KEY
Bold:	Interviewer
Regular:	Respondent
[ ]:	Uncertain word(s)

Okay, so now it's recording.  So, hello [anonymised] .  Thank you very much for taking part in this study, in this interview.  This is for the project Gaming Horizons.  Like I mentioned in the email, I'm going to ask you a number of questions about your background, your involvement with games, your research interest around games.  The interview is obviously being recorded, so you don't have to answer all the questions.  If for any reasons whatsoever you don't want to answer a question, you just have to say so and we will move on to the next one.  
The data will be anonymised, so we will not be taking quotes from specific interviews, and if we need to do so, we will ask for your permission.  But we look at patterns, okay, and themes mainly, across a number of interviews, so we will treat, basically, the interview as data.  And like I said, this is being recorded, so can I have your consent to go on with the interview, to proceed with the interview?
Yes.
All right.  Fantastic.  Okay, so let's start from a kind of more introductory sort of question about your background, around gaming and your research interest.  Your trajectory, okay, if you like, as a researcher interested in video games.
Okay, sure.  So more broadly, my research tends to take a design orientation, so what I try to do in my work is to take a critical stance around the design of technology by working with empirical data and data that has been collected in collaboration with the end-users of the technology.  So one of the methodologies that I use quite a lot is participatory design and, as a design researcher, I've been involved in a number of projects around games.  I would not say that games are the primary technological area that I work in, but it's definitely one of the themes.
So my first contact with games was in 2008, in a project called Siren, where we developed a serious game for conflict resolution.  And then since then I've been involved in two other projects, one of them is currently active now, developing games for literacy.  So all of this work has really focused on the primary school age.  So that sums it up.  
I guess the other thing to say is that, unlike some of the games research that I tend to come across where researchers are really interested in 'does a game increase this, does a game lead to more motivation or better outcomes', what I'm more interested in in asking about games is more a process point of view, trying to understand what it is that games… kind of inside that black box, what is happening, and actually really looking more closely at the role of interactions, social interactions that are happening around games.  So, more a sociocultural perspective, perhaps, to what is happening and how that's supporting learning, rather than looking at the relationship between games and outcomes.
Right, okay.  Because actually, that relationship between games and outcomes is something that we are very interested in, so it's actually quite interesting, quite valuable that you seem to be already in a kind of critical position in relation to that kind of perspective.  So maybe we can use that as a way to maybe expand a bit more on this, actually.
You said that you are quite critical on the kind of perspective of games used to achieve particular kinds of outcomes.  Would you maybe be able to expand or elaborate a bit more on that, you know, why and—?  Yeah.
If I may, I would like to use examples from my research, because I find it easier to kind of construct it in that way.  So, taking the game that we developed a few years ago for literacy outcomes, basically the quantitative question was, does this game improve accuracy and fluency of reading?  That would be the outcome oriented perspective.  And it seems, actually, or it appears we know what funders want, that that is the kind of evidence that many funders are asking to really prove, I guess, that games are effective learning tools.
So we did have an evaluation of that kind in that project.  I was not involved in it, but I piggybacked on that evaluation to collect video data of what was actually happening in these sessions because the games were being played by small groups of children.  So, groups between four and five.  And from that point of view, I think you learn much more than you would learn by just looking at numeric data.
So for example, if we want to think about change, not as in a numeric kind of outcome, one of the things that was happening in these was that, because the group had very differing abilities, you would have children that might be more competent in one area of literacy stepping in and taking a peer tutoring role to support another child.  The children that we were looking at were kids with dyslexia who really don't have the opportunities, actually, to take these active and confident roles.
So for me, that constitutes change, but it's not something that is quite quantifiable.  It could be quantified, but I guess that's not the point.  It's to really inductively trying to understand what are the things that are happening, and perhaps from there, start to move to the more outcome oriented perspective.
So, often they feel that people seem to be jumping to the end point, rather than understanding all the things that are happening before it and trying to construct the end point, because you take a normative stance by deciding what is worth measuring, ultimately, in a quantitative study.
Right, okay.  That's very interesting actually.  You made a point there about the kind of research is more likely to be funded around games, and this is an area that is part of the interview.  We were meant to sort of explore that area a bit later on, but because you mentioned it, maybe that is actually something that we can sort of touch upon now.  
