Below the Radar Transcript

Episode 55: Research in the Service of Community — with Tiffany Muller Myrdahl and Brett Stoudt

Speakers: Rachel Wong, Tiffany Muller Myrdahl, Brett Stoudt


Rachel Wong  0:06  
Hello listeners, I'm Rachel Wong with Below the Radar a knowledge democracy podcast. Below the Radar is created by SFU's Vancity Office of Community Engagement and is recorded on the territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh peoples. We have a special edition of Below the Radar today and I have with me Tiffany Muller Myrdahl, a senior lecturer in gender, sexuality and Women's Studies and Urban Studies at SFU and as well she's a previous guest to this podcast. She's here with me to introduce this episode.


Tiffany Muller Myrdahl  0:39 
Thanks for inviting me to introduce this podcast Rachel. I had the privilege of interviewing Brett Stoudt earlier this year when he visited Vancouver to deliver a workshop for SFU's recently launched Community Engaged Research Initiative. I've been teaching Brett's work for a long time because he's one of the few scholars I know who conduct research with community using quantitative approaches, or what most people think of as more traditional top down methods that try to turn social phenomena into questions that can be answered by numbers. Whereas quantitative research is typically taught as decidedly apolitical and requiring distant observation or what some people call a sort of 10,000 foot observation to achieve what's understood as objectivity. Brett's work with the Public Science Project, and the Morris Justice Project specifically explodes this idea. His work shows that quantitative research strategies like survey research, design, data collection and data analysis can and in many cases should be done in conversation with community. Although the broader topic of this interview is research, the particular stories Brett shares here are the ones that we need to listen to and learn from now. They should resonate now because they centre work done with community in response to police violence. These stories emerge out of long term collaboration with communities of color who are the targets of both gentrification and policing measures like stop and frisk. While the case that he talks about is specific to New York, we need only to consider the debate over what are termed street checks by the VPD. Or to look at the Campbell decision by the BC Human Rights Tribunal or the recent Joseph decision by the BC Supreme Court to see how this work is relevant to us here now. Black and Indigenous people in particular are subjected to violence with impunity in our communities. We need to use all of the tools at our disposal to end these practices that are grounded in systemic racism and white supremacy. For those of us who work in universities, who conduct research, who train researchers, I invite you while you're listening to Brett Stoudt, to reflect on how we are implicated in the current calls for racial justice. There is no one size fits all formula to research design, of course. But taking these calls seriously requires a wholesale rethinking of what we could term sort of business as usual research, whose voices are valued? Who controls the data? And who benefits from the projects? Are among the questions that demand a different set of responses. Brett Stoudt's work with the Morris Justice Project provides a concrete example of this rethinking where community engaged research involves systems of accountability, where knowledge and expertise from within the community is at the center of the project, and where quantitative methods can indeed be grounded in principles of anti racism decolonial practice, social justice and collaboration. I want to say thanks to the Community Engaged Research Initiative for supporting my endeavor to share the work of Brett Stoudt and the Public Science Project more widely.I hope it inspires excitement in the possibilities for a new landscape in quantitative research, because we need this kind of work now more than ever. Enjoy the conversation and thanks for listening. 

Tiffany Muller Myrdahl  4:01 
Hi, I'm Tiffany Muller Myrdahl and I'm here with Brett Stoudt, who is going to introduce himself because he has an exceptional bio.

Brett Stoudt  4:10  
My name is Brett Stoudt. I'm the head of the Critical Psychology Program at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. I'm also the Associate Director of the Public Science Project.

Tiffany Muller Myrdahl  4:22  
Thanks so much for coming to this part of the continent. It's really a pleasure to be able to chat with you in person this weekend. I thought we would get started with a kind of an overview of what participatory action research is since that's the focus of your work. Yeah.

