 today, and we got it. Thank you, Leo. Welcome everybody today to this, what is it? Fourth webinar, third webinar in our series, I think it's fourth. And today Patricia is going to share with us the Q methodology. I am one of the people, I hope not too many people, who's returned way too late my Q analysis. I did it just 15 minutes in advance of this meeting. My apologies for that lame excuse of not having read the description of your invitation well enough that said return before 10 September. Nevertheless, it appeared very interesting to me what you were asking for us and I'm looking really much forward to your explanation on this Q methodology and what we can do with it. So, thank you everybody for being here with us. Patricia, I'll give the floor to you and I'm looking forward to your presentation. Thank you, yeah. I'm going to share it. Okay, so thank you and well, good morning, afternoon, evening, etc. And thank you to everyone who is attending to this learning exchanges webinar series today. So I'm going to talk about the proposed use of Q methodology as part of the activities. And we have done in a stream two of our project. And I gave this presentation during the Hebrew workshop in Mexico last June. So I will talk again about about this methodology and the basis of this methodology. So maybe it would be a little bit repetitive for those who were present during the workshop, but I will also present the results of the analysis of this beta version that we were exploring during this workshop. So here is a small reminder that part of the stream two activities includes a series of workshops to discuss the concepts of transformation, pathways planning, transdisciplinary research. And the objective of this workshop are to strengthen the learning network between us and between the case studies and between disciplines. So the purpose of here is to start by using the Q methodology to analyze over the five years or the rest of the years that we have on the project changes in the way us, the group of trans path plan, conceptualizes frameworks and methodologies related to not traditional forms of research. This is transdisciplinary research, participative action research, and how these possible changes in our own narratives can lead to reconfigurations in the relationships, actions, capacities, and social networks among us. This is the proposal. So I'm sorry, I'm going to explain a little bit what is Q methodology. So this is a method to study the subjectivity of people based on human behavior by analyzing the perspectives that a group of people have on a particular topic. So this methodology helps to open up an issue and draw the different ways a group of people think about this topic. And this method does not look into perspectives with an objective and external variables like age, job, income, etc. But it tries to understand the subject's own internal frame of reference on this topic. So when we do these methods, we are kind of taking a snapshot of the diversity of subjective perspectives around a given topic and rebuild this subjectivity which might appear as technical debates, but we can go deeper on the analysis of this subjectivity. So I'm going to show a short video that explains what is and then I'm going to explain it better. Do you hear it? No. Okay, I think I need to take off my... Okay. People like to communicate. No. They have opinions on every kind of topic. And often they have shared opinions on the issues. One way to understand the variety of shared viewpoints on an issue is to use Q methodology. Q is a research technique that was developed by William Stevenson. In a Q study, all the participants individually sort a set of items, usually statements, along a scale according to how they feel about each statement. The way they sort the statements is then compared and contrasted to find groups of people with similar sorting patterns who share the same viewpoint on the topic. So to conduct a Q study, you need a topic and a research question. You need to build up a comprehensive set of statements relating to your topic. The statements should reflect all the different things that people might think or say about the topic. You can collect these statements from anywhere and even make some of yourself. As you collect your statements, eventually, you will reach saturation point when no new information is being added to your set. You now need to reduce your statement set down to a sample that captures the essence of the full set. 14, 50, or 60 statements may be enough. There is no magic number, but the final set of statements should be comprehensive enough to allow any individual, no matter who they are, to express their own personal viewpoint on the topic. You will need to prepare instructions for the participants to follow when they sort the statements. And you need to design a response grid for your participants to sort the statements within. This is usually in the shape of a bell curve. You need to select people to act as participants in your study. Be sure to include people who are likely to have different opinions on the topic so you can capture the range of viewpoints that are out there. It is usual to begin by asking the participant to sort the statements into three piles. For example, agree, disagree, and neutral. The participant then resorts the statements in each pile according to their strength of feeling about each. This is a holistic task. As the statements are ranked relative to each other, it's all about personal feeling from the individual's point of view. Once completed, it's also very helpful for the researcher to interview the participant after their Qsort, asking them why they sorted the statements in the way they did. The completed Qsorts and the participants' comments provide the data for you to analyze and to interpret the variety of shared viewpoints on the topic. Now comes the number crunching. This involves a pattern analysis of your Qsort data. In essence, this is a data reduction exercise. You will aim to reduce your Qsort data down to a small number of shared viewpoints that will simplify and explain most of the variety in the participant's original Qsorts. To help you do this, you can use a dedicated software program. You need to enter all the participant's Qsort data into the program. The