Something that we are obviously trying to look at with this project are the kinds of areas that are more likely to be supported financially, and therefore they're more likely to become, basically, areas of interest in validated research through debates and so on.  So yeah, let's maybe talk a bit more on the kind of stages of academic research and scholarship on gaming from your perspective.  
If you can maybe talk a bit more about that, for example, in terms of the kind of disciplines or fields where gaming research is mostly happening and the types of research that are being prioritised.  And obviously I understand that you have a fairly kind of critical – I mean, that's my understanding – outlook in terms of these sort of processes, so maybe if you can expand again a bit more on that.
I should say, again, that games research is not my primary area.  So take this with a grain of salt because this is the exposure I've had, given the project that I worked on.  But it seems to be that the two communities that are quite outcome quantitative kind of oriented are the technological community.  
So, a few years ago we had a paper accepted at KI Play.  That's a new conference – I don't know if you are aware of it – that looks at games and it kind of sprung out of the Human Computer Interaction Conference.  We had a very strongly design oriented paper there where we were looking at this question of cultural procreation, which we can discuss maybe later on because it kind of relates, in my mind, to ethics.  
One of the things that we were trying to do was to learn to do research through design, and it seemed like a few of the members of that community were quite critical of that.  Of the place of this sort of critical design oriented research in this kind of conference.  So they were discussing about excluding certain kinds of research, certain kinds of genre of research from this conference.  So I think there are definitely biases.
Another example that comes from a paper that got accepted a few days ago, actually in Computers and Education which is very much about the socially oriented and process oriented view in games, was how much of a struggle it was to engage with the reviewers, because this was not their mindset.  The question that we were getting was, what is the theory that you have started from?  Well, this is an inductive study.  This is about generating theory.  This is about understanding the social and cultural dimension that other people understood.  And also looking at the study as a feasibility study.  So I think there's a question about the status of theory building in inductive research as well that is process oriented that we need to start defending.  That's on the one side.  
I think the communities I've seen that are much more quantitative, like you see at Computers and Education, and all of the studies that they publish are actually of this kind, from what I can tell.  Perhaps the more critical perspectives are found in game studies.  So, games culture in media.  So we have a group in the lab that also does games research and they operate in quite a different community and sphere than I do, but the feeling is that, in that community, the process perspective is taken for granted.  It's not really challenged.  It's a status quo.
Right.  And interestingly, I think you touched upon one of the main sort of conundrums or sort of areas of focus of interest for the project and something that we noted also in our project is this kind of separation that's sometimes reflected in the scholarship, in the sort of academic research, but also in the kind of debates that are happening generally around the role of games in society with the kind of applied serious games industry sector.  Not just as an area of scholarly interest but as an economic sector where a lot of the kind of more quantitative computer science oriented, outcome oriented research is happening, and the kind of more cultural, sociocultural media oriented, sort of media studies oriented work done mainly on commercial off-the-shelf sort of games.  
That is a distinction that we are looking at and we are trying to examine critically whether it's a helpful distinction to have in order to advance the debate, the discussion around the social role of video games or games in society.  So do you have any specific kind of views or opinions about this sort of dynamic that has kind of emerged over the past ten years or so?
I mean, I think you're right that you have identified these two.  You can see them as two polar perspectives in a continuum.  But I guess thinking about a kind of domain, games as being a domain, I wonder if you can actually bridge these.  The ideal thing would be to be able to bridge them and try to see what one has to offer to the other.  But it's not quite clear that these things happen so easily, to be honest.
So I think the critical thing is to try to understand the kinds of knowledge that each of these communities is producing, what answers they're able to give and what answers they're not, and that's where you start to maybe find the complimentarity of perspectives.  But I'm sure that if you brought the researchers together from these fields to try and identify the common questions, you would have to do a lot of mediation to get them to understand each other enough to be able to advance the state of the field, if that makes sense.
No, it makes sense.  Well, I do think that there is also a problem, like probably you encountered in your own work, that not only applies to games but generally to the use of digital technologies in general in education or kind of other contexts.  So it's definitely an area of some contention, or some tensions actually, definitely.
I think that is actually not clear, if the people that are involved in these communities are critical of each other.  So I find, for example, in human computer interaction, which is my main discipline, you have people who come from the very cognitivist perspective, which is where HCI really started, and you have people who have moved to the more cultural perspective, and they cannot talk to each other.  They can superficially perhaps identify their differences, but it's so value – I don't know – written, the whole kind of position that you're in, that you cannot actually break away from it and see the other's perspective.
