Stakeholder Buy-in

On the 9th of June we hosted an Assembly. The topic was Stakeholder buy-in and we invited participants from other 6 JISC-funded projects and a representative from the JISC. (Find the programme here.) Our aim was to have a small but friendly gathering where we could exchange ideas, issues and problems related to stakeholder engagement. Basically what we asked presenters was to share their practical experiences at trying to engage their stakeholders. The event proved to be veeeeery interesting and useful for everyone! And I do not think I am exaggerating.

Most of our projects are focused on the development of a technological tool, and that on its own is an enormous task. Activities such as interviewing users, user needs analysis, writing of specifications and prototyping, are very much connected with the projects' cores. Somehow we take for granted that everyone is going to like our product and find it useful. That is not always the case.

Around all these initiatives there are a lot of human and social forces which affect or are affected by our projects. These forces need to be understood and assessed so they can be used in the design and implementation of our products. Stakeholders are the people and organisations that generate those forces which can be in favour or against us. Knowing what they do, think and expect is essential for the success of our work. We need to get most of them on board, and when that is not possible we need to be aware of their presence… and reasons for not liking us.

Anyway, we had 6 presentations, all of them different. (Yes, it was unbelievable how different our approaches were.) I guess those depended on the kinds of organisations we are working in, the kinds of projects we are working on and the kinds of stakeholders we were aiming at. I have embedded the presentations below so you can have a look at them (they are organised by order of presentation). Next to them I have attached some comments that Sally Rumsey (BRII project manager) wrote.



BRII [Oxford]

• Aims at efficient sharing of research activity information by using semantic web technologies.
• Exploratory phase around the whole University, aimed at understanding organisational structures and research cultures
• Difficult to make sense of the chaotic structure of Oxford
• Polarized views were found with respect to uses and needs of research activity data
• views are influenced by research field, and kind of job (academic, non-academic), and scope (does the job involve just one field or department, or more: divisional level, University level, cross disciplinary?)

CAIRO [Roehampton]

• Aimed at high level enterprise systems
• Developed a communication plan
• An intellectual thread runs through all communications whatever the medium
• Delivering this high intensity communications is hard work
• There is a distinct gulf between the strategies and the technologies

IDMAPS [Newcastle]

• Aiming to improve institutional data flow
• Systems have grown up piecemeal
• 32 separate systems so data sharing is problematic
• Creating a new information architecture which will lead to personalised services
• Selling data flow as an institutional problem
• Created ‘Wall of data doom’ diagrams of systems. Invited comments on their interpretation of systems based on the interviews.

SLAP [Gloucestershire]

• Simplifying learner administration processes
• Aiming to improve student enquiries and applications processes
• Identified blockers and supporters within their stakeholders
• Created a graph of Power against Interest and aimed communications at each group
• Use staff news publication for regular updates
• Demonstrate progress and change to counter any cynicism about nothing ever happening

Academic Networking [Cambridge]

• Created using user experience methodology
• Research phase followed by design phase
• Need to design the criteria and then decide the number of participants
• Used academia.edu and LinkedIn to find participants
• Asked the question “Where are the problems?”
• Clustered people who behave in the same way
• Used similar behaviours to create 3 personas (a bit like use case)
• Get input from stakeholders. Using a paper based task helped create ownership. Ask lots of ‘Why?’ questions when testing paper prototype
• Keep going until every participant is happy
• Read full text
  

eAdministration of Teaching [Cambridge]

• Created sort of entities of jobs, people, units. Jobs are a teaching activity done by one person
• Using 6 departments for this project
• Involve those who will be involved in future ongoing maintenance of the system from early on
• A problem of how to maintain momentum of input. Develop user forum
• Read full text
  

Guest Speaker

After lunch Susannah Wintersgill,, Head of Internal Communications, Public Affairs, Oxford University, gave a presentation on Stakeholder buy-in for a project that involves the desing of a new staff web gateway for Oxford University.

She told us that the Uni website has >7000 pages managed by around 24 groups and includes about 187 departments etc. Any decisions have to be approved by Congregation, a group of around 4000 people. This preserves academic freedom and the democratic structure of Oxford.

