This was the first expression that I was like, I'm gonna burn here.  Where are all this, you know, like the towers, the beautiful places, it's just desert and the road and nothing else. Hey guys, welcome to OxyVlogs. It's been a long time. I posted my last video, but now I am back. As you know Dubai is a very popular tourist destination. That's why many people are looking for a drop in hospitality here. Currently, I live in the hotel. That's why I decided to interview one of the employees and ask him about her experience. Let's go. Can you introduce yourself in a couple of words? My name is Nuri. My full name is Nuri Zad, but everyone calls me Nuri because it's really difficult here for everyone to remember my name. And where am I from? I'm from Kyrgyzstan, originally from Kyrgyzstan. So, yeah, I came here in 19, so it's been one and a half years that I'm here. Is it the first experience of living abroad? Well, let's say I've been living in Russia before, if it counts as an abroad, but yeah, it is first experience and also like, with an English, with a different language. Yeah, it is. What did you do before you came to Dubai and why you decided to come here? It's a good question. So, I've been living, as I told you already, I've been living in Russia for a long time and I was working as a yoga instructor and also in a yoga studio before in Yekaterinburg. And then it was just five years I've been staying the same place without any changes because it was really like a yoga studio and there was nothing else to do. And also one reason is because it was really colder. So, I just decided to change the place where it could be warm, but when I came here it was really hot. It was summer time. So, yeah, this is the reason. What was your first impression when you arrived? Well, when I arrived it was, as I told you, because it was in Yekaterinburg, it was May month and in May it was still, you know, like snow. It was still cold and snow. Yeah, it was. I was expecting that it's gonna be like warm, but I didn't expect that it's gonna be hot, like really hot. And I also wear, you know, like just long sleeve clothes with the trousers. And when I just came out from the airport, this was the first expression that I was like, I'm gonna burn here. Okay. And I didn't have any clothes to change at the same time because everything was packed in my bag. And yeah, and then the person from the company, he met us. He took us, me and my friend. So we met with her as well at the airport. And he took us.  And I was like, what, what is this? Where are all this, you know, like the towers, the beautiful places. It's just desert and the road and nothing else. So, yeah. And, and also he took us and dropped us in the desert, in the middle of the desert. So our accommodation is almost in the middle of the desert. But now it's getting better because they have, again, new towers, new buildings, just buildings. But yeah, this was the first expression. What challenges did you face? I wouldn't say that it's challenges, but again, with weather, I guess, because it wasn't what I expected here. I just, I was expecting it's going to be warm, but not 50 degrees or 40 even. The first fall when I arrived, I was like, I didn't really love downtown. Okay, because it, it looked for me too, like too perfect. It's like a video game, for example. Yeah. But about challenges, I guess it was just the weather and oh, at the beginning, because I didn't have any experience like that I was, but they talk English with anyone. It was just, you know, like maybe practicing with my teacher sometimes again once a week. Yeah, I was so scared, so scared to say any word. And everyone thought that I'm super quiet girl here, that I don't talk to anyone. It was just the barrier, language barrier, I guess. Yeah, this was a challenge, really. What was your first drop in Dubai? First drop in Dubai, so it's hospitality. So it's going to be, it was here, it was, it's a bid I'm ready of the hotel, so in hospitality, and by the way, it was my first experience in hospitality in the hotel itself. So as a GSA guest service agent, because the front office receptionist. So how I find it, I found it through the agency in Russia. So I just sent the, actually my CV for a hostess. Okay, we'll start it from hostess, because I really wanted to change a place. And I sent my CV. And after half a year, they, they sent me an email that there is a hotel who is hiring a lot of stuff, like whole stuff for the hotel. And I went there for an interview, all was good. And well, and then I met one guy who came as a recreator as well. And he said, like, which like position are you looking for? And even if my CV was hostess, I said, I would like to go as GSA. And he's like, do you have an experience? I was like, no, I don't have, but I want to go as a GSA. I don't care. And he said, okay, you can try, but without experience, they will not hire. Okay. And I was like, you know, like with 100% of confidence, I just went in with CV of hostess. And the GM of the hotel, he was interviewing us.  I would say, yeah. And the questions we talk about, it was just about like, do you miss your country? Do you miss your national food? All this stuff, you know, like he, of course, he asked also like questions about my experience and etc. But mostly it was just five minutes, maybe not even more. And he said, okay, okay, that's good. That's it. Did you try to find a job as a yoga instructor? That time now, because as I told you, I wasn't good in English, first of all, and I wasn't sure that they're gonna hire me because I didn't have also the international certification because I mean, lessons with Russian, I cannot work here. Did you get any additional benefits besides the salary? Yeah, so of course we do have accommodation. It depends on the grade, for example, for each person. A grade depends on what position you're working in, so designation. Yeah, we do have accommodation included in the food, for example, what else? Transportation, all this stuff and visa, tickets. If people want to find a job in hospitality, what would you recommend them to do and where to look for a job? Well, again, if it's in a different country, so I would offer to, again, to come with the agencies because it's more safe. It's an easiest way to find a job in other countries. I mean, in a hospitality, in another country. And again, if you're staying in Dubai or in the country, but you would like to find a job, so then there is a lot of websites, for example, with vacancies. Did you pay anything to the agency? It was a Russian company, I guess everyone knows about it, so usually they hire stuff for different companies, like for hotels, for hospitality, even for Emirates airlines, I guess they do it. So, yes, they usually ask for money, but also it depends on the vacancy. There are some vacancies which are not chargeable and for which you have to pay. Mostly for hospitality, as I understood, they charge, so it's around like 100-150 dollars maybe. Today is your last day at your current job. Where are you going now? So, yes, today is my last day, which is really good. And again, it's a little bit sad because I really get used to this place, to all the guests, to all my staff, colleagues, place, it's beautiful, but again, I have to move forward, right? So, yeah, as I wanted, I just found a job as a yoga teacher. Let's say my dream job for now. And I'm moving to the Abu Dhabi to one of the beautiful islands, which is Nurai Island. Yeah, hopefully I will enjoy it. What do you like about working in hospitality? Well, in the hospitality, again, I would, you know, say Vida itself, like Vida brand itself, I like it more because, I mean, I had the offer maybe to move to Atris, but I don't like Atris because it's Firestar and everything, you know, it should be perfect. And I'm not the person who was all about the perfection. So here it's more simple, first of all, and it's more about people. So, yeah, also about services, well, but about the people more so you can meet a lot of different people and you are free to talk. It's not only about like, yes, sir, ma'am or something else. What challenges did you face while working in hospitality? Again, we're working with people, right? We can meet a lot of different people. So, yeah, I mean, I faced a lot of different situations here. It depends on the person. If you are really good in communication with people, so it will be really easy for you even to handle the situation. But if you're not, I mean, not interested in, I don't know, if you're not the type who likes to talk with people, right? So it's going to be really difficult because, again, I had a colleague who just worked maybe for three months and they left because it was hard just to handle people. And again, it's, again, providing the service.  How did it happen? Okay, so during my, like, all this time when I was working in the hotel, I tried to, I was trying to actually to take some private classes outside as well with people. And the best time for me was, you know, like, the quarantine. This quarantine is a really, was hard. But again, it was the beginning of everything for me because I had enough time. I had, yeah, first of all, time. And also my friend, and she was always with me and, you know, like, encouraging every time, like, you have to do it, you can't do it, you know, like to supporting me every time. And I just started, we just started doing yoga every morning because there was nothing to do else, right? And we was locked in our accommodation, and now we're to go. I started making also videos, you know, like posting on Instagram and putting all these hashtags like yoga device, something else, and making some posts about yoga as well. And, well, it worked. People just started, like, messaging me, are you doing like private classes and all this stuff. And then on the end of the quarantine, before the opening of the hotel, I already had like almost three or four clients who was doing yoga. So that time, before the reopening the hotel. So we were two months right in the quarantine, like the strongest one, which was really locked down. And later it, when it opened, when it was allowed to go out to 11, I guess. So yeah, I was taking yoga classes. And then when I was good at yoga in English, that I was ready to teach in English. So I just decided to take a license so I could work here. I started my online courses. And when I was done with my license, I just started sending everywhere to CVs, you know, because after the quarantine, there was so many, so many vacancies like everywhere, not only yoga. So I decided that it's time to change, like, yeah, and it happened. What advice would you give to those who are planning to come to Dubai? Just make sure that you really want to move here, maybe just to search more information about this place. If you would like to stay here or not, for how long, about the weather, and about the rules, because sometimes it's really difficult here, right? And that's it. And just come if you want to come. What about skills? Skills?  