Introduction to Science Policy

Today was the day of another course I had registered quite a good while for (good thing you get reminders, and I started keeping a calendar!): Introduction to Science Policy organised by Newton’s Apple. Originally the plan had been to attend if I finish the days work, but seeing as yesterday half-way through me starting my experiments one of the instruments stopped working properly (way to go for my luck!), I could easily organise my work to attend. So this afternoon saw me making my way to the House of Commons (WOW…what a gorgeous Gothic building!).

The first presentation was given by Dr Michael Elves, one of the trustees of the organisation, who explained to us a bit about how the government and policy structures work in the UK. This was followed by a presentation by Dr Brian Iddon, MP, then Yvonne Boyd from DEFRA, and finally Dr Chris Kirk from the Biochemistry Society about their experience with policy from their different points of view: an MP, a civil servant, and from a Learned Society.

So what did I think? Well, first of all I found it really helpful. Not being English one of the main problems I find here is that I don’t have the necessary background and knowledge to understand fully all that is going on around me. Thus, and explanation of how the two houses work and what the function of other entities is was a good grounding for me. (I also found this problem when attending the AHRC Media Training when they started discussing different tv programmes: I don’t know who the target audience of the different programmes and stations is, which puts me at a bit of a disadvantage when trying to understand how to target different programmes). Besides this I was a bit disappointed by the first presenter by showing his disapproval of certain things that have happened (I expected a more impartial presentation), I found it a bit funny the way the MP kept on saying what he has achieved in parliament (though he never really got to the ‘how’, which would have probably been more relevant), was interested in the point of view of the civil servant and her more no-nonsense discussion, and was quite impressed by Dr Kirk from the Biochemistry Society for his fresh look at things and his lack of single-minded thinking for just his own society and interest in the better good of science. Nevertheless, it was a good event, not least as I got to see a bit of the Palace of Westminster!

 

 

Filed under: Events and Activities , Science Policy, Introduction to Science Policy, Newton's Apple, House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, Michael Elves, Brian Iddon, Yvonne Boyd, DEFRA, MP, Chris Kirk, Biochemistry Society

Progress of Work

I realise I haven’t written much about how I am doing in my research. However, don’t worry, this has not meant that I am not doing anything.

One of the things I have been working on has been a paper on the results I have obtained from environmental monitoring as well as data I have been provided with from other sources which I could include in this paper. This paper, which we have been working on since the summer, has finally been submitted last week or so. So now we wait for the comments from the peer review process, and hopefully they will be favourable and I will see the paper in print.

Apart from that my work has been on a stop-start situation. Being in a quite new centre has meant that there is very few pieces of equipment available. This has meant that I need to order most of the equipment and material I need myself. This has been both positive and negative. It is negative because it means that time is ‘wasted’ waiting for the equipment to arrive, putting it together, figuring out how it works etc. However, it also means I get new equipment which hopefully is not continuously breaking down!

Well, last week I think (! I don’t want to jinx the situation right now) I received the last of the equipment I need, at least for the time being. Thus, for the past week I have been busy getting my samples ready and the equipment ready to be able to start the experiments next week. I have set up most of the equipment, and done around half of the pre-ageing measurements of my samples. Hopefully next week will see me starting the experiments and then I will have results to look at and admire (and discuss!)

Will keep you updated!

Filed under: Experiments and Methodology, Research Process , environmental monitoring, equipment, experimentation, paper, publications

“Price? No Object!

…Climate change: the challenge to cultural heritage”

This was the name of an activity I attended last week at The Royal Institution. The event was organised as part of  EGOR: Environmental Guidelines Opportunities and Risks research cluster, which was sponsored by the AHRC/EPSRC Science and Heritage Research Programme (the same programme sponsoring my PhD). The event was organised to “encourage the audience to think more deeply about the complex issues relating to heritage, the effects of climate change and the threats it poses to survival”. And if that was the aim, I think they succeeded.

It was a different kind of event to what I would normally expect, bringing different elements that you would not normally expect to see used in such a manner. I think it could have gone seriously wrong. Luckily it didn’t…And if the aim was to encourage the audience to think [...], I think they succeeded.

So what was different? And how could it have gone wrong?

The main focus of the event was probably a performance…yes, a performance…by Kandu Arts For Sustainable
Development:

Kandu works with individuals and groups across the statutory and third sectors, with businesses and industry to assist in understanding social, environmental and economic impacts and responsibility in effecting positive, sustainable change. Using their unique methodology encompassing creative arts and personal development, Kandu contributes to policy development at local and national levels.