There are major questions of who are the stakeholders and how to reach them
Three groups:

• Steering Group (for direction)
• Consultation Group (as representative of College & University as possible and carry out user testing)
• Contesting Group – vocal and critical at set milestones. Clear criteria and remit. They are there to challenge and critique not for every thought of theirs to be incorporated in the website

They spent months user testing and user acceptance testing, from that she is able to recommended a few things:

• Good to build in communications from an early stage.
• Use volunteers as champions who will talk to others and gather research. To senior officers of the University eg VC. Use departmental newsletters to communicate. Plan and build in from the beginning.
• Important not just to have one editor of the website – bias and could limit development
• Consultation is key – everyone likes to have a say
• Danger of stakeholder fatigue. Don’t overload your stakeholders. Use a mini survey to find out who else is doing similar or related work within the University
• Important to learn from user research but not be absolutely tied to it

Breakout group

These are some notes from our last session. We discussed in groups our approaches and came up with ideas and suggestions for better practices. We hope we will develop these notes into more userfriendly format in the near future:

• It is easy to pay only lip service to stakeholder buy-in
• Communications plan – do it early. Importance of planning.
• Tasks – make your stakeholders do something but keep it within reason and not to much
• Identify stakeholders – what do they want?
• Sending out newsletters etc can have mixed results. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll be read. Timed carefully eg Friday afternoon or just before lunch
• Choose the right tools for the job – the message, the medium and the way to know and approach your audience (identify narrow bands of different groups). Eg some may prefer podcasts (young?) to printed literature (older?)
• Manage expectations
• Try not to appear too one-sided. If everything appears marvellous people may not believe you.
• Difficulties of selling the potential when the project is only a proof of concept or pilot. How do you show the bigger picture? Stakeholders may only see the things that are immediately relevant to them (think – light bulb is useful, but the potential of electricity). Counteract this by ensuring that the initial project is useful. Create relevant demos and pilots, something that people can use
• Either describe by saying ‘This is the end goal and these are the prerequisites we need to get there (painting bigger picture but possibly raising expectations) or say ‘This is what we’re going to do in this project that is useful to you’ (but danger of losing the ultimate goal
• Communications must be onging. Distinguish between dissemination and discussion
• Balance the number of stakeholders involved with the quality of the feedback.

We finished the day with a tour to the Bodleian Library

BRII Blue Pages

Creating Oxford University Blue Pages is one of the objectives of the BRII Project (see http://brii.bodleian.ox.ac.uk.) The Blue Pages will be a directory of expertise. Through them you will be able to search for research activities and experts in Oxford University. As I see it, it will be a sort of mega tool allowing you to see what is in Oxford's Research Information Infrastructure from different angles, at different depths, and through a variety of search options.

This morning I had a meeting with Sally and Monica to start sketching a mock up. We made a few (technical) design decisions (which I could probably be able to comment on in a few weeks time, if Monica helps me!) After the meeting I ended up with the feeling that these Blue Pages are not going to be just some “Blue Pages”. Blue Pages is a nice name. It relates to the white and yellow pages where you were able to find telephone numbers or addresses of people and businesses. White and yellow pages were very useful in their time. However, those are old concepts.

BRII’s Blue Pages will be more than a list of something. Try to picture the Research Information Infrastructure as a sphere containing all information we harvest about research activities in Oxford. (The multidimensional cube analogy I used a few posts ago still applies. I used cubes to describe research activity objects.) Within that sphere you have information collected from different sources in Oxford and now connected by using semantic web technologies. There will be so much information that you will need something powerful to start exploring it and finding what you want. You will need to hold that sphere and turn it around as you wish until you find what you want (the way you need it) or at least until you find a starting point from where you can start digging (angle and depth).

The blue pages will do all that for you.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, the outcomes of the interviews I have done emphasise the need to provide access to information from different angles (are you interested in publications, in current activities, in collaborations?) and depths: broad perspectives – narrow perspectives, zoom in – zoom out. So for example if you type Pathology, the Blue Pages could give you a list of research sub fields, or research projects under pathology. If you are not interested in details, that list would give you an overview of the sort of research done there. If you are interested in detail, you can search for specific names, or click on the links resulting from your Pathology search.

At departmental and University levels there are needs for discovery of hidden connections which may lead to future collaborations. These needs may emerge from sponsors wanting to fund original, interdisciplinary research, or from the departments’ research strategies which see gaps or weaknesses in their current research. The Blue pages will be able to connect information offered at any level to whatever other information is available in the infrastructure. A straight forward example would be the Research Topics of Interest in a Researcher's Profile. With one click on a profile you will be able to find other people or projects related to the same topics.