software will compare all of the Qsorts with each other and help you to identify those Qsorts where different participants sorted the statement in very similar ways. You can then construct a synthetic Qsort, which is a kind of average of those similar Qsorts. This new synthetic Qsort represents a shared viewpoint. You can go back to the participant's interview comments to help you interpret their viewpoint. Finally, at the end of your Q study, you should have a better understanding of the variety of shared viewpoints on your topic and why people hold those views. You can find out more about Q from the official Q method website. It will point you to all kinds of information and resources, including books and articles, software, conferences, and online Q communities that you can join. Enjoy your Q! Let me put again the presentation here. So I'm going to go again through the steps that were explained in the video. I hope it was useful to watch it. I'm so recapitulating what are the steps of this methodology. So the first one is to do a previous research of this aspect of interest regarding research questions. So that implies looking into bibliographic sources, different kinds, consult experts on the subject, or maybe start with in-depth interviews with the people who are going to work with to also try to capture these different issues around a topic. So here I am proposing this initial and possible research question if we want to do this Q methodology during our project. The question is how much does the group agree or disagree on what distinguishes alternative ways of doing transformational research? We can discuss this later, but this is like the initial question. The next step will be the design of a set of affirmative statements that address different aspects of interest. So for example, these four statements that I have here are the same that we used during the exercise. So for example, referring to these alternative ways of doing research, I have this statement to achieve a transformation of a socio-ecological system. It is necessary to intervene from academia. Or for example, transformations cannot be pre-defined. It should be simple statements. And well, after having this number of statements, I'm going to explain later how many do we need. It depends on how many social actors or participants we have on the Q methodology. But while doing this, we also have to select a diversity of social actors. As the video said, it should be as diverse as possible. And the idea here is well, to apply this to us. Then the next step is to provide the statements to the participants so they can sort them accordingly to which statements they must agree with, those which they have a neutral opinion and those with which they must agree and disagree. So ideally, the statements should be arranged in this pyramid shape to follow a normal distribution. But I remember when we were doing this exercise during the workshop, the question of if we can do it differently grows. So yes, we can do it differently. And we just need to modify a little bit the statistical analysis. But it is possible to not constrain all the exercises in the same shape. And this is because well, when we did this exercise, we just have this little figure. So it was difficult a little bit to decide where to put the statements. But when we have more statements and a bigger pyramid is a little bit more easy to stay like with this shape. Then once we have the Q-sorts of each participant, we will have this kind of snapshot of their perspective on the topic in question. So this in this moment, this individual exercise will be subjective in the sense that if the same person does the exercise again, like one hour later or the day before or the day after sorry, the result will not be exactly the same. So once all the participants Q-sorts are available, we can perform a factored analysis to analyze the information. So this is a technique that is just to reduce a large number of variables into fewer numbers of factors. This technique extracts the maximum common variants from all variables and puts them into a common score. So in this case, it's just to find clusters of shared visions or perspectives of an issue among the participants. The analytical principle is the correlation between individuals to find engagement or disengagement on a statement. It uses a factor loading, which is the correlation coefficient for the factor that shows the variance explained by the variable on that particular factor. Sorry, I hope that was clear. So for this beta version for our project and our group, we propose nine statements. I write them together with Lakshmi and the idea was to perform the exercises during the workshop. And also that's why I also send it by email to the ones that weren't in the workshop. So I can analyze all of us. But well, for now we have just 14 participants. And these were the statements. So I'm going to read them just for you to look at the topics that we are addressing with this methodology. So the first is to achieve a transformation of a social ecological system is necessary to intervene from academia. If a consensus is not reached, a collaborative process aimed at fostering transformations fail. Transformative process always requires technological solutions. Academic biases can influence the direction of interventions that may or may not be desired by other social actors. A successful participatory process is measured by how many participants attend. Science has the ultimate answer to solve social ecological problems. The heart of such transdisciplinary research is co-constructing the project objectives from the beginning with the non-academic participants. Although we can play the type of transformation, the type of transformation we want to enable, we cannot know the real outcomes since the transformations cannot be predefined. And the last one, in general, the most profound transformations were triggered from social movements, not from academia. So these were the instructions that I gave you during the workshop and also by email. So basically, it's very simple. It was just gave the statements to the participants and asked them to sort the statements following this shape and these gradients that most disagree neutral and most agree with. So these are the, I'm going