degrees of success in the delivery of study materials. One of my earliest memories within the Horizon CDT lockdown offering was that of a teams call where the sound simply would not be made to work, despite a number of experienced computer science professors in attendance. Since then there has been a running CDT joke of how many computer scientists it takes to make a video conference work. At the time the answer was more than we had available.
The content, technical and personal delivery of the fundamentals course was flawless. Johnny used a mix of slides and verbal delivery supplemented with short video and sound bytes from popular films and television series. The latter inclusion was especially welcomed, breaking up what might have been, at times, dry study matter with humour and wit, as well as making the learning accessible via its presentation through popular culture characters and plots. Johnny was supported by a number of participant facilitators who organised breakout rooms, read data examples and prompted questions and comments that appeared in the chat function. This avoided breaking the flow of the course and ensured excellent timekeeping. Anyone considering a digitally delivered course would do well to research the provider and their experience in digital conferences and study. It is very easy, with the whole internet available on a second tab to become distracted whilst learning remotely. I am pleased to say this was not something I struggled with; a testimony to the smooth delivery and technical capabilities of the support and administration teams as much as Johnny’s obvious expertise in and enjoyment of qualitative research.
A balance was struck between delivered materials and practical exercises throughout the course. Over the two days, there were several chances to practise the skills being taught. These included a multi-stage data analysis exercise together with individual and collaborative autoethnographic writing in small breakout rooms to enhance understanding of how key assertions are constructed from coding and thematic analysis. This connected the theory being taught with practical applications, essential in embedding learning. It also enabled the chance to consider how each person might want to adapt what they did, with input from Johnny in real-time.
Overall, the fundamental course was one of the better, if not the best, multiple-participant online learning experiences I have had to date. I have gained insight into best practices in the delivery of higher-level learning through digital formats as well as how to present to and engage with students and audiences digitally. These additional indirect benefits were not explicitly stated in the course objectives, however, my attendance developed my academic ‘soft skills’ of presentation, course design and delivery alongside my knowledge in the discipline of qualitative research. Seeking and being aware of additional value such as this in different learning contexts has been invaluable in my professional development whilst undertaking my PhD.
As I have hoped to demonstrate, my personal preference for attending virtual conferences and classes extends beyond my accessibility needs is well justified. I have found that the virtual opening up of such events makes opportunities to meet, learn from and engage with people from a wider variety of cultures, backgrounds and professional career levels much greater. The Covid-19 pandemic necessitated moving events online. Many have chosen to remain so, either running parallel in-person/digital tracks, the opportunity to watch live streams or developing new types of hybrid attendance. This general trend towards different ways of participation is exciting and relevant to my research subject as well as my professional development. I am exploring how digital communities of female perceived autistic people can find collective meaning together through digital communities of interest situated in digital spaces like Facebook, Reddit, Discord Servers and digital messenger apps. The strategies developed organically within these contexts might inform the creation of more effective digital learning and academic community building, and vice versa.
For anyone interested in accessing academic communities of interest I would highly recommend exploring such platforms and asking for recommendations for suitable groups within professional networks. If nothing is available perhaps think about setting one up yourself. This style of academic connecting and networking is increasingly encouraged and recognised, within the framework of social media platforms as a valuable place to connect with other scholars, as well as seek participants. Johnny Saldana, in the fundamentals course, encouraged participants towards this type of professional relationship forming, as did the convener of another course on autoethnography as a research method that I attended online earlier in the year.
The worth of digital communities as places to seek diverse academic study, publishing and conference presentation opportunities can no longer be denied. I would encourage academics at all levels of their career to utilise these if they have not already done so.
Images:
post by Giovanni Schiazza
post by Cecily Pepper (2019 cohort)
My research surrounds the exploration of how social media can impact the mental wellbeing of care-experienced young people. In June 2023, I ran an enrichment event for young people in care with the help of my supervisor, Elvira Perez Vallejos. As my doctorate journeys into its final stages, it was important to me to consider how I can maximise the impact of my work. Along with public engagements and presentations, Nottingham City Council and I decided that a broadening horizons event at the university would be the most impactful for the young people. With the help of Mark Ball, who has kindly offered advice and support throughout my research regarding safeguarding, Elvira and I set to work on the organisation of an event that would be both enjoyable and offer the opportunity to discuss higher education and research.
Along with Nottingham City Council, we decided to reach out to the Cobot Maker Space: an innovative space that explores human-robotic interaction at the University of Nottingham (https://cobotmakerspace.org/). While this space is not directly linked to my research, it was thought to be an ideal choice for the visitors as it’s an interactive and fun space that would be enjoyable and inspiring. The Cobot Maker Space kindly agreed to hosting the event and providing fun demonstrations, whilst also generously gifting the young people with a robotics kit.
