Category: Uncategorized

post by James Williams (2020 cohort)

Bridging academic research with practical industry applications in place-based walking systems

Introduction

The Leisure Walking Systems Working Group (LWSWG) impact project represents a significant milestone in bridging academic research with practical industry applications in the domain of place-based walking systems. Over a three-month period funded by the Horizon CDT Impact Grant, this project has successfully delivered comprehensive resources that advance our understanding of how improved place representation can enhance leisure walking systems. This reflection examines the project’s achievements, challenges encountered, lessons learned, and the broader implications for the field.

For those interested in exploring the comprehensive resources developed through this project, the complete documentation, implementation guides, and demonstrator systems are available at lwswg.jwilliams.science. This digital platform serves as the central hub for accessing all project outputs and ongoing community engagement.

Project Overview and Objectives

The LWSWG impact project was conceived with the ambitious goal of creating a comprehensive knowledge resource that would serve both academic researchers and industry practitioners working on leisure walking systems. The project aimed to address a critical gap in the field: the lack of integrated, accessible resources that combine theoretical foundations with practical implementation guidance for place-based walking systems.

The three-month timeline, whilst ambitious, was strategically designed to create momentum and deliver tangible outputs that could immediately benefit the community. The project was structured around four key deliverables: benefits and market differentiators analysis, digital presence development, demonstrator system creation, and comprehensive technical reporting. This structured approach ensured that each deliverable built upon previous work whilst maintaining focus on practical applicability and industry relevance. The compressed timeline necessitated careful resource allocation and prioritisation, requiring the team to balance breadth of coverage with depth of analysis across multiple research domains.

Key Achievements and Impact

Comprehensive Knowledge Integration

One of the most significant achievements of this project has been the successful integration of research findings across multiple domains. The documentation spans eight distinct research areas, from recommendation systems and geospatial integration to user experience design and accessibility guidelines. This integration represents a departure from traditional academic silos, demonstrating how different aspects of walking systems can work together cohesively. The interdisciplinary approach required careful synthesis of methodologies, terminologies, and best practices from each domain, creating a unified framework that maintains the rigour of individual disciplines whilst enabling practical application. This achievement addresses a critical gap in the field where research findings often remain isolated within disciplinary boundaries, limiting their practical applicability and broader impact.

The creation of over 25 technical documentation pages provides a substantial knowledge base that addresses both theoretical foundations and practical implementation challenges. This breadth of coverage ensures that practitioners can find relevant guidance regardless of their specific focus area within walking systems development. Each documentation page was carefully crafted to balance depth of technical detail with accessibility, ensuring that both academic researchers and industry practitioners could engage meaningfully with the content. The cross-referenced structure allows users to navigate between related concepts whilst maintaining focus on their specific areas of interest. This comprehensive approach transforms isolated research findings into a cohesive knowledge ecosystem that supports both learning and practical application.

Industry-Ready Resource Development

The project’s emphasis on creating industry-ready resources represents a significant contribution to the field. Rather than producing purely academic outputs, the LWSWG has developed practical tools including implementation guides, evaluation frameworks, and technical specifications that support immediate application in real-world projects. These resources were developed through extensive consultation with industry partners and practitioners, ensuring that they address genuine challenges faced in the development and deployment of leisure walking systems. The practical focus extends beyond documentation to include working examples, code templates, and assessment tools that can be directly integrated into existing development workflows. This industry-oriented approach represents a significant departure from traditional academic outputs, creating resources that bridge the gap between research and practice.

This industry focus is particularly evident in the benefits and market differentiators analysis, which identifies competitive advantages for organisations implementing improved place representation in their walking systems. By translating academic research into business value propositions, the project has created a bridge between research and commercial application.

Digital Platform for Knowledge Sharing

The development of a comprehensive website and digital platform represents a strategic investment in long-term knowledge sharing. The website serves not only as a repository for current findings but also as a foundation for ongoing collaboration and community building. This digital presence ensures that the project’s outputs remain accessible and can continue to evolve beyond the initial impact grant period.

The website’s structure, with its mega-menu navigation and organised content hierarchy, demonstrates careful consideration of user experience and accessibility. This attention to usability ensures that the resources can be effectively utilised by diverse audiences with varying levels of technical expertise.

Demonstrator Framework

The creation of an integrated documentation framework as a demonstrator system represents an innovative approach to showcasing practical implementation. Rather than developing a single software prototype, the project demonstrates how multiple approaches can work together effectively through comprehensive documentation and cross-referenced resources.

