I really enjoyed your talk, Tom, about broadcasts, and the only worry I have is thinking my next grant application I'm going to have to request funding for a cat, because I don't have one. And it turns out that's the most important thing. So yes, I do want to talk to you about a number of things today, but I want to,

actually I want to kick off with this one quick straw poll, because I'm really curious how you all are sharing this conference. So I'd like to put a show of hands. If you are sharing content from this conference online as the conference is happening, either on Twitter or whatever social media, hands up if you are.

So now I'm really curious, I'd say that's sort of 70-80% of the audience, so I'm curious what you're sharing it on. So hands up if it's Twitter, okay, that seems to be a majority, hands up if it's something else. But what are you sharing on?

An internal Facebook-like thing, okay, good. Oh, Yammer, yes, we have those in turn as well. Who else was alternative sharing? Yeah, at the back, what have you got? Instagram and Facebook. Instagram and Facebook. And WhatsApp as well. Any other options? Slime.

Oh, slap? I mean, there's a great podcast right there. Slack. Slack, okay, good, good. So that's a great name for an app. So it seems to me that most of us are still using Twitter.

And yet if you look through the feed, how much of that content are you actually seeing? And one of the big problems we have, as Tom indicated as well, with podcast workflow is how the content actually reaches people. And throughout my work, a lot of what I've tried to do over the years is to build experiences around my own science communication work, but also working with others to create experiences.

So this video loop that you're seeing here is taken from last year's Blue Dot Festival at Jodrell Bank Discovery Center near Manchester in Macclesfield. And what you're seeing is a gig that took place sort of late night, where you have

Rob Appleby, who is a particle physicist working with James Russell. And there the guy is doing the DJing and VJing up on the stage. Rob works with CERN. And what you're seeing in the visuals is visualizations created from and inspired by the Large Hadron Collider. Rob works a lot at CERN in Geneva.

So what we wanted to try to do was to take the data from the LHC and transform it into a gig experience. Part of the thought process around that was only partially connected to the aspiration to communicate the science of the LHC and what it's doing. But more of a priority was to create an experience that people can access science

through a very different route. Now, Blue Dot's interesting. Anyone been to Blue Dot Festival? Nobody's been to Blue Dot Festival. I recommend if you put it, it's the Glastonbury of the science world, as Brian Cox described it. And it's a place where you'll see this integration of scientific research,

really quite ambitious and adventurous musical compositions, but also a lot of hands-on science for families and the public to try out. But what's unusual in this event is to find something within the music section of the festival that is informed by science. You tend to have the separation of these worlds.

And a lot of what I've tried to do over the years is to bring together these different contexts in which we experience things. And you see a lot of science festivals these days, science communication activity taking place. So you've got the music program and you've got a lot of other activities that people do alongside it. But the challenge is often trying to bring people out of their daily routines into things

that maybe are surprising, but also allow them to access some of the science too. So this is an ongoing work. But one of the reasons to mention it is that when we create something like this, when we create this opportunity for people across disciplines to have a dialogue about what they might do as a public experience, we create new conversations about

research as well. So a lot of the focus of my science communication activity has not been to, say, take a researcher that's got some research output and say, well, how do we provide a public engagement opportunity or science communication opportunity, but actually to make the communication a component within the research process itself so that the public are

brought into really the kind of the beating heart of the research process. I think a lot of what we've done over the years and a lot of what we still do is, in fact, looking at trying to build impact, build engagement, build understanding, build even just

communication opportunities to share what we've found in our research. But actually, if you look at the direction of travel for the research community and the DEED funders, I would say, it's increasingly making sure that the public are involved with the research from day one. You'll see this both in theories of science communication and public engagement, which talk

about upstream engagement, which come out of a context where we have criticized this sort of deficit model where we believe the public lack information or understanding and we need to share what we've done in order to level up their understanding. Now it's very much in the mode of trying to see how do we make sure that the public are part of this from the starting point to the point where actually many journals are

beginning to explore requirements for publication as being requiring the authors to have involved the public in the process. So if you want to submit to the British Medical Journal, you have to, as an author, have engaged with the user group of your research.

And part of the best practice that's evolving is actually to involve them in the authorship of the articles as well. So this relationship is changing quite rapidly and it comes out of a particular view about how we think of the relationship between science and society. So this talk, The Scientist as Citizen, I speak in both those modes really.