It was just a little bit, so just to say, you know, hi, bye, and what would you like to have, all this stuff. But later, when you are inside of this, so you will just quickly learn the language. If your friend was planning to move to Dubai, what is the minimum monthly budget to do advice to have? It again depends on where, what are you going to do, for example, if it is in hospitality, as long as your recommendation and food and transportation is covered. So maybe, okay, maybe you can just keep some, I don't know, $400, $500, it's going to be enough because everything you have, you just need maybe because when I was moving, I was just, you know, like I didn't take all these basic things as dental key, there's a shampoo, all this stuff, so that's why I just needed this money. But again, while you're moving, you will need at least one month just to get used to this place, to your work, you know, and then you start exploring because again, you will need your energy and time, right? Because it's something new for you. Do you miss your home country and what do you wish to have here? Sometimes I feel that I, yeah, I miss my country because for now, for example, I'm just, I'm a person who really loves New Year, you know, this holidays and there is no snow. I really want to snow and also food, I really miss food. And also when you work, for example, for me, I don't have a kitchen, I don't have an opportunity to cook. I'm not able to. So yeah, the food is most important.  Nothing. No, I mean, it's not about what will make me. I just, if I feel that it was enough for me in this country, maybe I will go home, but I don't have any plans for now to go back. Yeah, I would like to just finish all my plans here first of all, and then maybe for vacation. Thank you for watching this video. If it was useful, please don't forget to support me with your likes and follow me on Instagram where I share my daily stories. See you soon. Bye-bye.


So, hello, my name is Simon Clark. I am the EEGU's Programs Coordinator, and welcome to this webinar, Look Who's Talking, Decoding Science for a Non-Science Audience. This webinar will inform scientists on how to engage with the media and communicate science and research findings to an audience they may not have the same scientific background. The webinar will last approximately 45 minutes, with time after for questions. If you have a question, please type it in your Q&A box at the bottom of your screen, where you can also upload questions you think should be answered. So, to take us on our journey today is Cheryl Travasso, who is a scientist by academic training, a communications expert, and who has over a decade's worth of experience in science communications. So, welcome Cheryl, would you like to begin? Sure, thank you. I'm just going to share my screen. All right, so thank you everyone. It's such a joy for me to be here to talk about a subject that I have to say is very, very close to my heart. Before we get into anything, I want to relate to you a very common scenario that I would come across frequently during my research days. Maybe some of you will be able to identify with it. You know, whenever you go to a party or some sort of social gathering or a dinner where people who are not from your lab are, right, non-academicians, people with different backgrounds, and you're talking to them and they say, so what do you do for a living? And I say, well, I'm currently doing research and people are automatically very interested and they'd say, oh, really? So what is it that you do? And I don't know about you, but I think for many researchers, I think for many researchers that it's so whenever we're asked about our research, I think something inside us lights up like a Christmas tree. And we're so excited to talk and I would go into great detail about the protein that I was working on and how it was linked in cancer research and talk about the virus and the HPV virus and Eastern bacterial systems and the challenges that I was facing and what was working and what wasn't and lots of details, lots of details.  They were really trying to understand what I was saying and they put their heart into it, but you could see it in their face. They were trying to understand. And if I was speaking to someone who I didn't know very often, their eyes would at some point in time just glaze over and I knew that I had lost them already in the conversation. And the responses that I would usually get when I finished this entire spiel, however long it took me was, you know, what? It sounds really exciting. I'm happy for you. I'm not quite sure what you said, but good luck. Or, you know, this sounds very high five for me, but sure, it sounds fabulous and I can see you're passionate about it. And I think I remember my sibling one saying to me, well, the only word I understood in all that you said was virus and that's about it. And, you know, like, I don't know if some of you have seen this book. This is a book by Alan Alda. He is a well known Hollywood celebrity and then he moved into science communication. And I love the title of his book, right? And he says, if I understood you, would I have this look on my face? And this is the look that we see on a lot of people's faces when scientists begin to talk about science without realizing that the people that they are talking to have an entirely different vocabulary from that. So do not understand anything that is being said. Now, the point here that's important to note is that particularly in the sciences and even in some other fields, what happens is that we develop, we have this lexicon, we have this dictionary of words that we use when we're talking about our work that is so different. It doesn't matter what your main language is, it's so different. The words mean so many different things. And even if a biologist is talking to a geologist or a geologist is talking to a chemist, sometimes no one understands what the other person is doing. So before I even, before I get into my slides and before we talk about what we will talk about shortly, professionally, I have worked in public relations. I've been in health communications and science communications for 10 years. Public relations for six. And what I do at the team that I work with does is we work with pharmaceutical companies, we work with doctors and other professionals. And the main thing that we're supposed to do is to understand the research, understand the science, understand what they're saying. And then we go out to media and to journalists and say to them, you know what, there's this really interesting person here and they would like to talk to you about this product of this new research. Would you like to speak to them? So a lot of what I get to do is to understand the science behind a drug or a disease and then to convert that into plain speak, that anyone irrespective of background and irrespective of vocabulary or lexicon would be able to understand. So it's really exciting for me to be here. And I think on the agenda, what we're going to talk about in the next half an hour to 45 minutes is talk about how geoscientists can better engage with media and how can we better communicate our research to people who do not have the same expertise as we do. I mean, the experts in other subjects, but they just don't have the background in the scientific training that we do. Now, if you look at the world that we're living in today, it's a very interesting one. There is no shortage of information. If anything, we are inundated with news and new information all the time, whether we're in social media, whether we're scrolling through Instagram, whether you open Google to search for something, whether you see the news on TV, print media, no matter what it is, people are inundated with information. Scientific content as well has become far easier to access. Okay, I mean, there are news stories, there are people talking, there's writing of blogs, there's all of this. So content is easy to access. But if the scientific content is scientifically dense, or it does not have clear content, clear messaging, and it doesn't have a good, the right context, instead of leading to more information and actually just leads to further confusion and a lack of clarity. So that is something that we can address as scientists to a certain extent just by seeing what we say and by seeing how we say it. So this is a very simple flow chart of the process of speaking to media. And listen, I had to use images that were free to use. So if this is not thoroughly representative of the field, well, I'm sorry, but we're going to have to make do with it. Imagine that there's you. Now, perhaps there's a piece of research, there's a new paper that you've published, a reporter has seen it, and they're very interested to know more about the subject. So they write to you and they say that they would like to have an interview with you. Sometimes the way this happens is that the media center or the press office in your university