This approach has several advantages: it remains accessible to a broad audience, it can be easily updated and maintained, and it provides multiple entry points for different types of users. The demonstrator effectively shows how recommendation systems, place representation frameworks, and user experience design principles can be integrated in practice.

Challenges and Lessons Learned

Timeline Constraints

The three-month timeline, whilst creating valuable momentum, presented significant challenges in achieving comprehensive coverage across all research areas. This constraint required careful prioritisation and strategic decision-making about which areas to focus on most intensively. Whilst the project successfully delivered substantial outputs, there were inevitably areas where deeper exploration would have been valuable.

This challenge highlights the importance of realistic timeline planning in impact projects and the need to balance breadth of coverage with depth of analysis. Future similar projects might benefit from longer timelines or more focused scope to allow for deeper exploration of specific areas.

Balancing Academic Rigor with Practical Application

One of the ongoing challenges throughout the project was maintaining the appropriate balance between academic rigour and practical applicability. The target audience spans from academic researchers requiring detailed theoretical foundations to industry practitioners needing immediate implementation guidance.

This challenge required careful consideration of content presentation, terminology, and depth of technical detail. The solution involved creating multiple entry points and levels of detail within the documentation, allowing users to engage at their appropriate level of expertise.

Resource Integration Complexity

Integrating knowledge across multiple domains proved more complex than initially anticipated. Each research area has its own terminology, methodologies, and best practices, requiring careful synthesis to create coherent guidance. This complexity highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and the value of having diverse perspectives involved in the project.

The integration challenge also revealed the need for clear frameworks and methodologies for combining different types of knowledge and expertise. This represents an area where further research and development would be valuable for future similar projects.

Broader Implications and Future Directions

The LWSWG project demonstrates a successful model for academic-industry collaboration that could be replicated in other domains. The project’s structure, which brings together academic research with industry needs, creates value for both communities whilst advancing the overall field.

This collaboration model has several key elements: clear communication of value propositions to both academic and industry audiences, practical outputs that address real-world challenges, and sustainable platforms for ongoing engagement. These elements could serve as a template for future impact projects in related domains.

Knowledge Management and Dissemination

The project’s approach to knowledge management and dissemination represents a significant contribution to how academic research can be made more accessible and useful to broader communities. The combination of comprehensive documentation, digital platform development, and multiple access points creates a model for effective knowledge transfer.

This approach could be particularly valuable for other interdisciplinary fields where knowledge integration and practical application are important. The project demonstrates how digital platforms can serve as effective vehicles for complex knowledge dissemination.

Community Building and Sustainability

The establishment of a digital platform and community around leisure walking systems represents a foundation for ongoing development and collaboration. This community-building aspect extends the impact of the project beyond its initial timeline and creates opportunities for continued knowledge sharing and development.

The sustainability of this community will depend on continued engagement and the ability to evolve with changing needs and technologies. The project has created a strong foundation, but ongoing investment and community management will be necessary to maintain momentum.

Technical and Methodological Contributions

Documentation Methodology

The project has developed a comprehensive methodology for creating technical documentation that serves multiple audiences. This methodology includes structured approaches to content organisation, cross-referencing, and accessibility considerations that could be valuable for other similar projects.

The documentation methodology emphasises clarity, accessibility, and practical applicability whilst maintaining academic rigour. This balance represents a significant contribution to how technical knowledge can be effectively communicated and disseminated.

Evaluation Framework Development

The development of evaluation frameworks for walking systems represents a significant methodological contribution. These frameworks provide structured approaches to assessing the effectiveness of different system components and their integration, which has been lacking in the field.

These evaluation frameworks could be valuable for both academic researchers conducting systematic evaluations and industry practitioners seeking to assess their system implementations. The frameworks provide a foundation for more rigorous and comparable evaluations across different contexts and implementations.

Integration Architecture

The project’s approach to integrating multiple research areas into a coherent framework represents a significant architectural contribution. The development of clear relationships and dependencies between different components provides a foundation for more systematic development of walking systems.

This integration architecture could serve as a template for other interdisciplinary projects and provides a foundation for more systematic approaches to complex system development.

Personal and Professional Development

Project Management and Leadership

Leading a project of this scope and complexity has provided valuable experience in project management, stakeholder engagement, and interdisciplinary collaboration. The project required coordinating multiple workstreams, managing diverse stakeholder expectations, and ensuring delivery within tight timelines.

This experience has developed skills in strategic planning, resource allocation, and team coordination that will be valuable for future projects. The project has also provided insights into the challenges and opportunities of academic-industry collaboration.

