 Thank you very much. Now we will have the presentation by Mary Jane, so if you could start sharing your screen, that would be great. There we go. I'm Mary Jane Monahan from the University of Liverpool and I was the research assistant on the experimental experiment, so I'm going to tell you a bit more about what we did. Firstly, the aims of the experiment was to explore and discuss ethics and science education issues with various stakeholders. We chose ethics and science education as the two pillars from the RR&I framework to focus on as part of the experiment. We wanted to see how these perceptions using the optical monitoring system as a case study for the research project. We wanted to also identify other ethical issues and challenges that impinge on research, so we asked all the stakeholders involved to think about the optical monitoring system case study and also draw on other experiences that they had of different research projects and innovation technology that they have been involved in. We wanted to increase the awareness and perceptions of different people because when people work in isolation in SMEs or in the university, they often don't get the views, ethical views of other people involved in research projects. We wanted to also identify any weaknesses, barriers, communication issues with science education within research institutions, industry and society. This meaning how science is educated to different people, so how it's educated to society, different people within the university. We can often find that there are definitely communication issues with this when talking about scientific research within society. It's often difficult to get across your research in the correct language. We also explored the understanding and perceptions of science education with the stakeholders to see what they thought about educating society on scientific research and whether they thought it was beneficial. This was all within the hopes to identify issues that could lead to improvements in the way in which science education was delivered by institutions and by SMEs within the community and the way in which researchers embed ethics into their research. The optical monitoring system case study that was chosen to use is a device that is fitted into the living quarters of people who are in the seat of social housing care, often with health issues, very minor health issues that may just need a bit of assistance. The device monitors patterns of movement and behaviour and will alert people who are working with the individual that they may be moving around a bit less, maybe visiting the kitchen a bit less, and this can lead to health complications. It was designed to help improve the amount of falls that are happening and to try and stop people being admitted to hospital. When we conducted our focus group with the participants, as I said before, we asked them to focus on their own research but also think about the optical monitoring system research and how that would be affected by the embedments of RRI and ethics and science education into that research study. We explained the research to them and asked them to think about what barriers and challenges this would have in the dissemination of ethics and science education. So these were the list of stakeholders that we identified with. The internal stakeholders as listed there, including HG researchers, right up to senior researchers and people who worked on the ethics committees and director of ethics and external researchers. We had six SMEs who were manufacturers and providers of health and social care solutions, so devices similar to the optical monitoring system that would go into people's homes and would assist people. And we also had people working around those types of innovations, so the eHealth cluster, which is an organisation that helps put these devices into people's homes and NHS people and Liverpool City Council, the provider of social care. We followed this methodology when we conducted the experiment. So initially we sent out via email or post an internal questionnaire and the questionnaire was to gain a benchmark of people's understanding of RRI and ethics and science education. So what they already knew if they knew anything and what their perceptions of ethics and science education were at present. So we asked them for their awareness of ethics and science education, the awareness of motivation to implement it within their current role and within their current settings. Awareness of any policies that already existed and whether they engaged with other researchers, industry, society and policymakers when they were conducting research. We then moved on to a focus group where all the participants were invited to come along. At the focus group we introduced the optical monitoring system research, told the participants about that and then we asked them to discuss opinions and views on RRI, ethics and science education. There was three activities that we conducted with the participants and they worked in small groups which were mixed groups of internal and external stakeholders. We asked them to think about barriers against the diffusion of ethics and science education and come up with what was challenging and what was stopping people learning about ethics and science education. Then after discussing this we asked them to come up with some policies and guidelines that might be helpful to use in institutions or organisations to better embed ethics and science education. And we also asked them to come up with some solutions in how we could involve society more in research because this was one of the main barriers that came out of the initial questionnaire was that people were feeling that engaging with society was difficult. So we asked them to try and come up with some solutions. We then moved on to a one-to-one interview stage. Most of these were done face-to-face as this was what the participants preferred with a few beans on over the telephone. And I asked the participants six questions, they were all asked the same questions and we wanted to gain a better understanding of the reflection of how they could make changes. So after the focus group we asked them to go away and reflect on what changes they could make within their role where they worked at the moment and what they could do moving forward. So I asked them for about collaboration opportunities and whether they thought that they would have any opportunity to collaborate with