0:07

Hello and welcome to the Physics

0:09

World Weekly Podcast. I'm Hamish Johnston.

0:12

Coming up in this episode,

0:14

I'm in conversation with a

0:16

postgraduate student who is investigating

0:19

how podcasts are used in

0:21

science communication. But

0:23

first, Physics World's Metin

0:25

Durrani is in conversation

0:27

with Antonia Seymour. She

0:30

is chief executive of

0:32

IOP Publishing, which is

0:34

a society-owned scientific publisher

0:37

that publishes more than 90 scholarly

0:40

journals and physics

0:42

worlds. IOP Publishing is

0:44

a founding member of the

0:47

purpose-led publishing coalition of

0:50

not-for-profit publishers. And

0:52

Antonia explains why scientists,

0:55

science, and society all

0:58

benefit when publishers put all

1:00

the funds made

1:02

from their activities back

1:04

into the research ecosystem.

1:14

So we all know that scientific research papers are

1:16

the lifeblood of science, but where do you go

1:18

to get your paper published? Do

1:21

you pick a journal with the highest impact factor,

1:23

or do you go for those publications that you

1:25

think are just right for your field? Or

1:27

should you, as our guest this week thinks,

1:29

bear in mind the values that the publisher

1:31

of the journal stands for? Welcome

1:34

this week then to Antonia Seymour, chief

1:36

executive of Institute of Physics Publishing,

1:38

who's here to talk about a

1:40

new initiative that she spearheading called

1:43

Purpose-Led Publishing. Hi, Antonia. Welcome

1:45

to the Physics World Podcast. Hi,

1:48

Mati. Thank you for having me. Lovely

1:50

to see you. So let's start with the basics.

1:52

So what is purpose-led publishing?

1:54

What is it exactly? I mean, you

1:56

launched it in February this

1:58

year? Yeah, that's right. So

2:00

very happy to describe it. So Purpose-led Publishing

2:03

is a coalition of three publishers. We're

2:06

all in the field of physical sciences. So

2:08

the three publishers are ourselves, IOP

2:11

Publishing, also the American Institute of

2:13

Physics Publishing, ARM, so that's AIPP,

2:16

and then the American Physical Society. And

2:19

together as publishers, we've

2:21

put purpose above profit and

2:24

we've defined a set of industry

2:26

standards that we think underpin high

2:28

quality, ethical, scholarly communications. So

2:31

essentially the coalition is going to see us

2:33

working together much more closely to consider the challenges

2:36

and the best ways in which we can support

2:38

our shared physical science community. So what was

2:40

the need to start the initiative? Because of

2:42

course, those publishers are quite well known. Why

2:45

was there a need now to do

2:47

this kind of thing? Did you feel that

2:49

the physical community wasn't aware of the values

2:51

that the publisher stood for? Yeah,

2:53

I think we've all been

2:55

very successful independently and we will continue

2:58

to need to be successful

3:00

in a highly competitive market. But this

3:02

is about demonstrating our

3:04

collective value to the research communities

3:07

that we jointly serve. And

3:09

I talked about that competitive marketplace.

3:12

I think there are different publishers

3:14

operating in our space and the

3:16

fact that 100% of our proceeds

3:18

go back into science is

3:20

an increasingly welcome distinction by

3:22

our communities. Because if you think

3:24

about it, there are more and more ethical

3:27

and value based decisions that we make in

3:29

our lives, whether that's in the choice of

3:32

clothes manufacturer that we go to or

3:34

where we buy our food. And I

3:36

think increasingly that's going to apply in

3:38

science. And so for those for whom

3:41

a career in science is more than just a job

3:43

or who are making those brand decisions around

3:46

those kind of ethical standards, then

3:49

I think for us it's about

3:51

articulating the ethos that we have

3:54

and that sort of shared

3:56

purpose. So I think over

3:58

time there will be more opportunities

4:00

to actually serve the same community more effectively.