So the one thing that I'm quite happy about is, by accident, although I have been doing much more design and qualitative research, I have also done a lot of quantitative research.  So I find that to be actually quite a good thing because I'm not discounting a different perspective.  I'm just trying to understand how these things fit together without really taking an emotional stance to it, if that makes sense.
Oh, it makes sense, yeah.  Okay, let's talk a bit more about sort of ethical aspects.  You said you already have some ideas.  You mentioned some sort of processes or dynamics that you think are relevant to ethics in games.  You mentioned something before; would you be able to maybe expand more on that?
So can you kind of elaborate?  I'm not sure I—
Yeah.  I want to open a bit more the discussion, the conversation around the role of ethics in game development, game research, game usage.  So let's start maybe from what you think, basically, if there are any ethical considerations that should be taken into account when designing games, when using games, or when researching games.  Let's open that up and let's see where that leads us.
I mean, I feel that ethics is something so broad that, in a way, it is an umbrella to anything you do in the design.  So for example, when you're deciding, as you were saying before, the outcome, what learning you're going to prioritise, you're making a decision about what you're excluding.  So there is kind of a decision there about what is more valuable in children's learning.  
So it spans from these initial decisions to how you think—  I mean, a lot of the games, of course… well, I would say all of the games are collecting data about their players.  So you can span it to data ethics, which I find quite surprising, at least in my awareness.  There's not that much research or debate that I have seen around privacy and data ethics for these applications.  So the idea that education is for good purposes, yeah, it's a good enough statement, but that does not mean that you do not need to take into account these issues. 
So I had done a postdoc some time ago on privacy and, of course, in the business and commercial sector there are projects that are only dedicated to privacy.  I have not seen something like this for education.  So what ends up happening is that, in the projects I have been involved in, like the one I'm involved in now, iRead, we are talking about legislation, for example, to do with data ethics.  We are talking about these issues, but they're in an inclusive kind of level where they get woven into the decision making rather than being at the forefront of it because there's not enough time to actually think about these issues in depth.
Right, okay.  Would you be able to maybe identify a bit more in detail some of the kind of specific concerns that may sort of be relevant, in particular to data and games?
Okay.  Well, I will give you some examples from what we're doing now because the project that I'm coordinating, the iRead project, is an innovation action project.  So we are really looking at these games from a commercial standpoint and these games are going to be sitting on an infrastructure that will be handling the data that is collected about the performance of a child in the game and in other kinds of obs that they're interacting with that sit on top of this infrastructure.
So, looking at a business scenario, one of the questions that we're asking, for example, is if we offer this infrastructure to new SMEs who want to make new apps, do these SMEs have the rights to access a child's student model – so, what their technology knows about the child – and how do you protect privacy in this case?  Are they also allowed to actually write back into it?  Because that's another consideration, how you record the child's performance and how confident you feel about this, because that performance is going to then impact on the pedagogy that happens within the games.
So, imagine having an SME who has not done research that, for us, from our point of view, is very credible, but they have the rights to go back and write into the user model of the child.  How does it impact on the child's experience in the game and our responsibilities to support the child's learning?  So I guess that's one question that comes up from there.
Yeah, it's very interesting actually, absolutely.  Okay, what about other sort of themes and questions that may be related to, for example, issues, let's say representation, the way particular identities, particular groups, social groups, are represented through games?  Do you think those kinds of questions, which you're probably familiar with, the kinds of discussions that have happened that sit in the more media studies oriented sort of debates around games, around representation of gender, race, ethnicity, do you think that there is something in those kinds of debates that, for example, could be beneficial for, let's say, going back to the kind of distinction of the interfacing between the communities?  Can there be something beneficial for the other community, for the community looking at the kind of more outcome oriented sort of approach to games?  And generally, how can we sort of engage with those questions, if it's relevant at all for you from your kind of angle, from your perspective?
I think, definitely, they're very relevant.  I mean, you see this even in—  This is not an issue to do with games.  I'm looking at a lot of resources around books these days, given the topic of our project, and the issue of representation comes into there as well.  