other people when they were doing research innovation and what benefits they would get from this and what benefits the other person would get from this. We also asked them about what policies they would need to help embed ethics and science education more into research and innovation. And we also asked them what they would like to see activity-wise and learning-wise from an open-common workshop that was our next step. We wanted to make sure that the stakeholders and participants would engage in the workshop and would be able to gain something from it as it was a learning opportunity. So we wanted them to set the challenges and the questions. So at the workshop we invited the participants to come along to, as I said, to gain an opportunity to further develop their understanding of R&I and ethics and science education. We did a brief outline again of what R&I was because it had been quite a while since the focus group. So we refreshed on what we were doing and what ethics meant within R&I pillars and what science education meant within these pillars. And then we used leg-out and play-dough to make models of what ethics research means to the participant. So each person made their own model of a representation of ethics and they were then asked to discuss this on the table. They were asked to look at each other's models and note similarities and differences. Moving on in the workshop, with further discussion, we were asked to put all the models together and try to come up with a co-creation of what would work for everybody. Again, the tables were all mixed, so it was internal, external participants. And sometimes that did prove difficult because what an internal stakeholder would need from an ethics model might be different to what an external one would need. So working together, it really helped them understand the needs of different organisations when you're developing ethics and science education. Finally, I sent out again the questionnaire. It was a repeat of the first questionnaire and this was to measure any development of understanding. We asked the same questions again and it did an evaluation form for the workshop and the focus group. So a quick overview of the results. From the first questionnaire, it was used to identify, as I said, participant's perceptions, their understanding of ethics and science education, and their motivation to implement ethics and science education and how much they engage with the quadruple helix groups during the research. At the focus group, we did an evaluation form afterwards and the feedback from this participant said that it was a good mix of perspectives of ethics and science education. They particularly highlighted that they found it useful to talk about barriers and changes and they felt that they could go on then to use what they learned about responsible research and innovation and open science within their current roles. A lot of the participants also said that it gave them time to reflect on their own views of ethics and science education. If you're working in an environment where you use ethics and science education a lot, it's not very often that you take a step back and reflect on how you're actually doing that and making sure that you are doing it responsibly and you are thinking about the end users and everyone's opinions are in there. So it was useful for them to be able to take a step back and think about ethics and science education in their current roles. The interview summary, so I looked at all the interviews I conducted and it highlighted the importance of knowledge exchange. So a lot of the participants were saying how important it was to be able to speak to different stakeholders during research and innovation, particularly people who were going to be benefiting from the research, benefiting from the innovation. This was an important opinion to be able to gather and the knowledge exchange being able to speak and take people's opinions and listen to their opinions and also give them your own. So it's a two way street, everyone helps everybody else. The code design of the monitoring system, it was something that was highlighted, making sure that it was done with the end user have an input. This way it will be more well received by the end user. It will be beneficial to them to be less changes need to be made. It saves money because it would just do what it needs to do. This was also the case for a lot of the other technology designs that we talked about as the other SMEs were developing. They also felt that involved in an end user and an early stage is definitely important because they're the person who's going to be using it and they're often the people who can tell you what they needed to do. So it's better, it's more well received and it saves time and money on research. Essex needs to be communicated better to all stakeholders. It was highlighted in the interviews that sometimes, especially academic people, when they're going out into the community to speak to members of society, they often are unable to communicate Essex very well. Probably because it's something that they're not used to communicating or especially with an RRI framework, it's not fully understood by them. So being able to communicate it well to other people is something that needs to be worked on. And collaboration with the two-way relationship, it keeps society informed as to what research innovation is happening. So it also helps other researchers if they know what is already going on and what research is already being conducted, then it means that they can help out if they've got an idea or that they're not going to do the same research at the same time. So in the workshop, we also filled out an evaluation at the end of the workshop with all the participants. And the feedback was that it was a very practical way to illustrate challenges. A lot of the participants were unsure about what to do with their LEGO when they first got here. But the more they thought about it, the more they realised what challenges they were actually facing on a personal level when it came to the embedment of Essex and science education. They said they learned the different interpretations of science and science education between stakeholders. So a few of the people who attended the workshop weren't able to attend the focus group, so it was interesting for them to learn the different perceptions. It gave participants plenty to think about moving forward and they were all able to