And it's partly to get across that wider sense of identity that all of the researchers that you work with or come into contact with have this broader identity that surrounds their professional life. And what I found is that this has become, on the one hand, become much more exciting because we're far more advanced than we were 20 years ago in thinking about how we do

science communication. But it's also become more challenging because of the fragmentation of platforms and the different propositions that people are confronted with when trying to think about their science communication journey. And it's changed so much. So I remember as a PhD student being told by a professor that the average academic article is

read by six people. And it's a stat I haven't looked in recently, but it didn't inspire me to be an academic already to publish very much at all. But, and of course, who wants to write an average academic article anyway? But realising that there is a major limitation to people's access to our materials and what we

even research and find at the end of it, led me to start building websites from very early on as a way to connect, but also as a way of thinking about that changing dynamic. So these screenshots show you how the websites have changed over the years. But this self-building DIY digital community of which I felt part growing up as a PhD student

still is very much a part of my life. And I think it's still, for many academics and researchers, something that they are wrestling with to figure out where to both allocate time, but also develop the skills that they would require to be able to build that web presence. If you look at my university web page, it is as appalling as they were 20 years ago.

And I think there's still a degree of inertia around the university's capacity to actually push people or nudge them into being more publicly present, despite the fact that we know that this is a crucial part of being found by anybody in what we do.

So over the years, I've started to look at different ways in which I can communicate this. And about seven years ago, put together the A to Z of Social Media for Academia, which goes through all the different platforms that are out there, tells people what they're all for, how they can use them, gives examples of what they might be used for.

And there are so many, there are so many places where you can be present. So to have a podcast like a system like Anchor that can push your content across environments is really powerful. But also, it's really interesting to see which platforms have disappeared as well. This also includes the kind of graveyard of applications like Vine and others that come

and gone. So there's a continual need to promote and develop digital literacy around researchers, if only to simply help them figure out how to navigate their world and find that entry point into science communications, sharing their research.

And that has really been my motivation is to try to make these ideas and these discoveries and even just these reflections, because I think that's often the more interesting thing, the way in which we may informally reflect on the world by virtue of our privileged position to have the opportunity to do so. These are spaces in which we can do this.

And one of the things that I think is crucial to get across, although I don't think we do it very well, certainly at universities, is allowing people to recognize that as a communicator of their research, they don't have to do everything. You don't have to be someone that's in front of a camera. You don't have to be doing a podcast. You can be doing lots of different things.

And it's really to explain and convey those different strategies for science communication that I wanted to focus on today. So and this changes very much over time as well. So I've worked with the conversation for the last few years to get my articles out. I've had a really good experiences with medium hands up if you read medium in the

audience. So maybe 15 percent, 10 percent, not many people. So I think that's a platform that's growing very quickly for those science communications that are beginning to find their way into public dissemination, probably not quite ready for conversation. But what's great about medium as a writing platform is it allows you to grow your audience yourself independently and even attach your articles to wider verticals

around specific themes, of which there are many now. And many of them have really lots of readers as well. So these sorts of platforms and helping people discover them and know about them is a big part of what I do. But that aspiration to reach people beyond our walls is, I would say, the key

motivation. But it's also recognizing that we are not the only ones that can drive this science communication activity. And a lot of my time is spent working with other creative content developers to make their own work. So we had a visit from a science fiction writer who was working with the Wellcome

Trust recently, who wants to write something on artificial intelligence. And she came up with a couple of other people to the university and met a few of our researchers, talked about the future of AI. And these, for me, are wonderful examples of science communication work where you are consulting or just discussing complicated ideas with a writer about the future.

And so making sure that we allow people to build these sorts of relationships, have ways into the capacity of others to influence people's perspectives is another central pillar of what science communication requires. It's a crucial way of making sure that our content reaches further.

It's clear that as researchers, only a certain number of people will be keen to listen to us. And there are different populations of different demographics on all sorts of platforms. I mean, just another quick survey, anyone been on TikTok?

Three people in the audience. So if you want to really feel old, download the TikTok app and dive into it and see what's going on there. But it's a great example of how both our comprehension of how content is consumed is partial and quite limited, but also how the behaviors associated with content

consumption are changing rapidly as well. And it's only really often by being in those platforms that you see this. But it's the central part of trying to understand what's going on within them and how the content is best created for them. So I often describe myself in terms of what I'm not.

