post by Lucy Hitcham (2023 cohort)

I recently returned from a two‑month research exchange in Aotearoa New Zealand, generously funded by the Horizon CDT. During my time there, I was based at both the University of Auckland and Victoria University of Wellington, working alongside researchers in youth and digital mental health.

I remember being interested in the international exchange opportunity way back when I applied for my CDT place. I’m a big believer in stepping outside of your comfort zone to grow and learn so taking up this exchange and choosing a country on the opposite side of the world felt like a good start – and escaping the English winter for the summer of New Zealand helped!

Seeing research differently

My PhD focuses on how digital mental health technologies are used, adopted and designed but much of my research until now has been grounded by the UK context. New Zealand, however, offered a different perspective.

New Zealand (NZ) offered a compelling contrast: a system undergoing change through the development of Te Whatu Ora (Health New Zealand), with moves towards a more coordinated national model of care which includes national provision of digital mental health tools across regions. From my first study, I had already learned about the more fragmented NHS model used in England, where mental health technologies are procured locally and unevenly. I was curious whether a coordinated model improved these challenges and the impact that culture can have for these technologies.

I was also keen to learn from some of the pioneering experts in the field. Terry Fleming and Karolina Stasiak are the original developers of SPARX, an e-therapy serious game for young people experiencing depression and anxiety. SPARX was initially developed and tested back in 2012 and has since been adapted and tested across populations and countries and is currently being trialled in the UK, led by researchers at the University of Nottingham.

Moments that stay with you

There are some key highlights that stand out from the trip for me. The first being presenting as a keynote speaker at the Child and Adolescent Research Network (CARN) conference. I had the chance to give two presentations to this group of mental health researchers and clinicians on my PhD research on the adoption of digital mental health technologies in the UK, alongside my research on smartphone addiction. However, this also gave me the chance to learn more about the research happening in this field across NZ, including CAMHS and crisis care, school-based mental health, and digital interventions for those waiting for care.

Attending New Zealand’s first Youthline Youth Mental Health Summit at the Beehive (the New Zealand Parliament building) was another memorable day. The event brought together young people, researchers, clinicians, NZ’s Minister for Mental Health and others involved in policy to hear evidence and set future priorities for youth mental health. It was a powerful introduction to the mental health landscape of NZ and to the lived experience of those who spoke at this event, in efforts to improve mental health of future generations.

A different, but equally memorable experience was attending ASB PolyFest which is a three-day festival dedicated to celebrating Pacific culture and those from Polynesia. Alongside watching performances, I was able to see how digital mental health tools like SPARX were being shared and promoted in these spaces, bringing my research topic into a real‑world, community context.

However, there were smaller moments too. Such as seeing one of the original SPARX CDs from 2009, which puts in perspective how much technology has moved along and engaging in Waiata, the singing of traditional Māori songs during meetings, ceremonies and other occasions.

The Beehive for the Youth Mental Health Summit and SPARX promotion tent at ASB PolyFest

 

Learning through place

While it is difficult to fully capture a two‑month experience in a single post, one thing that stood out to me was the value of immersion through the exchange. The chance to spend two months in NZ allowed me to see patterns and connections that would not have been visible in a shorter visit. Some of the most important learning also did not happen in formal settings, but through everyday experiences like conversations over lunch or coffee, seeing how work unfolds over time, and living and travelling across the country. It allowed me to settle into the rhythm of academic life and to gradually build an understanding of how research is shaped by its environment.

Being immersed in Aotearoa New Zealand also highlighted just how strongly context shapes digital mental health. It helped me learn about the important structural differences between countries and yet how many of the challenges facing digital mental health such as engagement, accessibility, and implementation are also shared across contexts and countries. The exchange made it clear that digital mental health technologies do not exist in a vacuum, but rather how they are shaped by healthcare systems, policies, cultures, and communities. Learning about Māori perspectives on wellbeing, and how these are embedded within research, policy, and practice, added an entirely new dimension to my thinking. This is something that is easy to say, but much harder to fully understand without being there.

Other experiences grounded this understanding in everyday reality. Seeing tools like SPARX and Headstrong not just as research outputs, but as things that are actively promoted, adapted, and used brought my research topic to life in a new way.

Lucy with the teams at UoA and VUW and Lucy’s student card

 

Life beyond research

While a lot of my learning and experience was focused on my time at the universities, I made sure to also make the most of my free time on weekends and during the Easter break. The North Island of New Zealand has so much to offer and explore from the beautiful beaches and hiking trails to visiting the Hobbiton movie set and wine tasting on Waiheke Island.

On a personal note, I have long wanted to visit New Zealand. I had acquired my Working Holiday Visa (WHV) to go and live and work in the country many years ago but the plans were blocked by the COVID-19 pandemic so it was wonderful to finally visit, albeit under very different circumstances. Throughout the visit, I kept coming back to this feeling of gratitude for the opportunity, for the people I met, and for finally experiencing a place I had long hoped to visit.