to present the preliminary results of this beta version and I will briefly explain how to read the resulting graph. So the group of participants in this case were 14 participants were reduced in this case into four factors. So this is made by a correlation and so we have these four factors and all of the participants correspond to one of each factor. So the statements that are located at the bottom of the graph are those in which there is usually more consensus among the participants and therefore among the factors because they tend to give the same weight of the statements. In our case, it wasn't like super clear but at least the statement three and five, I'm going to remember later which statements were, are in the left side of the graph. The C scores here minus two, minus one, zero, one and two. It's the same in the left is the most disagreed with and in the right side is the statements or the value of the statements that you most agree with. And in the top of the graph, we have the same with the largest differences. So we can see more dispersion on the values of each factor that gave to each statement. And what else? Okay, and also we see these field figures that represents the statements that distinguish that particular factor. So for example here, all the factors, the one, two, one, three have kind of a neutral opinion on statement two, but the factor four distinguishes from the other factors because the value was different. So, okay. Now the results, okay, so this is the same graph. And here I put a key on the participants, so it's participant three, seven, nine. But if you want me, I mean, this is just a beta version, but I also have this with the real name. So if you want me to, I can put the real names so you can see your own results. So I don't know, do you want me to? What do you prefer? Or I'll explain and after explain, then you decide. Okay. So in this factor analysis, or in any factor analysis, you decide the number of entry factors that you want to use. So in this case, I use four factors to do this analysis. And I did it considering the number of participants and also it was like a little bit of intuition for this version. But there is some statistical recommendations, depending on the number of statements and number of participants on how to choose how many factors you are going to choose or give to the analysis. So, but in this case, I use four. So as I was saying in this exercise, there is no consensus in this analysis, although the statements with the most similar value three and five are successful participatory processes is measured by how many participants attendant and transformative processes always require technological solutions. So basically this group said like, okay, we agree, well, we mostly disagree with these two statements, because we all of the factors put them on the left side of the pyramid. And then I'm going to show you factor by half by factor and the statements that distinguish them. So in factor one, the red one, this nine, it said in general, the most profound transformations were triggered from social movements and not from academia. And for factor one, they agree on this statement. Factor two, to achieve a transformation of a social ecological system is necessary to intervene from academia. So factor two is the green. So they put they disagree on this, and it distinguishes from the other. And also the four here, academic biases can influence the direction of interventions that may or might not be desired by other social actors. But for example, for factor three, it's the same that as factor nine, in general, the most profound transformations were treated from social movements, not from academia. But it's different from factor one, because they are in the opposite side. So factor one, they agree. And factor three, they disagree with this statement. And factor four, it distinguishes by the statement seven and two. And it says seven is the heart of the transdisciplinary research is co-constructing the project objectives from the beginning with the non-academic participants. And two is if a consensus is not reached, a collaborative process aimed at fostering transformations fail. So this is just a week and go further. But well, because of the time and I want to live a little bit of time to discuss this. So I'm just going to show this. What we can explore more if you want. So as because I'm going to show the presentation, I'm also putting, well, here's with names. Do you want to see the names? I'm curious to see where but don't show if all agree. Let's keep anonymous. Sorry? Leon was curious about the names if we could see them. I'm curious also. But this is just a beta version. So it's not, I don't know. Let me see. No, let's keep the privacy. Okay. So, okay. So I'm going to skip this. Then I'm putting here also, like all the statements with the, sorry, no, again, it has the names. So anyway, you can you can watch it later and you can, I can share this presentation with you and you can analyze all the statements and see the distribution among these factors. So as I said at the beginning of the presentation that the idea is to use this Q methodology to do in the rest of the project and see these changes in the way we conceptualize these different frameworks and concepts. So this is a proposal of a calendar kind of and how to to work with the idea is to, well, we have now this beta version, but I would like to go deeper in the literature review and also maybe make online questionnaires to send it to you to also have your opinion on this topic. And then co-design the statements we do maybe with a working document. And once we have all the statements then make an online applications like our time zero of not a beta version, but like the real one is doing maybe beginning of next year and then analyze these Q sorts and well explain better all these narratives that will emerge and then repeat this, the same Q methodology, maybe each year during the workshops that we're going to have. So this is a proposal, of course I'm going to listen all your opinions on this and if you'd like to do this and go further and deeper with this methodology, that's the idea and here I'm also sharing some resources. So that will be all from me. Thank you very much Patricia, very interesting. Are there any, I