And I'm not an explainer, but we've created installations where people can come and fly drones to explore the research around drones. And these experiences are ways for people to feel quite immersed in the research around it, but also they're vehicles for a number of researchers to get involved with it. So if you look at this as a public experience, we have probably 10, 15 academics

working around this whose research is engaged with drones who then have opportunities to engage with the public either on one to one through conversations or in a much broader sense in giving talks throughout the day that we ran this event. So these are quite established practices within science museums now where you have a

professional population of science explainers that are there to explain the science to the public. But what we try to do is work with those institutions to facilitate that communication of what we do. I'm also not a photographer, but I do a lot of photography as a way of sharing the

research that I'm doing. And I guess it goes back a little bit to what Tom was saying. It's about building that sense of personality around the research. Often the work that I'm doing isn't just about presenting findings. It's about trying to communicate the context in which those findings take place. A good example for me is work I do at the Olympic Games every two years where I study

media change and technology. So the Olympic Games lends itself to obviously wonderful photography and opportunities to communicate science through that photography. But it might be the photographs that draws people in and you engage them with the scientific materials subsequently. And this can happen in often quite surprising but also quite organic ways.

So in the Pyeongchang Olympic Games from last year in South Korea, one of the big sponsors created a drone display using 1,200 drones where they flew them up into the air and created this choreography of drones making three-dimensional shapes of athletes, the Olympic rings, and so on.

And over the course of that Games, I made a series of videos that then were put online and on YouTube. And we got around 50,000 views for the drones video. But it gave us a chance to talk about the science and engineering behind drone choreographies. And so the events themselves are gateways into sharing something about the science that

we're doing. And this requires certainly a kind of degree of planning and maybe just to pursue that a little further. The next Olympic Games in Tokyo, I will go and continue the research. And we have an emerging research strand around what's called esports, competitive

computer game playing. There's lots of discussion around the growth of this worldwide and the expectation that for the Olympic Games next year, there'll be a program of esports taking place. So we're now planning to think about how we do our science communication work alongside this major investment of esports that's happening around a mega event.

And I think that's often one part that certainly academics researchers struggle with is trying to think about what are those potential landmarks around the world that you may connect with to then hopefully piggyback on and share your science and engage people around those newsworthy events that are taking place.

We tend not to think that far ahead or plan that strategically. And I think that's what we need to be doing. I'm also not a theatre director but I've worked with theatre producers and directors to create experiences. This is one that we produced a couple of years ago called Amorants where we explored the

science of falling in love. We took an evening and invited people to come and have dinner with us and across the evening they would hopefully fall in love with somebody. Now you can imagine there are some problems with that. So you know let's imagine you all heard about this event and you thought I'm going to sign up to that and you get there and you find yourself at a table with someone who

you may not be that keen on falling in love with, at least as a starting point. So we bottled out of it and thought well we'll invite people that know each other maybe in some relationship and explore whether we can get them closer together and maybe people that are having troubles in their relationship we can kind of address some of these things. So we curated an evening where people could explore the science.

So we had a psychologist whose research is examining the complications of having relationships in the digital era. What arguments that happen across WhatsApp, failure to put an X at the end of a message and what that means. These sorts of things that are novel complications to how we relate to one another.

So the nucleus of her research informed her particular role at the evening which was to be their digital relationship counselor. So they would kind of lay back sit down talk about the problems they have. And of course it wasn't wasn't quite you know ethically we're pretty on some quite sketchy ground here but nevertheless it was it was a kind of fun evening where people

could explore the parameters of this. We also had a poet who was writing sonnets for couples and we had different sort of points that you see on the right here the menu we had a love menu where the food was informed by kind of stuff that is naturally designed to kind of bring people closer together. We also had the psychological test which is coming out of some research from a few

years ago that says you have to ask somebody 36 questions to fall in love with them. And you can try this test and it sort of kind of goes through theories of attachment emotionally and and attraction and so on and so you can see the benchmark the backbone for the evening was these questions that they would ask each other and the conversation

they have over dinner and each course in the meal we asked them to secretly tell us how close they felt to the other person. And at the end of the night we had some data which could say whether in fact they felt closer to the other person or not or more in love with the other person. So we ran this as an experience and through the experience tried to communicate a range

of scientific ideas about what it is to fall in love and what happens when you fall in love. But what was what really inspired me for that event was actually experience at the Glasgow Citizens Theatre many years ago where they produced a program based on Stephen

Hawking's brief history of time and you have to imagine that if you've not been to the Citizens and I imagine most of you haven't it's a wonderful theatre that really has amazing spaces in it but what was fascinating about it was the only 12 people could see this performance at any one time and they took you through different parts of the building with

different staging taking place and at the very last stage you entered this casino and you sat around this round table a bit like the tables we have here and the dealer would deal your cards and they managed to work it in a way where six of the people lost and six of the people won and it seemed to be they figured out how to split the couples that were them

as people came in couples and one went one way and one went the other. And at the end of the experience it gave rise to a conversation about chance probability the universe all those things but it was such a world away from what is often the biggest expectation we have as researchers which is to build reach around our work.