Note: the above are just ideas. Not sure if all them will be implemented as I presented them or if we will need some changes.

--------------------
On Tuesday we had our Assembly. The event turned out to be very interesting and everyone left the place happy. I will post on this in 1 or 2 weeks after I finish a webpage with all the presentations, comments and outcomes from the meeting.

Stakeholder Analysis Report 1

On Tuesday we had our 3rd Project Board meeting. For that I prepared a short presentation with an overview of my data. I had previously emailed them a list of stakeholders I had interviewed with some comments. This gave them an idea of the kinds of (administrative/academic) areas that have participated so far. I also prepared a couple of slides to help me send a clearer message.



And this is roughly what I said:

This is an overview of the kinds of stakeholders I have met which give me an idea about their particular interests in the project and their needs of research activity data.

Top down – Bottom up (slide 2)
First, I found opposite views in terms of what stakeholders perceive of BRII. Whether some people see it as having a Top-down approach or being imposed from top levels of the University, other people see it as being a Bottom-up initiative allowing researchers make their work more visible among the administrative levels and outside the University. Mostly administrative staff at departmental and University levels have a bottom-up perception and academics have a top-down perception. The following are short profiles for these groups:

Academics already get the information and visibility they need and want. They do not have an interest beyond their field, (which can comprise interdisciplinary sub-fields), and beyond the network of connections they already have. Getting more contacts and promotion is part of their job but they do this by attending conferences and publishing.

• To find information about finished projects, they see publications
• To find information about current and new projects they attend conferences and request information from Research Services

PIs do not use the web as much as one would suspect. They are limited to academic journals and databases, some of them use bibliographic indexing systems and e-mail based alert systems, telling them about new publications in their area. That is how they find information about people and potential collaborations.
Some of them think web-visibility is important because they know that the sponsors see their websites - but due to their multiple responsibilities updating their websites gets pushed down. Academics belonging to competitive research areas put more effort in updating their information online.

Administrative staff‘s job involves overseeing a number of projects, mostly from the financial, project management point of view. They are driven by the need to get more money for the departments/units from external funding. Strategies are drawn to see how this can be achieved. All of these strategies also aim at increasing competitiveness to achieve better visibility and reputation in the eyes of sponsors, visibility and reputation on individual and departmental levels.

Some strategies involve recruitment, some others mentoring and some others tracking and controlling current projects. Other strategies involve promoting collaborations and finding particular expertise needed. The more competitive the area the more essential collaborations are. For all these tasks there is a need for information within and outside their fields of expertise. (within=current projects, outside= current and potential collaborations) Administrative staff have to deal with huge amounts of information which they get from multiple sources and which they format according to their needs. A system which helps them (1) manage and (2) find information would be very useful for them.

At (high) University level needs of information crossing academic fields is more essential. People here are not specialised or looking for information on their field but on information that provides an overview of what is going on in the University. Finding information on academics and/or activities using not specialised language is important as this information is being searched by someone who is not an expert and will probably be disseminated to a variety of people who may not be experts as well.
-----------------------------
The bars in slide 2 represent a continuum of needs of information from stakeholders. If you go more to the top you will need information crossing areas and connecting information from different sources. If you go down the continuum you need to get in-depth information on specific areas, which can perhaps complement and enhance academic journal or databases? This can be connected to the idea about a zoom in - zoom out tool I wrote a few weeks ago.

The right hand side bars represent flow of information. The actual information on research activities is generated by the researchers, this is their information. Academics make use of this information, particularly publications, which is relevant to their field(s) of expertise. Requests for this information are made by administrative staff at departmental level so they can keep (financial) control of their research activities. At University level requests of information are made to departments, information which summarises and highlights some of their research.

Research Culture (slide 3)

Research culture is a spectrum of cultures which go from the Humanities to Sciences. I have drawn this as a spectrum to emphasise the fact that most researchers are not located in either extreme but in between the extremes.

Humanities: researchers tend to work on their own. Need fewer resources. Some academics have never got a research grant in their life. Outcomes: publications and books. Their findings are more permanent in time (of course I do not want to generalise to all researchers in humanities.)

