 And the purpose of the series is to intellectually develop the field of engineering for global development. Each month, we will host a new research institution to learn about their work advancing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Today's seminar will set the stage of the current state of the field and propose a roadmap for moving forward. My name is Yana Aranda and I'm the president of Engineering for Change and I'll be your moderator for today's seminar. The seminar you're participating in today will be archived on E4C site and also on our YouTube channel. Both of the URLs are listed here for your reference. E4C members will also receive invitations to upcoming seminars directly. If you have any questions, comments, or recommendations for future topics and speakers, please contact the E4C team at researchandengineeringforchange.org. If you're following us on Twitter today, I'd also like to take a moment to invite you to join us in the conversation with our dedicated hashtag, hashtag E4C seminar series. Now, before we move on to our presenter, I'd like to tell you a bit about Engineering for Change. E4C is a knowledge organization, digital platform, and community of more than 1 million engineers, designers, development practitioners, and scientists who are leveraging technology to solve quality of life challenges faced by underserved communities around the globe. Some of those challenges may include access to clean water and sanitation, sustainable energy, improved agriculture, and more. We invite you to become a member. E4C membership is free and provides access to news and cell leaders, insights on hundreds of essential technologies in our solutions library, professional development resources, and current opportunities such as jobs, funding calls, fellowships, and more. E4C members also receive exclusive invitations to online and regional events and access to resources aligned to their interests. You can visit our website to learn more and sign up. E4C's research work cuts across geographies and sectors to deliver an ecosystem view of technology for good. Original research is conducted by E4C fellows annually on behalf of our partners and clients and delivered as digestible reports with implementable insights. We invite you to visit our research page, the URL is listed on the slide here, to explore our trend analysis, research collaborations, and review the state of engineering for global development broadly. If you have research questions or want to work with us on a research project as a research fellow, please contact us at researchandengineeringforchange.org. And I'm really excited to share with you today a new challenge on E4C, which is focused on expediting solutions related to the United Nations SDGs for zero hunger and clean water. The Innovate for Impact Siemens Challenge aims to nurture breakthrough ideas and apply human-centered design approaches to engineer innovative hardware solutions that help achieve SDGs 2 and 6 by 2030. We invite you to learn more and submit your ideas on our dedicated microsites at engineeringforchange.org forward slash Siemens Challenge. Applications will open in February to all E4C members. Now, some very important housekeeping items before we get started. We'd like to take a moment to practice with you using the WebEx platform. So I'd like to invite you to please, right now, type into the chat window what part of the world you're joining us from. The chat window is located on the bottom right of your screen. If you're not seeing the chat window, please just take a look for the icon, which is in the bottom middle of the slide. I'll start us off here already. So again, if you're not seeing the chat window, look for that icon in the middle, bottom, the middle of the slide. So we have folks here joining us from all over the states in New York, Denver, Oregon, New Hampshire, as well as abroad, Rwanda, Belgium, Indiana, Washington state, Minneapolis, UK, and so forth. So glad to have you all join us today. Please do continue to share with us where you're from. I do see some folks also answering in the Q&A window. Please note that the Q&A window is intended for actually questions from the presenter so we can keep them all organized. So please do answer that question in our chat window. Welcome everyone from Berkeley, more from the UK, Chicago, India, and so forth. Thank you so much for joining us today. As I noted, the chat window is for comments, concerns, or issues. I just want to talk to other folks who have joined us today. Any questions so we can keep track? Please put them in the Q&A window. We will address all questions and have a discussion at the end of the presentation. Now, with this, I am so thrilled to introduce to you Dr. Jesse Austin Brennan, who is the assistant professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Michigan. He earned his PhD in mechanical engineering in 2014 from MIT. He also holds the NSM in mechanical engineering and a BS in ocean engineering from MIT. Before his academic career, he worked as a development engineer in Peru, working with rural communities and alternative business opportunities, and with local doctors offices, or sorry, groups on medical device development. He also spent two years as a high school math teacher in Boston, Massachusetts. He currently serves as the director of global design laboratory in Michigan, and a group focuses on developing design processes and support tools to help multidisciplinary design teams think at a systems level when performing complex systems design tasks. Jesse also