Brett Stoudt  4:39  
Great. Let me officially on air thank you for bringing me here and I'm really excited to be with everyone and to be in Vancouver and so thank you. So participatory action research, as I understand it, and others is a form of research that in some ways is counter to some sort of, you know, some versions of mainstream research, but at its very core, it is what it sounds like. There are three parts to it: participation, action and research. And each of those have their own sort of theories and concepts and focus. And so if I could just go through them, starting with research, there's just an investment that to systematically collect data to ask important questions to collect information about those questions is valuable, that there's something about attending to asking the right questions and collecting them in a way that gives you a valid and an expansive kind of scope to understanding is is a good thing and can be a very good thing in terms of the next part, which is about a commitment to action, oftentimes, even applied research as compared to basic research, which is explicitly not about applied, but even applied research. It's applied in a very academic way, you know, that the communication, the dialogue is about advancing knowledge, advancing an understanding of an area with other academics. And the critique here is that academia can be quite exclusionary methods like quantitative methods can be quite exclusionary, that knowledge, as we understand it, in this case, is steeped in very particular ways of understanding. And so the action part of PAR is really about explicitly thinking and using research to push against or to be applied in ways that are much broader, potentially then applied in the can we take this research and apply it to a product or apply it to an intervention? But it's really about explicit pushing against oppressive structures, and potentially even activism, which is often not associated, you know, with research. And then the participation part or the participatory part is part of the larger critique that we need to expand versions of knowledge production, we need to expand our notion of expertise beyond the typical version of the doctors, the lawyers, you know, the academics that there are lots of ways of knowing, there are lots of experts and in fact, particularly around issues of social justice, or economic justice issues that are often associated around oppression, those who are most impacted by these structures gain the most important knowledge in terms of conducting research and pushing against those structures, they gain the most important knowledge to frame the whole study in, in and of themselves and to analyze with the data that that you've collected. Participatory action research is a lot deeper than just the words but in essence, you know, it kind of covers the scope, we often go one step further and talk about critical participatory action research. The critical is really a commitment to critical theories, critical race theory, queer theory, feminist theories, Frankfurt school type, critical theories, Indigenous post colonial, post structural critiques, in essence, the theories that are very much steeped in versions of social justice, and also in the critical is a way of, of just making or just sort of re establishing the claim that what we're going to do is center those voices, those interests that are generally most marginalized from traditional forms of knowledge, expertise and knowledge production.

Tiffany Muller Myrdahl  8:36 
Thank you, that was incredibly comprehensive. When I first became aware of your work, it was through, I think, the public science project. So I'm just wondering if you can talk about that, and perhaps its origins, what kind of projects are involved, and I think that will also illustrate exactly the critical participatory action research that you're describing.

Brett Stoudt  9:00 
So the Public Science Project, the director is Dr. Maria Tory, and co director is Dr. Michelle Fein and I'm the associate director. There have been many other folks who have been involved with the Public Science Project in the past and currently Maddie Fox, Caitlin Cahill come to mind right now who are very much a part of the Public Science Project currently. It is a number of things, but its general unit is that the Public Science Project tends to be a collective of scholars who have tended to teach at or been educated at the City University of New York, who have a deep investment in critical participatory action research. And so, more than a decade ago, there was an increasing interest in use of sort of these types of community based research approaches with an interest within the University of identifying as a scholar activist and not making activism sort of the thing we do when we go home at night, but a deep and rooted and important and vital part of what our scholarship is, and how it's expressed. And so in those moments within the very precarious, tenuous, neo liberal university that exists now and everywhere, it was just clear that we needed a space that brought us all together, that allowed us to both continue talking about this work, advancing this work, but also create a safe space for us to engage in this work in a university space, that sometimes, for various reasons, intentional and unintentional might work to close these interests and these pursuits down. And this ranges from, you know, what gets peer reviewed, and goes, it gets into journals, the measurements of what impact means, within University, how one gets tenure, how long gets a dissertation, what's considered objective or quality work. I mean, all these conversations that in some ways, in many ways, and all ways critical participatory action research is trying to pick up and unpack and revise or push against are also the very real things that are in everyone's daily lives within a university. Our work is also directly and fundamentally connected to working directly with rather than on communities most impacted by the issues that we're interested in. And so the university can be, has been an incredibly violent space. Research can be, has been an incredibly violent pursuit, in justifying and reproducing some of the very oppressive structures that we're trying to push against. And in general, it's tended to harm communities of color in the United States. And so the public science project became a space also, that allowed us the most protection to engage in less harmful relationships with the community of folks that we were working with and not on. I mean, I could say more, but I'll probably leave it at that. But if I don't know if there are other, if you have other questions about the Public Science Project?

Tiffany Muller Myrdahl  12:08  
Well, I mean, so people who are listening can go to the, and see the variety of projects that have come out of this work. And I know that because I teach several articles that are related to this work. I'm quite familiar with the way at least it's written about and specifically the Morris Justice Project. So perhaps you could describe that for us a little bit.