Photos from the Hobbiton Movie Set and famous Cathedral Cove beach

 

Looking ahead

I am hugely grateful to my hosts Hiran Thabrew, Karolina Stasiak, and Terry Fleming for their generosity and guidance, and to colleagues at both universities for making me feel so welcome. I am also thankful to the Horizon CDT and my supervisors for supporting this exchange.

I have returned with new perspectives, connections and inspirations, and many new questions. The experience has helped reshaped how I think about my research, particularly in terms of context, culture, and the realities of implementation.

I hope this won’t be the end of that journey and next time, I’ll be sure to make it to the South Island!

📷All Photos: Lucy Hitcham

post by Matthew Levesley (2021 cohort)

Who is Trade Sexual Health?

Trade Sexual Health is a charity working in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland that provides sexual health resources- among other services- for LGBT+ individuals who live in these areas, as well as HIV related care for people outside of the LGBT+ community. Trade is also involved in activism- most notably for my academic purposes, it has ties to the trans healthcare project run by the Leicestershire branch of Citizens UK.

Trade seeks to ensure that all facets of the LGBT+ community receive high-quality sexual health care. While the charity was founded as a resource for presumed cisgender men who might be at risk for HIV, the charity seeks to protect the rest of the community, both because they are part of these men’s sexual networks and due to the limited resources that are available to the wider queer community.

My relationship with Trade Sexual Health

My academic focus is on transnormativity in transmasculine YouTubers. Transmasculine is defined here as a person who has undergone, is undergoing, or intends to undergo some form of masculinising gender transition- they may intend to achieve androgyny through masculinisation or achieve a presentation that is as close to cisgender manhood as possible, or any identity between or around these two points. This is a topic that is important to me, as I am transmasculine myself.

A YouTuber is defined as a social media influencer who uses the video sharing platform YouTube as their primary space for publishing content. Due to a variety of factors, including a lack of representation in mainstream media and an inability to learn about their history and identity in formal education, transmasculine people- along with other queer people- often turn to YouTube for education and community seeking.

While Horizon has provided me with a large amount of opportunity to talk to and learn from researchers in the field of social media, I wanted to ensure I was able to have experiences with researching queer people and environments. I have been given a number of opportunities to do this, including my attendance at the summer school run by the European Professional Association for Transgender Health, but Trade allowed me to form consistent, long-lasting relationships with both those working in queer activism in my local community and those familiar with working with the LGBT+ community in a professional or academic context.

What have I done for Trade?

Trade was able to give me experience in two skills- Performing research in a non-academic environment and communicating information about transmasculine people to those who were uninformed or only partially informed about the issues that transmascs

Trade had me perform a number of research activities- including surveying the local trans population as to their experiences with certain aspects of gender affirming healthcare, and sexual health procedures such as pap smears that may have an element that affects trans people negatively. I was able to see how this data is used in practice to communicate with local health services, and change the experiences that queer people have in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.

I was also able to provide my input as both a trans individual and an expert on transmasculine experience in different forums- including a project on HPV prevention within queer spaces, the local NHS Integrated Care Board, and Leicester Partnership Trust’s training on trans experiences with the NHS.

How have I benefited from my placement at Trade?

As mentioned previously, my experience with Trade has allowed me to see one way in which the kind of data I am collecting and wider research that I am doing might be used in order to benefit the trans community. It has also allowed me to see how prominent the research gap I am filling is and the real-world impact that filling it will have. Organisations want to be able to help transmasculine people, but more research needs to be done on the ways that society marginalises us in order for that help to have full and proper impact.

My connections at Trade- specifically through their Transductive support group for trans academics and allies- have also allowed me to meet and discuss my research with a larger group of queer academics in a number of fields I would never have considered reaching out to, such as Geography and Physics. This has allowed me to discuss ways in which I would like to grow my academic career beyond Horizon, as well as to seek support when dealing with difficult topics, such as the current legal battle over trans rights in the UK.

My future relationship with Trade

I intend to continue interacting with Trade on both a personal level- through volunteering and participating in the Transductive group- as well as an academic one. I have received an impact grant from Horizon and I intend to use this to do some research on what an ideal world would look like for transmasculine people- with Trade acting as support for both recruitment and grounding the study in reality. For example, Trade might provide a context for participants to discuss what an ideal social club might look like, or how a medical professional would interact with transmasculine people in an ideal way.

I am excited to carry out this research, and grateful that I have been able to interact with a charity that does such useful and interesting work in my local area. I hope to continue to engage with Trade and other organisations like it throughout my academic career.

post by Favour Borokini (2022 cohort) – originally published on the SLSA blog

The Black Vagina Cake Problem

My PhD explores ethics concerns in the design and use of avatars. One day, during a workshop, while we were discussing the appropriateness of the use of black avatars by white people in virtual reality (VR) spaces, a participant, who was white, shared that they had been to a cake sale, and perhaps it was reproductive rights-themed, because there were black and white vagina cakes available for sale. Unfortunately, no one felt particularly comfortable buying the black cakes, and they went unsold during the sale.