serves as the co-chair of the engineering for global development research committee at ASME, and we're thrilled that he is kicking us off on this exciting initiative over to Jesse. Alright, hopefully everyone can hear me, which was good. Alright, so just thank you again, everyone for joining from everywhere and taking time out of your day to do this. I'm just going to, I think, did you make me the presenter so I can do the slides now. Yes, I will take care of that right now. Thank you, Jesse. There you go. You should be all set. I'm the presenter. Great. So I think I can do this. Alright, so just going to, I'm going to give a quick talk on some preliminary work we're doing that one of the outcomes is this seminar series that we're participating in right now. So I want to thank all of you for doing it because this has been an idea that has been sort of kicking around for over the past couple years. And so to actually have it be in provision and have a lot of people attending from all over the world is really, really exciting and we'd love to see it. And I think this is an important step in growing our research community and really working together towards a poverty-free or, you know, alleviate global poverty in a substantiative way and achieve the SDGs, like we're all trying to do. So what I'm going to talk about today is some work that we've been doing around the research community itself. And so the title of this talk is just engineering for global development. Where do we go from here? And I really want to, I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking and I really wanted this to be more of a discussion. I want to introduce why we're doing the seminar series. Some of the research that we're doing that we're going to submit to journals relatively soon, but I wanted to sort of workshop it with you and really present sort of the type of style of talk that we are looking for in sort of the seminar series. So this really is a chance for us to communicate more frequently as a research community and really, really get to know what other people's works across the fields are. So let me just get into it as to why we started the seminar series and why we're doing the research that I'm going to be presenting to you today. So the motivation really is that we've been talking about doing something engineering for global development, design for the developing world. There's lots of different names for it. We've been talking about it for a long time about using engineering to try and technology to try and improve quality of life and alleviate global poverty. And you can see that going back to the 40s, but you know, a big step forward was sort of Schumacher small was beautiful talking about appropriate technology. We've had a bunch of papers. So if you just look for I have five examples here as the guest editorial from winter and Madsen and the journal mechanical design sort of arguing for engineering for global development as a research area for engineers. Evan Thomas was the co-chair of the research committee did a great paper sustainability this year, talking about a field of global engineering towards that that we should be working towards the school and having a discipline around global engineering. And then also sustainability of this year engineering for peace and diplomacy by. I don't want to mess up people think I'm a day. You know, really again, talking about how we should be using engineering to try and reach these these goals, right, and calling for sort of a new field new research into this. And so based on that sort of motivation my sort of view of it if I had to summarize, they all have different tax and different focuses. But if I had to summarize that I would say that current engineering research is about the development of analytical tools, empirical models and design methods. Right. So we're trying to create original scientific knowledge that allows us to, to use these tools to make predictions and to make physical systems. And then we try and apply these in the EGD context and this global development context and I think, you know, we just import these design methods, these analytical tools, these empirical models on problems, you know, to try and solve the, you know, you know, sustainable development goals or achieve those goals or do other things like that. And I think what we found an experience is a lot of times these fail in some way. Right. So the design methods don't take into account user needs appropriately, or there's something about the context in which the predictions that we make about how effective these technologies are going to be doesn't really work and that can be in the implementation that in a lot of different ways that many, many of us and, you know, all of you attending here either have experienced or have written about or research. So I think what we're talking about with these papers are really talking about is we need new research. We need engineering for global development or global engineering. We need a new research discipline in which we can create analytical tools and empirical models and design methods, which really give us good predictions and help us design systems in a way that is going to be effective in these contexts. And I think that, you know, that's sort of my goal, my understanding of what those papers were sort of trying to motivate us as a community to do. So to achieve these goals, we need to develop the field intellectually and grow our research community, which is why I'm so excited that there's so many of you here. I know you're already out there all