4:02

But at the launch of this it's about

4:04

saying this is what we stand for and

4:06

this is why we're different and this is

4:09

why you should consider publishing with us over

4:11

one of the other types of publishers. So

4:14

do you think this is an issue researchers care

4:16

about? I mean looking back to my day when I

4:18

was a researcher, I can't remember what choices I made

4:20

about where to publish but is this a sort of,

4:23

is it a feeling that people need to know

4:25

about this that you want to sort of remind

4:28

people of the values that different publishers, because often

4:30

I don't think people know what

4:32

publishers stand for or who they even are. No,

4:34

I mean it's the journal brand that dictates

4:36

where you publish typically as a researcher and

4:38

I don't think we're going to change

4:41

that overnight and perhaps ever but

4:44

again going back to the shift that

4:46

we're seeing in the society now, I

4:49

think there are other factors that are starting

4:51

to come more to the fore than

4:54

just scope the reputation or impact

4:56

factor of the journal and the

4:58

peer review process etc. So by

5:01

publishing with a purpose-led publishing journal,

5:03

researchers are advancing knowledge in

5:07

a high-quality journal of course but they're

5:09

also supporting investment into the research communities

5:12

that they're part of and

5:14

good publishing costs money and

5:16

as you all know my team we're in a

5:18

business model transition at the moment from where in

5:20

the past people have paid to read and now

5:22

we're looking at models where people

5:24

would pay to publish and

5:26

so if you have to pay for that

5:29

good quality publishing wouldn't you want to know

5:31

that the money that is being given ultimately

5:34

gets recycled back into science rather

5:36

than going into shareholders pockets. So

5:39

we're sort of proudly stating that

5:41

science is our only shareholder as

5:43

a distinguishing factor to those researchers.

5:47

So obviously you know the hope is I

5:49

presume that some researchers will want to publish

5:52

in society owned journals. Is

5:54

that the main target because you know

5:56

I can imagine a lot of researchers saying well I just want to

5:58

publish in the best journals. But you're trying

6:00

to get a shift of mindset. I

6:02

think it is about a shift of mindset. But the

6:05

whole ecosystem, the whole research

6:07

ecosystem is also shifting. So

6:10

open access, as I just described,

6:12

is just the start of a

6:14

larger reform process that

6:16

is underway with the longer term

6:18

aim being to change the incentive

6:20

structures in academia and to

6:22

recognize a wider set of behaviors and

6:25

achievements than just publishing in the highest

6:27

impact factor journal. And we've seen that

6:29

with some of the developments here in

6:31

the UK, with UKRI setting out its

6:33

vision for the future. With the rest,

6:35

2029 here in the UK, there's

6:39

going to be different measurements and assessments

6:41

of research performance.

6:43

And I think that research culture shift

6:45

is going to play to the advantage

6:48

of purpose led publishers like IOPP,

6:50

AIPP, and APS. And

6:53

have you had much of a response from other

6:55

publishers? Do you think you're going to get other

6:57

people, other society journalists, to join forces with you?

7:00

Or is it just purely within physics for the time

7:02

being? Firstly, the general feedback

7:04

to the announcement, and then I'll come

7:06

on to whether we expand the coalition.

7:09

But general feedback to the announcement has

7:11

been very positive. It

7:13

has generated a lot of debate about the

7:15

different types of publishers that are out there.