Brett Stoudt  12:34  
Yeah, so the Morris Justice Project is a public science project, it’s connected to the Public Science Project, in many ways. As a participatory design looks similar to other public science project projects. The Public Science Project is a difficult name because it's project upon project upon research upon, but in essence, it has a similar archetype, it has a similar structure, in that our work tends to be deeply community based, tends to be interested in public facing research, tends to be interested in thinking about change and critique at the level of public at structural change, is focused on acute forms of injustice and violence around public institutions like the New York Police Department, or gentrification in New York City, or the Department of Education in New York City. These things we see in in the New York City setting in many urban settings around the United States and around the world, these forces that are very much connected, Michelle Fein talks about the circuits of dispossession, these are very much connected in our racial capitalist neoliberal world structure, but has very acute lived experiences. And frankly, it tends to make often poor communities of color angry, whether it's gentrification, whether it's policing, whether it's, you know, not enough resources in schools, it's the type of acute violence where communities mobilize around and want to do something about it. Those are some of the most powerful moments for critical participatory action research. And so the Morris Justice Project is an example of that. It's 2010, 2011, this is before Black Lives Matter. This is before, you know, a much more sort of common understanding of what Stop and Frisk is, as related to the NYPD, but at the time in the South Bronx, in Brownsville, and Brooklyn and places in Queens and places in Staten Island and in Harlem, in Manhattan, you know, across the five boroughs in in the most, you know, impoverished neighborhoods, the ones with the least resources, the ones that tend to be communities of color, that tends to be also gentrified, tend to have poor schools. They are also the most heavily policed. The technique that was being used at an unprecedented rate at that time was basically a blunt net, which was stop as many people as you can, with the outward rhetoric from politicians that this was to find people who had guns. And of course, there was no evidence of that. But that was the way the policy moved. And so with that there was a lot of anger, there were communities mobilizing, people wanted to figure out what was going on, they wanted to change what was going on. So then my colleague, Maria Toria and I started working in the, with some mothers and fathers and young people and elders, various backgrounds who are living in a 42 block range in the South Bronx, not very far away from Yankee Stadium. But right in the heart of you know, the birth of hip hop and Bronx is Burning, you know, all of the sort of the larger historical aspects of the larger representation of the Bronx in the United States. And we spent the summer saying, you know, if you want to talk about what's going on the good, the bad, the ugly, come to, you know, we threw out a bit, basically, we flyered the neighbor and said, come to the local library, and let's talk about it. And so we got a bunch of people show up the first day, and we said, Here's, you know, so here's what we have in mind. If anyone's interested in spending the summer thinking about this, talking about it, maybe doing something about it, stick around. And so, like with a lot of public science projects, that first summer became sort of a research camp, we brought in numbers, we had conversations, not just about what it's like to live in the neighborhood and policing. But where you get good healthy food, where you get your haircut, I lived in the East Village and a much wider, more middle class part, five blocks away from NYU, so a very different sort of political and policed neighborhood. And so we were just talking about our experiences. And in that time, then we realized we really need to figure out what's going on in the rest of the neighborhood. So there was a natural move towards learning about it amongst ourselves, and then realizing we need to ask questions, sincere questions of our neighbors. And that's where we developed a community based survey, some of the questions really weren't good for a survey, they ultimately became focus group questions, and then we sampled the neighborhood, and collected information about people's experiences with and attitudes towards policing in the last year.

Tiffany Muller Myrdahl  17:19  
And what kind of outcomes came out of that? 