Technical Communication and Knowledge Translation

The project has required extensive work in technical communication and knowledge translation, developing skills in making complex technical concepts accessible to diverse audiences. This work has involved creating multiple levels of detail and explanation, developing clear visual representations, and ensuring accessibility across different user groups.

These communication skills are increasingly important in academic and industry contexts where effective knowledge transfer is critical to impact and success.

Community Engagement and Building

The project has provided valuable experience in community engagement and building, including stakeholder identification, relationship management, and platform development. This experience has developed skills in understanding diverse community needs and creating platforms that serve multiple constituencies effectively.

These community engagement skills are valuable for future projects that require building and maintaining diverse stakeholder relationships.

Conclusion

The Leisure Walking Systems Working Group impact project has successfully delivered comprehensive resources that advance both academic understanding and practical application of place-based walking systems. The project’s achievements in knowledge integration, industry-ready resource development, and community building represent significant contributions to the field.

The challenges encountered, particularly around timeline constraints and balancing academic rigour with practical application, provide valuable lessons for future similar projects. The project’s approach to academic-industry collaboration and knowledge dissemination creates a model that could be valuable for other domains.

The broader implications of this work extend beyond the immediate outputs to include contributions to academic-industry collaboration models, knowledge management approaches, and community building strategies. These contributions position the project as a significant milestone in the development of more effective approaches to research impact and knowledge transfer.

The personal and professional development aspects of the project have been substantial, providing valuable experience in project management, technical communication, and community engagement. These skills and experiences will be valuable for future projects and career development.

Looking forward, the project has created a strong foundation for continued development and collaboration in the leisure walking systems domain. The digital platform, comprehensive documentation, and community framework provide resources that can continue to evolve and support the field’s development.

The success of this project demonstrates the value of strategic impact investments that bridge academic research with practical application. The combination of comprehensive knowledge integration, industry-ready resources, and sustainable platform development creates a model that could be valuable for other interdisciplinary domains seeking to maximise their research impact.

Ultimately, the LWSWG impact project represents a successful example of how academic research can be translated into practical value whilst maintaining scientific rigour and creating sustainable platforms for ongoing development. The project’s achievements provide a strong foundation for continued work in this important and growing field. The comprehensive resources developed through this project, including detailed implementation guides, evaluation frameworks, and demonstrator systems, are available at lwswg.jwilliams.science for researchers, practitioners, and organisations seeking to advance leisure walking systems through improved place representation.

 

Originally published on James Williams’s website: https://blog.jwilliams.science/leisure-walking-systems/

post by Szymon Olejarnik (2023 cohort)

Recently, I published the first paper from my PhD titled “The PMDWell Framework: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Video Game Players’ Wellbeing” in Computers in Human Behavior Reports, a prestigious (Q1, IF 5.8) interdisciplinary journal, blending the fields of computer science, human-computer interaction and psychology. This paper critiques the current status quo of player wellbeing literature, presents and validates a novel measure of player multidimensional wellbeing, the PMDWell, based on a theoretical framework grounded in the literature – what ought to influence wellbeing as a result of video game engagement. In this post, I will describe the publishing process, from conceptualisation and writing, through editing and addressing reviewer comments, to publication.

This paper is the first step towards broadening our understanding of how video games influence player wellbeing in the wider sense. The motivation for this paper arose during the writing process itself. I started work on this paper in early as October 2023, when I first reviewed the literature focussed on linking video games to wellbeing outcomes. Initially, this paper was meant to become the first chapter of my thesis, outlining the status quo in the literature, constituting a narrative literature review. However, it quickly became apparent that there were major research gaps on this topic in the field of video game psychology – most studies focussed on a single modality of wellbeing, with virtually no research considering wellbeing as multidimensional, as is done in other areas of psychology, or fields like economics or policy. This lent itself to another conceptual issue – cyberpsychology is dominated by research on mental health, with little attention paid to physical health or external life circumstances of the players. The disconnect between the various findings on different modalities of wellbeing proved to be the biggest issue – it was no longer viable to write this paper as a narrative review. I rewrote the very first draft of this paper as a critical review around April 2024, outlining the problems with the current knowledge base, and setting the groundwork for questionnaire construction and validation, initially planned for the following paper.