see a hand raised by Leon as Vim is standing up and walking away, so I assume that Leon, you have a question rather than Vim. I think he was like a plos. Wasn't a plos, okay, maybe I mis-recognize the hand. He is talking but you are muted, Leo. Otherwise I give the floor first to Marissa who has raised her hand. Do that and then first tell me if I'm audible now. You are audible. Marissa, please. Patty, I would like to ask, this applies to us as participants, but could it be applied to some of the participants with us in the project, like people from the places to see if we're really getting somewhere in this transformation, some specific people working in our study places, would that apply or not? Yes, but we need to decide that in advance so that we can write the statements according to that if we're going to include people from the K-studies. But we can also, like if each K-study wants to do this in their own research activities, they can also do it. Because maybe, I don't know, I'm thinking in our case if we do not include people that are used to these concepts that are more academic, maybe it will be difficult for them to to make this exercise. So maybe in that case we need to adapt the methods for each K-study. This is something that we need to decide and keep in mind while we write the statements and the research question. But yes, it's possible. Thank you. Yeah, I guess it's then very much about reframing the statements that then are applicable to that group of people in which we'd like to do. Leon? Yeah, I have some questions. Thank you, Patti. Really interesting. It also indeed nice to see what came out of just the beta version with these nine statements. But my questions are, the statement, the sets of statement of course is indeed important. So it should represent the sort of, it should sort of capture the entire debate on the topic in the group that you want to analyze, right? And of course this was beta. So this was just something that Lakshmi and you came up with a set of nine statements that was a good sort of starting point. But did you already think about how to collect or build the set of statements for let's say the full exercise in a very, because it should I guess be done in a quite systematic way to have some assurance that it, yeah, that it is an accurate reflection. That was my first question and I immediately have a second and that is, you mentioned during your presentation that this is of course sort of subjective. And indeed I think many of us, if we did the statements, we will recognize that maybe if we do it again tomorrow it will be slightly different. Now my question is would we need to do maybe three or four rounds in very close proximity to each other. So maybe within a month to see if that still results in the same types of factors so that we can also distinguish the fluctuations over periods of years from the fluctuations over shorter periods because in the shorter periods it's just maybe sort of, we can't really link it to longer term learning. It's more that today it's raining and yesterday I had a good breakfast or something like that. So to distinguish those two types of fluctuations over time. So those were two questions I was having. So for the statements, well it could be just, I can do it with anyone who wants to get more involved into this and we can do this literature review and in this case we need to include not just academic papers but also great literature like anything. And I was thinking yes to maybe have a, maybe it could be another workshop to collectively or create the statements or review them. Yeah it could be or I can just propose, I mean if we are all going to participate I don't know how many of us we are now like more than 30, 40. So I need to know how many people we are so we can decide the number of statements that we need because there is a ratio like three to one. So if we have like 10 participants then we must have at least 30 statements. So I also can do this and just write the statements I propose and send it to you and have feedback from you. So yeah we, I don't know there's some possibilities there. And the other thing, well I don't know that will be like a lot of information and yeah I was thinking like if I have my Q like 10 times someone then I think I need to analyze that and have a factor analysis of myself and then gather with the others. I don't know. I've never seen that on the literature. No from the literature it is known how important that day-to-day sort of bias or fluctuation is and that it would be convenient if there is some of the literature on the Q sort that assures that okay the details may change but the fundamental sort of perspectives they reflect are actually more robust than that. But I'm not an expert in the methods so I was just really wondering about it because I do recognize that there will at least be some differences from one day to the next. Yeah I'm not sure how to do it but yeah we or maybe we just do it not like every year and maybe more frequently twice three times a year. I don't know because the idea when we did this it was during the tea lab. I think we explained this a little bit more in the workshop in June. So we did this with a group of people in our case study. This was part of Lakshmi's thesis and actually it's not common that we have in the literature that people use the methods during different years or times and with this we were trying to see how the activities during the tea lab kind of influence people on what they think and in this case it was about Sochi Binko. So that's why we have this time. I think we did it like three times during the tea lab and yes we noticed these changes of the people in the groups. So it was kind of easy to extract like the narratives of the different groups of people in the factor analysis. So yeah that's also something that we need to decide how many times we want to do it. If it's just during the workshops or yeah online the online tool or three times per year. Yes Anamika. Yeah yeah thank you Pati it was very interesting and we did this when we were in Mexico as well. But at the time also I had a question and I just want to know from you is that like you say say for example if there are 10 participants you make like 30 statements. Now these statements that we make or like