So I think there was an article some time ago explaining how most of the books in the library that they had looked at were about boys.  And then they started to trim it down to the point where women from ethnicities, or girls from ethnicities, were such a tiny, tiny minority in how they were represented across books.  So I think it's an issue that should be considered anyway, and this comes into the serious games and entertainment games kind of dichotomy.  
When you're thinking about a serious game, you're so focused on the learning objectives, the pedagogical approach that you have, that often that prioritises the kinds of things that you're thinking of in design, and questions of representation may be downgraded.  But I think that there is a need for designers who are interested in games for learning to be engaged with these issues and to be engaged from the point of view also from design.
But one of the things that I wanted to share from a project that we did – it's again on this literacy game, funded by the EU some years ago.  The project was called iLearner W where we engaged with this issue of representation, but not from gender or race; it was about cultural procreation – and I want to share one of the challenges actually in methodologies that you need to consider in terms of understanding these kinds of questions.
That's something actually I'm learning because you seem to have, from your particular angle as somebody with experience of participatory design and this kind of methodology, I think that's very—  So yeah, sorry for interrupting, but just because I think that's actually very valuable.  So please carry on, sorry.
So the whole kind of idea of responsible research and innovation is you're trying to grapple with these kinds of questions from the start.  What I don't quite see is how you actually progress from that kind of initial ideation and initial focus of the area that you're trying to look at to technology.  When is something serious enough to say that this should not be pursued any more?  And does the design research with people where you're trying to anticipate issues and you're trying to critically kind of engage with them, is that, I guess, an accurate representation of what would really happen if you designed the technology and put it out there?  It's not clear to me that what you find out in participatory design definitely will map to what will happen down the line when the technology is actually used.  I don't know what that relationship is.
So in this project that we had in iLearner W, we took this festival, a Mexican festival called The Day of the Dead, which comes with some values with it.  So the main idea is that, once a year, people who have lost loved ones come together and celebrate their lives and they make some – I'm trying to find the English word here – they kind of give some things, some gifts to them, maybe, in order for them to connect with them.  So, from what I understand, some people believe that such a connection is possible, but it's more symbolic really and it's more about acceptance of death and celebration of one's life.
So we did these workshops with kids very early on in the design to see how the children construct stories around this theme, and we found some things around this, such as, for example, the children were really focusing on the gruesome details of how their dead person had died, or they were defining the relationships between the dead and the living as being very distant, which is actually quite the opposite from what this festival is trying to show.  So we were starting to kind of wonder, if they were to play a game based on this kind of theme, could this bring out kind of uncertainties for them in relation to – I don't know – the mortality of people who are close to them?  
So from this design research, we started to ask these questions.  In reality, what happened in the evaluation, because the story was not conveyed, I think, in a very compelling way, the children connected with the game at the level of aesthetics.  So, the skulls, the colours.  They did not connect with the underlying rationale and values.
So, much of our critical work in design, I think, did not really come through actually in the evaluation.  So I think there's a need to try to start to see these methods and the questions they bring up and how you can track them and learn about these issues over time.
Oh, so kind of reflectivity, basically.  Is that—?
Absolutely, yes.
Right, okay.  That's a very interesting and detailed in-depth insight, actually, so I'm very grateful (laughs).  
Okay, so I want to ask you kind of specific aspects, principles or mechanics of video games, the kind of more ethical or sort of connotation, if you like.  First, I want to ask you to describe what, according to you, are, let's say, one or two of the most distinctive mechanisms of innovations in gaming that sort of can be used or drawn upon to achieve some kind of positive outcome.  All right?  
I know you're critical of this particular kind of approach, but it's something that we also need to sort of be focusing on as part of the project.  And obviously, if you think that that's completely kind of outside of your kind of particular area of interest, maybe if you can elaborate on why that is something that you can't really elaborate on.
So the question is, what kind of—
Mechanism, distinctive mechanism, or particular kinds of mechanics, or the actual kind of principles that games sort of use in order to achieve engagement, motivation, whatever that is.
Well, there are two that come to mind.  One of them, I think, is the importance of roles, actually, the roles that you have, the authenticity of the roles that you have in the game and how these connect intrinsically to the learning that is happening in the game.  So, seeing yourself, for example, in literacy, I feel that that's one of the big gaps that we have, even in the current project, that I want to address.  You have all of these activities, but does a child actually start to build an identity around themselves and their interactions around these key areas that they're having in the game?  So I think if you're able to develop children's learning identities through games, that could be quite a powerful thing.