This participant shared this story to explain why she was ethically opposed to designing black avatars. For her, having never experienced racial discrimination or the lived experience of blackness, it was as inappropriate and uncomfortable to culturally appropriate blackness in VR spaces by using a black avatar as it would be to purchase and consume a black vagina cake.

There are perhaps a number of key takeaways here, but the statement made in passing about the black vagina cakes going unsold seems to me to have illustrated a faint acknowledgement that this ethical decision was not unburdened by some juridogenic form of harm.

A Filmmaker’s Decision

I’m currently anticipating a response to my application to do a post-PhD impact project funded by the Horizon Centre for Doctoral Training.

I’ve applied to carry out a film and exhibition project exploring the lives of Africans in Nottingham through 2D and 3D images or avatars. The word ‘avatar’ refers to digital representational images, even including the humble selfie. Participants will visit museums and libraries and design 3D avatars while reflecting on the contrasts between these forms of institutional representation and photographs of their own, created before or as part of the process. The idea here being to attenuate participants’ sensitivity to how they might want to tell their own stories about the African migrant experience through images. My goal, if funding is approved, is to film the process and screen the movie at a combined film and exhibition event.

While putting together the application, I reached out to a filmmaker whose work I had come across through a film she had produced for a charity a friend of mine was involved with in Nottingham that I greatly enjoyed.

During our chat, she seemed quite into the project, and we excitedly talked about logistics and rates. Then, towards the end, she shared a reservation: as a white woman, she didn’t feel entirely comfortable because she was worried about depriving a black filmmaker the opportunity to work on the project.

Blindsided, I tried in this moment to explain why I didn’t think this mattered, but I don’t think I was quite successful. We then spoke about potentially finding a black understudy, and after a few email exchanges, she stopped responding.

An Unsettling Suspicion

Last week, it struck me on my way to the tram stop, that that had been a very weird interaction and one that, like the Black Vagina Cake story, highlights what happens when values of inclusivity meant to safeguard minorities, harden into inflexibility.

As an international student who came to the UK less than four years ago, I am not privy to a large network of friends and family in the UK, among whom I can find with ease, black-owned businesses or service providers. Indeed, many of my friends here are international students who are also in the UK for the first time.

As a result, I do not feel able to select for black service providers when I need a service provided for me, nor indeed is a race-conscious approach something that I actively or subconsciously think about, being from Nigeria, an almost fully racially homogenous country.

Multiple Choice Questions

My friends are even less sanguine. To them, the filmmaker’s reservations were a polite let-down from someone who did not actually wish to work with me.

I must confess I hadn’t considered this much worse possibility.

Whenever I share the Black Vagina Cake story, I receive a variety of responses, too. It’s just chocolate cake. Vanilla cake is a more popular option (it is not!). One person took issue with the storyteller, and with me perhaps, and said it was a very inappropriate story to share due to the sensitive nature of sex and sexuality. Others have asked me who designed the black vagina cakes and who the designers expected to eat them.

Certain responses have opened my eyes to the fact that there exists a number of people who feel emotions ranging from anxiety that being seen to enjoy or consume non-stereotypically British activities may result in reputational damage arising from accusations of cultural appropriation, to a resistance to being coerced into joining in multicultural activities they are disinterested in.

The Death of An Ethic

These two stories and others from my research and life in the UK illustrate to me what it looks like when an ethical value has run its course.

As a feminist Nigerian lawyer, I am extremely unimpressed by the use of traditional law and custom within Nigeria’s legally pluralist system to deny women various constitutionally-recognised rights. I often find the literature on legal pluralism and the non-acknowledgement of its risks and failings among pluralists very naive and unreflective of the actual work being done by feminist litigators in Africa against oppressive customary systems.

I have, however, come to appreciate the way legal pluralism affords me the language to frame my exploration of the legal norms at play online and offline in the design and use of avatars.

It’s a question too, once the legal side of these norms is laid bare, of critiquing them and uncovering their failings and where they actively perpetuate harm by solidifying, precedent-like.

Unclear ethical futures

Like myself, I imagine many African migrants come to the UK with their own histories and socio-cultural contexts, starry-eyed, wanting to meet new people, make friends and, find love, not expecting to contend with how all this blurs into ‘blackness,’ an identity that here invokes and evokes its own set of legal and ethical considerations that make it safe, prudent even, to abstain from black vagina cakes and providing services to African international students.

How then do we move in the wake of the death of a norm towards a necessary new politics of desire?

I am not entirely sure, and do not pretend to be, but I invite you to imagine with me.

post by Victor Ngo (2022 cohort)

My placement with Makers of Imaginary Worlds (MOIW) gave me the opportunity to develop a deeper understanding of how my PhD research connects with creative industry practice. As MOIW is my industry partner, the placement felt less like a separate requirement and more like a chance to engage more closely with the practical, artistic, and organisational realities that surround the kind of work I am researching. It allowed me to see more clearly how interactive technologies, public engagement, and creative production come together in real settings, and how these differ from the more structured environment of academic research.

