Tag: conference

Posted on

Journal Paper Published in the Computer Law & Security Review

“Defence Against the Dark Artefacts: Smart Home Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Standards”

post by Stanislaw Piasecki (2018 cohort)

Dr. Lachlan Urquhart (Lecturer in Technology Law, University of Edinburgh and former CDT student) had the first idea in terms of the paper’s topic, which has evolved quite significantly since then concerning its content, structure and methodology. The paper has been written by myself, Lachlan and Professor Derek McAuley (Professor of Digital Economy, Faculty of Science, University of Nottingham). The initial version was based on the practice-led project module completed during the 2018-2019 academic year (part of the Horizon CDT PhD programme). The first title of the project was “Defence Against Dark Artefacts: Mapping Smart Home Cybersecurity Standards”. While I was working on the PLP, the United Kingdom Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) published a series of documents aggregating various standards in its “Code of Practice for Consumer Internet of Things (IoT) Security” and the associated “Mapping of IoT security recommendations, guidance and standards to the UK’s Code of Practice for Consumer IoT Security”. During the same period of time, the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) mapped standards in its “IoT Security Standards Gap Analysis”. We realised that the mapping has already been done both at national and EU levels and, as a result, focused our work on analysing the assumptions underpinning emerging EU and UK smart home cybersecurity standards, changing the article’s title to “Defence Against the Dark Artefacts: Smart Home Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Standards”. Staying up to date was crucial to making our paper relevant and as accurate as possible. I considered the publication of the documents mentioned above as a positive development as I was able to completely focus on the analysis of the assumptions upon which IoT standards are based, the most interesting aspect of our project in my view. My motivation to write this paper has always been to stir discussions about those assumptions and contribute to moving policies into a positive direction for EU and UK citizens. While the main objective of our work has not changed, the means to achieve our goals did. For example, as a result of team discussions, we decided to use the routine activity criminological theory to explain security risks associated with the current design of many smart products. This theory has supported effective policymaking and crime prevention strategies for a long time and has recently been applied more frequently to “virtual” world-related scenarios. Discussing and contributing ideas with my co-authors was a great experience, which certainly improved the content of our article.

We started discussing the outline of the paper already in 2019. My professional background is in law and politics, and our project also involved work in fields such as computer science, cybersecurity and criminology. For this reason, the interdisciplinary nature of our team was helpful and important. In addition to online research and team discussions, I organised meetings with experts from the University and with people I met during various events (such as the 2019 EUROCRIM conference in Ghent, Belgium) to receive advice. However, the interdisciplinary nature of our project remained a challenge for me and involved much reading and discussions to better understand the computer science and criminological aspects of our article, especially at the beginning of my PhD journey (I was still getting familiar with certain basic terminology used in the computer science field). In my opinion, this part of the paper preparation process greatly enhanced my research knowledge and skills. While I will never become a computer scientist, learning about this field of study by reading journal papers, books but also asking questions to computer scientists continues to help me in proposing the most relevant and accurate legal solutions, as my work often lies at the intersection of law and technology. Writing this journal paper has reminded me of the value and importance of interdisciplinary work.

In terms of the review process, the initial journal, to which we submitted our paper had difficulties in finding reviewers and we decided to withdraw our submission. We made this decision before any reviewer was found. I discussed this with my co-authors to make sure that this was ethical (until then, I did not know that withdrawing the submission was in some cases an acceptable decision) and we contacted together the journal in question to be certain that they are comfortable with this as well. This is why the publication process has been much longer than anticipated. This has also influenced our work as we had to stay up to date with new research and technological developments, and include them into our paper while waiting for reviews. Subsequently, we decided to submit our article to the Computer Law and Security Review journal, known for its interdisciplinary nature. The reviewers were quickly selected and we started working on their comments.