Sciences: work in bigger projects (time and size), they get their money from external funding (hence the need to be more exposed to sponsors, and the more competitive mentality.) They need specialised resources, buildings and technology. Outcomes, publications, software, discoveries, findings which can be applied in practice (e.g. drugs, treatments) some of their findings are ephemeral in time. (Of course I do not want to generalise to all researchers in sciences.)

The bigger the project (size, interdisciplinary, collaborations, resources) the more need for funding. For this, being able to sell/advertise their research to sponsors is vital.

Current Systems (slide 3)

With respect to sources of information, the bigger the area the bigger the need to organise and manage data.

Smaller departments are able to manage their information manually or with spreadsheets. They centralise the control of data and the administration of research activities. There is one person gathering information to upload in the website.
Bigger departments have systems or more staff managing their data. They are able to distribute some administrative responsibilities such as updating websites and reporting.
Everyone finds Research Services’ reports essential.

JISC Assembly final Programme

The BRII project will host an Assembly on the 2nd of June. The following is the definite prorgamme.

Date: 9th June
Time: 10:30 – 15:00
Title: Stakeholder buy-in
Venue: Board room, Osney one Building, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 0EW

* 10:30 Coffee
* 10:50 Introduction – Sally Rumsey, BRII Project Manager
o Roundtable of Presentations and discussions on Stakeholder buy-in.
View from Oxford University – Cecilia Loureiro-Koechlin
View from CAIRO-Roehampton – John King
View from IDMAPS – Newcastle – Sunil Rodgers
View from SLAP - Gloustershire – Stuart McQuaid
User research and user-centric design and how this can engage campus audience – Cambridge, Academic networking – Anne-Sophie de Baets and Oszkar Nagy
How stakeholder engagement works within e-admin of teaching – Cambridge, e-Admin of Teaching – Matthew Jones
* 12:30 Lunch
* 13:30 Presentation by Susannah Wintersgill, Head of Internal Communications, Public Affairs, Oxford University
* 14:15 We form groups to work on “a comparison of methods between participant projects”—> I thought we could use this slot to work on the document we have to send to JISC afterwards. They want a clear outcome coming from each assembly. Our outcome will be written in a report to JISC. If any one can think on a better idea for our Assembly outcome and on how to use this last slot please let me know.
* 15:00 Assembly ends

We are also organizing a Tour to the Bodleian Library at 16:00 which will last 30 mins.

Map to Osney One.

Data Analysis

In my previous post I talked about my initial thoughts on the data I am collecting from my interviews. That was an exercise to warm my brain up to start thinking on qualitative data analysis, categorisation and coding of data. In this post I would like to briefly explain the methodology I am using to analyse that data. Be careful... this post has a bit of theory on methodology, but I'll try to keep it simple.

To start I have to say that I have been contacting administrative and academic staff from around the University. (You can see a classification of interviewees in my previous post.) I have done this by using the contact details other people I have previously met gave me. So for example if I interviewed Dr. X and he suggested I could contact Professor M, I will then contact Professor M via email, and say Dr X gave me your name and suggested I could talk to you... This has helped me a bit with getting a bit of trust and credibility from potential interviewees. It has also helped me with making sure I am meeting with the right people.

I have had interviews as short as 20 minutes and as long as 1:45hr. I have recorded all of them except one telephone conversation I had with a divisional research administrator. I was on the phone with him for 1hr! Interviews have been mostly semi-structured/unstructured. I took a flexible approach to account for Oxford's heterogeneity. I would always start with the same questions (I would ask them to tell me about their jobs) and then I would choose questions depending on their answers. However I always tried to keep my questions mainly in these three areas:

1. Questions related to the creation and management of Research Management/Activity data.
2. Questions related to the use of Research Management/Activity data (perhaps from other sources.)
3. Questions related to issues and future uses of Research Management/Activity data.

Some of my respondents were able to cover these three areas some only one or two. This depended of course on their roles and experience.

Next step was to transcribe those interviews into Word documents. I've been doing that on the train. Surprisingly this is the perfect place for me to do such a boring and tedious task. So 1hr each way and I am able to transcribe possibly 30 to 45 minutes. (If you are transcribing audiofiles and dreading it, try doing it on the train.) I haven't done an exhaustive verbatim transcription but tried to capture all the ideas covered in every interview. Now I have enough material to start doing the analysis.