The draft of the critical review was completed in May 2024. At the same time, I finished constructing the questionnaire grounded in the critical review and began recruiting participants for the subsequent studies. Consulting on the progress of both papers with my supervisory team, it transpired that the Introduction section for the questionnaire validation paper would be virtually identical to the critical literature review, and that the two papers ought to be combined into one to make for a stronger case for questionnaire construction and validation. I converted the paper into an Introduction section, and continued recruiting participants to meet a satisfactory sample size. We finished recruitment in December 2024, and began constructing confirmatory factor analyses models based on the initial theoretical framework, with much success, yielding satisfactory statistics and reducing the questionnaire to items that were strictly necessary. Collaborating with my primary supervisor, Prof Daniela Romano, we further scrutinised the paper to ensure it met the rigour standards for publication in top-tier journals. Going through various revisions, we eventually arrived at the final draft of the paper, which was then promptly submitted to Computers in Human Behavior Reports in June 2025.

Prior experience with academic publishing taught me one thing: assume nothing, no matter how good the work may be. We did, however, pass the initial editorial checks and the paper was sent out to peer review. A month later, I received the news that the reviewers suggested Revisions. As Elsevier does not provide a split between Minor/Major Revisions, this could have meant anything, ranging from fixing minor typos to a complete rework of the paper. Browsing through the comments, it was a relief to see that the reviewers were fond of the paper and understood its novel contribution. Addressing the first round of comments took me around a week – the reviewers suggested a rewrite of one of the literature review sections, and further scrutinised the statistical analysis. This improved the quality of the manuscript significantly, as it highlighted some of the shortcomings of my analysis, thanks to which I was able to improve the models form the statistical standpoint. I addressed the comments thoroughly, resulting in 8 pages of responses to comments, fully justifying my approach and pointing out where corrections have been made. We resubmitted the paper mid-August, receiving another round of comments at the beginning of September. This time round, the comments were very minor – improving wording of the method justification, adding more information on participants below the age of 18 and improving visual distinctions between the framework diagrams. Responding to these comments took less than a day, with the paper finally being accepted on the 10^th September 2025.

This paper constitutes the very first chapter of the PhD thesis – it reviews the most up-to-date literature, outlines the research gaps and validates a novel measure of wellbeing. This provides the very foundation of my PhD, and provides statistical validation for it, allowing for follow-up studies to take place. We are currently scrutinising the draft of a cross-sectional paper based on the same dataset, ahead of submission to Computers in Human Behavior. Here, we analyse the multidimensional wellbeing data in conjunction with hourly use and video game addiction to investigate how video game use interacts with wellbeing, and how this could result in addiction. The following papers will apply the same principle, with Paper 3 analysing the longitudinal version of the PMDWell dataset, and Paper 4 conducting a national-level analysis using secondary data. We also aim to dive deeper into player wellbeing, conducting a qualitative study in how players are affected by video games before, during and after engagement. Publishing this paper opens up many doors for me as a researcher, allowing for others to reproduce and further validate my method, and will certainly yield many collaborations in the coming years.

The full version of the paper is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100806

post by Anjela Mikhaylova (2022 cohort)

A Placement Journey with CNWA into the Lived Ethics of Surveillance

Some placements begin with a desk, a login, and a to-do list. Mine began with a smart doorbell – small, glowing, watching. Not just a gadget, but a quiet presence on the threshold between public and private lives.

I knew from the start I didn’t want this placement to be a box-ticking exercise. I wanted to move beyond reports and statistics into the lived realities of the people whose doorsteps, and stories, these devices quietly watch over. That opportunity came through a placement with Cumbria Neighbourhood Watch Association (CNWA), working alongside QPM Joe Murray, a grassroots safety leader deeply embedded in local networks.

Placement Overview – Activities and Outcomes

I arrived with a plan: test my academic frameworks in the field and see how they held up in practice. How do residents, police, and bystanders actually experience surveillance? Are doorbell cameras protective, invasive, or both?

We designed an anonymous survey in MS Forms, with an opt-in at the end for those willing to be contacted for follow-up interviews. This reached a diverse group: smart doorbell owners, people captured by neighbours’ devices, and police officers involved in local safety initiatives. The anonymised responses were as layered as they were revealing. One early survey response captured the complexity: “I didn’t buy it [smart doorbell] for surveillance, I bought it for peace of mind.” Surveillance, I realised, isn’t always about watching others: sometimes it’s about creating a sense of security for yourself.

Over the course of the placement, I gathered a mix of perspectives, moments, and reflections. Those conversations and survey responses have already shaped multiple co-authored papers: “Smart Doorbells in a Surveillance Society,” presented at the ETHICOMP2025 conference, and “Smart Doorbell Surveillance: Breaching All Seven Types of Privacy”, now under review with the journal Surveillance & Society. I also plan to weave the placement’s findings into my thesis and into a forthcoming article, “From Surveillance to Reassurance: The Lived Experience of Smart Doorbells,” a natural extension of this work, which is also under review. Beyond the immediate outputs, the placement left a lasting imprint on my research itself, and as I move into the writing stage, I carry with me a renewed sense of purpose.