So how did they do this? The way they went round to achieving this was by first presenting a 5-10minute play. This they then repeated with one difference: the audience was asked to intervene where they thought they should by calling freeze and explaining what they would change. But did the audience participate?

The play was divided into two:

First half: Half-way through the ‘first-half’ the programme manager for the Science and Heritage Programme for the AHRC intervened to make a comment. The actors followed her changes (sort of! The ‘mother’ in the play was not happy with her suggestion of having a shower rather than a bath not to waste water ) and the performance continued. End of the first half…no other intervention. But just as the first half ended, one man intervened, going quite a bit back…and the floodgates of comments opened…what was on the verge of becoming a very awkward time turned into a hilarious and fun event which was also thought-provoking. The people were participating, and the actors were keeping us entertained as they dealt with the comments put to them and new discussion threads they needed to continue (whilst keeping in character!).

Second half: The second half continued much in the same vein as the end of the first half…the banter continued with freezing of freezes, and people getting over-freezed and what-not freezed. However, what definitely emerged from this was the real complexity of the issues at hand: Is safeguarding artefacts in a museum essential should we be in a situation of low power availability? What makes an artefact important for safekeeping and others not? It was also definitely entertaining seeing both my supervisors (who are also the principal and co-investigators for this research cluster) and the head of the centre I am based in, dragged down to the ’stage’ (the location was similar to an amphitheatre) to take part in the performance and interact with the actors to bring their point across.

After a while however it was time out for all comments, as we moved on to the next part of the programme. This involved a person playing a stringed instrument he has built himself (cannot remember the name…if anyone is reading this who was there and remembers, leave a comment!), followed by a presentation by Dr Jonathan Ashley-Smith, former Head of Conservation at the V&A who spoke about the challenges of environmental guidelines.

All in all, a successful event, especially considering that I wasn’t even going to go! I had received e-mails and been told about it, but for some reason I didn’t note it down in my calendar, so it just slipped my mind. Luckily on the day a colleague at TNA e-mailed me to tell me she had an extra ticket if I wanted to join them, so off I went. So thanks Sarah…and thank you all for your enlightening discussions which I had the opportunity to experience!

Reading

You can read more about Climate Change and the Heritage Environment in the following reports:

Report commissioned by English Heritage.

Report by UNESCO

Filed under: Events and Activities , AHRC, audience intervention, audience participation, Climate change, colleagues, cultural heritage, effects of climate change, EGOR, Environmental Guidelines, EPSRC, freezing, interventions, Jonathan Ashley Smith, Kand Arts for Sustainable Development, Museums, Price? No Object, Science and Heritage Research Programme, sustainable heritage, The Royal Institution, thought-provoking, TNA

Presentation at TNA

As you should have realised by now, I am doing a collaborative PhD between a university (University College London) and a non-HEI (The National Archives – TNA). So when the Conservation Research department was hosting the ICON Science Group for a meeting, they wanted to offer the members a visit to the repositories as well as a walk-around opportunity in the Collection Care department during which they wanted to showcase the ongoing research. After some discussions it was decided that I present two posters: one on my project in general, and another one on a paper I have been writing on aldehydes in libraries and archives.

After many different versions, discussions with people, and final agreement on the posters, these were printed and the 14th of October saw me off to TNA with the freshly-printed posters in hand (my first posters…woohooo ) together with another researcher in my department who is also working with TNA.

The meeting was not attended by too many people, but it was still good to meet people I’ve met before and new people and discuss my work with them. I realise that the more experience I get in presenting my work, things can only improve, so I am hoping to get as much experience as I can.

After the show-around the meeting then started. The meeting was addressed by Jim Williams, the coordinator of the National Heritage Science Strategy (NHSS). The third report in a series of three published in the run-up to the launch of the strategy document was presented by him, followed by a discussion. Not knowing all the ins and outs of the field as yet, it is always enlightening to hear other people discuss relevant issues. Originally I wasn’t thinking of sitting in on the meeting, but when my supervisor at TNA asked me if we wanted to, we decided to stay and not disappointed at all that I did!