Two persons reviewed our work and, in my opinion, the comments were fair. The reviewers were open to discussing them and it felt as if they really wanted to improve our paper rather than just criticise it. The article required a minor revision, which has been completed after two cycles of amendments. While we agreed with some comments, we disagreed with others but always found a common solution. I did anticipate some suggestions. For example, in terms of the structure of the paper, I have suspected that this might be something that they could comment on as I was hesitating myself on how to order specific sections. In this regard, the reviewers helped me in seeing this issue more clearly and finding the right solution. They also suggested citing additional articles, defining certain technical terms and giving more examples of real-world situations to illustrate my arguments. This has definitely improved our paper. In terms of the remarks we disagreed with, we were able to explain to the reviewers what we meant by particular statements and convince them that they are important. This also allowed us to refine those statements and make them clearer for future readers.

While publishing our paper took a rather long time due to the necessity to withdraw our first submission and switch journals, writing this article was a valuable and challenging process, my first publication of interdisciplinary work, an opportunity to collaborate with more experienced researchers and learn about various aspects of journal paper publications. I have already applied what I learned by submitting a second paper this year (based on the first two chapters of my PhD), which has been recently conditionally accepted for publication. Among others, this time I tried to use more concrete real-life examples to support my statements and define technical terms. Even though there might be very well-written articles, I think that there is always room for reviewers’ suggestions to further improve them, and I look forward to participating in the review process again in the future.

 

Posted on

Reflection on Writing and Presenting a Conference Paper

post by Laurence Cliffe (2017 cohort)

The Audio Mostly 2019 conference provided me with a relevant and convenient platform through which I could present an outline of my PhD research activity to date. Convenient, and also economical, as this year it was hosted by the University of Nottingham’s Department of Music, but also highly relevant, as many papers from this particular conference’s previous proceedings have presented themselves as being important points of reference though my PhD work to date. Having followed particular research projects of specific relevance to my PhD, Audio Mostly not only presents itself as an appropriate platform for the publication of my work, but also as springboard for other publishing possibilities. This is made evident by many projects being initially presented at Audio Mostly, and then having additional work included within them and then being published and presented as journal articles or at other conferences as the projects progress and evolve.

The published paper presented a synopsis of what I considered as the most pertinent points of my research so far. Rather than presenting specific research data from the results of studies, the paper presented the results of my practical lab-based activities in the development of a working technical prototype, and outlined my methodology and approach, and two proposed study environments, the latter being the subject of currently ongoing and future plans for the development of the project.

All of my supervision team had input on the paper, from proofreading to practical advice and providing some written introductory content. Another academic, involved in one of the proposed studies, also provided some written content specifically relating to the introduction of this specific part of the project. I wrote an initial draft and then sent it to the relevant parties with a specific request on how I thought they may be able to contribute and help with its authorship.

One comment from a particular reviewer proved very useful and centered around the use and definition of a specific acronym. This prompted me to investigate the issue further and, as such, has enabled me to focus my research to a much greater extent and to communicate more effectively the subject of my research to others. It has also provided a much clearer definition of the place of my research within its specific sphere of study.

As well as presenting the paper, I also had the opportunity to demonstrate my technical prototype at the conference. Having been scheduled to present my paper before my demo gave me the perfect opportunity to engage with people whilst demonstrating, answering questions, and continuing discussions as a result of my presentation, and also answering some of these questions practically via the technical demonstration. Generally, the feedback was complimentary and demonstrated an interest in my work, especially in relation to its study through practical application.

Authors whose papers were successfully accepted to the conference have since been invited to contribute to a special edition journal on audio interactivity and to build on the papers initially presented. This seems like a logical next step, as I have since completed some of the proposed studies, and therefore can include the findings and conclusions from these studies in the paper, with a view to formulating a journal article, and providing me with an opportunity to publish the subsequent stage of my PhD research.

On reflection, there are two particular challenges that sprint to mind as a result of this publication and presentation process. The first was the practical task of synthesising a 7000-word paper into a 20-minute presentation. What content to include? What content to leave for discussion? How much detail do I need to include on specific points to get the points across? These were all questions I was asking myself. Another challenge was the problem of presenting ‘live’ research. By the time I actually presented, my research had moved on. I’d changed some of the technology within the prototype and another study opportunity had presented itself which I hadn’t included in my future work section. This led to a bit of back peddling during the presentation, but I did have the opportunity to discuss these points with individuals during my demonstration.

Link to my paper.

Originally posted on Laurence’s blog.