Understanding the Partner’s Concerns and Adapting My Skills

Those outputs didn’t appear out of nowhere. They grew out of a process that ended up looking very different from the plan I arrived with. My original plan was to conduct face-to-face interviews. But early conversations with Mr Murray made it clear that some participants might feel uneasy discussing sensitive topics in that format. So, we pivoted to an anonymous survey – a small change on paper, but one that prioritised safety, autonomy, and comfort. Participants could share their experiences on their own terms, with the option to be contacted later if they wished.

I had to adapt quickly: revising my ethics application, reframing academic language, and softening some of my critical assumptions about surveillance. Before this placement, my research lens was sharply critical. Influenced by Foucault’s Panopticism and Zuboff’s Surveillance Capitalism, I saw smart doorbells primarily as instruments of surveillance, control, and visibility. Once I started listening to real stories without trying to fit every answer into these frameworks, the placement began to open up in ways I couldn’t have predicted, and that’s when the voices I’d been missing came through most clearly.

Placement – PhD Connection

Working with CNWA grounded my PhD and continues to influence my methods, language, and scope.  It pushed me to hold my critiques alongside another reality: for some, these devices are less about surveillance and more about feeling seen, protected, and connected. As one respondent summed it up: “I feel visible, but finally on my own terms.”

That shift didn’t mean abandoning critique. Instead, it deepened it. My thesis will no longer focus solely on critique. It will reflect complexity, contradiction, and care. My frameworks – Foucault, Zuboff – still guide me, but now they walk alongside lived experience, recognising that surveillance isn’t just theoretical anymore. It’s intimate, negotiated, and sometimes life-affirming, capable of being both protective and problematic, sometimes in the same moment.

The themes that emerged: privacy boundaries, control over personal data, perceptions of safety, and the behavioural shifts that come with visibility – now constitute a core focus of my thesis. The link between my placement and my PhD is a two‑way exchange: placement fed into my research, and my research shaped how I approached the placement.

Industry vs Academia: A Different Kind of Urgency

CNWA’s collaborative style was refreshingly agile, always attuned to the real needs at hand.  In contrast, the academic journey, marked by evolved drafts, reshaping revisions and peer reviews, unfolds at a deliberate, methodical pace. At CNWA, the rhythm flowed with a different cadence: swift, responsive, and grounded in people-first ethical pragmatism, with an emphasis on immediate impact. Project moved quickly from idea to action, supported by short, personal feedback loops.

Experiencing this contrast meant adapting my own working style and priorities. Above all, I learnt that growth comes from letting the world push back on your framework and honouring the emotional weight behind data. The placement didn’t just give me a different pace of work, it offered a model for how research can live beyond the university, grounded in both ethical responsibility and real-world relevance.

Creating Our Lives in Data

For me, this was no longer about studying data from a distance but about understanding how people live with it, and why that matters. One participant told me, “I know it’s watching, but at least I chose who gets to see.” Another said, “I don’t care who sees the footage as long as I know someone’s watching.”

That quiet assertion of control revealed what data agency looks like in real life. It was not simply about compliance with abstract privacy laws, but about emotional autonomy and dignity. I came to see that data is never neutral or detached, instead, it is lived, charged with emotion, trust, and power.

This shift in perspective now shapes how I think about surveillance: not as a purely technical or legal issue, but as something deeply human, negotiated in the spaces where technology meets lived experience.

My message to future CDT and PGR students preparing for their placements:

If I could leave one message for future CDT PGR students, it would be this: the plan you arrive with is just your starting point, not the map you have to follow. Come prepared, but leave space for change.  It might feel uncomfortable at times when real conversations, real lives, and real needs challenge your frameworks and your assumptions, like mine, but that shift is often where the richest insights emerge. So, yes, bring structure. But stay flexible.

post by Ellie Colegate (2021 cohort)

 

For the last few months, I’ve spent time doing something most people avoid at all costs: reading and understanding credit agreements. No, my PhD didn’t suddenly take a turn from investigating social media platforms to deciphering fixed and promotional annual percentage rates. I commenced my placement with the University of Nottingham Law School, working on a new research project.

This project sees researchers from the school collaborate with Amplifi to improve the readability of financial documents, making them more accessible for a wide range of people with varying levels of financial literacy.  I was brought into this project to help out where I can, using my knowledge of where legal terms could be translated or simplified without losing meaning, and to act as a first reader of some of the documents and prototypes to analyse these critically.