Filed under: 5584, Events and Activities , Colelction care department, Jim Williams, National Heritage Science Strategy, NHSS, PhD, poster presentation, TNA, UCL

AHRC Media Training Course

Sometime in May or so I received an e-mail from the Science and Heritage programme coordinator about Media Training to be organised by the AHRC in October. It was a long way away but I decided to sign up to it as soon as I received the e-mail. I was one of the luckily few to make it on the course (we were only 10 or so!) and so glad I did! The training was organised by Inside Edge, a media training company headed by Chris Jameson and Tony Prideaux. It started off with an introduction from Jake Gilmore, the AHRC Communications Manager, who from then on left it in the hands of Chris and Tony (sort of at least ).

During the rest of the day we first had the ‘theoretical’ part fo the course, where we discussed what makes a good story and how to make our research news into a story. I thought it would be the same old stuff of how to give presentations, but luckily it did what it set out to do – prepare you for communicating in the media giving concrete examples and tips.

The best part of all however probably came in the afternoon session. After having gone through the theoretical part we were split into two groups, one group with Tony and one with Chris, and each person was then interviewed in front of the others on the basis of a pre-course questionnaire we had all filled in prior to the course about our research. This made the interview go beyond the normal questions of describe your research and taking it from there, but also, the interview having been thought about beforehand by the interviewers, we got some questions which maybe we weren’t expecting. It was interesting to see how we all dealt with them! And best of all (or maybe worse )?…the interviews were recorded so after each interview it was then played-back so the person being interviewed could listen back on what had happened and the performance could be discussed.I think I did decently Ok in this, even though I did not quite come round to discussing what I am actually doing, but just replied to the questions being posed to me…only at the very end did I get round slightly to it.

However, best of all was that we all had a second try at this! Second time round all the group came together and the interviewers switched groups. This allowed us all to learn what the others are doing in their research as well as learn from their styles. These interviews were also recorded and after all the interviews were done we returned to our groups with the course directors switching groups. In this second (interview I think i did manage to get the point of my research across more than in the first interview. However, I did blab on a bit too much at points…and did not get to the point which the others enjoyed most in my first interview…namely that I am actually destroying photographs to learn more about them .

Well, all in all a successful day! I felt like I really learned something and actually having two tries at a media interview with people in the field in a non-confrontational environment was great! I didn’t expect to get as much out of it. The fact that we were a small group also definitely helped. I was quite neutral about it all before I attended, but now I feel like it is something that everyone should do…so glad I got the opportunity through the AHRC. Meeting other AHRC-sponsored students and hearing about their work was also great! They all sounded so coherent about their work that before my first try I got quite scared…but maybe I can be coherent about what i am doing when I put my mind to it! I just need to work on it .

Filed under: Events and Activities , AHRC, communciating your research, Inside edge, media, media interview, Media Training

PhD Upgrade :)

In the UK most PhD students are registered in the first instance for an MPhil degree, upgrading to full PhD status during their programme. Up to last year students in my department could upgrade any time after the first year. However, from this year all students have to upgrade at the end of the first year. So we were all given the date of upgrade and the documents we needed to submit. These included a document explaining your research, including your methodology, contribution to the field, background, as well as a chapter-by-chapter outline of your thesis, one of your best pieces of writing (I submitted a paper I am in the process of submitting), and the relevant sections of a research log book all UCL research students fill in at regular intervals. The last requirement was a presentation, which I had done a number of throughout the past year, including the monitoring meeting.

I realised about this requirement in August when we received an e-mail reminding us. Luckily I already had most of the research document done in bits and pieces during the year…the only thing I didn’t have was a chapter-by-chapter outline (hadn’t started thinking about THAT!). However, that was a pretty OK thing to do as I just got out the literature reviews I have been working on and put in their titles as sections and subsections, together with sections on forthcoming results and discussions. The next part, the piece of writing, I had quite a bit to choose from, and was in the process of writing the paper, so that was submitted.

All in all, working slowly over the weeks I got everything together. After a bit of rushing collecting papers from my two supervisors (one paper got lost somewhere in the internal mail system for around 4 days or so!), I had everything ready on Wednesday, and I submitted in preparation for Thursday (when I was involved in monitoring at St. Paul’s Cathedral).

Yesterday morning I received an e-mail from my supervisor telling me that I was approved for upgrade…YIPPEEE!…I am officially a PhD student now Now all’s that left is the tiny matter of getting the work done .