as a team also we make the statements are made based on our knowledge our understanding our background whatever and we give these statements to with whom we are kind of doing this you know exercise. So this is like a fundamental question and I just want to understand if there is a way to overcome it. So I'm just thinking suppose I'm the one who is preparing these statements wouldn't be a little biased because I would like to probably put it in the way I understand the problem or the challenge and also when we were doing this in Mexico at point at some point of time I felt that I'm too confined you know I want to say neither this nor that and I can't put too many also as a disagree but I don't actually agree to maybe 60% of the statement but I can't put them there. So I found that I was kind of confined and I can only say whatever options are given to me. So how do we overcome this I mean how do we make sure that we are able to actually get what they want to tell us and not that we are influencing even if what they are thinking is not correct because that's what we want to know because that's where the challenge is probably. You got my point right Patty? Yeah yes so when we are making the statements I think it's yeah that's like the main work to really like read them a lot and review very carefully the way they are written should be not saying this is bad or this is good but just saying like an affirmative way and also the idea is to try to gather all the opinions that's why we and I think us as a group we are like very diverse and we have these different backgrounds and disciplines so the more diverse of the people making the statements or the literature to review we we well it's the better to to make sure that this doesn't happen that okay so we're saying this is more or we have more statements in this side than this side so yes you need to review it like a lot. It's a crucial part of the segment because the analysis is kind of easy and you just put the you know in XM and R and it's easy but yes it takes time to review and different people to look at them and not just you because if you just you know like I have like a core group of statements designers and the other question was okay so the constraint on the on the pyramid um yes I guess if you have more statements at the beginning it's easier to sort them in these two groups and two not sorry three categories uh because we have like a few and the pyramid was really short it was more difficult because you only have like three to disagree and three to agree so it was difficult because it was like like a tiny version and I think if we expand the version and we do it like with 40 or something statements at the beginning it's easier to sort them in three categories but um yes we can we can not constrain the responses to the pyramid shape and we do if we do that in the analysis in the statistical analysis there is a way to address that and put like it's not a normal distribution and the mathematics make magic I am my mathematics are kind of limited but I don't know how to do it to have the analysis to it but you can put it's not a normal distribution and you can put maybe not just one the most you disagree with and maybe just put two or three in that column and the shape will change but you can adjust the the analysis to address that issue but we need to decide what to so so it was the instruction should be the same for all the participants so if we are going to constrain to the pyramid shape we we all have to do it like like that or if it's going to be free and it's not going to be in that shape it would be the same instruction for all am I answering the question Amika I think you are Patti I think you are and I think you are answering questions that many of us have also when I look at the chat box to Carlos comments that the idea that you have a statement and you don't really fully agree to put it let's say in the neutral kinds of middle box which that you feel as so then it becomes a little bit okay what statement do I find more important maybe that I'm not sure if that's the right word to to disagree or agree with and that I put this one in the neutral and I guess it's clear to everybody either you use a pyramid for all your respondents or you use a free approach for all your respondents I was also when I was looking at my own results that weren't included I found it interest what I found interest where you say and that's more related to then the outcomes the analysis although this is a beta version that there was a lot of agreement among your respondents of this those were disagreeing agreement and so it was about statement three and five or statement three and six I'm not sure but the agree the closeness was in disagreeing on those statements so what I find interesting that it shows to me then maybe that we agree on what are not transformations or what is not important in transformations but that we yet do not really agree of what is needed for transformation or what transformations need to be so that's I found interesting elements yeah exactly and there's another thing about this distribution that maybe someone decided that they must disagree with I don't know like 10 statements and we have like 10 just you know like a really high column on the on one side so by constraining I don't know how to say this but the answers to the pyramid shape like kind of it forces you to to really really choose the ones you must most most disagree and the ones you most most most agree with because otherwise you maybe decide like all this pie I'm going to put it in that side and yes I really I like super strongly disagree with this and and yeah it kind of forces you to to really choose like the important one so yeah it's a thing that we need to decide as a group what we want to do what is the best to do and yeah that's it just to keep in mind that that this different yeah yeah of course if you would have a really large group of people you could test one approach on one half of the group and the other approach to the other half of the group but yeah we are having such a large group or actually in the in during the workshop I remember actually was I think was Jaime and Carlos or Leon also that you did the both the the two versions like the constrained figure and the free one so we can