 Okay, so I'm actually looking at interdisciplinary collaborations as such, which perfectly fits with the day, and I spent some time working on the ideas and give you a bit of a background how I entered the algorithm and what it is that we're looking at, or I'm looking at. What does it lead to in terms of questions maybe for the future? So very quickly, when I was looking for a job at the same time, Stratford University got something that translates to about 1.2 million New Zealand dollars for three years to spend on facilitating interdisciplinary research, which is great. Loads of money, three years, let's do it. Till somebody who later employed me asked them a critical question, what do we mean and what do we want to actually achieve? Quite a few people in a spot when they thought, we don't know, now what? This is where my job was created at that time and PhD that came out of it. I spent about 20 months researching but also assisting the board, following different groups of people doing interdisciplinary research, different initiatives, tweaking, poking, changing, trying to learn what it is and what actually matters in the long term. But also, of course, to supply some data for the board that could then show to the founder that, yes, we achieved, we facilitated it. Whatever it was that we were to facilitate. And that led us to the first question, what and how do we define interdisciplinary or disciplines? It's a bit of a background, I took a perspective that comes originally from sociology, the practice perspective. In the crudest possible way, and I hope nobody from the field is here who could later tell me what I've done, practice really explains what legitimate in terms who we are, what we do, but also how we learn, all about situated learning, relational learning and being part of a community of practice. So this is the crudest way to explain the perspective, but that also means it gives us a very neat and nice way to explain the disciplines, first of all. There are communities, there are tribes, a bit like cultures that fight with each other quite often, languages, systems of values, the way you approach things, the way you do things for the reason you do them, the things that are legitimate in your discipline, basically define who you are as a scientist or researcher, but that also means or leads to the point that communities are quite often incongruent, different methodologies, different languages, different systems of values don't go together, which led us to another question, I'm almost stealing the idea of question, which leads you to another question, to another question, what is it then in terms of interdisciplinary, it doesn't mean there is another practice that can be termed as interdisciplinary, and if so, what is it? Fortunately the answer was, or at least we think yes, and we ended up with summarizing and describing some of the practices and interdisciplinary as actually a set of complex practices that stuck on each other. We grouped them at that time for a practices inquiry, engagement and enactment as a number of different ways to group them of course, I'm not saying this is the only way to think about it, and some interesting examples would be, for example, upframing, and Alan's presentation was a perfect example of that, the way he presented was very engaging for everyone, it didn't matter which discipline you came from. The same for the problem, so one of the best examples we had was a NASA guy comes to one of the workshop and instead of saying, we need to transport 50 Marines from base A to base B and it needs to be done, blah blah blah, he just said any ideas that can help us to get a number of people from A to B and we got musicians coming into this session, because they thought they've got a solution and they had some good ideas. The other one which is really interesting and we saw with some established professors was asking stupid questions, sitting there knowing the answer but just clarifying for others, and you probably all know that pain from the lecture room, Jesus this lies out terrible, I can't see anyone. When students don't get it but don't ask a question, but we do the same and the bigger the ego of the professor, more often they didn't ask the questions. I'm not gonna show, I don't know. Those were the practices that they were developing, us, we talked, or we worked with the groups and we started writing about them. The second interesting idea that came out of it is the emergence of community, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary communities. This guy started working across boundaries, knowing each other, connecting to each other. There was also a shift in the way we started thinking about and the university about interdisciplinary research. Is it about solving a particular problem when we can gather disciplines and scientists solve the problem, go back home? Or is it about longevity? Was the project about achieving long-term collaborations? Not necessarily one problem but thinking in interdisciplinary ways. Different types of support, different type of initiatives. Is it about borrowing or co-creating? Do I take your idea and just apply it or do we actually sit down and spend long, long time trying to develop something together? Some interesting implications, I'm gonna only give a few examples. Less money was better. The more money we put on the table for initiative out of the 600,000 pounds, the worse the group was. It attracted some of people who were not really interested in collaboration but money. Less money was better for nurturing, spending time up front, putting different table of resource when people could glue. We also had a lot of dating, speed dating, and we called it pre-marriage dating when we spent time with groups making sure they clicked. And they developed the practices so we know they're not gonna follow apart halfway through or they're not connected for three years like bad marriage. That's the project. Side effect, we developed a number of reviewers and champions for the disciplines. So they were then reviewing the different projects because they knew how to approach it. Disciplinary OID are experts, but we're in the same. It wasn't the star scientist quite often who would engage. It was somebody else who probably wasn't as accomplished as his colleagues in the department. It was much better at translating the knowledge and bringing different strings. Implications, promotion. So university changed at some point the way they did APR and enabled them to get promoted because it's still the question, what do you do in the global discipline itself? Finally, we developed a number of courses which are still going. So PhD level course, 10 credits, which we run for three days with all the scientists just talking through and explaining what practices are and stressing some of the reflexivity. I will just finish here because the time is up, but there are still questions that come and ideas that could be explored and one of them we just started talking about is the space for a board game to actually teach and engage students to get to the problems and cover an idea. Thank you.