Filed under: Events and Activities, General, Research Process , logbook, MPhil, MPhil vs PhD, PhD, PhD upgrade, thesis outline, UCL

Monitoring at St. Paul’s Cathedral

The Centre for Sustainable Heritage at UCL, where I am based for my PhD is right now carrying out an environmental monitoring campaign at St. Paul’s Cathedral, with a particular emphasis on the library within. The reason for this is that there are plans to increase access to this area of the cathedral. However, prior to this being put in action it is essential to understand better the environmental conditions in the area to ensure that the changes occurring are done in as sustainable a manner as possible.

The environmental monitoring campaign involves the monitoring of a number of parameters. The main parameters investigated are temperature and RH, traffic-generated pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, and the measurement of VOCs. So far I have been involved in the monitoring of VOCs. Having carried out a similar monitoring campaign at TNA for my PhD my supervisor asked me if I was interested in getting involved in this project at St. Paul’s Cathedral. I was definitely up for it: the more projects I am involved in, the more experience and knowledge I gain…that’s never a bad thing. I carried out two VOCs monitoring schedules, one in spring and one in summer.

However, last week my supervisor asked me if I was willing to help out in some other monitoring, this time to measure the air ventilation exchange rate which was being carried out in collaboration with the building environment group in the department (the CSH is based within the faculty of the Built Environment). The monitoring process this time round involved the release of carbon dioxide into the library space and then measuring the rate of loss over time while changing the conditions (such as which doors are open) at known intervals, according to relevant standards. This would allow a better understanding of how different ways of managing the space in terms of people visiting would affect the environmental conditions.

As my supervisor had to be out of town attending a conference, it fell to me to organise the last bits and pieces for this monitoring. This mainly involved figuring out regulators for the carbon dioxide cylinders. The regulators we had in the centre were not appropriate for our requirements, which meant that we tried to obtain them from outside the department (and the university as it came). After a lot of calls, testings, trials and tribulations (OK I am exaggerating a bit here ) we got our regulators, so that monitoring on Thursday proceeded smoothly.

It was the first time I was involved in something like this, and it was an interesting experience. It is always good to see people form different backgrounds (in this case it was people from conservation, chemistry, building environment) coming together to produce something together…the different insights brought into the discussions is always enlightening.

Filed under: Events and Activities , air exchange rate, built environment, carbon diocide, environmental monitoring, regulator, St. Paul's Cathedral, ventilation rate, VOCs

Seminar at the V&A

Some time back my supervisor had forwarded on to me (and the rest of the research group) an e-mail about a seminar to be held at the V&A where Emma would be presenting part of her PhD work. I knew her through the National Archives (she had worked there for a while, but has now left for a post abroad), while Linda (a research assistant in the centre) knew her through conferences etc., and in Emma’s new job they will be project partners in different institutions. So yesterday we both decided to get ourselves to the V&A (none of us had ever been before ) to hear more about her work (and also maybe in a way support her?…she has her viva next week…if I was her I would probably be quite stressed to say the least ).

Emma’s PhD was concerned with ‘Investigating the Characterisation and Stability of Polyamide 6,6 in Heritage Artefacts’ (Polyamide-6,6 is better known as Nylon for those non-chemists out there). She went through the statistical/chemometric analysis she went through for using a non-destructive technique (NIR) to get a classification method for these materials in textiles. Then she went on to discuss methods for characterising aged and un-aged nylons and the results she obtained.

The work was of course great…but I had heard her speak at a workshop in Ljubljana I attended in November, and of course had spoken to her when I visited the TNA for my work (she was a great supporter there…I will miss her help ), so it wasn’t new to me. However, the main thing that impressed me was her language. I’m so envious! One of the problems I am encountering with presentations is that often you are presenting to an audience with such a variable background that you cannot assume anything. This means that targeting your audience is a balancing act on a very tight rope between going over your audience’s head, or not telling your audience anything new. Both these approaches could easily alienate them, making your presentation quite ineffective. However, with Emma, the situation was quite different. She manages to explain the most complex things in the most simple of words which while everyone understands are still explaining the idea/theory/method correctly such that a person in the field would not consider that any corners are being cut.

I still have not found this balance…I tend to try to make sure that everything I am saying is technically correct, but this often means that my audience finds it hard to understand (or at least parts do). On the other hand when I see that people are not understanding I tend to dumb it down too much, at the same time compromising the correctness of what I am saying. I must say I was enthralled by the definitions and language she was using, and on the way back I was surprised that also Linda commented on this. Hope I manage to get somewhere close soon…I wish I could find the words to explain to people what I am doing simply but correctly, without getting the blank stares I normally get!