7:18

I mean, if you've read the promise, some

7:20

elements of it are quite provocative and

7:23

intentionally so. And

7:26

I think that's triggered a discussion about

7:28

whether all publishers are going to be

7:30

able to survive in this increasingly competitive

7:32

and fast evolving market, with many assuming

7:34

that we've come together to actually

7:36

share costs. Because

7:39

increasingly, we're having to invest in

7:41

new systems, new technologies, new people,

7:43

new data capabilities to support this

7:46

business model transition. So it makes sense

7:48

for us to share costs. Actually,

7:51

that is something that we will absolutely consider,

7:53

but it isn't the driving force for coming

7:55

together. Say the driving force is to set

7:57

out our stall and say why we think

7:59

we're different. in this evolving

8:01

ecosystem. So

8:04

I think the feedback has been positive,

8:06

and it has triggered a wider debate

8:09

about the future of publishers

8:11

and the value that publishers bring to

8:13

the research ecosystem. In

8:16

terms of other societies interested in

8:18

joining the coalition, we have

8:20

had a couple of

8:22

societies approaches very quickly off the back of

8:24

the announcement. And our

8:26

response has been that at this point,

8:29

we're not going to open it up

8:31

to other publishers. It has

8:33

taken us quite some time to get the coalition

8:36

off the ground. And I think what we

8:38

want to do now is move from

8:40

the kind of set of words that we've

8:42

laid out to some actions and some deeds

8:46

and make some progress under that kind

8:48

of coalition banner before we consider adding

8:51

more members. Because of course, more members means

8:53

more convoluted decision making, et cetera,

8:55

et cetera. And we really need

8:57

to put some actions behind the

9:00

work that we've done today. So not to

9:02

say never, but not at this point. And

9:04

those two societies that approach it have completely

9:06

understood the rationale for that. So

9:08

I mean, what are your plans for the

9:10

future? You've started the initiative a month ago.

9:13

What was going to happen? What can people expect to

9:15

see? So we've set up regular

9:17

meetings, and we have working groups

9:19

established now that are collaborating to

9:22

look at a combination of different

9:24

things, policies, processes, standards, et cetera,

9:26

to make sure that where we

9:28

can align, we have to

9:30

be very careful with anti-competitive rules, of course. But

9:33

where we can align, we will. We're

9:35

looking at areas of opportunity around

9:38

whether it's more effective or more

9:40

expensive to do things

9:42

separately or together. So

9:45

one example, we've already made the decision

9:47

to attend a couple of industry

9:49

conferences and then also research

9:51

conferences as a coalition. So whereas before,

9:53

we might have taken three separate stands,

9:56

we've decided to combine and have one

9:58

stand, which helps us obviously get

10:00

the message across about the coalition but also the

10:04

cost-effective way to exhibit.

10:06

We're also looking at

10:08

funder engagement. Funders

10:11

are dictating so much in our

10:13

industry now around the open access

10:15

policies that they're mandating increasingly across

10:17

the world. So how can

10:20

we together go and

10:22

present to those funders and make the

10:24

case for supporting not just

10:26

large commercial publishers but also making

10:28

sure that those policies are going

10:31

to be sustainable for

10:33

society publishers like ourselves. And

10:36

we're also looking at greenfield areas

10:39

like AI. You know developing

10:41

AI capabilities is expensive. What can

10:43

we do together across our corpus

10:46

of shared physical science content? What

10:48

new products and services could we offer

10:50

to our communities but also other productivity

10:52

benefits we can explore together as well.

10:56

And then lastly but not least you

10:58

know we all spend a lot of time

11:01

thinking about how we can make science more

11:03

inclusive and not just physics

11:06

itself but also the publishing process and how

11:08

can we develop ways

11:10

in which increasingly researchers from

11:12

the global south can participate when

11:15

as I said earlier it costs

11:17

money to publish whether it's

11:20

reading or publishing. So

11:22

what opportunities are there beyond the

11:24

kind of waiver and discount schemes that we

11:27

have in place currently to develop opportunities

11:29

for that more inclusive approach. So

11:32

those are the sorts of areas we're looking at

11:35

and you know hopefully in the next

11:37

weeks and months you'll start to see

11:39

some of the outcomes of

11:41

those working groups coming

11:44

out in terms of announcements and developments.

11:47

So one final question you know some people

11:49

have criticized you know all publishers for being

11:51

greedy they just want to take profits they

11:53

just want to and who on earth are

11:55

you to say that the money from the

11:57

community should fund those learning societies like the

11:59

AI? the IAP, the APS, the IAP, they

12:01

should stand on their own feet. Why should

12:03

researchers be essentially funding

12:06

learned societies to do their

12:08

activities when they could get that money from elsewhere? And

12:10

there have been some people who always got

12:12

a gripe about publishers. Yeah. I

12:15

don't think we've done a very good job as publishers

12:17

at explaining what it is we do. I mean, the

12:19

number of times you'll read, you know,

12:21

when we move from print to digital, you

12:24

would read commentators that would say, why is

12:26

it still costing this much money? All you

12:28

have to do is sling up a PDF.