I think the second thing that is relevant to any game is this idea of challenge and being able to actually progress and build on your skills and feel that you have actually progressed within a game.  So, making that progression visible.
Is that the sort of thing that you were looking for, or is it—?
Yeah, that's in line with—  Yeah, that's what I was asking.  I'm also interested in kind of your specific experience around participatory design.  Well, you mentioned, basically, this idea of using some kind of participatory approach to encourage young people, players, to go beyond a kind of more superficial, shallow engagement with a game or with a design approach.  So maybe that's something actually, if possible, you can maybe expand a bit more on, this idea of involving people critically, dialogically, in order to have a more kind of deeper, more critical engagement with a task, the technology, the design process.
Yeah, okay, that's an interesting question.  I've just submitted a paper that kind of tries to look at this type of question because it's taken for granted that the people who do participatory design, the children or teachers, are going to be empowered and they will want to be involved in a meaningful way in design and drive forward their interests.  
So there's two things here; it’s prior to involvement as you engage people in.  And there's some research by Allison Druin that has been quite influential in the area where she talks about different roles that children can take – and there's a normative, let's say, assumption about certain roles.  So she talks about the co-partner, the child who constructs the problem and the solution, as being the best role, if you like, because they're the most involved, whereas the child as a consultant, less so.
But I think this is very relative, actually, to the specifics of the design process.  It's much more complicated than that.  So one thing is, when we start these projects, we often have an agenda, right?  We often know what we want to achieve.  So in the case of dyslexia, where I've worked in a few projects now, we want to raise reading attainments.  This is actually not necessarily the agenda of the children, so when you come in to participatory design and you want to involve them and you want them to be critical and to be invested in the process, that's not what you're going to see because many of these children do not like to read.  They do not want to engage in these kinds of tasks.  This is an extrinsic agenda to what their kinds of goals are.
So I think one of the challenges for a participatory design for any project is really scrutinising this kind of idea of what is your starting point.  Are your participants leading and defining the issues with you, or are you going to lead them with some issues that you've already identified from the literature from the funders and so on and you want to work with them on that?  I think then that this determines the kinds of methods that you will use with them.
So the more open-ended methods that Druin I think are probably going to work when you're doing the agenda setting, but if you're not and the children or your learners, your teachers, may not have connected with these agendas, you're probably going to get the opposite of empowerment.  And there, I think you're better off involving people with good examples and good ideas that are fleshed out and, in my work, I've seen that this can actually lead children to critical thinking and connecting these examples with their experience.  But you've already accepted that in some ways this is not participatory design because participatory design for me is about agenda setting and about people involved in authentic decision making.  Do you see what I mean?
Yeah, that is very helpful actually.  No, absolutely.  Okay, now this is my last question.  I just wanted one final comment.  Obviously you're free to say as much as you want, but I just wanted to have your idea about kind of future directions.  
One of the things that we're trying to do with this project is to apply recommendations to the European Commission for kind of future areas of research, innovation, and where to focus attention, that kind of thing.  You already talked quite a lot about the distinction between scholarly communities, between industry sectors – so, the fact there is a mirroring between these kinds of dynamics – and so with that kind of stuff in the background that we talked about, what do you think should be the kind of future direction for the role of games in society?  Okay, let's talk in general.
It's a very broad question, the roles of games in society.  Hmm.
Well, let's make it a bit more specific then.  Let's talk about the kind of sectorial distinction, okay, whether that is something that, in the future, we should be sort of… ways to sort of challenge that distinction, or possibly reasons to keep it.
Okay.  So, sectorial distinction between, what, industry and academia?
Between industries and also between scholarly communities, between sort of themes, between discourses around games.
Hmm, yeah.  I mean, the big question is, have the games that have stemmed from academia been particularly influential?  My sense is, probably not.  But you know much more about this from your research.  I don't know.
Yeah, that's definitely one of the problems, I think, with serious and applied sort of games and the kind of whole discourse around the serious and applied games, including the kind of scholarly work around serious and applied games, is that there's increasingly becoming sort of a niche that is heavily dependent on this sort of large funding programme, sort of support, basically, in order to exist, and they don't really exist outside of that particular bubble.  So that is one of the concerns that we are sort of examining in this project and that there may be ways to actually address that kind of tendency, the kind of trend.
