 When we studied diaspora, we're interested in three main things really. One is geographical dispersion, how do we measure that, shared communal identity and how we measure that and connection to this purported homeland. I think when reflecting on the strategies that you can use to collect data on the diaspora, I think it's important to start with the why question. I see that the kind of data collection strategies that are effective and that are meaningful are shaped first by objective and then I would say second by how you can incentivize the population to take part in them. If your objective is really to strategically target a program to a small number of individuals who you already know what their capacities are then you would probably choose a tool like a qualitative method that would allow you more face-to-face contact and more trust building. But if what is really important for you is to profile subsections of the diaspora population to understand, for example, interests of diaspora engagement from the perspective of women, second generation or third generation diaspora youth, particular ethnic groups or religious groups or whatsoever, then you might more readily reach to a quantitative method that allows you to compare across those population groups using a much larger sample. Those types of information would enable greater targeting of the diaspora, enable a better understanding of where they are, where they reside, how best to serve them and how to present and what to present as investment opportunities. In terms of our community, we try to run regular surveys to ensure that we know what the challenges are that they're facing and how we can be of most benefit to them, but also looking to understand what they need if they are coming back to New Zealand to really land and thrive here to be able to find work and suitable living and child care and education for their families, for example.