12:30

They don't understand all the work that goes

12:32

into ensuring that

12:34

that research is discoverable,

12:37

accessible, sightable, et

12:39

cetera, et cetera. So I think we have to

12:41

do a better job at setting out our stall

12:43

and the value that we add as publishers. And

12:45

one of the things that I've

12:47

said a couple of times in the last

12:50

month actually at various, on various panels that

12:52

I've been involved with is actually

12:55

the amount of money that's going

12:57

into research and development globally now

13:00

is huge. I mean, governments have

13:02

understood that science can

13:04

transform society. And

13:07

so we need to

13:10

be very cognizant of ensuring that

13:12

that research and development money delivers

13:16

that impact. And that's what publishers do.

13:18

I'm not talking about

13:20

impact factor here. I'm talking about impact

13:22

on society. So with

13:24

the process of dissemination and

13:26

the communicating research is

13:29

an absolutely critical one. And you can

13:31

put everything in a repository at a

13:33

university or you can put everything

13:35

on Octopus, which is a new

13:37

infrastructure system that UKRI is invested

13:39

in here in the UK developed

13:41

by academics. You can

13:44

do that. But does that

13:46

mean the research can be found? Does

13:48

that mean it can be reproduced effectively?

13:50

Is it the final credited,

13:52

validated version of it? I

13:55

think that there's a really big piece in

13:57

making sure that R&D delivers value for at

14:00

the end of it. And so in the

14:02

UK, we punch way above our

14:04

weight compared to the amount of money

14:06

they get spent. I think it's 2.4% of GDP

14:08

or whatever it is, but we

14:10

punch way above our weight when you look

14:12

at the statistics around the impact of

14:14

UK research. And that's because publishers

14:17

have done a fantastic job of extending

14:19

the reach of that impact into global

14:22

markets and ensuring that it is built

14:24

upon in the future. So I

14:27

would argue that publishers have never been

14:29

more critical because research and

14:31

development budgets are going up, the amount

14:34

of research being published is going

14:36

up, validation and filtration services

14:38

are essential to delivering impact

14:40

and value for money for those government

14:42

budgets basically. But you often

14:45

hear the argument that some people say that, well,

14:47

that's all fine, but really as publishers, you shouldn't

14:49

be making any money because, you know, why on

14:51

earth should you be supporting

14:53

a learned society? They should stand their own

14:55

two feet. Why is my money from my

14:57

paper being diverted to support a learned society?

15:00

Some people say that. I'm not

15:02

sure if you're in the physics community, we

15:05

would feel that because as

15:07

a member of the community, you

15:09

typically are a member of a society. It may

15:11

be that you're a Chinese researcher in

15:13

physics publishing in an IAP journal. And

15:15

so you're supporting the IAP

15:18

and not your local Chinese physical society.

15:21

But I genuinely would think that most of

15:23

the research community feel this is a good

15:25

thing because it is going back into science,

15:27

not into shareholder pockets. So I think we

15:29

sit in a different position from if you

15:32

publish with a commercial publisher and then it

15:35

goes out of the science system into

15:37

shareholder pockets. So I do

15:39

hear the comments, but I

15:41

don't think it comes from our community. I

15:43

don't think it comes from the society members

15:45

themselves or the wider community that

15:48

would benefit from those societies. I mean, if

15:50

you take the IAP, you know they operate

15:52

on a global stage. They may be made

15:54

up of UK and Irish members, but

15:56

they spend a lot of time collaborating with other societies and

15:59

trying to get a job. to broaden

16:01

access to physics globally.