working on this really hard and I just want to get us more together more cohesive and I want to sort of talk about what does this mean so when I think of engineering for global development as a discipline. I don't know if you've had this experience, but I certainly have this experience a lot is and I don't know how well this shows up on people's screens, but we can this is just my representation of a number of the fields and there are more, but a number of the fields so energy, design, health, transportation, agriculture, sanitation, water, architecture, ICT, right so all of these supply chain, all of these are fields in which engineering for global development work is happening. Right and the problem is, is that I continually am surprised where I find some some work that's really, really interesting to me and I'm in the design field. I'm a design researcher. I find some work that's very, very. I'm on the app, but can't see the slides. Okay, we can. Can that true for other people? I just want to make sure that I'm referencing the slides people can see them. We can we can address that separately, Jesse. So when we're looking when we're looking at all of these fields, what I'm seeing is that there's engineering for global development work happening in them, but we're not necessarily communicating all that well across these different subfields so I'm finding someone who's been working on, let's say transportation engineering global development and transportation for years and I haven't read the work before because I'm not reading those journals specifically, and I run across them in some other way and now that happens all the time. But I think that in each of our own fields were sort of in our in the subfields we are, you know, trying to talk to our home community in a way in which we may be the outlier, and that there's a lot of lessons that can be learned by other people that are working in energy that are working in health if I'm in design by learning from them and their methods and so I think part of the reason for the seminar is to try and the seminar series is to try and increase the frequency of the communication between these different ones. So, you know, sort of based on that motivation and seeing all of those papers that kept, you know, every three to five years somebody writing hey, we should have a discipline that's designed for development or global engineering or engineering for global development. Really wanted to understand what is the current level of maturity of the EGD research community so if we look at engineering for global development as a discipline, what is the level of maturity of that discipline and what factors should be improved to develop the field intellectually so we want to move forward and again the name of talk is where do we go from here. I think we're all in agreement that we should be doing this work and that new work needs to be done new scientific knowledge needs needs to be created, but how do we do that as a research community because we can't do it on our own. So, two great reports help us do that so, so Yana mentioned them earlier, but the state of engineering for global development by region so the C4C report really amazing work just and I see it as a first step towards really understanding what is going on in our field communally in our research community. And I really the link is in the slides up above. I believe these will be available later so you can see it, but I would encourage everybody to go read that report I find that fascinating goes through all the different programs that are both courses or degree programs, but also a first stab at who is in this community that's doing research in this community what what faculty members are doing research in this community, but researchers are doing it. The other one is the 50 breakthroughs. I believe the link is also up above but but maybe not, which is, you know, a report on what are the 50 breakthrough technologies so this is a start towards this idea of as a research community. What are the big questions that we should be trying to answer and this is giving us an idea as to okay, what are some of the technologies we should all be trying to work towards. And those are listed here is to really make a breakthrough towards the sustainable development goals. So I took that as the first step and I said okay well let me look at what what does it mean to be a discipline and to think about the maturity of a discipline and what is necessary to try and improve it so that we can create scientific knowledge that's useful from an engineering perspective. So if you look at Krishna in 2009 as a paper and this is sort of a model a conceptual model about disciplines as a whole scientific disciplines is that scientific disciplines at the end of the day are about an object of research so there's some objects that the discipline is dealing with in our case I would say that's physical artifacts or or machines if you're a mechanical engineer although there's some some discussion about that within this one and again is all about building consensus and having things that you can build on each other's work. So you need an object of research you then need specialized disciplinary knowledge that you are using to examine or investigate that object of the research. And that specializes plenary knowledge consists of theories and concepts languages in terms specific languages in terms specific research methods that are common to your field and institutional manifestation so courses degree programs etc. So when I think about engineering for global