or in your college goes out and informs media about new research that's done and says, this is a scientist perhaps you'd like to speak to them. Sometimes the reporter or the journalist themselves have heard about something that you've done and they're very interested to talk to. So they come to you, you have the opportunity to speak to them, to share a message, create a message, deliver it. Then the reporter, the editor, they will work together and they will write up the story and then it's put out in the public. Now, once you have finished speaking to a reporter, there's not a lot that you can do to control how the story is written. It's very rare that the reporter will cross check it with you after the story has been written before publication, which means that as a scientist, what you can do is control or prepare the what, the message that you are speaking, prepare the how, the delivery and how you speak to media and there are two important stakeholders that you need to know about. You need to know about the reporter and you need to know about the audience that you're finally speaking to. So let's work backwards. Let's first talk about the audience. You know, sometimes, and I've heard this very often, there are words like, we're speaking to the general audience, we're speaking to the public, the general public. And the problem with those phrases like that is it may make us seem as if the entire general public is like this homogeneous group of people. And in fact, and I hope that this picture does a little bit to say that they're far more diverse than we can think. And what do I mean by that? There is no such thing as a general audience. Your general audience is a very diverse heterogeneous group of people who differ in ages. It could be that you're speaking to a younger audience, people who are out from college or university, you could be speaking to people who are in the corporate world, people be speaking to parents, you could be speaking to older people. So there's great heterogeneity in age. In background, as well, perhaps some of them have done science when they were in school, maybe some of them have kept themselves aware of what is happening so they know what's going on to other people. There's not much of a background there. You also have in your audience, people who are directly related with your subject. For example, other scientists also read papers, right? You could have government stakeholders who are reading the papers. You could have policy makers, decision makers, people who, you know, especially when there is scientific material that you need to share to influence policy. These are all people who are in your general audience. Now, in addition to all of this diversity that there is, perhaps you're aware of the Simpsons. I know that they're a pretty famous lot all over the world. But if not, think of your favorite sitcom. Okay. And now putting up Simpsons is a case in point. You may be speaking to someone who's just naturally very studious like Aliza. You could be speaking to someone who's got a fair amount of curiosity like a March, but you will also have people who are very easily distracted or completely disinterested like Homer and Bart, which means that your group is diverse, interest levels are diverse. And as a scientist, you want to do your level best to try and make sure that there is something for everyone. You may not be able to interest everyone and that's completely okay. But try and make sure that there is something for everyone. Another thing that's very important is before you even get to the step of crafting your message and figuring out how to deliver it, try to know, try to further define who this target audience is. And I will come to that in just a moment. Yeah, there's this quote that's often attributed to Albert Einstein, and it says, you know, the definition of genius is to take the complex and to make it simple. And if I were to add another layer to that, I would say that, you know, the better you know your subject, the easier it is to make it simple. And as scientists, we're so well placed to take something that is inherently or something that's complicated or complex, and make it simple for anyone to understand because we know the subject that we're talking about. Now, just as we said that the audience that we're talking to is a diverse and heterogeneous and we need to know and define who we're speaking to, we also need to know the reporter. And the reason is well, like we said for the public, there's nothing general here as well. The reporters also are a very diverse group of people. Now, for example, a reporter who is interested in your work could be a city reporter, which means that they normally look at different things that are affecting the city and it could be anything, it could be politics, it could be science, maybe even a little bit of sports, maybe the fact that your university is in the city and you've done such fantastic research, that's the reason why they're interested. You could also have a reporter reach out to you that does a lot of technical and scientific reporting. So this could be a journalist that has covered geology or covered science, covered biology for many years, and they see something that you've written about that's interesting. There could be reporters who are also very different in experience, and it can go from one to years, it can go 20 years. There are reporters who have very high scientific degrees themselves, while others who by sheer experience understand the subject. Now, who the reporter is is also linked to what publication that they are writing for. Publications can also be different. Okay, it could be that the reporter is writing for a feature story which comes on weekends, which means that they are looking for something that's a little lighter from you. It could be that the journalist writes for a science magazine, a geology magazine, which means that they want something that's simple, but they want the details as well. They want to include the technical details, but in a way that people can understand. They could, it could be in a print format. It could be in a digital format, which means that there is a greater possibility of including maybe infographics or some fun images that you have to explain the science. The reason all of these matter is because what you say depends on the journalist that you're speaking to, the type of publication that they work for, and the audience that their publication is targeted. So whenever you set out to do an interview, the moment you know who the journalist is, you can either ask the media center to help you with this or you can use our good friend Google, but the idea would be look up the last five to six stories that the journalist has written. Look at how they write about science. I think even if you read four, five, six stories, you'll have a fair idea of how technical are they, what's their kind of style, what is their own level of expertise. Do they like to include a third party opinion? What is the kind of audience that they are addressing? And if you don't know that, just ask them. I'm sure they will be happy to help you with that. If you spot, well, I called it a red flag, if you spot a certain line of questioning that you think you would not be comfortable with, make sure you tell your media center or the person who's helping you liaise with media just in cases. Usually this would be vetted, but in case that happens, just inform them and see how you want to take this ahead. All right, so coming to the main section, which is really talking about crafting the message and how we speak science to an audience. Now, I've got 10 points.  So I've kept all the references at the end and you can always have a look at it. But we look at 10 points to keep in mind when it comes to actually preparing what we're going to say to media during an interview. And I think I know that this is, we would know this, but I feel like it must be reiterated. We must prepare ahead of time. Now, I grant you that for most of us scientists, if you were to wake us up at 3 a.m. in the morning when we were fast asleep and ask us a question about our research, I think most people would be able to give you a very accurate and a very articulate answer, just because we live and breathe the science that we do it. But if you are speaking to media and this is a new space for you, don't do it off the cuff. Don't try and wing it at the last minute because it is a little, it is a slightly different style and there are details that you need to think through beforehand. So prepare, plan ahead of time what you will say. Now, another very important question is to ask yourself why should people care about what you're saying? Okay, why, what makes your research newsworthy? What makes it relevant to the target audience that you are addressing? Now, why am I even saying this? Well, who your target audience is will determine what they are interested in.  