also do that and just see what's happened what happens yeah I had another question it relates to Annemarca her remark in the and I think also Leon's in in development of the statements of course you could do a literature study but isn't there also in essence then a bias that you are yourself academia in developing those statements so in how far could you also include statements that come from other actors and therefore maybe also stated in different terms yeah we can yeah we can definitely include them and that's why I was thinking to make this a questionnaire online questionnaire and maybe we can send it to other practitioners people working in I don't know NGOs or people in the field that kind of know these concepts because shouldn't be someone that completely that doesn't know anything about the topic should be someone that has an opinion on the topic so in order to be diverse but so yeah we could we can send it to other people so we can have different insights yeah thank you Patty are there any more questions we are reaching well five minutes to four p.m. here in the Netherlands I just typed it a bit I thought it's I think it's really interesting this kind of methods and I thought it was also mentioned in the beginning I think it's also really interesting to use a method like this this one or another one you know in the case studies because in the end it's about so so now the application is about the project's understanding and learning about concepts which I think is really important and interesting but but in the end it's also about how we can support transformations in our case studies right so I thought I'm not sure how we see that we could also test it like this in our project team and then once we have something which is which is the simple and gives interesting insights then we could because in the end we want to apply it in the case studies right or we want to know more about actors perspectives in the case studies can I just add to what them just spoke about so this is exactly what I was thinking for example in our own case study so if we if if we if we do this exercise say if like three times in three years like in a year break or let's just not think about the frequency but we keep doing this so what is what I am thinking is that is it going to be something uh at the as an end product we kind of impose the way we understand transformation by asking them probably the same question and forcing them to think about it again and again three times in three year period or whatever and finally we do get the perspective which ideally they should be thinking of but is that really a transformation because if we stop doing this after five years they will they might go back to what it was so what is how how are we looking at this methodology um of you know the case studies which is focusing on transformative changes or shall we say that this is one of the ways of doing it but later on the statements for us also has to change bringing their perspective into it like our statement so it's it's like like transformation is not just about them like it is for all so maybe the statement our statement also evolves with time as we started to interact with diverse group of stakeholders so can we also look at it like that testing it within us as well like we test it now we make some statements now as a team and then we again draw a few additional statement and we try to see that towards the end of the project to see that how each one of us also evolved in the last four or five years after seeing the reality or after understanding the cases more in detail and in that is that is something that we can think of something that we can think of yeah I think we can do it definitely yeah the idea is just to start with this and yeah and try it and see how it works and and yeah like every now and then just review it again and and yeah and and adapt if we see that the statements are not enough and we are changing our perspective and maybe we can include more and make another one yeah I think it is possible so I'm thinking that maybe you agree on this so I can I can write this in a document so we can review it together and perhaps start a proposal of this online questionnaire so we can gather information to create the statements and maybe just keep this in mind during the rest of the year maybe or or because we don't have like too many webinars no like I think we are full for the year yes so anyway I can send you by email these not just a presentation but a document with these ideas and these different proposals and yes work on that and doing the rest of the year and maybe start next year with yeah with the with the set of statements and yeah so if I were saying about this one or two preliminary conclusions well yeah I kind of mentioned some of the results but yeah I can yeah write something in the presentation I think Jep was saying a very interesting conclusion that we agree on the ones we most disagree with and yeah about how to define transformations we it's a little bit more blurry for these different groups yeah thank you Fatih and I think for that sake I think it's also interesting what BIM said so it would be also very different if we could share this in our let's say a second layer in maybe the projects that we are doing in Mexico in India in Vietnam in Kenya and to see if the groups of people around those projects they're think similar or differently about transformations or transformations planning and that requires maybe also adjustments in some statements even though it might be adjustments that do take into account that kind of same ideas which may be a small tailoring but that might be something to discuss in the near future very interesting thank you very much I think it was been appreciated by all of us here let me then take also the opportunity to announce indeed next month we have another presentation by Christine Nyagaya she's PhD graduate for at Egerton University and her it's a case study presentation on a soil greenhouse gas emissions from wetlands very interesting I think thank you very much Patricia if there are no more final remarks I'm going to thank you on behalf of the school and maybe Anna Mika or Leon do you want to share any other project kind of message household message with the team I see Anna Mika shaking her