16:03

So I think there's a halo

16:06

effect that is understood by the the

16:08

researcher community and

16:10

for those standing on the edge maybe it's less

16:12

obvious but I think it's

16:14

defendable. Yeah it's an exciting time for publishing we

16:16

had a talk here at the offices here at IP

16:19

publishing about AI and how

16:21

on earth that could transform publishing and

16:23

in fact our knowledge is

16:25

acquired and I love that idea from the

16:27

speaker about the text being sort of active

16:30

text but no longer is text a rigid

16:32

thing it's this active moving

16:35

malleable flexible thing that you know who knows

16:37

where and I think you know I agree

16:39

with you you know we need publishers to

16:41

sort of help monitor and marshal and encourage

16:44

ideas and innovate you know that's and that costs

16:46

money and time and effort so you

16:48

know it needs people with the right heads

16:50

on there to do that so yeah.

16:52

And just going back to the society point of

16:55

course one major mission

16:58

aspect of a society is to advance

17:01

knowledge so having

17:03

a publishing arm absolutely fulfills

17:06

that mission so it fits

17:09

and that's another reason why I think society

17:11

publishers sit in a

17:13

different category in that our purpose

17:16

our vision and our mission are all

17:18

aligned with our society owners or our

17:21

sister or whatever it is in our case where

17:24

we're owned by the society in APS case

17:26

they're one and the same whereas

17:29

a commercial publisher doesn't doesn't

17:31

have that they're driven by

17:33

the share price or they're

17:35

driven by the markets so

17:37

I do think there's a

17:39

distinction. Thank you very much Antony and brilliant to

17:41

have you on the podcast and good luck with the

17:43

initiative hope it goes well. Thank you I hope

17:46

it goes well as well we've got off to a great

17:48

start but we still got a lot of work to do

17:50

to make it really stick and to

17:52

deliver the results that we hope it will.

18:01

That was Antonia Seymour in

18:04

conversation with Mateen Durrani. You

18:07

can learn more about Purpose-led

18:09

Publishing on the organization's website.

18:12

That's purposeledpublishing.org.

18:16

Because you're listening to me right now,

18:18

I'm pretty sure that you have an

18:20

interest in podcasts about science. Indeed,

18:23

you might have strong opinions

18:25

about what makes a good

18:27

podcast and what's the best

18:30

way to use the spoken

18:32

word to convey complex scientific

18:34

ideas. Coming up

18:36

next, I meet a science

18:39

communications student who aims to

18:41

answer those questions. I'm

18:49

joined by Cora May White, who's

18:51

doing a master's in science communications

18:54

at the University of West of

18:56

England. Hi, Cora May. Welcome

18:58

to the podcast. Hi, Hamish.

19:00

Thank you for having me. So Cora May,

19:02

you're looking at podcasts, oddly

19:04

enough, as part of your course.

19:07

And you're doing a study, you're

19:10

trying to figure out what techniques

19:12

are best for communicating science through

19:14

podcasts. Can you tell us a

19:16

bit about your project? I

19:19

am, yes. So my working title

19:21

at the moment is From Hypothesis

19:23

to Headphones. And what I'm

19:26

doing is I'm trying to find the

19:28

best way to communicate science through podcasts.

19:31

There's been some research on it,

19:34

but the amount of science podcasts is

19:36

going up every year and

19:38

the amount of research relative to the

19:40

amount of science podcasts is very small.

19:43

And the research that does exist doesn't

19:46

usually study just science podcasts.

19:48

It studies science videos

19:51

and social media. It

19:54

also rarely studies just science

19:56

podcasts for entertainment value. Sometimes

19:58

it's for education. value.

20:00

So yeah, I'd like to get

20:02

a clearer look at the best

20:04

techniques to communicate science through

20:06

podcasts. And when you say science

20:09

podcasts, are these, I suppose,

20:11

what I would think of

20:13

as a popular science podcast

20:15

in the sense that the

20:17

idea is to communicate scientific

20:19

ideas to the general public?

20:22

Or are you also looking

20:24

at podcasts like this podcast

20:26

where the audience, how

20:29

we hope, the audience is

20:31

scientists? Yeah. So my general

20:34

aim is to make science more

20:36

accessible for all audiences. So it

20:38

wouldn't be specifically for people with

20:40

high levels of science literacy. Yeah,

20:42

it is kind of funny we're

20:44

science podcasts within a science podcast here.