Now, there are different reasons to communicate science. Sometimes you want to share with people exciting findings that you just had. You want to increase their own appreciation and excitement about science. You want to increase public knowledge about it. You want to make sure that when decisions are taken, all perspectives are taken into account. And as we saw repeatedly during the last two years of the pandemic, you know, there was so much research that was happening, for example, on COVID, on the vaccines, on the drugs, on the medicines, on what needed to be used, when would people need to be hospitalized, when was quarantining necessary to wear a mask, not wear a mask, what type of mask. Now, all of these decisions, all of this public policy, all of this behavior, depended on the science and the research being done and how that was communicated to people. So there are a ton of different reasons to communicate science, but you must ask yourself what makes your research relevant to the audience that you're speaking to. Now, once that is done, it becomes very important to identify three to four key messages. Now, I know that sometimes I can feel a little overwhelming because there's so much that you can talk about as a researcher. There are so many things about your research and everything feels interesting to you, right? Again, ask yourself, who is the audience? What do you want to, what do you think they would be interested in? For example, maybe there are three results that you want to share with them. Maybe there are three implications of your result that you would want to share with them. Maybe there are three focus areas, three reasons why your work is important. So there are small nuances that would change, but again, this would depend on who you are speaking to and what level of technical information they need to know. Another question to ask yourself is, what in your research is something that people need to know versus what would be nice for them to know? So the moment you are able to sort that out, the need to know becomes your core messaging and everything fits around it. Now, these three to four key messages must become the heart of what you are saying to people, right? Now, here's one where I think a scientist, sometimes we dig a bit of a hole for ourselves because we're so used to speaking to other scientists. We're so used to speaking with what would be considered scientific jargon for people who don't speak the same way with us, that this is the part where we really need to figure out how to speak, how to remove all of the jargon from the communication and just stick to the main messages. Now, I'm going to read this for you. If you spot a geological error in this, forgive me, I'm a biologist. This is a fairly famous piece of work, but let me read it. Try and guess what I'm saying before I tell you what it is. A research team proceeded towards the apex of a natural geologic protuberance. The purpose of their expedition being the procurement of a sample of fluid hydride of oxygen in a large vessel, the exact size of which was unspecified. Now, one member of the team precipitantly descended, sustaining severe fractural damage to the upper cranial portion of his anatomical structure. Subsequently, the second member of the team performed a self-rotational translation oriented in the direction taken by the first member. Do you know what I'm talking about? I'm talking about Jack and Jill who went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after. Now, maybe you guessed that, but the reason I've even put this here is it's actually it's something it's taken from a site called what would happen if scientists wrote nursery rhymes. I don't know who the original writer is. If I ever find that out, I will credit this, find out who it was, I would credit it to them. The idea of putting this is that the simplest things can be said with a ton of jargon and make it completely go out of the realm of most people who want to hear it. So you have the option of making something very complex, but you also have the option of making the complex simple. There is another one, but I think I will keep that for you to see later if you check this website out. Okay, so at the heart, when we are figuring out, once we figure out what are those three main messages that we want to talk about and we're crafting those messages, it's very important to remove jargon or even niche words. For example, a word like let's say when a chemist uses the word solution. People don't know whether solution is necessarily in the chemistry sense of the word or solution is in the sense of the word answer unless you have context. Words like hygroscopy, absorbing water. You can explain the technical details with words that everyone can understand. As I said before, because you are knee deep in this research, you live and breathe it because you know it so well, you are very well placed to do this. Be prepared to explain all and any technical details that you have in everyday language. And I really believe there is everyday language for everything that there is to be said. But at the same time, it's important not to and this was a phrase that used to be thrown around very frequently earlier.  Okay, it's a horrible phrase. I think it needs to be removed completely. You are not speaking to a child. You are not trying to oversimplify something. You are not trying to lecture anyone. You are speaking to peers who merely have a different set of vocabulary when you're speaking to them. So remove all the jargon, remove all the niche words, remove words like you know, things like dynamics and words that have could have different meanings in different contexts. Make sure you explain what you are referring to when you use words like that. Now, this can feel like a bit of a tightrope, I admit, because on the one hand, we're saying simplify, don't get into too many complex details, stick to the main messages. And at the same time, we're saying, don't talk down, do not lecture, don't sound like you're talking to a child, because that's really not the case. How do you find that balance? I have to admit it's easier once you start doing it. Once you just set your mind to do it, you will find the words and you will know exactly what to say. Another thing, another aid to help you is just imagine that you're out for a cup of coffee with a friend, with a peer who doesn't come from the same geology background as you do or does not have the same academic expertise that you have. How would you speak to them if they were really interested in understanding about the work that you do? How would you speak to them? And just keep that in mind and craft your messages. Now, another very important thing is provide a context for what you're saying, okay? Especially if this is something, especially if this is research that is still in the early stages, particularly if this is research that still needs further validation, needs further verification, you need to do more experiments to be able to say whether it holds true. Make sure you communicate that clearly, okay? Don't be afraid if it sounds a little uncertain, just make sure you communicate that clearly. I'll give you an example of someone, it's a Twitter handle called, I believe it's just says in mice, okay? Again, I've got a reference at the back of it so you can check it out. Very often in biology, there are certain experiments that are first done in cells and you do them in animals and then you start doing it in patients and it takes a long time, it takes multiple rounds of clinical trials before you know whether it holds true or not. Sometimes, a headline is written in such a way that an experiment that was actually done with mice is made to sound like it is the absolute truth until you read the article and maybe reach the fourth paragraph and you realize, oh, this was just done in mice. So, there is a Twitter handle called just says in mice and whenever that person finds any such headline, they retweeted just says in mice and so you remember like, oh, okay, this seems interesting but let's hold on for a bit and see whether those results really carry through. So, remember to provide a context because not everyone who's listening to you understands the complexities of the subject that you're talking about the way you understand it. This is interesting, flip the order. Now, when scientists stop to scientists, we ramble a little bit, let's be fair, okay, we might start with a bit of an introduction and say that this was the hypothesis and these were the materials, this was the experimental design, this is what we did, these were the results that we got, this led us to this particular conclusion and this is a discussion around that. Now, that's a great approach when you're talking to scientists because I think all of us are trained to think that way. When you're speaking to media, you need to flip that around. You must start with the results and the conclusion, tell the person why your results were significant, what is in it for other people and then go to how it's done and this is very, very crucial when you're talking to media, when you're talking to the public, people want to know so what was it, give me that one line, that two lines and whenever you read stories, whenever you read science stories that are written for a wider group of people, for example, I think Science Daily, the website does that, some well-known news stories will also do it. The first paragraph encapsulates the main reason you need to be reading the rest of it. It will tell you what the results were, why it's significant, you read that and think, oh, this is interesting and that's the reason why people will read the rest of the paper. So just remember, flip the order in which you speak. This is important. Use stories. Now, stories in no way are a substitute for data at all and nor should they distort the truth that's not their point. But when you use stories, it helps people to connect with what you are saying. It's very compelling. I think I watched this show on Netflix and there were scientists that were talking about coddles and coddles bleaching and climate change and all of that and what they did and it was a very powerful moment.  They had two images, the image of the before and the image of the after, of the coddles and they just showed that before it went on. Now, that was so powerful because in one image, you realized the intensity of the problem and that made you want to listen to them even more. Okay. And sometimes scientists, unfortunately, people think that we can be a very cold bunch of people because we like talking data and to us, data is not cold.  