Now how many people have we reached how many subscribers do we have how many readers how many followers all these things still gravitate towards the the kind of big numbers and in that event as with the Amerenst event we wanted to reach a few people but reach

them in a really deep way and hope that this will have a legacy for them going forwards. It's very hard to prove that we did that it's very hard to track it back as well but I think it comes out of a conviction that I still remember that brief history of time theater experience from 20 years ago that convinces us that we need to build that within our program

of work. So I'm also not a videographer videographer I kind of work a lot with film I bring film very much into my science communication work often by giving talks based around film artifacts that have been created so video essays if you like of what the technology can do. I've got a new book on drones coming out next year. A lot of what I talk about in relation

to drones is so very much imbued with the visual materials that that surround its utilization and and these are powerful ways to get things done not least because I think it's still quite a massive challenge for people to make video and even harder to make

good video to the point where we sort of think well yes if our marketing department can go out and make films people that's with people that's probably the best way to get it done well. But you know as I said at the start I come out of a world where I grew up with with the Internet being this very empowering thing and still feel like that's not just a technical

functional commitment it's actually the belief that these channels of communication are ours and we can and should make the most of them and in fact it's increasingly important that we do because so much of the content gets dragged into these major platforms that are

essentially monetizing them for their own gain but also potentially limiting what people can see so even understanding how our content is filtered through major platforms is one of those challenges we know that people both have their own filter bubbles but we also know that the algorithms within platforms limits what people end up seeing and that there's an

economic model around that so taking ownership and control of the channels of communication is a big part of why I think we should do this. I'm not a science fiction writer but I work a lot with science fiction authors and wider creators so here's a nice example this video

which I don't know if any of you've seen Amazon got big ambitions to do drone deliveries all over the world they have they have proposed a kind of perpetual warehouse in the sky that will deploy its drones and products worldwide for us this video went viral last year and it was sort of revealed to be a fake but one of the questions that I have

about it is whether in fact it's fake at all the design of this has been awarded a patent a couple of years ago so this is a conceivable future that Amazon is planning for us and it is the artist through their creative output that is allowing us then to really think about how

do we feel about this future so working with creative people to imagine the future is a big part of of how my own science communication operates but it does start to get playing it does often again play fast and loose with the truth because this is not currently here but it's a

potentiality that I think we have to engage with both morally economically and politically I'm not a virtual reality developer but I work with VR developers and content creators to create new experiences that communicate science and again what's really remarkable about these

projects is just how collaborative they are so again to go back to the sort of main message of this talk it is the creation of an experience a proposition an idea that facilitates the cross subject collaboration that then dramatically expands the sorts of things that we do both

as researchers but also as a university as well so this virtual reality experience involved people across not just the academic faculty members but also a range of support services that we have within the university and a lot of what I've tried to do at Salford University

has been to empower those different organizations who currently find themselves quite isolated in terms of their contribution so a good example of this which I thought I'd mention as well is in Manchester Science Festival in 2017 we worked with our library to create a library of fake

news which was set in the context of course of what was happening at the time politically but also allowed us to have a conversation between academics with our library staff around a current affairs issue that people understand but haven't quite figured out what to do about do about it and so we set up a physical space where people could come to terms with

what is really going on around this agenda but the main output for us or at least I think it's it is the most compelling consequence of it was actually empowering our library to be part of what was otherwise an academic program so the Manchester Science Festival that we work with

tends to be academics sharing their research with the public and we tend not to involve other units in that production but the library of fake news fostered this conversation and collaboration around creating an installation that allowed then the the library to be more

effectively engaged so just to get towards the conclusion with all of this the creation of experiences is the mechanism by which we both build collaborations internally and externally foster new research questions around our activity invest into new forms of research endeavor that

are perhaps only emerging within the research communities that operate around us but most importantly they enrich the lives of the people that are involved with them and we have to do that in quite careful ways because we have to make sure that people don't

do things that they don't want to do so people are quite some researchers are quite happy to sit and have a conversation with somebody but they don't want to be in front of a camera some people are quite happy to research to write an article for the conversation but may not want to make a podcast so these spaces have their sort of principal value the recognition and of of the person as a person first rather than their professional identity and it seems