development. Yes, I think it was good. So we want to predict technical performance and in the agd context for these physical artifacts or services. And what we're looking at what we've done and sort of this preliminary work that we're working on that we will be will be submitting to a journal soon is to look at the methodology to look at these four areas listed by Krishna and say, what is the state of engineering for global development research in each of these four areas. So thinking about theories and concepts of the theoretical foundation for engineering for global development we're looking doing a descriptive review of the literature. So that means sort of that meta analysis where you you look at all of the papers and the literature survey. We try and code them in different ways to see how to measure what are the theoretical foundations of the field. We looking at an analysis of keywords from the literature in terms of see, do we have common specific languages and terms are their commonalities against across people that are doing research in the space. We've looked at literature that has looked into research methods so you know we're just building on what other people have done. So thinking about where their gaps in specific research methods for engineering for global development, and then that he for C report that I mentioned earlier we're looking at that for the institutional manifestations. So for counts of you know how many degree programs how many courses, how many programs can you see that that that are specific to this discipline. And there's a lot of those so I think we're doing quite well in that area. So in the descriptive review and I'm just going to give you a few numbers here before I get to the recommendations. There's going to be more on this and the paper that we submit, but I just wanted to give you again sort of works up with with you guys. It's some feedback and really have a discussion around this is I took the E for C report and this is just a sort of a picture it's not a complete table. So the people that are in mechanical industrial and systems engineering that do work in engineering for global development and it just had a list of them. So we took that, and we use that as a basis to go scrape Google scholar for all of the papers and conference papers, journal papers that there were citations by these by these authors that we could find. We took that that database and then selected out cut down to the ones that were specific for engineering for global development. And just some preliminary numbers so of those and now this is not a comprehensive review because it is only the authors listed in the E for C report. Obviously, there's a lot more work that's happening that's not captured in that E for C report, but we found 364 journal papers and book chapters 421 conference papers and a lot of other patents and technical reports that are are captured in those numbers. So what we found is that 12% and this is again a preliminary number because we need to do sort of the inner radar agreement. This is just one person coding right now about 12% of the journal papers are theoretical and the most cited are from. So yes, so that's a great point. So we're, if this was the E for C report on North America, so it is not global. So we haven't looked in French or Spanish and I know that the European sources are much more developed in my opinion. Again, this is why this is just a preliminary one and that's a great point. So, thank you Virginia for pointing that out. I don't know if that was everybody. So the question was, are we looking at non English sources? And the answer is no, we're only looking at American sources at the moment. So the research community on this in America in the Americas. All right. So, and the most cited ones are from the energy subfield. So the point here is that most of the papers that we found and this is sort of the big result from this are results from field studies. So there are descriptions case studies of field work. In my experience, the majority of what I read and what I see people performing. So there's not a lot of generalizable theoretical work being produced from those that are specific to engineering for global development. And this chart is smaller. I guess maybe when I imported it to the large when it didn't grow, but this is just a growth over time. So you can see that over the years that we've been, we've been growing in terms of journal papers per year in this particular group has been growing over time. In terms of specific languages and terms. So these are just all of the keywords that are talking about engineering for global development. You can see here, just a number of the ones that are being used. And I think one of the outcomes of this, we haven't done a statistical analysis of it yet, but it's pretty clear that there aren't a lot of common keywords. So people are own language when they're tagging it in the journals, and that makes it very difficult to find. So there hasn't really been a consensus built over time that we should call it this. And this is how you can go and find it. Now, these all terms have different focuses, I would say, but I think the point remains that we don't have a consensus built on specific languages and terms. To give you one great example. You know, there's been a lot of discussion of what it means to be resource constrained. So, so just engineering for resource constrained settings is a common term. But what that term means is, you know, has not really been defined. Are we talking about less than $2 a day $5 day $1 a