That's true. But when we're talking to the general public, not general, but when we're talking to the public, it's very important to use stories to make a point. I've also heard of some other client change problems where people spoke about it from a firefighters point of view, a firefighter that was fighting the wildfires that was such a problem and from his point of view and then you move into the bulk of the story that you want to say. Now, again, that makes for a compelling reason because people are able to connect with what you are saying. Linked to stories is the use of analogies. Analogies just help people understand immediately. And I think this is like, for example, when you're talking about space, when you're talking about that kind of size is a lot of people don't quite get the magnitude of things. When it comes to the planets, like, for example, if you were talking about the red spot on Jupiter, and you nearly said how large it was in terms of kilometers, I don't think a lot of people would get it. But I've seen this analogy on the NASA website where they said three Earths could fit into the ancient stone that was there. Now suddenly, it becomes very relatable. You understand what to say. I have read there are stories, for example, on volcanoes and on magma, which explained the dynamics of the lava to the squeezing of toothpaste out of a tube. They were also talking about seismic activity and they linked that to the sound that cutlery or a fork makes when you tap it against a glass and how the amount of volume, the volume of the water, the kind of liquid that's in it will change the sound that's produced and they related it to seismic details. I'm sorry, I don't remember all of that. But it sticks when you read something like that, when you read an analogy like that, something that's commonplace, you understand it a lot better. I've heard, for example, that the international space station, instead of just saying that it is 360 feet across, they described it as the length of a football field. Now all of a sudden, it's relatable. So use analogies, use analogies to make a point. Use statistics that add to the narrative. Now, again, I think I've heard a lot of scientists love to talk numbers and love to talk incidence rates, prevalence rates, and everyone gets it, right? But when you're talking to the public, make sure that you're using numbers, not just as fillers, not just to act as supporting material, but your stats must add to the story. It should not distract. I think, again, there was a story that I read and the headlines spoke about how I think 57% of structures in the US were at risk because of potential natural disasters. Now, that's one example where, and don't quote me on these numbers, okay, I can give you the exact references. I'm using it to make an example. I'm using it to make point. Use statistics in a way in which they add to the story and they don't take away from it. And the last thing that I would say is think of quotes. Now, when you're speaking to media, they're going to try and pick up sentences from you that immediately will connect with people. So if there is, if you can think of what would be the headline that I would like to see, and you craft that, try and insert things like that. Now, that's not an, you don't have to do it. But if you can do it and headlines and tweets are just a good tool to remember, think of ways to make the words that you're saying stick to the reporter and hopefully to the audience that you're speaking to ultimately. Now, just a few slides on how to deliver your message. Remember, it's really important to rehearse, okay, especially if this is the first or the second time you are doing this. Talk to someone who maybe does not have the same background that you do. Talk to someone, you know, speak to them, see what makes their eyes light up, see what makes their eyes glaze over, and that will give you some kind of inkling about what messaging is working and what messaging needs to be tweaked a little bit. Also, anticipate what kind of questions you will be asked in advance. Now, again, that little bit of reading that you have done on the journalist and to see the kind of stories that they do will help you figure, okay, will they ask about the impact of research? What's the next steps? What kind of things will you do? When will, what you are doing finally impact people? When will they see the benefits of your research, of your research? Keep these things in mind and prepare in advance. Sorry, there you go. Be confident when you're speaking, okay. You are someone who's living and breathing this, trust me, you have every reason to be confident when you're speaking. If you are faced with a question that's a little difficult or something that you don't think you can answer, it's completely okay to say, listen, I'm not in a position to be able to respond to this, but, and you can link back to what your key messages are. Another thing to remember is, you know, sometimes the word yes is also used as a filler.  Okay. So be careful of saying yes when you're in an interview. Only say it if you really mean a response in the affirmative. Another thing to do is yes, always think of yourself being on the record at all times, okay, whether you are being recorded at that point of time or not. If you are in an interview, if an interview is going on, always presume that you are always on record. What to avoid? Well, I use the word ramble, but what I mean is, you know, when we go away from key messages and we're talking like I spoke about my spiel right at the start, when people would ask me about my research and I take an entire tour around the lab to do it. Don't do that. Stick to your key messages, stick to the main things that you want people to understand as a result of your work. Try to avoid saying no comment. Like I said previously, it's okay to say I'm not in a position to be able to respond to that. Don't say no comment because unfortunately that answer is presumed to be a very cagey response and you don't want to be perceived like that. Don't guess anything. It's okay to sometimes tell the journalist, you know what, I will look up the answer. I will get back to you and you can always email them or get in touch with them soon after the interview and share a response. That's also all right. Yeah, I think, I think we have a few minutes so we can just very quickly do a recap. Yeah, starting with know your audience. Remember they are a very, very diverse group of people. So as far as possible, know who you are speaking to and understand what they would be interested in. Also find out about the reporter beforehand, do your research, understand their background, what kind of stories they usually do, what the publication is, who their target audience is as well. When it comes to the message that you are saying, prepare ahead of time, ask yourself, why should people care? Think about those three or four key messages that you want to stick with people, remove all the jargon, be ready to answer in a way that's clear and regular, everyday coffee shop language. Provide the context, flip the order in which you're saying, so explain the significance and the main result first and then go into other details, use stories, use analogies, use statistics as long as they are adding to the narrative and try and craft quotes that are quotable. As far as delivery is concerned, and keep in mind those basics about what to do and what to avoid doing when you're speaking to media. Now, I have a bunch of references and papers that I refer to, articles that I refer to, and if anyone's interested, please shout out and I would love to send this to you, as well as a recap sheet. You can contact me on LinkedIn, Insta or email, whatever you'd like. Yeah, I think we could take a couple of questions. Excellent. Thank you so much, Cheryl. It made me laugh when you mentioned removing jargon, any specified dynamics, just because as a fluid scientist, I use that word all the time, so it'll be quite painful, I think, to remove that from my lexicon. Yeah, we have time for some questions. There's a few in the Q&A box. Are they going through? Just to start off with, is there a key mistake or, I suppose, stomping block that you see scientists make regularly when communicating with the media? I think the biggest one is the use of jargon, quite honestly, Simon. Because that is what is and I've seen this happen so often. If you speak in very technical words that the journalist cannot understand, the journalist then does either a very superficial story or they lose interest in what you're saying, which is sad, because what you're saying might be really, really interesting, except that they've just not understood anything that you're saying. So I think one of the biggest issues that we make is really the use of scientific language instead of non-technical language. Sure. Thanks for that answer. So let's get to you, go into a few of the ones we've received in the Q&A box. The first one is, is it acceptable to reach out to journalists or media outlets directly without them waiting to approach you if you think your research is relevant? It's a good question. And again, I think there are a couple of things to keep in mind. One is would the principal investigator, for example, if the lab be completely okay with you talking directly to journalists, they need to be on board with that. And they need to make sure that, you know, for example, is the research published already? Or is it not published? Because you ideally want to wait for something that was already in the public domain before you presented to them, before you speak to media. If something has been recently published and you think that media would be interested, usually most journalists would be would be open to hearing from you. It's great if you have a press center, for example, or a media center at the university, because what happens is in that case, the journalist is aware of those email IDs, they know that the information coming through the media center is credible and information that they can rely on. So it works both ways. AI would say just check with the PI, make sure it's something that's already in the public domain because the last thing you want to do is for it to be quoted and then to say still unpublished. Now, I have to say during COVID, that would happen a lot. And I think that was okay at the time because things were in preprint servers, you