20:47

Okay. And I mean, when

20:49

you first came up with this idea, I'm guessing

20:52

you were interested in in science podcast.

20:55

Do you I mean, the

20:57

science podcasts that you've listened to, do

20:59

you are you do you think they're good

21:02

in general? Or do you do you often

21:04

listen to science podcasts and think, who that

21:06

could be a bit better? And

21:08

then try to think to yourself how

21:10

they could be improved? Is that where

21:12

you got the inspiration for foot for

21:14

this? I do

21:16

listen to a lot of science

21:18

podcasts. My background isn't really

21:21

in science, although I do have a really

21:23

strong interest in science. And

21:26

I find it sounds really, really interesting.

21:28

And there's so many barriers to for

21:33

people who don't have an academic

21:35

education in science to getting reliable

21:37

information in science, if you're interested

21:39

in science, you kind

21:42

of have to throw through everything

21:44

you see online or you know,

21:46

read research papers, which

21:48

isn't easy to do. And so yeah,

21:52

I really enjoyed some of the

21:54

science podcasts that I listened to. And

21:57

some of the other ones I found a bit difficult

21:59

to understand. But I found it

22:01

as a really interesting way to learn

22:03

the things I wanted to learn in a really

22:06

accessible way. And

22:08

recently on this podcast, I spoke

22:10

to somebody called Frederick Burtley, who

22:12

runs a science center in the

22:15

US called COSI. And

22:18

he was really keen on

22:21

podcasts because he thinks that

22:23

they can improve people's scientific

22:25

literacy. So beyond

22:28

entertainment or just pure

22:30

interest, do you think

22:32

the podcast could be important from an

22:34

educational point of view rather

22:36

than just entertainment? Oh, absolutely.

22:39

There is research that shows that

22:41

we experience higher levels of cognitive

22:43

arousal whenever we're listening to information

22:45

through a podcast as opposed to

22:48

reading it on a website. And

22:51

apart from that, you have all the additional

22:53

benefits of a podcast. It's

22:55

pretty much free. You can listen

22:58

to them while you're driving, while you're going about your

23:00

day, while you're working. So

23:03

apart from the educational value, they are very

23:05

accessible in multiple other ways. So yeah,

23:08

I do think that there's a real

23:10

potential for science podcasts to

23:12

bring reliable scientific information to people

23:15

that wouldn't have had the opportunity

23:17

to. So Cora May,

23:19

you're doing a survey of science

23:22

podcasts. Can you talk a bit about that

23:24

survey? What are you surveying? What do

23:26

you hope to get out of it? So

23:28

what I'm going to be doing for my

23:30

research is I'm going to be making short,

23:32

small podcasts using different kind

23:34

of communication techniques. I'm

23:36

going to ask participants to listen

23:39

to the podcast. And then there's

23:41

going to be a short survey where

23:43

I try to figure out basically my

23:45

aim is to figure

23:47

out which techniques are the

23:50

best for creating the most

23:52

retention of information and the

23:54

most engagement. So that's what

23:56

the survey is going to be trying to

23:58

ask. Right

24:00

and when you say techniques, these are

24:03

communication techniques, is it ways of explaining

24:05

things or is it a bit more

24:08

than that? So there'll be

24:10

different narrative techniques like uses of

24:12

humour, uses of hedges

24:14

which is words

24:17

that express uncertainty. There's

24:19

some reasons to show

24:21

that that can increase

24:24

engagement and also things like visual

24:26

elements, sound effects, things like that.

24:29

Do you have a hypothesis? Do you have an

24:31

inkling for which of these techniques is best

24:33

or are you sort of going into it

24:36

with an open mind? I have

24:38

an inkling. My research

24:40

question is just which

24:42

technique produces which techniques or

24:44

which combination of techniques produces

24:46

the most engagement and retention

24:50

of information. There is

24:52

previous research which suggests

24:55

use of humour is very effective

24:57

and things like that. I

25:00

particularly like to previous

25:02

research does really

25:04

call for future research

25:07

to look at audience

25:09

engagement, look at specific science

25:12

topics so my research is going

25:15

to be kind of covering

25:17

those areas as well. When

25:20

you survey people, are

25:23

you going to be interested in the sort

25:25

of facts, I suppose for

25:27

lack of a better word that they

25:29

pick up or more of a general

25:31

understanding or is it how

25:33

much they enjoyed the way

25:35

you presented the material or just

25:38

curious how you're going to gauge

25:40

success or otherwise of a technique?