to me that's the crucial thing to get across to ensure that you have the kind of emotional buy-in that we need to have more people doing this kind of work one of the kind of live conversations that we have within the university is whether people should how people should be

compensated for their outreach work or their science communication work so a question came up earlier should people be required to do this i still feel that actually they shouldn't that in fact if you if you sort of instrumentalize this activity you will lose some value that takes place within it that comes out of the fact that we've got a couple of genetic scientists

that like to go to a festival and share their work that comes out of this emotional commitment to it and it's partly connected to that idea of us being citizens first and scientists second thanks very much oh that's not working yeah thank you andy for this great inspirational

talk there must be questions about this right anybody hey um thank you very much for that

thank you for all the content that you have because i do actually use a lot of your content in a sort of example to academics and phd students like here is what can be done so for those of us here that do a lot of that sort of communication what would you say to um where do you start someone wants to build a career and start getting out there what would you tell

them to do first what what's a good point to start i think the starting point is what do you enjoy and and actually having a detailed conversation about that is quite a helpful process we tend to as a university we tend to do things like i'll come and do some media training and people are then sort of feel like they've got to go along to it and just in case they end

up being on the tv at some point but actually starting with what you enjoy doing is a really good way to do it so i've given talks at um they have uh sci cafes that happen around the world you know some people love to go to the pub apparently so uh you know give a talk in a pub and there are many opportunities to do that and i think that's where understanding the person

and where they feel comfortable is is the crucial step because actually if you put them in a festival where they've got to demonstrate something or explain something they may feel really just uncomfortable but if you stick them in a pub and they can have a pint and talk about what they do they might be completely at ease so that for me is the starting point thank you

thank you hi thank you so much for your very engaging talk thank you um i'm wondering so we saw this a little bit in the pictures that you have exhibitions and where where people touch things and i was wondering if you had um so i'm experimenting a little bit with 3d printing

and 3d models of uh actually co-authorship networks and like a little bit a little bit more complex data and i've read a bit of literature about like how important touches for memory and for the experience that people have and this seems to be really something important too that you convey of like if people are having fun they will remember and so your

outreach is so much better so i was wondering if like the different kind of senses especially touch if you have experience with that it's great a great question and i've had some experience of it i still have yet to realize my biggest ambition for designing a multi-sensory digital device i'll come back to that in a moment but in the last couple of years certainly the um

the direction of travel with with things like virtual reality is multi-sensorial um so not just visual hearing and touch or indeed movement which is now possible with quite affordable technology but also curating the space in which it happens bringing smell into the system so i think um we we've begun to see the recognition of the importance of that

certainly and um and it's it's clear that the best ways to deliver projects are those that immerse somebody in something that feels real uh that isn't i mean i've been to i remember three or four years ago you'd go to a virtual reality exhibition it would be just headsets in the room now people will create a theatrical staging of that experience that then

walk somebody into it before then sitting them down within the experience so i'd say it's really really critical and um i think the the act of making is really important too so we ran an event as part of the src festival of social science where i wanted to explore the intergenerational

conversations about the future of robotics so often if we do a sort of public engagement event we'll take some robots along and people will sort of watch them and laugh and enjoy them um but what seemed really useful is to see what would happen if you had say kids of maybe seven or eight years old and grandparents of 70 years old talking about the future of robotics

and what kind of conversation might happen and the way we did that it was to get them to make a robot out of lego and um it was the making that then facilitated the conversation and those are i think quite productive and so popular i mean the lego robot workshops just they're always oversubscribed and and quite a simple way to engage people in that very tactile way

yeah so so i haven't so i think there should be a way of creating a system where you have a range of chemicals that are then activated mixed and distribute a smell at a different

time point within a film sequence so let's say within the film you end up in a scene that's at the fish market the system activates some smells that then produces the smell of the fishy things and then it moves on to the next sequence in the film you might be i don't know at some sort of industrial place and it creates those so actually in the 1950s 60s smelly vision was

something that people did experiment with but we're actually not yet there in terms of an actual thing you could just buy and mix up these chemicals i think chemically it's possible but um but we're still not there yet doable i think yeah just i'm sure i remember in the 90s

they tried that i remember that so you know an idea that needs to keep happening every few decades well i was involved with a festival called abandoned normal devices a few years ago they simply use scratch and sniff sheets so at different points in the film you do your scratching and that was actually you know some of the some of the best systems are are the simplest ones but what was lovely about it was it reminded me that scratch and sniff