In a way however sometimes I also get the feeling that the people I am talking do not even try to understand…they think that this being a PhD should make the subject matter beyond them and that they will never understand, or if they understand for some reason they are undermining the importance of my research…that often infuriates me inside. I DO want people to know what I am doing…and to discuss what I am doing with other…you don’t have to be an expert in the field to be able to discuss things. Sometimes all I need is the ideas from someone who is looking in from outside, and can see the complete picture. Cannot wait till I acquire the skills to pitch my language at the right level!

Filed under: Events and Activities, Research Process , Chemometrics, classification, Emma, language, National Archives, NIR, Nylon, PhD, Polyamide 6, presentation skills, statsistics, TNA

Research Day Away

Last Wednesday was Research Day Away for our department. What does that mean? It means that a ‘day out’ for the people in the department was organised…woohoo!

What was the plan? The plan was to meet at Tate Britain, where we got a tour of the Science Laboratories. We got the opportunity to hear the scientists there describing and discussing their work. I liked the way it was done, probably as, since we were all in the heritage field, they could go a bit beyond what would probably normally be explained to a general audience.

From there we then made our way to the Print Rooms. Jacob had been telling me about the Print Rooms since I first met him. But still – WOW – I was impressed. I was even more impressed by Julia, the registrar there…She knew everything about the prints/drawings she was showing us, and could discuss them in such a good manner. I was really impressed. Jacob also confirmed that picking any picture at random from the collection, she can discuss it to her hearts content.

From there it was then off to catch the Tate-to-Tate boat to get to Tate Modern. Last Wednesday was a perfect day, very sunny, with a very pleasant breeze on the river. Ahhh! Good weather So pleased with that *GRIN*.

First up at Tate Modern was lunch…Woohooo! I don’t go out to eat very often (out of my price range I guess)…and what I realised at that point is that…well…making the food myself would have cost so much less . At least it was good . After a relaxing dinner the plan was to go around the exhibitions and enjoy them. Luckily, I teamed up with Jacob (who’s is a staff member, hence free entrance ), so rather than the normal slow pace you tend to take when seeing exhibits in a museum (wanting to get the most out of what you pay), we could take a bit of a faster pace, stopping in front of what interests us, and just getting the feel for the materials in each room.

Soon it was however time for me to be off, as a friend of my had arrived in London that day and I was going to be off to meet her. Good day though…can’t wait for the next one (so I can take the day off without feeling guilty about it ).

Filed under: Events and Activities , collection, exhibitions, Museums, print rooms, Research day away, river Thames, Tate, Tate Britain, Tate Modern, Tate-to-Tate ferry

UCL Library Services Staff Conference: Support for International Students

A few weeks ago I received an e-mail from the Head of the Enquiry Service, Debs, about possibly helping out in a Library Staff Seminar they were organising about International Students. Being me, I said sure! I’ll be happy to help (though I had no idea what this would entail).

Last week then Debs organised a meeting for the other two girls and I who had said we’ll help out. A report had been issued by SCONUL (Society of College, national and University Libraries) about ‘Library Services for International Students‘ and she asked us if we would be interested in presenting our views as international students to a group of the library staff during the yearly Library Staff Seminar (and we would be given lunch then ). Sure! We said.

During this meeting we discussed a bit what issues we could discuss, and just got to know each other a bit, and then went back to our offices etc. to continue with our work. I started thinking what I could discuss, and decided that the best way for me to approach the issues was to discuss the hurdles I found with Accessibility to the library…both physically (the library is split over a lot of buildings, so I regularly have to run round the whole campus to get the books I need), and electronically (the website is not the most user friendly). Julie, a Chinese girl, spoke about language problems, and money problems, while Nishi spoke about Services offered at the library (she was a master student, but now works in the library)

Though in a way it was me giving a ’service’ to the library, I still got more out of it than just a lunch . Being there and listening to what was being said, and was made aware of services the library offers which I was never aware of (or at least their exact role and breadth of expertise they can offer). I also made contact with the subject librarian (who already knew me, as apparently I have been the only person this year to suggest a book for purchase from the ’suggest a book link’ , and she was overjoyed that someone had used it and she got some suggestions, while I was overjoyed as the books were purchased).

All in all I think I gained a lot from it, not just gave a presentation. So glad I had decide to reply to that e-mail!

Filed under: Events and Activities , international Students, library accessibility, Library Services, SCONUL, UCL Library