The placement was exciting, and the work was a nice change of pace from the last few (can be frantic) months of my PhD. As someone who typically skimmed these documents and assumed I understood what I was reading, it was really good to get into the details to know where mismatches between what the document says and what people might realise could be addressed and improved. By doing this work, I’ve seen not only the future real-world impact but also the urgent need for it, as people are now offered digital banking by default, losing the high street bank spaces where they might usually seek support. It is essential that when individuals, who may feel isolated, agree to these terms, they fully understand what they are entering into and the consequences of doing so.

My Role: Informed Reader, Confused Customer

Coming into this placement, I knew my legal knowledge might be of use; I have experience understanding contracts, I’ve taught it before, and have spent most of my PhD and research career so far reading complex documents and understanding how obligations and rights work together. Financial documents, I assumed, would be contracts with some financial terms thrown in. I was both right and completely wrong.

When I first met with the partner organisation to figure out what my role would be in the team, we established that, whilst I had a background in law and was able to understand the legal foundations of agreements, my lack of experience with financial agreements as a regular person was a real asset to the team. They didn’t need another financial expert, they had the source documents and other people for that. What they needed was someone who could spot when legal language was perhaps too complicated while also encountering these financial concepts for the first time. I was also coming into the project at a point where these documents had been in development with the same team for a while, so a fresh perspective and pair of eyes was welcomed! So my role became a kind of professional code-switcher: one moment I’d be flagging a clause that was needed for a person to understand what they were agreeing to, but that could perhaps be written differently. But I’d also be marking sections with honest confusion – I recall a particular back and forth with a type of interest rate where I ended up commenting something like “I’ve read this four times and still don’t understand it, I think this is just a confusing thing!” This combination proved surprisingly useful for the team and powerful for moving the documents forward toward deployment with participants. I was able to identify where complexity served a legal purpose versus when it was just complex for the sake of being complex and could be changed to be more accessible.

Interest Rates Rising, So Too Are the Complexities of Documents

With more and more high street banks closing each month, a physical place where customers can go to seek support and explanations of what are serious and legally binding documents is slowly disappearing. Therefore, there must be alternative ways in which users can understand the documents they sign and seek support if they need it. The work I have done on this project has reassured me that this type of work is taking place, with researchers from the School and Ampfli working together to understand where complexities exist in these documents, actively engaging with everyday people to improve their wording and make these often complex financial concepts and documents accessible to as many people as possible.

During my time, I went from being overwhelmed about APR’s, fixed-term rates, and all the small print you say you’ve read, but you’ve probably just skimmed the headings off because we all like to think the worst will never happen, to someone who now can enter into an agreement for say a credit card, much more informed and can confidently say I understand how the APR will be calculated on my purchases. This really highlighted to me, as someone who has a background in understanding the legal formation of contracts in quite some depth, the mismatch between how information that financial institutions provide is framed and the information that people understand when reading the documents.

At this time, when everyone is watching their finances, having clear and easy-to-understand documents for things like credit agreements will be incredibly beneficial to ensure people are fully aware of any financial agreements they enter into and the consequences of these.

Working on this project gave me a nice change of pace and direction to the work I have been conducting in my PhD research. Whilst both projects revolved around the end result of end users – my PhD focusing on young people and their experiences of harm on social media and this project focusing on how complex the general population can understand financial concepts and information – they differed in their specific focus which gave me an opportunity vary my working focus whilst continuing to develop my skills.

I was able to bring my pre-existing knowledge of legal contracts and their formation, characteristics, potential conflicts and resolution to a new area that I have not previously looked at in depth. This was a real asset to the project and the work I was doing, as whilst I understood the basics of how the agreements I was reading would legally operate, I was exactly the same as the participants we were going to be recruiting so I could provide valuable feedback on the layout and wording of documents and wireframes and make suggestions for the team. Whenever I faced unfamiliar concepts or tasks, Sarah from Amplifi was available to discuss them with me and review my comments as needed. This support truly made me feel like part of the team, working together in real time to prepare the project for recruiting participants. Working with Amplifi and the School showed me how industry collaboration can differ from academic work – the feedback cycles were faster with immediate practical applications, whereas in academia, writing for research and working on outputs can be a longer, more protracted process.

Through reviewing documents, analysing terminology, and assessing draft intelligibility, I developed my attention to detail and critical analysis of written documents for intelligibility. This is a practice that has hugely helped in my thesis writing, as I am now ableo see where the language is perhaps too complex without a need to be so and adapt this to be more accessible for readers.

Conclusion

By the end of the placement working on this project, I had developed an understanding of APR that I never expected I would have gained. I also saw the real-world importance of having financial documents that are understandable for all.