know, people wanted the message to get out. And that was also one of the reasons why there was a lot of information. But if you just keep those, usually you can reach out to journalists on their own. If you do it through the media center, it might just be a little bit more formal and a little better that way. So it's fine to take the initiative, but just make sure any collaborators are happy with that, that the researchers out there for the reporters click into and also make sure you get support from any media institutions at your place of work. Okay. The next question is what if research findings aren't significant all the reports and policies in this question? How do you, I suppose, address a situation where someone might want to diminish your findings? Yeah, and so this is a hard one. Okay, because sometimes, for example, you are talking to a journalist who just does not find what you're saying interesting. And we all know that science can be like that. It is a little subjective. All of us naturally gravitate towards some fields and are not really interested in others. So that is unfortunate if it happens. But journalists are fair. And I think if you can explain to them the implications of your research, if there is a great story that you have to say, if you can tell them, though, the second point, why should people care, although what's in it for me as an audience who's listening to, if you can communicate that, then at least what you've done is presented your work in the best way possible. And then beyond that, unfortunately, there's not a lot that you can do. Sure. So really going back to those key points we made before about crafting that key message, making sure you come bound to bring back to that almost critical statement about what that significance is and keeping on that point. We have another question this time regarding social media usage. And do you have any advice for researchers who promote their research outcomes via social media? And this could be, for example, an intern otherwise. Yeah. And, you know, it again comes to the points that we mentioned earlier. Just make sure, particularly if you're a researcher who's interning in another person's lab, that the researchers that you're working with and the main investigator is okay with you sharing that. Because sometimes it could be part of someone else's work. And they may not want to go out to the media until all of that is done. Once it is out there, once it is in the public domain, I mean, there's so much fun stuff that you can do with research. I think y'all had a session at the recent ETO conference about poetry. I think of a Sam Illingworth who said who uses poetry. I've seen dance competitions, believe it or not, where researchers present their finding in dance or music. I personally, during the pandemic, because there were so many questions on the vaccines, I made these little clay models and Lego and stuff like that to explain the vaccines or antimicrobial research. So if you have all of those permissions and everything's in place for you to speak, you can take so many interesting creative ways. I've also seen well-known doctors, for example, just do a Twitter thread. And recently, there was something that was in the media and a well-known cancer researcher in India just did about nine or 10 just regular Twitter tweets in a thread. But because he was saying he was making points that were very interesting, you just you read through it. So lots of fun, interesting, exciting ways to present your information. So I suppose one way to approach it would be not one single way, but multiple ways. One would be, for example, if there's a paper published, do a thread summary, and then another way is too well people like me, for example, might have a very short attention span. So another way you can engage him is using images, is using videos, etc. So use creativity on multiple angles and social media. Yes. Thank you. We have time for a couple more questions. One I have is, how very should scientists be when discussing sensitive subjects, such as, for example, climate change with the media? I suppose, is there precaution should they take? Should we be worried about this? I guess this kind of comes back to what you said about making sure we don't know the parts of the forehand. Yeah. Yeah. And absolutely. I think what's very important is to know who the journalist that you're talking to is also to understand the media, the publication that they're working for. So there are sometimes, and you can see it in the previous story is sometimes journalists will take a very negative or investigative edge and perhaps not do justice the way you would like your work to be dealt with. So make sure you've vetted the, not just the journalist, but also the publication, because sometimes the journalist may be fine, you may have worked with them when they were at a different publication. But they moved to a place where the publication itself takes a very certain tone and has a certain edge to the story. So be careful and make sure both the journalist and the publication that you're talking to matches the way you would like to see your story. So if you get the opportunity to talk to media, you should also be selective yourself. Yeah. Do your research on who you're talking to and publication, but also expect part of journalists to freedom is that people might take a negative spin. And unfortunately that goes with the territory of communicating media. Yeah. I think that also leads into another question I was thinking, which is really kind of triggered when you mentioned storytelling and it's how emotive or evocative can scientists be in the communication with the media? Storytelling would suggest you can be playful with your words, but I suppose you're also to balance it out with being honest with your data. So is there a level which scientists can be too evocative or emotive with the language? And now there's a second aspect to that is a lot of scientists are also very passionate about the politics around that work. For example, climate change or ocean pacification and the reef dive you were talking about. Do you think scientists should also inject a political angle or leave that up to journalists who are discussing the subject with? That's valid. And you know, Simon, it comes back to would the scientists do speaking and people have convictions and some people are very happy for everyone to know about that. Right. So would the scientists be completely okay with their courts becoming courts directly as they said and following them for all eternity?  And if you're okay with that, if you're okay with your colleagues and people you work with and potentially future places that you work with to know where you stand on issues to know how you feel about certain subjects, then that's fine. If you're not sure about that, then maybe talking to media is not the best way to get that out. Maybe do that on your own social media, your own social channel where you have complete control over what you're saying and how it's being edited and how it's being being put out there. You know, so it's a very subjective thing. Scientists can be as vocal as they'd like to about certain issues because, of course, they're speaking from a place of expertise as well as well as they are very passionate about the subject. But just make sure that you're saying it in a in the right forum or just do it on your own social media platform, do it on a LinkedIn, do it on Facebook, whatever, whatever your choice is. So you have ultimate control over that. Sure, I guess that's again what the key and certainties of communicating in the media is you're on full in control of your own messaging. So if you want to make a strong or perhaps political point with your research, perhaps do so for your own channels first of control. And also, so when journalists approach you, they also know what angle they could approach your research from. I guess the other takeaway from what you said is make sure you're confident in what you're saying, that you have support from your media centres if you have them. And that you're just very confident and acknowledge the legacy that would come with making strong points for your science. And I suppose also, just when you approach journalists, they're aware that you have that stance, so you're not necessarily hijacking what they're trying to communicate themselves. And they also have the choice of editing things out. And that's always the case. And the fact is that their story would probably have a far wider reach than your social media channel would. So there is that reason why you would be very tempted to say it to them because it reaches a wider audience. But you really need to wait. And I think it would be a case by case evaluation of what we needed. Sure. So our time here is almost up. I have one more question, if none more pop in your Q&A box. And that is, is there like a key role people or scientists should keep in mind when approaching the media? Of course, you mentioned a good framework here for people to follow, but if all else fails, is there one key thing you need to be aware of? I think of content, think of context. So when you're speaking, make sure it's free of jargon, but also make sure that you have not sensationalized the news. You have done your best to give it in the framework in which it is true and accurate. And then hopefully the person that you're speaking to is able to translate that then for the general. So it would come down. I think if I had to crystallize it into clear content and correct context. Sure. So be honest, be clear, don't be tempted to sensationalize what you're saying. Yeah. Excellent. Great. I think that's all our time for today. So I'd like to thank everyone who joined us on this webinar today. I'd also like to thank Cheryl. If you want to use this webinar for you later, it will be uploaded to our EU Geosciences channel on YouTube in a week's time. Over now, I'd like to say goodbye. So thank you everyone for attending. Bye. Bye.