day. There's lots of different ways people slice the population and use that term. So, even when we're using a common term like resource constrained settings, which not everybody uses, but of the people that use it. When we looked into it, we weren't getting a lot of commonality on even what that definition meant. So, in response to sort of our feeling this way we went and did a pilot workshop in in New York at impact engineer in last October. And we had 30 or to 40 participants discuss what is the main research questions to be addressed by the community. What does it mean to be rigorous. And again, that talks about the theoretical foundations, the specific languages and terms and the specific research methods. And then what is the community trajectory. So, where should we be going as a research community to try and grow this spoiler alert having a seminar series where we all talk to each other once a month was one of the recommendations. So, we're already on checking that box, but I think there's plenty of other work to be done. Here are some of the sample responses that you're going to we're going to have a fuller picture of in the paper, where we talk about what people said at this workshop in terms of theories and concepts languages in terms of research methods and institutional manifestations. Some of the big things that came out of it is how do we create generalizable work so if I have a very context dependent result how do I understand that I have someone working even in the same subfield, but especially across the field so someone's doing an energy project in Rwanda. How can I what lessons can I take from that in a generalizable way that I can then use when I'm doing a water project in India, right, or I'm doing a water project in Michigan. Right. You know, these are some of the questions that we want to be able to answer if we're going to be, you know, a very useful discipline. And so the recommendations from both sort of the preliminary work that we've done on this paper, but also from the workshop was that we believe or at least I believe that we should be moving up in the research categories. So Friedman has this research categories where he talks about basic research applied research and clinical research. And so that would be, you know, field work versus application versus theory. And I think we need to be moving more towards the spectrum of basic research, where we can start to make some generalizations that say, when we're doing engineering for global development. These are some of the things that you want to think about, you know, and understand how context affects that. But I think that currently, the majority of the work is just reporting, this is the context that I'm in. This was my result. And it's, and it's hard to take lessons across discipline across subfields, but also across context. And even at that level, it's hard to know how people define each of those contexts. So I think we need a lot of work to try and build the consensus. So I am very excited that you're all here and I'm very excited that we're having this type of communication. So we can start to work together to answer those kinds of questions. And then the final recommendation that I think everybody talked about and really came out of our paper was again, this lack of frequency of communication, mainly because we're in these silos, where you would expect that, you know, citing in other people's work in journals, but that builds this consensus over time. And it may be that engineering for global development is just not been around long enough. But I would argue that we've been around since the 40s, or, you know, worst case the 70s. And we still haven't built consensus over that time and other fields have. And so I think that what we need to be doing is building structures that allow us to communicate across these silos and and subfields and really get into a place where we can be citing each other, learning from each other and creating generalizable theories so that we can be a mature discipline and a useful discipline. And I think that that was my last slide, if I'm correct. Yep. That was my last slide. And I really just wanted to, you know, that is sort of the motivation for why we're doing the seminar series. And it's some preliminary work on a paper that we're putting together right now about the maturity of our field and where we need to go as a discipline. That's looking at a descriptive review and some other statistics to try and make a case for we should be communicating more frequently and building consensus in these areas. I'd like to open it up for questions or comments about where we should be taking it. And before I do that, can I plug it there? Yes. Next month's presenter is Professor Ritza from who's the vice provost for creative inquiry at Lehigh University. And, you know, I had a great opportunity to meet with him and impact engineering and speak with him. And I'm really excited about his talk and I just want to encourage all of you, you have work that you're doing. It doesn't have to be finished work. Obviously, I haven't presented a finished paper today in the seminar. I really want this to be a way that we can talk to each other and learn from each other and improve the quality of research that everybody is doing. All right. So, you know, do you want to take back? Yeah. No, no need to give me control for now, but I did want to invite our listeners to submit their questions so that we can post them to Jesse. So we already have one up specifically. Are there examples of other fields that communicate across silos