I went in thinking that finance and financial terminology are just difficult and complex, and it’s likely always to be that way. But working on this project with the team at the School and at Amplifi, I have seen how the contents in these documents and agreements can be broken down and presented in a way that is easy to understand for all.

I’ve been inspired to look at the language used in the documents and legislation I am reviewing as part of my PhD project to see if there are any, perhaps, overcomplexities and how these might impact the end results for users.

I’ve also become much more knowledgeable about credit card agreements, now hearing radio adverts that quickly rush through the small print about “APR rates,” knowing with confidence that I could probably work it out on a purchase if needed. It’s probably a niche skill, but I’m sure it will come in handy one day!

post by Jenn Layton Annable (2021 cohort)

The National Development Team for Inclusion (or NDTi for short) is a UK-based not-for-profit organisation, whose work includes research and evaluation within government and the public sector. At its heart is a human-rights-based approach and universal commitment to centring the voices of those with lived experience in their activities.

I have known the programme leads, Kate Linsky and Anna Marriott, for about seven years, since we were involved together in a project at the NHS England Personalisation Directorate. They are both fabulous human beings, which, in combination with the ethos and values of NDTi, was the makings of a brilliant placement for my optional module. I am thrilled to be able to share this with you here.

Kate, who leads mental health work, Anna, whose remit is research and evaluation (R&E), and I began scoping my role based on the time available and the personal resources I could bring to Anna’s team. Research and evaluation within NDTi scaffolds and underpins all of the varied programmes undertaken within its scope. Anna’s team supports their clients and internal teams to understand and reveal the effectiveness of how the work they do allows people to live the lives they choose for themselves. This diversity made the internship particularly exciting, given that I would be in contact with many different types of projects across its timeline.

Our earlier experience made this process easier because there was no ‘getting to know you’ process required, so starting was much easier. We quickly identified that exploring organisational impact recording and measurement within R&E would be the most valuable use of the skills that I brought from my PhD research and professional experience in marketing communications. This central pivot tied together these different strands of opportunity and offered an initial project brief for me to review how, when and where the R&E team were currently organising and thinking about their impact. We planned for an eventual output of recommendations about how these processes might be streamlined and optimised.

Given that my research is participatory and NDTi’s concurrent commitment to those with lived experience, my priority was ensuring that the R&E team’s perspective was primary in the work’s scope. There would be no point in producing something for their consideration which was impractical or undesirable. My professional experience working in a similar client-led environment to that of NDTi meant I had first-hand knowledge of the pressures of working in a small team and wearing ‘many hats’ across a professional role. The initial idea of using an orthodox academic approach (literature review, team interviews with data analysis and a write-up) was rejected because of time constraints and the amount of work the R&E team had already undertaken to identify the strengths and challenges of their current practice in impact demonstration. The feedback I received was overwhelmingly to focus on practical solutions that could be adopted with ease. This divergence shifted my thinking towards past experience as a professional consultant advising companies on their digital marketing outputs and the backend processes that supported these.

My starting point was understanding as much as I could about how the R&E team were currently recording, measuring and demonstrating impact. I completed a comprehensive read-through of all the background material that Kate and Anna were able to share, together with an audit of how and where R&E impact was found to external audiences. Time was spent reviewing NDTi’s website, email marketing and social media content and strategy alongside NDTi’s marcomms lead. This offered a broader understanding of how impact filtered through the organisation from a specific team like R&E. Developing such familiarity with an organisation’s structure and ways of working is particularly important. NDTi is a remote operation, working across the UK, in a diverse range of fields and specialities. It was essential that any recommendations accounted for the unique context of NDTi’s structure and routines. To complement this, I reviewed how impact might be recorded and stored effortlessly for the team in their daily work, with a focus on ease-of-access and minimising administration. The training I was undertaking for the storage and organisation of my research data using Microsoft SharePoint dovetailed impeccably with this. The review of the R&E team’s current ways of thinking about improvement revealed a number of parallels between managing, organising and utilising participant data with equivalents in impact data. They are, after all, simply different steps in the overall process of conducting and disseminating research and its findings.

Our working relationship was flexible and adaptive as we progressed. Some initial contact time was organised with the R&E team to meet them and make mutual introductions. As time went on, I increasingly liaised with Anna and Kate alone, who then reflected upon my suggestions and ideas together, involving and incorporating others in the R&E team as needed. This built upon our established relationships and made use of the deep knowledge that Anna and Kate have of one another’s programmes and NDTi as an organisation. It allowed me to build upon the professional experience I have gained through my previous careers in digital marketing and health, locating the placement’s work at a level commensurate with this prior experience. This was a deliberate adaptation to ensure that the spirit of the placement, to develop my professional skills and knowledge in relation to my PhD research, was honoured, in the context of my previous working life.