display how RRI and open science can be incorporated in future projects. As part of the evaluation, we asked them to say what they were going to do moving forward in terms of promoting RRI to colleagues and making sure it was included in future research innovation projects that they were going to be involved in. So this is a comparison between the first and the final questionnaire. The blue bars being the first questionnaire and the orange being the second questionnaire. It shows that there was an improvement across all questions that were measured on a five point scale in terms of their understanding and perceptions of Essex and science education. It shows that the most improved was question four, which was a question about the awareness of implementation of science education and question six, which was the institutional science education policies. These showed a vast improvement between the first questionnaire and the second questionnaire. I also subcategorized the questionnaire into Essex understanding, Essex reservation, science education understanding and science education motivation. These were measured on a five point scale given a maximum possible answer of 15 with three questions each. Again, you can see that there was an improvement across the whole cohort from the first and the second questionnaire with science education understanding showing the most improved. And this is a comparison between the first and the second questionnaire on how the researchers said they would engage with the quadruple helix groups. In the first questionnaire, most people were reluctant to engage or didn't already engage with anyone from the quadruple helix, but in the second questionnaire they said they were much more likely to engage with particularly other researchers and policymakers when conducting research. So the summary of the overall findings shows a result that there was an improvement in attitude towards Essex and science education. It also shows that there was an improvement in involvement of various stakeholders in all stages of research. We also asked the participants who they would contact with regards to implementation of Essex and science education within their employment or organization or institute. This was measured with a yes no question and the results had no significant change from test one and test two with the participants still stating that they were unsure as to who to contact within their personal organizations or institution. The main challenges that we faced when conducting this research was gain an ethical approval took longer than we anticipated in the early stages, which led to not being able to interact with our stakeholders as early as possible, so not being able to build up those relationships. If we were able to build up better relationships, we would better understand how to motivate the stakeholders to engage with all aspects of the project. We had some participants who were only able to come to certain parts of our data collection and methodology. That was reflected probably in the fact that we weren't able to motivate them more into being able to come as we didn't have them relationships. There is also a lack of awareness of Essex within our culture. This project was advertised through the university website. It was a call out for participants as well as through the eHealth cluster newsletter. Some people may have seen that it was about Essex and either thought it was unimportant or something that they already knew so they didn't feel the need to engage with the research. This may have contributed to the fact that we had a bit of a low uptake in participants. If we would have had more participants it would have proved better discussions and more opinions. So improving on that would be to have more time to raise awareness of Essex. We also didn't have any of the beneficiaries of the monitoring system. We were able to make the focus group or the workshop because of distance. Where we were holding these events was too far for these organisations to travel to. There were going to be care organisations that were going to be installing the monitoring system into their client homes. It would have been really important to have them come to these types of discussions as they would be the people who would know what the end users needed. I went out and interviewed some care organisations on a time that suited them as they weren't able to make the focus group and workshop. Making it more accessible to them may have meant that they were able to attend which would have proved invaluable. Lessons learned, as I said, is raising awareness before the start of the project. Maybe having some initial workshops and presentations on what Aura and I was before we enlisted in participants. Just to raise the awareness and hopefully get more participants to take part. Having an end user from the monitoring system, someone whose house the monitoring system was going to be installed in, would have definitely benefited research and innovators to better understand what would be needed from them. This was a group that we didn't engage with and may have benefited the research. The next steps we've got planned are we are developing at the moment a mandatory ethics and R&I training for postgraduate researchers. This is to be trialled in the School of Electrical, Engineering and Electronics and Computer Science and it's going to be at the beginning of next semester. This is in the hopes that this training will be rolled out across all disciplines across the university and will be completed by everyone before next September. We are currently working with the ethics department to get this training put together and get it rolled out. We also are showcasing the research at a Love Data event in February. This event is being held in Liverpool and it is in collaboration with the University of Liverpool and John Moores University. So hopefully different people will attend that through John Moores University and we will then be able to showcase the research within that university as well as our own to get the words out there a bit more. We are in the middle of writing an academic paper on the research results, hopefully to be published very soon. And we will be taking part in more up and coming events to further disseminate through the university and any other channels that I can find. Thank you very much for listening and I'm sorry about the technical delays at the beginning. Thank you very much Mary-Dane.