The placement included work across several contexts, including Ashfield Creates, Oakfield School, and Level Centre. These experiences gave me insight into how MOIW works across different venues, audiences, and forms of engagement. They also gave me the opportunity to contribute to research and public-facing activity in settings that were more varied than a single deployment or study. This helped me understand not only the practical side of the placement, but also its broader relevance to my PhD and to the Horizon CDT’s emphasis on interdisciplinary and socially engaged research.

At the start of the placement, I expected to gain a better understanding of how a creative organisation works in practice, particularly one that designs immersive experiences for children and families. I hoped to learn more about how artistic goals, audience needs, accessibility, and venue constraints shape the development and delivery of an installation. I also wanted to better understand how my own research skills could contribute within that context. While these expectations were met, the placement also pushed me to reflect more critically on how research methods and ways of working need to adapt when they are applied in live, public, and community-facing settings.

Across the three venues, one of the clearest lessons was that research and engagement methods cannot be treated as fixed or universal. While designing my study with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)  children, it became clear that many standard practices in data collection were not well suited to the context. Approaches often taken for granted in research, such as structured interviews or direct verbal reflection, do not always align with the needs of participants, the environment, or the nature of the interaction itself. This required me to think more carefully about alternative approaches that were more appropriate, respectful, and sensitive to the people involved. More broadly, working across all three settings reinforced the importance of shaping methods around the setting rather than expecting the setting to accommodate the method. It meant paying closer attention to observation, embodied interaction, behaviour in the moment, and the wider circumstances surrounding participation.

These experiences were also rewarding on a more personal level. I am grateful for the opportunity to spend time with participants, staff, and audiences across these settings, and to have conversations that often went beyond the installation itself. At Oakfield in particular, I valued the chance to speak with children about wider questions around robots, AI, the future of the world, and their own goals and aspirations. At Level, conversations with visitors often moved into broader issues around the impact of AI on art and ownership, the blurred lines between human and artificial creation, and how that space might be navigated ethically. Together, these interactions reminded me that this work is not only about evaluating systems or collecting data, but also about creating space for dialogue, curiosity, and reflection. In that sense, the social impact of the placement felt high. Across all three contexts, there were genuine opportunities for public engagement and for connecting my research to wider questions of ethics, creativity, access, and the future role of intelligent systems in society.

Throughout the four years of my PhD, and especially through spending time in these venues and interacting with the people involved, I gradually arrived at a broader reflection on what it means to work in a space where research, creative practice, and public engagement are all happening at once. With MOIW, the work is not only about understanding interaction, but also about making something meaningful for the people encountering it. That means thinking carefully about how artistic intention, accessibility, audience experience, and practical delivery shape the way a project develops. For me, the placement was valuable because it gave me the opportunity to work within that balance directly, rather than only thinking about it in theory. It showed me more clearly how research decisions are shaped when they form part of a live creative process.

In terms of skills development, the placement strengthened both my professional and research capabilities. Professionally, I developed my ability to communicate across disciplines and to work with collaborators whose expertise lies in arts practice, facilitation, and audience experience rather than robotics or human–robot interaction. I also developed a stronger habit of reflective practice, particularly in thinking about what worked, what was challenged, and how I would approach similar situations in future. From a research perspective, the placement deepened my understanding of context-sensitive and inclusive methods, especially in relation to study design, observation, interpretation, and working with children in varied public settings. These are skills that are highly relevant to both academia and industry, as they support not only rigorous research but also effective collaboration and responsible practice.

Overall, the placement has helped me situate my PhD more clearly within the wider aims of the Horizon CDT. It has shown me how questions around data, interaction, interpretation, and lived experience play out in real environments, and how research can contribute to public-facing creative work in meaningful ways. Most importantly, it has helped me develop a more grounded understanding of what it means to work across academia and industry: not simply applying existing skills in a new setting but learning how to adapt those skills in response to different people, priorities, and forms of practice.

 

post by Stephen ‘Parky’ Parkinson (2023 cohort)

In academia, it’s all too easy to spend a lot of time and effort thinking about theory, reading other academic’s writing, and focusing on your research design. They’re all important, but sometimes it stops you from poking your head above the parapet and seeing what things are like in the “real world”.

My PhD research looks at how individuals are engaging with the circular economy and to what extent digital technology plays a role. We live in a society that uses too much and throws too much away, and this all takes a big toll on the environment. The circular economy aims to reduce waste by focusing on actions like repairing, sharing, and reusing, instead of always buying new and throwing away. I’ve spent the first two years of my PhD immersing myself in academic debates about the circular economy, and it’s taken me across a whole breadth of topics, including discard studies, Jevons paradox and rebound effects, and ideas of circular citizenship. But the term “circular economy” doesn’t mean much to the average person; it isn’t something most people talk about over dinner. In fact, many haven’t heard of it at all (and who can blame them when academics can’t even agree what it means).