Well, I think that there is a lot to be gained by actually bridging the scholarly work with the commercial sector, not only because we have a lot to learn as well, as academics, about the design processes that are involved because, as external participants, we can stand back and critique them, but it's about having the power, I guess, and the involvement to change them if these links are well made.  
But there is also the other issue that relates to the impact of academic games more broadly, and I'm appreciating this more and more by looking at what we did in iLearner W with an academic game partner and what we're doing now with an industry game partner in iRead, is the sheer volume and expertise that is required to build a good game.  And I don't think that academics – and this is my personal opinion – possess that expertise because the kinds of questions that we are interested in are different than the practical work and knowledge that goes into building a good game.
So I think there's a lot to actually be gained from making these links.  How you do that, I think, is the big kind of question because, I don't know what your experience is, but I've had really negative experiences with industry partners where you are speaking a different language.  So it's about finding the right partners.  
We're lucky in iRead because our game partner is actually very good at communicating with us, and also they're good game designers.  That's the other thing; they're there to serve the project rather than pursuing another kind of agenda, which is what happens very often in serious games.  You have a game and you have different partners and it turns out that some of the partners are moving towards the objective that the project has, but one of two of the partners who are part of this big technology are interested in a different question.
Actually, that resonates with other things that we also encountered during the course of the project.  Actually, what kinds of other things, generally?  If you can maybe talk a bit more about these other objectives that people have.
Okay.  So this is one example and, unfortunately, there are two projects I have in mind and it's the same partner that we're going to be talking about because they were involved in both.
Okay, so the difference between a designer and researcher, and may be other fields, is that a designer wants to solve a problem.  So I am committed if the project is about trying to understand how to develop a game for literacy or conflict education, and that is my goal.  So my research is abstracting from the specifics of the case and talking about the design theory and participatory design and methods.
So the problem that has happened in these two projects is with one of the partners, who was an AI partner, and they did not have the expertise in learning.  So what they wanted to do for the adaptive part of the game really was not solving the problem that the game was kind of oriented towards.  And that's where I think you start to get these big gaps in these projects because one part of the project may be very well designed and oriented to what the project is about, and then you have an adaptive partner that is actually doing something that is completely unrelated to the main goal of the project.  It's driven then by research interests of their members and what constitutes good research in their community.
Okay.
Yes, that's one kind of scenario.
And would you say that people with kind of a technological background—  Where do you think—  What kind of—  I'm trying to understand, basically, where the tendency to do that mainly is.  Do you think that people with a technological background tend to do this more, for example, than people with a kind of more sociocultural education or kind of social scientific background?
I'm thinking here, trying to draw from my—  Maybe the tendency is more, although this has happened to me with more kind of—  Yes, maybe I have more examples than just technical, but I think it has to do with identity.  It's whether you see yourself fitting into your community.  
So, right now, we have a partner, a technical partner in Athens, who is working on iRead and they do not position themselves with a particular community that has particular expectations.  Their identity is to cater to the project, is to do the work that will support the goals of the project.  So, because of this, they're actually quite fantastic in terms of finding solutions to different problems.  Whereas the example I gave you is a partner who is in this community where algorithms are prioritised, rather than what these algorithms are doing.
How interesting.
And that's where the problem is, I think, because, for them, it was not about do these algorithms support the learning process; it was, how do we build these algorithms, and let's find a way into this.
All right.  Okay, that's very helpful.  Thank you, [anonymised] .  Okay, we are at the end of the interview, so I wanted to thank you again for your time.  We've been talking for quite a long time, for which I apologise.  It was meant to be a bit shorter, so I'm sorry for having taken quite a lot of your time.  If you have any other questions for me, I'd be happy to answer, otherwise we can leave it at that.  Obviously I'll be in touch with results and updates and whatever associated with the project.
Okay.  Yes, I'd be curious to see what your report is at the end of this.
Yeah, absolutely, we'll share that with you.
How many people will you be speaking to?
Well, we are interviewing a total of sixty sort of informants and we are speaking to people from different backgrounds.  So we have people from research, from different types of research.  Mainly the kind of distinction is communities, that you also mentioned.  That's something that we are aware of in the project, so we are speaking to kind of computer science people, education people, and some interesting patterns are emerging in terms of priorities, in terms of themes.
I'm going to actually stop the recording now.