After liaising with the stakeholders, the enrichment event was organised for June 2023. The event consisted of a tour of the Jubilee campus, interactive demonstrations led by the Cobot Maker Space team, and (crucially) pizza and snacks. The young people were encouraged to ask any questions they had regarding university or higher education, which they did indeed take the opportunity to do so. All of the young people asked questions about college or university, asking about different courses and paths into higher education. It was a pleasure to have these discussions with them and we spoke about how care experience might impact this. I spoke about my research with care-experienced young people who have been to university, showing that it is possible for anyone to go to university if they want to, despite the challenges they face and how unlikely it may seem for them.
The young people and their residential carers thoroughly enjoyed the event, with the cobot demonstrations being incredibly well-received. Feedback received from social workers showed how excited the young people were, with them talking about research and robotics with the other young people and staff when they got home. This feedback was greatly appreciated, and we were very pleased that the event had been impactful for the young people. In addition to this, the event also had an impact on the university staff and researchers, as it triggered discussions surrounding further outreach events such as after-school clubs for care-experienced young people and people from other minority groups.
Overall, the enrichment event was successful, and I’m pleased to say it made a positive impact on the young people. I’d like to extend my thanks to everybody involved, but especially the researchers at the Cobot Maker Space who went the extra mile to ensure the event was fun, interactive and inspiring.
post by Oliver Miles (2018 cohort)
Reflections on values orientated ideation as an outreach activity
I previously reflected on my research internship with digital accessibility and mobility start-up ‘CityMaaS’, focussing on the resulting ‘drivers and barriers to digital inclusion’ report and my own experiences of working in the world of start-ups. In this post I’ll focus instead on the leadership and methods I brought to the work – a participatory ideation workshop drawing on principals of values-sensitive design (VSD) [1] – positioning this as a form of outreach to two key stakeholders: CityMaaS as the host organization and corporate professionals as participants.
As an independent researcher embedded with CityMaaS I was asked to critically uncover the drivers and barriers to digital inclusion services across three diverse B2B organizations from financial, healthcare, and higher education sectors that were current or potential clients.
This first entailed understanding the host organization’s perspective on digital inclusion priorities, by listening to CityMaaS software and digital inclusion subject matter experts and building a detailed inventory of their solutions in terms of core features and functions. These would later serve as card-based options and provocations in a collaborative workshop.
Considering participant organizations, I then spoke to heads of web and digital, interviewing them regarding their journeys and priorities regarding digital inclusion, with a view to uncovering core themes which could be positioned as corporate ‘practical values’ [2]. These were presented alongside software features and functions in later ideation workshops for wider web and digital teams to participate in, with a view to articulating speculative use cases.
In the example above, participants reason that the accessibility questionnaire feature of the web-page personalization tool ‘Assist Me’, considering its user data dashboard functionality, might be applied to the everyday internal practice of raising support tickets for the end-users. Conceivably, this might fulfil the chosen practical value of ‘deriving knowledge of end-users through their interaction data’ (Figure 1).
This process was repeated for three practical values chosen as priority issues across three existing software solutions using a card-based framework inspired by VSD, presented in Miro[1] (Figure 2). This resulted in a final ‘wildcard’ digital inclusion software solution being incrementally articulated, tailored to the needs of the participant. Aside from these research output, I would outline the following two benefits of the approach I took as relevant to outreach objectives.
Sharing a replicable, inclusive methodology: The VSD ideation workshop is inclusive as a practice, and in terms of the method, and can easily be reappropriated in future projects requiring participatory or deliberative approaches.
Advocating for an important equality, diversity, and inclusion issue: I was able to participate in CityMaaS’ broad stated agenda of improving ‘…the way the disabled community consumes accessibility data and services’ by contributing to raising corporate awareness of the challenges of web-accessibility, digital mapping and real-world navigation, and alignment to global web-accessibility standards [3]. As participatory methods emphasise the importance of all stakeholders working toward a shared objective, which in this case was ‘journeys to digital inclusion’, I felt this enabled constructive interactions that did not conflict with my ability to critically reflect on strengths and weaknesses in either the participant’s responses, or CityMaaS’ offering more broadly.
References
[1] T. Winkler and S. Spiekermann, “Twenty years of value sensitive design: a review of methodological practices in VSD projects,” Ethics Inf Technol, vol. 23, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10676-018-9476-2.
[2] T. Nilsson, J. E. Fischer, A. Crabtree, M. Goulden, J. Spence, and E. Costanza, “Visions, Values, and Videos: Revisiting Envisionings in Service of UbiComp Design for the Home,” 2020, doi: 10.1145/3357236.3395476.
[3] CityMaaS, “Homepage,” https://www.citymaas.io/, Jun. 03, 2022.