existed you know it's a long time ago since i thought about that yeah thank you one there in the back hi thank you for this presentation as a librarian we're always

sort of obsessed with trying to get people to evaluate their sources and where did the information come from and is it really trustworthy and perhaps over overly obsessed with that um everything that you described here i absolutely see how these experiences are enriching and memorable and change the way people interact with and experience and understand the world but i wonder if they um come away sort of understanding where that science came from

how it was created who it was created by and if you think that that part happens and if not do you think that that's important does that matter thank you i think it's um across the different things that you've seen there have been different ways of doing that so for example

the um the one you short saw at the start with the gig at blue dot festival that performance piece is one is one component in a wide range of activities that happen both across the festival so rob was there also doing sort of hands-on stuff we use some of the hands-on stuff to drive attendance at the evening event so i think it's it's useful to think about each of these

things as just one node in a network of activities that takes place and they each serve quite different purposes so i i in fact the article that we've written around this particular performance says we're pretty sure that nobody got any scientific understanding as a result of coming to our gig half drunk at the end of the festival but it's part of that process of

thinking through these relationships and also fostering a different conversation about what public engagement can do so the the one of the biggest outputs for me of that was what happened in the interactions between rob and james rob and james would never have worked together were it not for this proposition and we're now into a further conversation about could we

envisage because we're our genetic scientists were there as well and we thought well could they were taking dna from people and giving some information about their sort of bacterial diversity so we're now thinking about possibly seeing if we can swap people at the start of a gig and for that dna reading to then create a audio composition that then is the building blocks

of the the dj set itself so how could you develop generation generative music out of people's dna and you know these are i would say quite pioneering conversations so you have to look at the event itself as a as a kind of node within the system that may in fact give rise to new additional

research as well there's a long answer we've got one here have we got time yeah i think we got a who's next question oh just down here please are they um it's aligned to the the last

question we just had but do you directly link any of your knowledge exchange activities to impact activities things that can be measured by your annoying impact people well i'm i'm one of the annoying impact people so i have we have an impact coordinators group in the university and a lot of our time is focused on actually trying to both understand where the emerging impact

journeys are to then facilitate engagement opportunities around them but certainly with regards to both you're asking about quantifying that impact or clarifying it yeah so i almost feel like i'm dampening the mood but exactly that kind of measurable impact and trying to

leverage off your knowledge exchange events or you know your public engagement events yeah and certainly we do we we try to be mindful of where those impact journeys exist and can be developed or enriched by creating events we're also conscious that many of the researchers don't have a facility for their impact uh to to even be enriched so we will create events so the

final video that you saw the game lab video which um what's gone it which was a kind of it was an entire building full of researchers within that building were a range of people some of whom were researchers that we believe are on on track to have an impact case study

or that are beginning their journey and impact development and they invite a community around them to come to the event and others are quite far into their impact journey and then want an event to sort of share their research so the events themselves are multi-faceted in but certainly mindful of how impact is present within them and particularly even more

specifically how the ref sort of impact case studies are are facilitated to be part of them too and we also found it's quite useful to work with festivals because they all they also have their own evaluation programs which then provide both data for us but also a helpful conversation about how we may think about impact and and evidencing it in either quantitative

way um sorry just one little more thing just to be more knowing have you done any research on the effect of that alignment and whether the the public engagement does amplify the the potential impacts or any anecdotal so so for example the the the event

i just mentioned that working with a festival whether that engagement leads to greater impact is that we mean i think um so certainly to some extent i would say i would say it's probably patchy and that's partly because some of the things we do have no impact and they don't that they're often sort of experiments and that's actually often how we talk about these things

not so much as events but as experiments sometimes you reach people and others you don't and i think it comes down partly to understanding where somebody is in the development of their impact journey but also how effective we've been at targeting particular populations so my approach as someone that curates and designs these programs is to recognize that not everything's

going to work and that we might have some great stories coming out of it but actually others may just get nothing at all but as long as we make it inclusive and allow a range of people to take part then hopefully we have enough good coming out of it that we can evidence but it is very varied i would say okay unfortunately we have to stop here i think this is very engaging

i think there's probably a lot of extra questions so don't hesitate to tackle andy before he leaves that's like now unfortunately but you can find me very easily yeah you're online you're easily reachable and you're an outgoing person so thank you very much andy for your a great

talk and i give him a hand of applause