Brett Stoudt  17:21  
So the way participatory action research works is that it's a you know, as is research, it's an entire process. And you not only work with those most acutely impacted by the thing you're studying, in this case, the NYPD in the 44th precinct in the South Bronx. But you create a collective, where everyone's knowledge, expertise, the gifts we bring, and the assumptions we hold are infused into the instruments that in this case, the community survey, you know, so every question was filled with our sincere questions and our hunches and our theories, our desires to learn, and therefore, you know, not an objective tool, as no tools are, but one that was informed by a certain type of expertise. Once we had a community conversation using the community survey as a mediator to that conversation on the blocks and 42 blocks. Now we spoke to 1000 people, what were we going to do with it? So the next part is rather than the typical, take a survey, give it to a statistician or consultant, they run the analyses, make 1000 political and theoretical moves that are that kind of go in a black box, bring it back and say this is what you found. Instead, we spent the entire time analyzing quantitatively and qualitatively that information together. And so it became an iterative kind of process where as a group, we started running cross tabulations, we started examining our in just the percentages of our survey as it was coming up and really kind of delving and what does it mean, that 30% or 40% of the people we spoke to said that in the last year, they had negative contact with police? What does it mean that some people said the police flirted with them, or touched them in an inappropriate way or used a racist slur? And so we started collecting all this very sensitive information. And, you know, some of it was very much looked like what we expected, given the conversations we had in the summer and some of it was, you know, very much unexpected, some of what was unexpected were the varying ideas for the role of police in the neighborhood. Some people asking more, some people wanting less, some people wanting different kinds, some people wanting complete prison and police abolition and even having living the same kind of heavily policed policy resulted in the lived experience that had many different attitudes and experiences. And that's the reason reason one does this sort of collective very grounded type of research, and so that we could have to tackle and really contend with the tensions here. Once we were able to kind of figure out what stories we felt we could confidently say, we then kind of realized we needed to take this information and feed it exactly back to the 42 blocks from where the data was collected. And in order to do that, we used a technique called sidewalk science. The techniques we used for quantitative participatory data analysis we call stats in action, it was very iterative, it was very collaborative, it was very, it looked very much like in some ways, thematic qualitative analysis but using numbers. Once we felt like we had a quantitative story to tell that we felt confident in, then we put it into various forms, posters, visual displays, we used art. And then we basically just took over various corners of sidewalks with posters and a camera and a portable printer. And we basically just asked, "What does community safety mean to you?" and then people wrote it on a whiteboard, took a picture, they gave permission to put it up on a fence. And so we had this kind of growing gallery of people's attitudes, we have big maps of where stops were within the 42 blocks. So people were then encouraged to write their theories for why some blocks had more stops than others. You know, it was a very interactive experience where we could say, here's what we found, let's have a conversation. What do you think one way or another? And so this was a way of sort of feeding back information, getting more information, and basically sort of figuring out how to mobilize and educate and have a conversation together.

Tiffany Muller Myrdahl  21:38  
It's an amazing project and on the website, one can see visuals of this. And I'm wondering, one of the conversations that happens in Vancouver, because there is a lot of efforts toward progressive action, or talk around progressive action is the concern that comes up about actually acting on the data that you collect. And so I'm wondering, you've mobilized the community, does the data go to the police? Are there responses and actions by the institutions at work? And I know, you have some responses to that. But I'm thinking also in the Vancouver context. That's partly where the city has been critiqued, there's a lot of really important work and rhetoric around equity, diversity and inclusion. And there's a lot of community folks saying, Yeah, we don't want any more words, we want some action around this. So I'm just curious what the institutional response was, if at all,

Brett Stoudt  22:45 
Well, Ruthie Gilmore, the great radical geographer, and a colleague of mine talks about research in the service of movements, research in the service of organizing, in the service of grassroots communities. And I understand critical participatory action research at its best as moving in that direction. But in terms of, then how you give our research and our organizing legs in order to help move the dial and, and produce change, that's just not like change as a report or change as an academic article, or you know, things that are kind of benign, and in some ways, can reproduce the same issue and same violence that we're trying to push against, you know, to me, what needs to happen is that we find ways that our research of 42 blocks in this case, can be amplified out and be of use to a whole other set of layers, a whole other set of policy moving actions that might help move those levers. And so to give you an example, you know, I'm really interested in the idea of research as case. I like to think about, you know, the Morris Justice Project and other participatory action research projects, as finding sampling and doing their work in a defined space. So that you can feel like you can do justice to representing and recognizing the lived experience and voices of whatever, in this case 42 blocks. But then part of the goal there after giving the information back to the communities it came from, is to amplify those lies, concerns conditions out, that can look like many different things. On the one hand, we made these, these sort of videos, these small little data finding videos, that we could put on social media and easily spread it. There's other research in similar communities around the city that we could then say, well, we did in in kind of the way that theoretical generalizability and transferability and qualitative researchers would talk in that sense around well, we've done something in this context and you've done something over there in that context. The police, you're having the same police policy applied to your neighborhood as this neighborhood. But you've attended to your particular context and we've attended to our particular context. Now, if we get our work and our co researchers in the same room, where is it unique to certain neighborhoods? And where and where is it similar, right? It's a type of generalizability. And so there was also at a time as and in some ways, it's in service of organizing, where we were meeting with other grassroots organizations, we were meeting with lawyers and other folks who were kind of thinking about stop and frisk, and who also had stories, qualitative and quantitative stories, where we could say, this is what we found, what are you finding? And often it was like, Oh, wow, there's a lot of similarity, right? In some ways, this is, the move here is to use data to help mobilize and to help...