Posted on

Influence in my Research from my Participation in CHI One Year Later

post by Gustavo Berumen (2017 Cohort) 

This was my first experience at a conference in the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). The Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, also known as CHI and pronounced “kai”, is the most prestigious conference on HCI in the area. In 2019, the conference was held in Glasgow. It was quite special for us, the members of the Mixed Reality Lab, because the lab celebrated its 20-year anniversary and had a designated space in the exhibition area. We presented several of the MRL demos, such as the broncomatic and the VR playground. 

Since CHI is a fairly large conference, I will focus on my participation in the two workshops in which I presented a paper, as well as on my attendance at a panel discussion. In addition, I will reflect on the learning outcomes from CHI conference that are still guiding my research today. 

CHInclusion: Working toward a more inclusive HCI community

The objective of this workshop was to reflect on our research practices and how researchers can make HCI a more inclusive space. I collaborated with a short paper of a reflection about my personal experience doing research in an international environment [1]. In the first part of the workshop, we reflected on the effects of “privilege”. We talked about the struggles faced by people who belong to minority and marginalised groups in their professional development due to privilege and related issues. In this workshop, there was a fairly vibrant environment in which people not only did perceive a problem but were also willing to propose solutions and promote changes to reduce the influence of privilege.  

The participants of the workshop were not only young researchers but also academics with a long university career who perceive the need to create a fairer society. We carried out various group activities in which we discussed our personal experiences regarding discrimination. We then presented possible solutions to promote change in our fields of expertise. This conference was quite stimulating and encourages me to think that a fairer academic environment is possible. 

New Directions for the IoT: Automate, Share, Build, and Care 

The objective of this workshop was to talk about cutting-edge topics in the development of ubiquitous technologies, innovative ways of conducting research and designing solutions that serve people. This workshop brought together researchers interested in the IoT area, which is related to my Ph.D. topic. The researchers’ interests were diverse and covered a wide range of areas such as social interactions, the smart home, and cooperative robots, among others. 

The workshop consisted of two parts: The first part, in which each of the attendees gave a talk about their research, and the second, in which we answered questions from the attendees. Here, I presented my workshop paper titled “Finding Design Opportunities for Smartness in Consumer Packaged Goods”[2]. The paper presented analysis methods that I designed to study the use of items in the cooking process, analysing information from an auto-ethnographic study. In this workshop, I received helpful and insightful comments that have helped me further develop my methods in a larger study.  

Finally, we participated in an activity in which we shared our ideas on how to develop IoT technologies that serve people’s needs first and foremost. We were divided into groups and used Post-it Notes to share our thoughts with the rest of the participants.  

Roundtable — Rigor, Relevance, and Impact: The Tensions and Trade-Offs Between Research in the Lab and in the Wild 

CHI is a fairly large conference attended by thousands of attendees. At such a scale, it is inevitable that several of the presentations that one would like to attend occur at the same time. Luckily, the talk can later be found online in the conference YouTube channel and the papers can be found in the conference proceedings.  

I was recommended to attend as many roundtable panel discussions as possible. These panels joined together a diverse group of researchers who engage in discussions that one can be a part of. This kind of experience can hardly be found online.  In these panels, researchers who would not normally interact are integrated in order to share their experiences and enrich the conversation with the discussions they can generate when professionals from different areas get together. Personally, I found this panel inspiring. There were researchers in the area of ​​industry, such as Google’s Shumin Zhai, and academics, such as Enrico Costanza, University College London. They discussed both how to do research that has a greater impact on society and how to take research outside the academic space. Attendees had the opportunity to be part of the conversation in a welcoming, friendly environment. 

Learnings that Continue a Year Later 

My participation in CHI was profoundly fruitful, as it gave me the opportunity to approach cutting-edge research in the area as well as get to know researchers at all levels closely, from renowned professors to young students who were excited to be entering part of this field. The lessons I learned at the conference have emboldened me to carry out my research, and I have been able to apply them to various aspects of my work, such as organizing my own workshop. I certainly think the impact of participating in a conference lasts much longer than the period over which the conference takes place. 