As I have carried out interviews, my data are qualitative, i.e., texts containing my interviewees’ ideas. The aim of qualitative data analysis is to abstract those ideas into one cohesive set of statements which could stand for similar pieces of data i. This is not a statistical generalization but an interpretive one ii. The way this works is by organising segments of text according to categories of data, or data codes. I then will go through an iterative process of rephrasing and writing summaries of all of the ideas contained in each category. At doing this I am abstracting the ideas from their original contexts (e.g. the interviews or the interviewees’ jobs) and assigning them new contexts, the one of their categories. Selecting categories is not a science but a kind of art. They depend on the way the researcher interprets the data, and they need constant reading and re-reading of the texts, to make sure categories and analysis reflect the phenomenon under study. The end result of the analysis will help me to draw specific implications, like for example the relationship between BRII stakeholders and the Research Information Infrastructure, characteristics of data needed, uses of research activity data, ways of accessing and viewing information which are most useful for different roles in Oxford, etc.

Anyway, having explained the (sort of) theory behind the analysis process, I will finish this post by explaining the first set of categories that have emerged from my data so far:

• Perspectives on Research Management data/Research Activity data, what people think about its importance, benefits, relevance to their work, accessibility, visibility, and its management. This is also about the kinds of activities that they perform that involve this kind of data.
  
• Research activities, what are the actual processes connected to research activities, types of activities, types of groups, etc, how are they reflected in data?
  
• Content of Data/Sources of data – what "objects" are these data describing? (this category will also describe data contributors.) Other issues such as management, quality of content, difficulties at gathering data, difficulties at putting together a website, what is sensitive data, etc
• Types of Stakeholders, descriptions of departments, functions, people’s roles and their activities
• Notes for development - anything relevant for the design of the infrastructure or the web services, including my own thoughts.

To give you an idea of the kind of data I got, here you have an extract from an interview with someone from the Medical Sciences division. I have initially classified this text under Research Activities.

"Themes have no money (they are different from institutes and centres) Themes are purely a way of helping to sell their research in a way, showing where their strengths are in this university. A theme is a way to classify people. Themes are also a way of quantifying what they do."


-----------------------------
i Tesch, R., (1990), Qualitative Research: analysis types and software tools, New York, The Farmer Press.
ii Walsham, G., (1995), 'Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method', European Journal of Information Systems, 4, no.2

Comparing perspectives on Research Activity data

As I progress on my data collection for the BRII project I feel the need to share my thoughts about the people I have met and the information I got from them. So far I have done 16 interviews across the University and I have scheduled a few more for the next few weeks. I could classify my interviewees in four groups:

• The administratives - these are departmental administrators or heads of administration
• The academics - PI's (principal investigators) or researchers doing investigations in research projects or research groups
• The research facilitators - I think they lie between the academics and the administratives. They provide administrative and management support to facilitate research developments and initiatives. However to be able to do that they should have extensive knowledge and expertise in the research field they are working on.
• The others - (no, this is not the movie. I have not come up with a name for this group yet. At the moment it gathers staff who do not belong to any of the three groups above.) Within this group there are people whose work is perhaps tangential to research activities. So for example the Information-Press Office who publish news about research projects or new discoveries among other University activities. Or project teams working on other information systems initiatives which may have an overlap with BRII.

These groups' perspectives on research management data in general and research activity data in particular vary and I could classify them in many ways. The following is just an exercise at trying to organise all their views.

The first thing that comes to my mind when I think of the data I have collected is that there are broad and narrow perspectives. They depend on where the staff are standing in relation to the actual research activities.

Broad perspectives come from staff whose jobs involve overseeing more than one set of research activities, so research activities within a department or group or perhaps the whole University. These staff are or would like to be standing high above so they can see everything that is going on, but at a distance. They would like to have an idea of what is there, overall topics of research, some highlights and statistics. Their interests are not limited to one discipline. Quite the opposite. The purpose of standing above is to be able to find links between different areas, to identify similarities, patterns and trends. This could lead them to identify potential collaborations, research gaps, strengths and weaknesses. A good example of someone having a broad perspective is Dr Heather Bell director of Oxford's International Strategy. She told me her work involves gathering information about research activities from around the University. The aim is to improve the visibility of Oxford including its research. So for example if the Chinese Ambassador is visiting the University, she would prepare a brochure with all information related to research about China, collaborations with Chinese scholars and institutions, etc. She said she is not interested in specific details and perfect accuracy but on information that provides an idea of what is going on in the University.