guys welcome back to our channel. My name is Andrea with Foodimentary Adventures in Food and I am here today with a quick and simple breakfast sandwich recipe. They are called sausage rolls and I just wanted to share this recipe with you guys. So you are going to need some crescent rolls, you're also going to need some sausage. Now I prefer pork sausage but if you like turkey sausage, chicken sausage, whatever it is go ahead and use that and you will need to cook it. So mine is already fully cooked but if yours is raw you're going to need to cook it first. You're going to need the cheese of your choice. I have a preference for cheddar but I'm sure Monterey Jack Swiss whatever cheese you prefer would work just fine and then here on my plate I have my cheese slices and my sausage slices and you're also going to need some eggs. This is two eggs, I'm sorry four eggs that I scrambled in a tablespoon of butter and I added a little bit of salt and pepper. Not a lot of salt because everything else has salt in it like the sausage and the cheese and if you want to see how this yummy little recipe comes together stay tuned.  Now the crescent rolls are a little bit narrow so it's not going to fit on there perfectly that's okay and they actually have jumbo crescent rolls but I oops got my eggs I didn't see those in my store so I'm just using the regular crescent rolls so I'm taking a little bit of eggs here and I'm going to add my sausage right oops right there it takes a little bit of practice but once you get it I mean you've got it I'm just going to take this and roll it over just like so and then I'm just going to lay this right over here on my baking sheet I've already done one and we'll do another one and the good thing about these little sausage rolls is that you can make them ahead of time and then you can also freeze them they freeze well so you can have them for a quick breakfast so there goes my eggs and then again you're just gonna wrap these over so this is the last one I'm gonna do on camera I'm gonna do the rest of these off camera and by the way I have my oven preheated to 350 degrees but I'm gonna do the rest of these off camera and then I'm going to pop them in the oven for about 12 to 15 minutes or whenever they're golden brown and I will be right back okay you guys so here are the crescent rolls I ended up baking these for about 16 minutes and here is what they look like and I split one open for you so here it is you can see the cheese and egg and the sausage now what I will say is that because I use the smaller crescent rolls I couldn't find the big ones I probably could have gotten away with scrambling only three eggs if you have the larger crescent rolls four eggs will work for you Howard tried the other half of this sausage roll and he loved it he loves stuff like this like kalachi's stuff like that so anyway this is it like I said a quick and simple recipe for breakfast if you guys like this video please make sure to give me a thumbs up and if you haven't subscribed to our channel I certainly hope you'll do so I have a couple more videos scheduled for easy and quick breakfast ideas thanks so much for watching and we'll see you guys next time


We spoke to 200 children about the ways they like to learn and these videos represent a small snapshot of the voices of these 200 children telling us about that. We've got a lot more data but these represent some of the key ideas and the key things that children told us about their learning and their learning preferences. Probably the most significant for us was this idea that children are far more competent and capable than we understand them to be and I think we underestimate children in terms of their interests and their capabilities and what they bring to the classroom. Children were very clear that they like to learn when they're active, when they're engaged and when they're motivated to learn. In particular they like ways of learning that are creative and challenging and exciting and fun. They were very good at recognising actually what's an appropriate approach for children of their age and they also recognised that when they were engaged in those approaches that it was good to collaborate with others, especially their peers. Children really like to learn areas of the curriculum which quite interestingly are not always the areas of the curriculum that we give them much time for. So they talked a lot about science. They expressed a real desire to engage in the arts. They really liked learning about technologies like beat bots and using iPads and so on. They wanted to learn how to use those and they really loved to engage in health and physical education and sport. When they experience success, this is a big motivator. When they experience less success, they're not so inclined to like those areas of learning. Many children had quite an extensive vocabulary to talk about their own learning and they told us that they enjoyed learning that was challenging and they enjoyed learning where they got feedback from the teachers and from peers. They particularly enjoyed learning that was collaborative and supported by others. What surprised us was that they didn't really identify teachers as the main people that contribute to their learning. Instead they identified parents, other family members, peers and siblings as the people they most readily learn from. We also noticed that they identified grandparents and seemed to have a high regard for the knowledge and skills that grandparents were passing on to them. When they did talk about teachers, they also talked about the way the qualities of a teacher that they were looking for. These were quite significant and most of all they wanted their teachers to have a playfulness to engage with them in fun ways. They didn't like to be taught things that they already knew how to do. They expressed a real concern that if they already knew something, why are we spending time learning it again? So they wanted their teachers to be aware of who they were as learners and what they were already capable of. Children identified largely places outside the classroom that they liked to learn. The playground was identified as an important place for them to learn. They talked about going on excursions to the Science Museum and to other outside school locations. Well school aged children saw school as being governed by rules and regulations and that learning took place in very particular ways. They seemed quite nostalgic about the opportunities for learning from kindergarten and many wanted to transfer that into the school context. Children are looking for choice. They're also looking for an opportunity to have their ideas about learning valued. Most of the children seem surprised that we're even asking them about how they like to learn and so why don't we go to them more often to find out what they want.