25:43

There will be a portion

25:45

of the survey that is

25:47

dedicated to retention

25:49

of facts, not like tiny,

25:51

itty-bitty, grainy details like when did the

25:53

host pick up or something. Basic

25:59

retention of information. and

26:01

in the survey portion there will be like a

26:04

scale, like a one to five, how much

26:06

did you like this, how much did you

26:08

dislike this. Participants will

26:11

have the option to opt in for an

26:14

interview where I'll have the ability

26:16

to sit and chat to them and

26:18

be able to gauge their

26:21

engagement a bit more closely.

26:24

And so your expertise is in psychology, is that

26:26

right? Yeah. And you're looking

26:28

at psychology topics as your examples.

26:31

Yeah. I haven't finished

26:33

creating the podcast yet. I'm

26:35

at the stage of doing

26:37

the literature review at the

26:40

moment and the next stage designing

26:42

the actual podcast

26:44

and the actual questions. Okay. And

26:47

what sort of audience or I

26:49

suppose subjects in this case are

26:52

you looking at? I'm guessing you're

26:54

going to get some of your

26:56

fellow students at UE to

26:58

help you out by doing the survey.

27:00

But are you going to be looking

27:02

at a diversity of people in terms

27:05

of age, in terms of gender,

27:07

in terms of their knowledge of science?

27:10

Yeah. I'm going to be getting

27:12

a wider pool of participants as

27:14

I possibly can. I

27:16

am interested in seeing if scientific

27:19

background, educational background, science literacy,

27:21

things like gender and age have

27:24

any kind of correlation

27:27

on what narrative

27:29

techniques the participant feels is the

27:31

most effective. And you've got

27:33

a call to action for our listeners, don't

27:35

you? You'd like to maybe do

27:37

a bit of recruitment with Physics World podcast

27:41

listeners. Yes. If any of

27:43

your listeners are interested in taking

27:45

part in my research, please

27:49

email me

27:51

at Cora2.white

27:53

at live.ue.ac.uk.

27:56

Participants will only need maybe about 20

27:58

minutes of your time. if

28:01

you opt in for the interview that the

28:07

survey will be going live next

28:09

month. So, yeah, please

28:11

email me if you're interested in taking part.

28:14

And I'll put those details in the notes

28:16

for the podcast. Well, thanks, Coromay. Thanks for

28:18

joining us on the Physics World

28:20

Weekly Podcast. And I hope

28:22

your study goes very well and be very interested

28:25

to hear your results. In fact, we'll have to get you

28:27

back on now that you've

28:29

been on once to talk about

28:31

the results. Thanks so much for having me. I'm

28:39

afraid that's all the time we have for

28:41

this week's podcast. Thanks to

28:44

Antonia Seymour, Coromay White, and

28:46

Mateen Durrani for joining me

28:49

today. And a special

28:51

thanks to our producer, Callum Jelf. We'll

28:54

be back again next week when

28:56

we're partnering with IPEM, the

28:59

Institute of Physics and Engineering

29:01

in Medicine. And

29:04

we're presenting a special

29:06

podcast called Environmental Sustainability,

29:08

Challenges for the Medical

29:10

Physics Community. Our

29:13

guests will be Rob Shuter

29:15

from the Christie NHS Foundation

29:18

Trust in the UK, and

29:21

Carrie Tenderup from Aarhus

29:23

University in Denmark. And

29:27

we'll look at how

29:29

the community can respond

29:31

to major environmental issues,

29:33

including climate change and

29:35

increasing air pollution. The

29:38

podcast will be hosted by

29:40

our medical physics expert, Tammy

29:42

Freeman, and it promises to

29:44

be a fascinating discussion.