Brett Stoudt  26:07  
So when you're experiencing something, you don't know if it's just you, right. And so in some ways, by doing this work, and then holding these conversations, you're validating an experience. And in the validation, you're helping mobilize, and again, and then in the Ruthie sense, you're helping then mobilize and and entrenched this sort of this sort of social action. So there was that. And then, because it was a large coalition, we were able to then directly put our data and give them to lawyers who are involved in stop and frisk court cases, policymakers who were involved in policies that were designed to, you know, to create some accountability, and some transparency around the stop and frisk policies. And so in other words, we could give our numbers and our research legs at various units, or various layers of the complexity of how you move a dial, because of our organizing relationships, had we not been in service of a coalition and a movement, not interested in organizing and building and these conversations across the city, then we might have just done this work, and it would have lived only within the 42 blocks of the South Bronx, and that might have been really good and mobilizing locally, but I'm not sure it would do the work it did, or what it helped contribute to, which is just a small little drop in the bucket of a larger movement. And then Black Lives Matter and policies and, and court cases that essentially made the larger change. But it did contribute. It's in some ways, this is just another way of organizing.

Tiffany Muller Myrdahl  27:48  
Yeah, thank you for that. You know, you talked about sidewalk science and stats in action. And that was really what prompted me to invite you here. I am invested in this in part out of a desire to see research training shift toward perhaps more of a participatory model, but not necessarily because not all research questions require participation. But even participation can be extractive. And so I'm just curious. Also, I guess I should say that I think your work and the Public Science Project’s work is very unique in its using quantitative research in a participatory way. It's very hard to find other work. Maybe it exists, and I just haven't found it yet. But I'm, I'm curious about your thinking about where we're at in academia, in training researchers who are doing work in the field already training junior researchers, where do you see the gaps? Where do you see our work going as critical scholars?