So, what better way to understand what people think than getting out and talking to them? Last summer, I had the chance to do just that by helping Oxfordshire County Council with a doorstep survey in the town of Wantage. It was a great opportunity to talk to people… a lot of people. Over six weeks, the team I was working with managed to knock on nearly 4000 doors and had over 300 conversations.

Why I ended up knocking on doors?

My experience formed part of the Horizon CDT placement module, a three-month opportunity designed to help students develop skills and connect their research to a context outside of academia. My placement with Oxfordshire County Council was organised through their involvement with CircleUp, a Horizon Europe project in which my industry partner, Earthwatch Europe, is also involved. The aim of CircleUp is to explore different ways to engage households with circular economy behaviours; in particular, focusing on how to waste less clothing, electronics, paper and plastic packaging, and food (perfectly aligned with my PhD!) To test this, CircleUp is working with over 100 households in the UK, Germany, Latvia and Norway.

As part of the UK activities in CircleUp, Oxfordshire County Council wanted to run a doorstep household survey with two aims: to understand what circular economy behaviours people already did, and to recruit households to take part in the CircleUp project. Rather than asking about the circular economy directly (a surefire way to prompt blank stares), the questions instead focused on examples of activities to reduce waste run by the local environmental group Sustainable Wantage (for instance, a repair café, library of things, refill shop, clothes swap, and community fridge).

The fieldwork came with its own set of challenges. As usual in the British summer, we spent as much time sheltering from the torrential rain as we did shading from the sun. And each door knock could start a new adventure from (over)friendly dogs, people in the middle of moving house, and others who were keen for a long chat (or rant) about completely unrelated topics. But was all the risk worth the reward?

What I learned from the conversations

I learnt a lot from the placement. It gave me great hands-on experience in every stage of designing and conducting a large-scale household survey. The data collected will also provide really helpful context for the studies I’m carrying out in my PhD. But the biggest learnings weren’t these practical skills, they were the cumulation of experience from each door knocked. Every conversation revealed a different perspective, as much shaped by practical realities and family routines as they were by deeply-held values and beliefs. It reminded me that circular economy behaviours aren’t abstract concepts – they are built on layers of lived experience and personal history, mixtures of habits and impulsive actions, and that often, despite best intentions, behaviour is determined by local infrastructure and other practical limitations.

One of the biggest takeaways I had from the experience was that, although the term circular economy is unfamiliar, the underlying principles of reducing waste through reuse, repair, and sharing are instinctively appealing to a lot of people. Even if people hadn’t heard about community activities like library of things or repair cafes before, once we explained more about them, many really liked the idea and seemed keen to get involved.

At the same time, the conversations could be difficult to navigate because everyone brought their own priorities and interpretations. Once we’d mentioned waste, some people dismissed the whole topic as about recycling and couldn’t see beyond this as the main (or only) way to reduce waste.

Overall, the placement challenged me to think differently, talk about my work differently, and reflect more deeply on the purpose of my PhD. It helped me learn what the circular economy could mean to the people whose everyday habits shape it . And ultimately, it helped me to ask, “what matters to households (and what doesn’t)?”

And for that, nothing beats knocking on a door and having a conversation.

post by Kirsty Woodward (2023 cohort)

During my placement at the Institute of Mental Health, I explored the RECOGNeyes project, which is a project that challenges how we think about attention and gaming. My role focused on helping to develop this innovative computerised game, which is designed to improve attention in children with ADHD.

Unlike most games that use a mouse, keyboard or handheld controller, RECOGNeyes allows players to control gameplay through their eye gaze. The science behind this approach builds on research showing that gaze-based training can enhance eye control, improve reading fluency, and even lead to changes in the brain. Building on these findings, the project now aims to introduce this technology in schools to determine whether it can improve attention among children with ADHD.

Behind the Scenes: Designing Eye-Tracking Tasks

One of the main components of my placement was task development. I was responsible for creating several experimental tasks for the upcoming study, exploring whether the RECOGNeyes game improve a child’s attention or if it simply trains gaze stability without improving information processing.

To explore this, I developed two reading tasks. Recognising that a “one size fits all” approach rarely works with children, we ensured that each participant would see tasks suited to their specific age or reading ability. The experiment randomly selected three of nine reading extracts, one from each category (animals, space, and history). All extracts were created and evaluated with a widely used readability formula (ATOS) to ensure each extract matched the appropriate reading level. For each extract, I also wrote five comprehension questions to assess understanding.

In addition, I developed a task combining anti-saccade and pro-saccade measures which is a classic psychology tools for assessing subtle aspects of eye movement control. The anti-saccade part of the task (where participants must not look at the target) measures inhibition, a process often reduced in individuals with ADHD.