The final stage of the placement evolved into a space where Anna and Kate adopted, pragmatically, the recommendations I had made in the context of what was realistic within the current pressures faced by NDTi. Some things were recognised as desirable, but were unfortunately not possible at this time. Despite this, throughout our conversations, I challenged Kate and Anna to think differently and perhaps beyond the scope of how they were used to working. I know this is a valuable dynamic to scaffold developmental thinking; however, not everyone is open to having a ‘critical friend’ making suggestions. I would thank Anna and Kate for their openness and willingness to work in this way. I gained so much more than I would have if ideas had been closed down as ‘not possible’ when they were first presented to them.

Kate and Anna’s reflections

Jenn’s placement at NDTi has been a great experience for us. As far as we are concerned, they more than met their placement learning outcomes.

We have reflected upon the factors that we think made this placement such a success and believe the following were critical elements.

Honesty and good, clear communication were fundamental. This may have been easier due to our prior working relationship, but it was certainly a very positive aspect of our work together. So too Jenn’s understanding and patience at the need to pause the work due to organisational demands and shifting priorities. Between us, our mutual recognition and respect for the other demands within our working and personal lives were invaluable. Often, this important dynamic is forgotten.

We valued Jenn’s judgement and were open to ideas about how our work could be improved. They were an excellent critical friend, and we appreciated the external challenge. All suggestions were made in a thoughtful and diplomatic way, especially when exploring the previous related work done within NDTi.

Flexibility was crucial, and Jenn epitomised this throughout their time with us. We work in a fast-paced environment, and Jenn’s placement coincided with priorities and capacity shifting more quickly than usual.  They fully understood this operational context and repeatedly adapted the approach to fit what we needed. This led to practical and straightforward recommendations that were based on existing research but built on to fit our needs and circumstances.

Jenn creatively draws upon their academic, business and experience of life. It is this combination that contributes to their ability to simplify research-based approaches and make them relevant to those not used to working in an academic environment. They make excellent use of analogies and storytelling that people can understand and remember. They likened the NDTi’s need for impact to support organisational health to teeth cleaning. Where everyone should do a little a day rather than scrub away for 4 hours once a month. The energy and enthusiasm Jenn has brought to the topic has made impact work sound fun, and their pragmatic approach has also made it sound possible.

They have made strategic recommendations about how to gather data efficiently whilst being mindful of competing pressures for NDTi staff. They have recognised the importance of including the voices of people alongside the data and website analytics.

We value the contribution Jenn has made to our organisation and feel very lucky that they chose to spend their placement with us.

post by Favour Borokini (2022 cohort)

From January 27-31, I was in the Netherlands attending the Dutch-Flemish Law & Society Association (VSR) PhD Days for Empirical Legal Studies. During the main conference, I had the opportunity to present findings from my first study as part of the Digital Governance and Vulnerability panel, organised by Gianclaudio Malgieri and Linnet Taylor, on the opening day.

It was my first time in mainland Europe, and it came unsurprisingly, as a Nigerian green “pali” holder, with associated visa issues – nothing quite as dire and humiliating as the German airport transit visa fiasco, but eh… IPNTS.

It was also my first time presenting findings from the entire study, which I worked on over the holiday, just in time for the conference, so I was really excited that I did get to go!

My research has sort of evolved to be more… ecumenical, I suppose. Take, for instance, the word “minor” which throughout the project, everyone I engaged with identified with as a feeling of relentless isolation, regardless of nationality, race and gender.

It’s interesting to think about how the law ought *and* ought not to respond to this, so it was really quite fortuitous that I got to attend a conference by socio-legal scholars. I was extremely impressed at the breadth of the work undertaken by lawyers on social issues impacting people from all walks of life, especially the non-doctrinal nature of it. It was such a marked contrast from the setting where I received my legal training, and I felt incredibly validated in my research, seeking people out, exploring what alternative forms of law could/look like. I suppose this is what conferences are for: to meet like-minded people.

I’m very thankful to my supervisors, Oliver Butler, Alan Chamberlain and Lydia Farina, for supporting my research and reviewing my abstract, as well as my sponsor Horizon CDT, especially Andrea Haworth and Laura Brian, for putting up with my many impromptu requests for assistance!

The conversations I had and the people I got to meet have me really looking forward to continuing the year doing some more research on this very important subject!

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