Brett Stoudt  28:59 
Yeah and to one of your points there, which I think is a really important one, and why we call it the Public Science Project, and not the participatory action research project, or something else, is that not all research can and should be participatory in the way I just described, around the Morris Justice Project, that the kind of the driving unit there or interest there is around public science, public science for the public good. And that can look like a lot of things. And so that's, that's the larger interest. And within that is, you know, sort of a sub approach to critical participatory action research. And for me, as someone who's considering I consider myself someone who does multi-methods, quantitative, qualitative, mapping in various forms, you know, I'm interested in the questions and using whatever tools that I have to help understand whatever I'm asking, and that, I think can often be quantitative research. But there are a lot of challenges to that, particularly from our standpoint, our critical standpoint. And to give you an example, if you ask me, you know, what my 10,000 foot research question is, or what my purpose as an academic is, in terms of research is that I'm interested in the social psychology of privilege and oppression. And for a long time, I was really invested in doing participatory research to understand the reproduction of privilege in various forms of structural privilege, whiteness, masculinity, heteronormativity. And in terms of education, and particularly elite education in the United States, and the ways that reproduces class and other forms of privilege. And part of the idea of privilege is that it becomes normalized, valued, it becomes something that's just sort of taken for granted as valued, desired, you tend not to deconstruct it or question it, it just is. The goodness of it is. And so the, the, the example here in terms of gender, is that, you know, whatever, in quotes, cuz I don't like to use word normal, but what's normal is, is masculinity, you know, and then the othering there is, is femininity, and that might even be too simple in the 21st century, you know, but just the idea that the thing that's taken for granted just is. When I started engaging in or when I started thinking about this in relationship to quantitative research and participatory action research, it became clear to me that quantitative research looks very much like the privileged research I was doing around whiteness and masculinity and heteronormativity, that, we just take it for granted as a good, it's just sort of a religion in our life. And that it just is so much every time you turn on the TV and around politics. And around the of course, we would want quantitative empirical data objective data to tell us the right policy, to tell us to do the right thing, to tell us what's healthy. And you only need to take a stats 101, or really to teach a stats 101 to start realizing, wow, there's a lot in here that we just take for granted. And when you start understanding statistics, and quantitative research in the social sciences, and the sciences in general, as something that has a history, that is not settled. All of a sudden, once you go down that route, you realize, Wait, there's a lot of movement for creativity in here. And actually, it's a bit more of an art than a science. And I thought someone, who I don't know, but I thought they just figured it out. But but I'm not sure that they have you know, and part of that is in our statistical training in that when you take a stats 101 course, when you read, or even advanced level statistics, quantitative training, and you're using a textbook, that textbook is not about helping you deconstruct why it is you do what you do, and the assumptions behind it. It's a cookbook. And it's kind of converting you into a perspective, the right perspective, you know, in quotes about how you do solid, valid, objective real research. Now, this is a problem for anyone who identifies as a critical researcher, and particularly for anyone who is a participatory action researcher, because by very definition of the reason you're doing that kind of work, and taking that theoretical stance is in direct resistance to mainstream approaches to the social sciences, which is just another way of saying quantitative, often experimental approaches to social sciences. And so for a participatory action researcher who still thinks quantitative research can be useful and important. You've got attention, how do these two things live together? How can you try to decolonize your spaces? How can you try to not reproduce the harms and justifications of mainstream research on communities of color, and then use the very masters tool that has helped to create that violence? And so it got me in to thinking about, well, what are the paths that weren't? What are the paths not taken? What are the alternatives that got shut down? Or the histories that we just don't know about? What, what is this thing called the P value? Or why do we use linear analyses, particularly if we don't necessarily understand our world as linear? Do we really believe in the assumptions of independence that is required with some inference when I'm very much steeped in sort of an ontological philosophy that is about dependence, not independence? What do we do with that? And so it's kind of put me on a journey. I have a folder, it's become a dropbox folder now that many of us, or I use Dropbox. But there was just a folder on my computer that was just sort of every time I found something that helped me understand this, I would just put it there for a rainy day and it started accumulating and now I have a small, but you know, fairly substantial and many different, it comes from many different fields. But what I then just kind of called critical statistics, these were things that in some way literature that in some way felt like it was saying, even if you were totally steeped in the mainstream quantitative approaches or statistical approaches it in some way was saying, Yeah, but. An example of this is one of the most well known. And right in the center, statisticians, all over a lot of analyses, John Tukey, he invented he was he is, you know, some people would call him the Picaso of statistics. But he, at a time in the 60s and 70s, was invested in kind of going around to other academics in lots of fields. He was a mathematician, but to say, you're doing what's called confirmatory data analysis, that textbook thing that you learn in every stats 101, you're kind of just clicking some buttons, you have a hypothesis, you run it, then you have a P value, and here's the result. But he was obsessed with detective novels, he was interested in thinking about data analysis and thinking about about being much more flexible and creative around exploring your quantitative data, in ways that was much more visual in ways that looked a lot if you know, if you would land in another planet, it looked a lot like typical qualitative analysis. And he started building tools around how to do that. And so that's where his idea of exploratory data analysis came in. And he was kind of went around. And it was a technique, but it was an idea. It was a way of approaching a sort of a detective way of approaching your quantitative work. And it took away a lot of the traditional assumptions, it allowed for an interpretive flexible approach. And that was the way in for me in terms of participatory action research that if we could think of our analyses, and not worry so much about the traditional models and the inference, but we start using exploratory data approaches that were flexible, and visual, and back and forth, it started fitting a lot better with the type of PAR approaches, you know, and qualitative approaches that suit this approach. And that was the beginning of a kind of stats in action, or the pursuit of a stats and action framework.

Tiffany Muller Myrdahl  37:55  
Thank you so much and I'm really hopeful that at this particular moment, when big data and smart cities and predictive policing are important things that are informing and shaping our landscape, we have to pay very close attention to how we're doing quantitative analysis. Thank you so much.

Brett Stoudt  38:15 
Thank you, Tiffany.

Outro  38:21  
A special thank you to Tiffany Muller Myrdahl for guest hosting this episode of Below the Radar and to Brett's Stoudt for joining us on the show and of course for also sharing the work and research that he does. Tiffany where can listeners go to learn more about the projects that Brett mentions in this episode?

Tiffany Muller Myrdahl  38:38 
Listeners can go to the Public Science Project and the Morris Justice Project websites. So and

Outro  38:49  
Awesome. Thank you, Tiffany. So folks, they'll be linked in the episode description below. And of course, please stay in the loop with Below the Radar by following us on Twitter and Facebook. And be sure to subscribe to us wherever you find your podcasts including Apple podcasts, SoundCloud, Overcast, Player FM, and do leave us a review. As always, thank you to the team that puts this podcast together including myself, Rachel Wong, Paige Smith, Fiorella Pinillos Kathy Feng, and Jackie O Bonga. David Steele is the composer of our theme music and thank you for listening. Tune in next time for a brand new episode of Below the Radar.

Transcript auto-generated by and edited by the Below the Radar team.
July 26, 2021

Stay Up to Date

Get the latest on upcoming events by subscribing to our newsletter below.