Developing these tasks allowed me to build both my technical and conceptual skills. I gained hands-on experience with Tobii Lab software, which I anticipate will be invaluable for my future research. While learning to interpret results, specifically reading-related eye-tracking metrics, I realised the importance of making knowledge accessible across disciplines. To support this, I produced a detailed how-to guide for developing tasks and how to modify them, alongside a glossary of metrics. Creating these materials enhanced my ability to communicate complex processes clearly, which is a vital skill in multidisciplinary research settings.

Meeting the Players: Co-designing with Children

While the technical work was rewarding, the most human element of my placement was supporting Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) sessions.

These sessions were about collaboration and connection. Before each meeting, I set up the equipment and ensured every child had a functioning station for playing RECOGNeyes. Once participants arrived, the focus shifted from preparation to engagement. I helped the children learn how to control the game with their eyes, gathered real-time feedback, and assisted with the control task.

This hands-on involvement generated invaluable feedback. Working directly with children with ADHD, their parents, teachers, and Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) reinforced a powerful lesson, which is that research design must involve those with lived experience. The children’s feedback highlighted areas where the game could be more engaging, reminding us that the success of an intervention depends not only on its theoretical effectiveness but also on its appeal to users. This experience demonstrated the power of co-design in producing research that is not only valid but genuinely impactful in real-world contexts.

Resilience and the Realities of Research

My time with RECOGNeyes taught me as much about resilience as it did about research. Projects rarely unfold exactly as planned, and we faced delays and unforeseen challenges. Observing the senior researchers’ persistence taught me a lot and reminded me that risk assessments are not just administrative tasks but essential tools for anticipating and mitigating potential issues.

Final Thoughts

This placement significantly enhanced my professional and research skills, particularly in task design, collaboration, and stakeholder engagement.

Communicating across diverse fields from game development to education has improved both my confidence and my ability to translate research for varied audiences. Ultimately, this experience has reinforced my motivation to pursue research that not only contributes to academic knowledge but also makes a meaningful difference in everyday life. Engaging with a project that bridges technology, psychology and real-world application offered a refreshing complement to my PhD work.

post by Torran Semple (2021 cohort)

Through the Horizon Impact Grant, I collaborated with Broxtowe Borough Council to support ongoing work on the identification and understanding of damp and mould cases in housing stock.

Building on previous work with the Council on fuel poverty and retrofit schemes, the project applied data science and spatial analysis techniques to explore the distribution of damp and mould across Broxtowe. The aim was to support more targeted decision-making around housing inspections and remedial interventions.

Figure 1 illustrates the output of the univariate spatial analysis. In practice, this map can be used to target Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs)—geographical units of ~600–800 households—with the most severe issues. I also began developing bivariate maps to assess the correlation between fuel poverty and damp and mould, given the strong link between these conditions. To achieve this, I developed an area-level dataset combining damp and mould, fuel poverty, and Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) statistics. This dataset is, in itself, a useful resource for BBC, as they had not previously examined the spatial relationship between these variables.

The work highlights how spatial data science can be used to support local authorities in understanding complex, overlapping challenges in housing quality, energy vulnerability, and public health.

 

post by Szymon Olejarnick (2023 cohort)

On 23 – 25 June 2025, I took part in the Digital Good Network Summer School (DGNSS) 2025, a summer school funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), which took place in Sheffield, alongside my colleagues, Lucy and Jenn (you can read Lucy’s reflection here). I wanted to share my own experience of this summer school to provide an “outsider” quantitative experience of the mixed methods theme of the DGNSS.

The Digital Good Network in itself ties together researchers from across the UK and beyond, who work on one shared topic: what does the “digital good” mean and how do we get there? Over the course of the three days of the DGNSS, I took part in a wide variety of workshops and networking activities, all tied under the theme of developing and fostering digital good. This blog post will briefly describe my experience with the events and networking at the DGNSS 2025.

Two sessions were particularly important for my own research. The first was a workshop on online hate, convened by Dr Danielle Kelly from University of the West of Scotland. We looked at a variety of AI-generated examples of hate discourse shared on social media. We were split into groups to work on one of the examples – in my case, we worked on sexist online discourse. We analysed the motive behind hate speech, probable cause and consequences, and ways of preventing hate speech. As the DGNSS is an interdisciplinary event, I got to analyse this excerpt alongside sociologists, cyberpsychologists and cybersecurity researchers. Pooling our knowledge and experience together, we arrived at a complex explanation of the example from both a macro and micro standpoint, highlighting how online discourse usually revolves around the struggle for power. This exposed me to analysing online behaviours through lenses other than psychological, underlining that online behaviours can also stem from issues in the wider society, rather than from within an individual. This is especially crucial for my PhD, as the player multidimensional wellbeing (PMDWell) framework I have developed draws from psychological, sociological and policy literature to arrive at a comprehensive framework of internal and external player wellbeing.