to build consensus and have become a mature useful discipline? Yeah, absolutely. Well, I mean, I think any discipline that you look at has gone through this process, right? So physics, this happened 300 years ago, two to 300 years ago, and has continued to happen. But more recently, if you look at, say, aerospace engineering coming out of, you know, mechanical, if you look at public health, which came out of medicine and some other statistical work combining those in an interdisciplinary way to create a new discipline. Say, more recently, and perhaps more, more focused within our realm of experience, I would say ICTD. So, information and communications technologies for development has gone through this process more recently. And it's something that has sort of mainstream journals and a healthy research community in which everyone knows these are the main conferences we go to. These are the journals that you publish in. And there's a, I wouldn't say complete consensus because that's never all that useful, but a strong consensus in the sense of these are the norms as to what is rigorous research within that field. I don't think that those norms have migrated out of, say, schools of information or from CHI, the CHI conference over to other conferences like IDTC, which is where I go in the ASME universe. I don't think that we're necessarily reading and citing those papers or using those norms. But I would say ICTD is something where they went through this process relatively recently and people that I've talked to within that community described how just a few people got together and said, let's have a special issue. Let's have a conference so we can start to have a place where we communicate and generalize from each other's work. Right. Another question relates to that. Is there a sense of why the EDG community has not developed generalizable theories from the 40s or best from the 70s and some of the key inhibitors to that? Sure. So, I mean, there's a complex problem, right? So, I think part of what we're trying to do in this paper is to try and identify what are those obstacles, right? What is lacking in terms of a discipline? Because I think there are a lot of institutional manifestations, for example, right? There are a lot of courses, a lot of degree programs, right? And you would think that, okay, I have a degree program. I should have some theoretical grounding for why this degree program exists, but I think that it's very experientially based, right? So it's very practice based, which is okay, right? Like, I'm not saying that you absolutely have to have a theoretical foundation to do anything. I think that there's some, yes, I'm going to answer Bob's question in a second, but just to finish this thought. I think that there's some parts of it are looking at how the funding has happened. So, you know, if you don't have a funding source, you know, funding drives a lot of how scientific research happens, right? And again, you can't give a unified presentation to funders if you're across in all these subfields and trying to convince funders in those particular subfields that your stuff is important, right? And I think that we're seeing a shift in demand from students and demand from funders and also research outlets to try and do this. And I think that that has been an inhibitor in the past, but also these, you know, global development work is, in my view, inherently interdisciplinary, right? So, you need, you know, a good understanding of the entire structure, so you need social scientists, you need economists, you need engineers in order to really make predictions about whether a technology is going to work or not be adopted. And I think that that's always a much harder problem than it is if you're just within engineering trying to do tensile strength, for example, right? Everyone's in the same discipline. We all sort of agree. This is the problem. This is the approach. And when you're doing interdisciplinary, I think it just becomes harder because the language becomes harder. You have to spend more time. It's slower. And I think that those don't lead to the incentive structures that we have currently set up in research communities. That would be my answer. Yeah, that I need some new approaches, new techniques, which is entirely what we're going to arrive at. So, another question that came up relative to strategy, right? Yeah. Loading that strategy always answers the question, how? So, have you given some thought to the strategy for how we might reach across the silos? And you've spoken to a little bit of this already, but maybe you want to expand? So, the first thing that I would say is the seminar series, right? So my idea just in terms of what I could do on a personal level was I was like, I really want to hear from and talk to and hear about the work from people that maybe I've read or come across. I just want to do it on a more frequent basis than once a year at IDTC, which is how I was doing it before, right? And I wasn't getting all those people in the different fields. My decision was to create this structure here as a seminar series so that I could, if I came across somebody that I was interested in the work that was in a different field, I could just invite them and say, hey, come give a seminar. It doesn't have to be finished work. Just comments once a month. It's at this time. Sign up for a slot. I'd love to hear what you're doing, right? So that's one way of communicating across these silos. I think the other thing that came out of the workshop and also in the literature is sort of because it's