Another person I met whose work involves overseeing a large number of research activities is Dr Liesl Osman. She is a grant advisor at NDM. She told me that one of her responsibilities was the identification of weak areas of research like the ones for which the department does not get much funding, research gaps where there is little interest or skills in their staff and the matching of the department's research strategy with their PIs interests. In some cases Liesl generates statistics that can help her with identifying the above. NDM currently have more than 1000 research projects running. I guess they also have archives with information about many more thousands of projects that have finished. All that information is useful for Liesl to learn from past experiences and to identify better ways of dealing with new grant applications.

Narrow perspectives come mainly from academic staff who are directly involved in one or more research activities and who are interested mainly in one research field or discipline. Staff belonging to this category usually have an established network of contacts and a preferred means to obtaining information about research in their areas. These means are usually publications or databases. In general I have seen little interest in being able to access information from other disciplines. Information from other areas that would be relevant for them would also appear in academic publications. Academic publications are trusted and valid sources of information for academics. If someone has written about a link between physiology and parallel programming then that is something that has been proved (as it has been peer reviewed) and worth following. However I think that academics would welcome any tool that would help them to identify publications and their writers in less time. They will definitely put that information under scrutiny and therefore would need as much detail and context as possible. This is information that perhaps needs to be very specialised to every field of expertise and will need to connect to other sources which are related to that subject or to that research activity. The more information about specific activities we can provide the closer and more involved they would be/feel. Being closer to information about specific research activities would help staff to indentify experts, and networks of researchers in their fields. Also to know about the details of individual efforts. The purpose would be to aid individuals in their research careers.

These two perspectives entail different needs, as I explained above. However I also envisage a third area of need. It is the ability to cross over both perspectives. So going from detail to an overview and vice versa. Some academics would be interested in this. One example could be an academic looking for an expert in a specific area. But that area is not very well known by the academic. So s/he has to first get an overview of that area and identify where he could have a closer look. Once he is able to identify the specific area of expertise he would be able to get a list of experts.

What are the implications for the Research Information Infrastructure (RII)?
Obviously I need to work more on analysing my data. I am just starting. However from the top of my head I see the RII having the power to aggregate and disaggregate data (as it will be seen by its users.) A sort of zoom in - zoom out tool. I talked to Monica, our developer, and she said she liked this idea. So hopefully she will be able to develop it.

Additionally the RII will hold information about different dimensions of research activity objects. Web services accessing that information should be able to move from one dimension to the other so to speak. So for example we could create different views - for the different groups I described at the beginning of this post - of the same set of projects. The RII users should be able to move from one dimension to the other depending on their needs. I think that very few people would be interested in obtaining all information related to one research activity in one screenshot. Most of them would be interested in only one dimension which is relevant to them. One way of understanding this would be to see research activity objects as multidimensional cubes. So when you have access to the cube you can only see one face at a time. However accessing the other sides should be a matter of one click.

BRII Assembly

BRII is organising an Assembly on the 9th of June 2009. Project Teams belonging to the JISC Phase 2 Institutional Innovation are invited.

The theme for the Assembly will be Stakeholder buy-in, and the proposed agenda is as follows:

• 10:30 Coffee
• 11:00 Introduction – Sally Rumsey, BRII Project Manager
o Roundtable of Presentations and discussions on Stakeholder buy-in.
View from University of Oxford – Cecilia Loureiro-Koechlin
View from CAIRO-Roehampton – John King
View from IDMAPS – Newcastle – Sunil Rodgers
View from SLAP - Gloucestershire - Stuart McQuaid
Other delegates present their views (10 to 15 minutes each)
• 12:30 Lunch
• 13:30 Presentation by Susannah Wintersgill, Head of Internal Communications, Public Affairs, University of Oxford
• 14:15 We form groups to work on a comparison of methods between participant projects
• 15:00 Assembly ends

Venue: Isis room, Osney One, Osney Mead, OX2 0EW

We are also organizing a Tour to the Bodleian Library at 16:00 which will last 30 mins.

Please note that the agenda is not definite yet and it is subject to amendments.

If you wish to attend please contact me at:
E: cecilia.loureiro-koechlin@ouls.ox.ac.uk
T: 01865 280028