The other session that was of particular interest was a demonstration on natural language processing, convened by Dr Laszlo Horvath from Birkbeck, University of London. We were provided with a gentle introduction to the concept of natural language processing – parsing dense blocks of text through an algorithm that can then can not only conduct quasi-thematic analysis, but can also classify words and phrases according to their linguistic role, for example, nouns, adjectives or emotive language. This data can then be analysed and presented in a wide variety of ways, particularly as bar graphs, representing the frequency of word usage according to linguistic class. We then got an opportunity to experiment with some of this on our own using Python and Anaconda, using parliamentary minutes as data. This allowed me to learn what the natural language processing workflow looks like and what kind of results it would be able to provide. I am very much looking forward to employing natural language processing later in my PhD, experimenting with how it could be employed in addition to standard thematic analysis of interview transcripts.

Although not immediately relevant to my PhD, the remaining sessions were also just as interesting and provided me with an opportunity to dive into a different range of research methods. During the reading session, we discussed three human-computer interaction papers, selected especially due to their unorthodox format, typically not seen in psychological or STEM literature. This exposed me to the wide variety of ways that a paper can be written and argued about. During the session about data visualisation, we got exposed to the idea of data visualisation as an art, rather than a sheer necessity, underlining how we can better communicate complex scientific ideas by crafting intricate graphics to best showcase our results. The co-design workshop also made us think about a research challenge from a unique standpoint, designing a prototype using the academic and lived expertise of an interdisciplinary group, to arrive at a product that can be used by anyone. There was also enough downtime during the day, which allowed me to incorporate some of the things I’ve learnt into my own research, particularly the data visualisation workshop, after which I was able to improve the graphics for my upcoming paper.

Outside of the sessions, the DGNSS was also an excellent opportunity to network and foster connections for further collaborations. The initial icebreakers were prompted by a “pecha kucha” style presentations – each participant got to present their entire PhD in less than 2 minutes, making us extract the most meaning out of it, at the same time pushing us to make the topic as accessible as possible, considering the interdisciplinary nature of the DGNSS. Thanks to this, informal chats during the event were made significantly easier, instantly recognising people and their topics whilst waiting in the queue during the coffee break. This exposed me to many researchers, who on the surface appear to be working on something completely different to me, but sharing some similarities to my own work. Sheffield was also a great place to host an event like this, with its bustling culture and hospitality. Thanks to the DGN hosting dinners in Sheffield, we got to network in a more informal setting over some great food and drinks.

The DGNSS was an excellent opportunity to learn about methods I would not otherwise consider using, and network with colleagues from fields I would not otherwise consider engaging with. Thanks to this experience, I am now a member of the Digital Good Network, and I look forward to working with them further – in the short term to provide an even wider variety of experiences during the Summer School, as well as in the long term through future grant applications and fostering collaborations. I would recommend the DGNSS to any researcher working on the digital good, especially those who want to step out of their methodological comfort zone and learn about other ways of conducting digital good research.

post by Lucy Hitcham (2023 cohort)

An introduction to the Digital Good

I first became aware of the Digital Good Network shortly before the start of my PhD in 2023, the same year the Network was set up. Their vision for understanding how digital technologies shape our worlds and how we can work towards a good digital society resonated with me and my optimism for how technology can improve our lives. For me, this is about understanding how digital technologies can be used for the good of people’s mental health. So I took note of their goals for the research programme and the opportunities they would be offering and bided my time, waiting to apply for the summer school at the right point in my PhD. To my delight, I was accepted to the 2025 summer school cohort at the University of Sheffield.

Going back to school

The summer school took place over the course of three, packed days of activities and networking. After a fun, and unexpectedly competitive, rock-paper-scissors icebreaker, we moved into Pecha Kucha presentations where the sheer range of backgrounds of those attending was immediately striking and continued to shape our conversations for the rest of our time together. This really brought it into perspective just how valuable interdisciplinarity is when tackling such complicated issues around technology and our society.

The next couple of days were filled with sessions to help us think, learn and challenge ourselves through an engaging line-up of talks and interactive sessions. I was introduced to new theories, methodologies, approaches and encouraged to challenge my own assumptions. The keynote by Professor Dorothea Kleine grounded us in this at the end of the first day by asking us to think about how equality, justice and sustainability should be central when we consider digital innovation. Something which is important to me as I continue to think about how ethics and responsible design should play a role for mental health technologies to make them “good”. What followed was a fascinating mix of workshops on theory, co-design, data visualization, online harms and digital ethnography.

📷photos credit: Digital Good Network

For me, these sessions helped me reflect on the direction of my research and how I can conduct it. Reema Patel’s workshop introduced the Theory of Change framework, motivating me to ask what change I would like to see, how I should frame this issue and where I see opportunities to intervene. Meanwhile in Dylan Yamada-Rice and Susan Lechelt’s sessions gave me space to appreciate the creativity we can incorporate into our research and give me hands-on experience with such participatory methods (including Play-Doh!). This reminded me that creativity is not a distraction from rigorous research, but often, it is what makes rigor possible especially when working with our communities.

So what does the digital good mean to me now?