inherently interdisciplinary, you know, outside of engineering, but also within engineering, I think that these institutional manifestations are one way in which this is happening, right? So if you look at, say, the Blum Center at Berkeley or, you know, what we're doing here in the Center for Social Engaged Design at Michigan, right, is we're reaching across and using these institutional manifestations as a way of, you know, and teaching students as a way of getting these collaborations. I think that what we need to do and what came out of the workshop was across institutions and making it specifically about research. I think a lot of, even the publications, when you look at these journal papers, a lot of them are about the education aspects. So teaching students how to do this and not necessarily just researching how to do this to how to work in this space. And so I think in terms of answering the strategy question, I think what we need to do is build structures around and perhaps this is through me or other ways. One of the things we're talking about is do we have a special issue for a journal in which everyone submits papers through a conference, everything from that conference gets automatically submitted to the special issue. So I think that's one way that happened in ICTD that was told to me. So I think that's one possible mechanism with the seminar series is another mechanism and then building those things into research collaborations across institutions. I think it's going to be important. I think also trying to turn these I think we've because it hasn't been mainstream have gone into the education space because students have been demanding it. And I think that we need to now continue to say, can we do this in the research space? And how do we build funding streams and other things there and share knowledge across that so that we can really make something that's effective. I think those would be the things that I would say. Those are excellent points. And of course we want to invite, you know, those of you who are listening, if you have examples of your own that you'd like to share, you know, we'll welcome them either via chat or as follow up via email. You know, it's ultimately we're not suggesting that we are the keepers of all truth. And all all data, it's obviously really dispersed multidisciplinary fields. So there are a lot of things going on that we're just not yet aware of. And this is our attempt to start to aggregate that information by person foremost, talking to all of you. So, you know, we will be stronger in our understanding with additional data points. So, and on that note, Chris just noted in our chat that special issues are an option for the, if you're no mechanical design of which he's an associate editor to do special issue, typically 40 submissions are needed and roughly 20 are accepted. And I think we can talk about some of the challenges associated or the kind of the realities associated with doing special issues of any sort. And this is this is kind of a concrete, you know, aspect of the work is that, you know, it's inherently heavy left. Yep. Any, I don't see any additional questions from the audience. I just want to give it one more minute. We did want to our intention with a seminar series was to keep it quite brief and not not be the typical academic event where people drone on no offense to all the academics, obviously here. So, we are looking to wrap this up in a few minutes. So if you have any burning questions, please put them in. I see some stuff coming in. So, give me just a moment to get to that, but we will wrap in about five. So, someone requested just a repeat of the name of the magazine or special issue. I think if you look in the chat, please do look above. You'll see that it's listed there. If you're not seeing the chat. It is a semi journal of mechanical design. That is where there are special options as where there are options for a special issue. One more question. How can you, how can we include researchers and students from developing countries? They are much more intimately connected to engineering for global development problems than academics in the United States. That's an excellent question. Yeah, so it's an excellent question. I think that there's a bunch of initiatives, for example, through the design society. I know one that just started, you know, designed by Africa, Africa design. There's a lot of research happening in universities overseas. The overseas from my perspective to be clear. I think that we have invited for this seminar, people from from other universities, including in other from a variety of countries and context. I would say that I think that it's a really important question to think about who is doing the research, who is on the research team. And what does that mean? Right? How is that interpreted in the results? And I think that I would say that, you know, that is something that we need to focus on. And we're trying to do it in our own, you know, in this seminar series by inviting people. If you know of researchers that we have not invited that you would like to suggest to us from particular university. As Yana said, the whole purpose of the seminar series from my perspective when I came up with the idea was to meet as many people as possible and learn from them. Right. So that's a cross context across universities. We're trying to make our presenter list representative of that. And anyone that can help us do that, we would really appreciate it. So I think that's one step. I think the next step is meant to think about how do we