And I will talk on megalithic journeys, mobility and megalithic interaction in Europe in the fifth and fourth millennium Carl V.C. I will present a collection of evidence and indications for megalithic journeys of megalithic societies based on radiocarbon dates and chronological modeling, the circulation of greenstone artifacts and megalithic art. My name is Bettina Schultz-Pausen. I'm from the University of Gothenburg. And I'm working since a couple of years in megaliths in Europe. And I will show you the results of different projects. Megaliths, and this is including megalithic graves, standing stones, megalithic buildings, are worldwide phenomena. And in Europe, there are still remaining around 35,000 megaliths. And most of them have been constructed in the Neolithic and in the Copper Age. And they're located along the coastal areas. And strikingly, in Europe, an even worldwide appearance and the architectonic feature is similar or even identical. As we find true of Europe, we find megalithic graves built at stonements and passage graves or gallery graves. Then we have all around Europe standing stones, either isolated in the landscape or they're arranged in circles or in rows. And furthermore, there is evidence for all over Europe for the orientation of the graves to the east or the southeast towards the rising sun. It is an over 200 years old, ongoing research debate when, where, how, and why megaliths and megalithic societies are emerging. And during the 19th and the first two thirds of the 20th centuries were archaeologists as Oscar Montelius and Gordon Child, postulating theories with the origin of the megaliths in one region and the spread from there out. So presented Montelius in the 19th century, the Orient as potential region where megaliths emerged. Or Gordon Child saw the origin of the passage graves in the Mediterranean and the diffusion outgoing from there over the seaway. With the introduction of the radio comdates in the megalithic research and the processualistic approach is this idea of an independent emerge of the same kind of stone architecture as in several regions of us. So Colin Renfrew proposed five independent nuclear centers, including Portugal, Andalusia, Brittany, South-West England, and possible Ireland for the emergence of megaliths in Europe. With my time in stone project, I tried to contribute to this debate. And I compiled and analyzed 2,410 radio com results out of megalithic contexts, but also out of pre-megalithic and to the megaliths contemporaneous contexts. And the results were re-evaluated after the context and the quality. And I was advocating a Bayesian statistical framework. And Bayesian statistics and logical modeling of radio comdates is today a well-established method to consider really constrain the time interval for calibrated ranges. And we can come to much more exact timelines. I could constrain this time interval for the emergence of megaliths in Europe to 200 to 300 years. And I found decisive support for the spreading of the megaliths over the seaway in five different phases. And the book is just out. I just want to say this is now combined at Archeopress. Brand new, still warm. And I want to present here quick the summarized results. Megaliths are merging in Northwest France in the fifth millennium, called the sea, between 4,704,000. It's the region with the earliest possible onset for the data, and the only region where we can consider transitional stages to the megaliths. And within the same time interval or somewhat later, we have megaliths in Catalonia, on Sardinia. Then in Galicia, most possible in Algarve, in Andalusia, and in northern Italy, also Apulia. These are regions where we only have the material and architecture. There's no direct radio comdates existing yet. Then within the same time interval, as I have to say, this early megalithic stage is associated to closed structures. These are chisps, or chambers, and they're covered by mounds. In the same time interval, we have passage graves, as it starts here in northern France and Corsica, that we have graves to reopen again and the change of the burial costumes. And now it's happening. If you look between 4,000 and 3,500, all along the Atlantic has said, we have towns of passage graves built. And there, this can be that they most probably were built within a very short time interval. I have no closer indications there yet. And we do not know what this is. This is for sure spreading over the seaway. And we do not know is it migration, is it intercultural exchange, or is it both, most probably, what I personally think. Then we have 500 years later, in southern France and in the far Middle East, here. And also here, in Scandinavia, it is like this that the spread from the megalithic graves came over the seaway because the earliest megalithic graves we have on the west coast of the island of Scotland and Ireland. And these are staying the only megalithic graves on these islands. So it looks like they were coming, this passage grave tradition were coming from somewhere else to these islands. Then we have also the temples on Malta in this time. We have in the next 500 years only one new megalithic region in Belgium with Alecoveas, also with gallery graves. 500 years of stagnation, but reuse of older graves as no new megalithic regions. And then between 2000 and 2000, again, spreading megaliths in the Mediterranean over the seaway together with the Bell Baker phenomena. As I said, also, Brittany is the region with the potential earliest radiocommendates. And we have beside this also the highest accumulation of greenstone artifacts. And especially jadeite and the very sky. And this is another project I was working with colleagues from all over Europe and Spain, Portugal and France. And we tried to get the temporality of this greenstone train of this Kalaist trade because Kalaist is a very raw material in Europe. We have only 10 clear sources. And together with provenance analyzers as with the Kalaist project, we tried really to see how the circulation, as when the circulation was exact and get a high precise chronology for this. And we tried to sort out really reliable context and in the end, we saw a lot of five left and we were establishing large models like this for the regions. And the earliest Kalaist context there from Northern France and Western Spain. And it looks like this now. As a green is the sources. Small green dots are the artifacts. And this is for the sixth and fifth millennium Kalaist. And we have in the end of the sixth millennium, we have from Kantin-Toré outgoing as a provenance analyzer from Keraidor, these new ones, that Kalaist artifacts were found from there, originated from there here in Northern Spain and in the Kuevel Carves de Pastares. Then we got a really early Rubani context here up in the grave with Kalaist from Pico Centeno from Enki Nanzola as a really long trade. And then the time of the first megaliths. This is here. We have here this one with highest accumulation of these beads and pearls. In this time, there's still Kantin-Toré is in use, the mine, but it analyzes of these earliest megalithic raw material from Kalaist was given exclusively now of the new knowledge, Pico Centeno and Enki Nanzola. And this is for me also an indication as you have to look here, there is no artifacts in this region. But it means either they traded up the raw material or what I think rather that it went down to take it. And this must have been happening totally over the seaway. Then what is the megalithic art saying? We have megalithic seascape and we have a multi-motive depicted in megalithic art. There is, this symbol is a contrast debated. It's called partly still some kind of plow. But I think a search concern was showing very for me plausible that it's depiction of a sperm whale. Yes. What about the watercraft? We have also boats in megalithic graves. Here in Manalout, we have three boats on one artist art. And they're similar depicted as the Bronze Age boat in Scandinavia, as with the crew. Then we have here in Manalout also on boat in Gavrines, also the record documentation was giving another boat. And what is also quite common are the barks in combination with the product here. Then we have a symbol that's called the you of howl motif. And it's normally interpreted as boat whites or water birds. But if we look with our Scandinavian boat eyes, since we have only in our region over 10,000 boats, if you look at some example of boats, we could also interpret this symbol, if you see for example here as a depiction of boats. And this is a quite common symbol in Britain. So there are strong indications for long distance maritime exchange and seafaring while the Neolithic in Europe. And this is 2000 years earlier than he had proposed for the Bronze Age. And we have no evidence yet for the watercraft technology. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.