As I move forward with my work, I carry with me new questions and approaches to my research. For me and my research topic, I hope for a society in which digital mental health technologies can be looked at with optimism, can offer safe and effective care, and are designed in a way that considers need, design and responsibility. But I also come away with a boost in my curiosity, creativity and confidence and a renewed sense of belonging and purpose, for my research but also as a member of this valuable research community. The value opportunities such as this, for connection and learning, is hard is measure but is something I would recommend to any researcher.

We’re delighted to share a new blog post from Horizon CDT student Angela Higgins, who has just returned from a month-long research exchange at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. Hosted by Professor Kristina (Kia) Höök, Angie spent late October to late November immersing herself in the lab’s work on embodied interaction design and feminist research methods.

Below, Angie reflects on the purpose of her exchange, the projects she worked on and what she took away from her time in Sweden.

---

post by Angela Higgins (2022 cohort)

Purpose of the Exchange

At the end of October 2025, I travelled to Stockholm for an exchange at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, working alongside Professor Kristina (Kia) Höök and her team, who specialise in embodied interaction design. I had previously visited the group in September 2024 for a week-long soma design workshop on chronic pain (the focus of my PhD research). That experience opened up new ways of understanding movement, sensation, and embodied experience. It also led to further collaboration (including co-writing papers and further workshops in Nottingham) and left me wanting to deepen my understanding of somaesthetic design methods.

I applied for the International Exchange grant so I could return to KTH and spend time with the team, fully immersing myself in the culture of a research group whose work centres on feminist approaches, embodied methods, and lived experience. I wanted to learn, reflect, and bring those practices back into my own work with older adults and assistive robotics.

Planned Activities

Before arriving, I planned to take part in a series of soma design workshops, spend focused time writing and thinking alongside collaborators from previous events, and simply join the everyday rhythms of the lab, from informal discussions to collaborative planning sessions.

What I Worked On

I took part in several collaborative planning and writing sessions on ongoing projects, which felt far richer and more effective than working over Zoom. I also had the chance to experiment with the brand-new Haptic Bits soma design toolkit for haptic prototyping. Alongside this, I sat in on project planning meetings to observe how ideas develop and how collaboration is nurtured within the lab. Finally, I participated in multiple soma design workshops, from small, simple sessions to large, complex multi-day events.

The main event of my visit was a three-day soma design workshop with Air Giants and researchers from KTH, Uppsala University, KAIST, and the University of Copenhagen. Air Giants, an arts company based in Bristol, create enormous, soft, interactive robots. These are big, squishy, playful machines usually seen at festivals. For this workshop, they brought a series of full-body, wearable robot prototypes for us to explore.

Our challenge was to investigate interactions and experiences with these robots, and my group worked under the theme “Touching and Being Touched.” While the robots certainly touched us (a lot, and often quite firmly), we initially struggled to understand where our own active touch fit within the interaction. By the final day, however, we created a “touching loop” by involving an additional human to control the robot, resulting in a unique and surprisingly intimate interactive experience.

The workshop was also beautifully illustrated throughout by artist Jenny Soep, offering a creative and expressive form of data capture. Overall, the event demonstrated the value of researchers spending hands-on time with emerging technologies and how physical exploration can spark new ideas in ways difficult to achieve through discussion alone.

What I Learned

I gained a much deeper understanding of soma design as both a method and a stance. Working in person with colleagues I usually only see on Zoom allowed us to build a richer collaborative relationship, helping me develop ideas around feminist approaches, embodied knowledge, and co-creation.

I also expanded my network, meeting researchers from a wide range of fields who are exploring body-centred design, interaction, health, actuation, sensing, and wellbeing from fascinating angles.

Challenges

One challenge during the exchange was finding out that our CHI paper had been rejected. Although disappointing, it became a shared moment of solidarity within the group. Several colleagues were going through the same cycle of revisions, rejections, and resubmissions, and it was reassuring to be surrounded by people who understood the frustration. We commiserated together and vented over fika, which turned the setback into a chance to connect, reflect, and regain momentum.

A Light-hearted Note

On the subject of fika (regular work breaks where people gather to drink coffee, eat something sweet, and chat) I quickly grew fond of the slow, social rhythm it creates. Stepping away from our screens for a few minutes became a simple but meaningful way to connect with the group, share ideas, and ease into the everyday life of the lab. And I have to give a special mention to kanelbullar, the cinnamon buns found everywhere in Sweden, which are particularly delicious.

Conclusion

My month at KTH was an invaluable opportunity to immerse myself in a research culture deeply aligned with my own interests in embodiment, care, and co-design. The exchange strengthened existing collaborations, introduced me to new perspectives, and gave me hands-on experience with emerging somaesthetic tools and methods. I returned inspired, energised, and equipped with new ideas to bring into my work with older adults and assistive robotics. Most importantly, the time spent with colleagues (both in workshops and over fika) reinforced the value of slow, thoughtful, embodied ways of working that place lived experience at the centre of design.

drawing by Jenny Soep www.instagram.com/jennysoep/