have, you know, our own research. I haven't presented my other research. So I, for example, I'm doing research in Thailand where I'm collaborating with the school public health here and collaborators from a Thailand university. So, you know, in my view, we're always trying to have collaborators, academic collaborators from wherever we're working that are really going to help us. I know Michigan does that through the Ghana program. You know, I just think that that's what we need to do is to build those research collaborations so that we're all learning from each other. Absolutely. And one of another questions come in. One of the points from our listeners is there, there are a few other areas where you might want to think about building out the strategy, namely language codification, which I think you're also noting in terms of terms, process standards, funding measurements. And just war stories in the sense of, you know, failures, I think is really what this listener is thinking about. So another question is recommended. Are there any recommendations to overcome the problem of language differences between disciplines? Those are the causes of many of the silos. Yeah, so that definitely may be a cause of the silo. As I said, interdisciplinary work. So research into interdisciplinary teams has, you know, has sort of said, this is a one of the inhibitors of interdisciplinary work is you have to spend extra time trying to learn those differences. I think one of the things that I found in reading a lot of these papers as I'm doing this, this descriptive review is that there isn't necessarily a norm. A norm around defining the terms very precisely. So you might read, I've read a lot of papers that say this is, you know, designed for resource constrained settings, but then they never define what do they mean by resource constrained settings in their paper. Right. In the way that they might define, okay, like I'm talking about, you know, these are my symbols and my equation and I'll define those for you. Right. So I think that what we need to do across disciplines is start to really be precise in our language and reporting what we have in that. And if we can make it a norm. So, for example, if we do a special issue and say JMD, then we could make it such that everybody ahead of time when they're submitting knows, hey, you need to have this glossary where you report these things. And I think that's the discussion. What should we be reporting? Right. About the context that we're working in so that people can understand it. And I think that, yes, it takes more time. It's harder to do. I think that there are mechanisms for sort of enforcing that if we do it in a single place where we're publishing. But I think, again, each in our own work should be really thinking about and reporting as precisely as we can. What do we mean by each of these things? Great. Well, I think this is a great note to end on. Jesse, we do want to point out that in the chat, there's also some really great recommendations. There's one last question that I'm just going to throw out there just because it's not such a good point. And then I think Bob to close it out, which is, are you only interested in learning about research in this area? Or do you want to talk with organizations who are working in this space, specifically in the health field? Sure. So I think that my particular research is very based on on practice and I think design research in general is. So I'm always interested in talking to practitioners and understanding what is the research that we need to be doing in particular to the seminar series and to the paper that I'm presenting. I'm talking just about research and the narrowing the scope from how do we do engineering for global development to how do we create original scientific knowledge within engineering for global development. But by necessity that scientific knowledge to be useful, I think certainly all sorts of organizations and stakeholders that are within this space should be working to try and define that research agenda. So I'm not saying that other organizations need to be doing research, but they certainly should have collaborations between the academia and the rest in order to transfer that knowledge and also to define the direction of where that knowledge is going. What questions should we be answering? That needs to come from practitioners. So, so absolutely I'm interested in hearing from everybody. In particular, I'm talking about research because that's what I am and I tried to narrow the scope as much as possible. But certainly I think that there's, there's a spectrum of what we could be talking about here. So, thank you so much, Jesse. And with this, I definitely have to close out our seminar. I want to thank all of you for attending. It's been a really fruitful discussion and we're looking forward to having you join us for our next one as a reminder. We will be having another seminar in February specifically on February, the 12th at 12 p.m. should be really easy to remember 12 at 12 with con John from the university and his work is really compelling. So the conversations will continue. We actually had responses from our research community throughout the end of 2020. So lots of exciting topics ahead. We will be sharing with you the list of our upcoming presenters and the dates through email. With that, I wish you all fantastic and productive afternoon, evening or morning, depending where you're joining us from today. Thank you so much. We'll see you on the next one. Have an optimal rest of your day guys. Bye. Bye now.