  • Knowledge about research results and methods that I still cite and use on my research. 
  • Techniques I learned in the workshops I have applied in my own workshops. 
  • Motivation to make HCI an environment inspired me to work every day. 

Venue: CHI 2019, Scottish Event Campus, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.  

Links: 

[1] https://chinclusive.glitch.me 

[2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.11754.pdf 

Posted on

Just write it!

Reflection on my first paper writing experience
post by Natalie Leesakul (2018 cohort)

Citation: Urquhart, L., Reedman-Flint, D. and Leesakul, N. (2019), “Responsible domestic robotics: exploring ethical implications of robots in the home”, Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 246-272. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-12-2018-0096

As I was wrapping up my first study and starting to draft the paper, I thought this might be a good time to write a reflection piece on my first paper writing experience. Writing a paper can feel a bit daunting. There are always so many ideas to cover and it is so easy to get consumed by the findings and the need to make the paper perfect – and that is where I’m usually stuck at. So, I have to often remind myself that writing a paper is a journey on its own and it is going to take several drafts and many revisions before arriving at the final document, but even that is not the end!

When I was in my first year, my supervisor, Dr Lachlan Urquhart, invited me to join in on a paper that he was working with another Horizon student, Dominic Reedman-Flint, for ETHICOMP 2018 conference in Sopot, Poland. The motivation of the paper was to introduce empirical observation and conceptual analysis to present how responsible robotics should be built and what people think of life with robots. As the paper focused on exploring challenges and requirements for designing responsible domestic robots, it was very much aligned with my interest in robotics and the law, so I got on board.  Following the submission to the conference, we were invited to submit the paper to Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, and the paper was accepted and published in May 2019. Although it has been over a year since the conference, I still remember the feeling when I gave a presentation at a conference for the first time and the excitement when we found out that the paper was finally in the pipeline for publishing.

For paper preparation, we were working remotely prior to the conference – Lachlan was the lead on this paper while Dom looked at the exploratory study and my responsibility was to support and fill the gaps in some parts of literature review, data analysis and copy editing. We collaborated via email and used Dropbox to keep track of different paper versions and editing (the raw survey data was not stored on here). Through collaboration, the paper started to develop from a rough outline of the paper format to the final draft ready for submission.  Unfortunately, neither Lachlan nor Dom was able to attend the conference. Although it was quite nerve-racking when I found out I would be going to the conference and presenting the paper, this experience really set a good start for my PhD (I’ll save the details for another storytelling!).

After returning from the conference, we took into consideration the questions that were asked during the presentation and addressed this further in our paper. Some of the questions we received were around the main themes of the survey, how the questions were formed, and the general question on how robots can be used for other purposes such as helping those who are socially isolated. In this case, Dom and I were able to work together in person to revise the paper before submitting to the journal. It was definitely easier to collaborate in person as we needed to make some substantial changes to comply with the journal formatting requirements and criteria, decisions could be made faster this way. It took a few days of in-person meetings but intensive email exchanging between all three of us until we had the final draft.

After the paper was accepted and went through peer review process, we received feedback with a minor revision (adding an appendix that includes the statistical analysis). This part of the process allowed us one last chance to edit the paper before publication. It was a very crucial stage to ensure that the paper was airtight which only meant more revision and more back and forth emailing. As I mentioned from the beginning, having a final draft is still not the end of the journey. The paper can always be made better, but it is important to know when to stop. After reading over the paper several times and everyone double, triple, quadruple checked the paper, we then agreed on the final editing.

What I have learned from this experience is very valuable to my PhD journey. For practical skills, I personally think it is a good practice to maintain a record of each revision. I found the recommendation from Lachlan very useful for collaborative writing – so instead of everyone editing the master document, we created a copy of it to add our content to with track changes on. All the revisions must be uploaded onto a shared folder but then only one person compiles all the content onto the master document as this will prevent confusion and corrupted files. For personal development, although I was new to this process, I found that the key for successful collaboration consisted of being flexible and open to new suggestions, respecting each other’s opinions, being supportive, and having good communication, which both Lachlan and Dom have shown me 😊.  It was certainly a good first paper writing experience and a nice reminder to be patient with the process.