A Conversation with Mathematica’s 2021 Summer Fellows

[PREVIEW CLIP FROM TEMITOPE OJO]

I would say I have a healthy appetite for knowledge generation, empirical research, but, very much so, I also have a sense of urgency around translating research, translating theoretical knowledge into practical settings. Having this evidence play out in real time, that is something that very much drives my research.

[J.B. WOGAN]

I’m J.B. Wogan from Mathematica and welcome back to On the Evidence, a show that examines what we know about today’s most urgent challenges and what we can do to address them.

On this episode, I speak with Temitope Ojo and Katlyn Lee Milless, Mathematica’s 2021 summer fellows. We’re releasing this episode in January while Mathematica is still accepting applications for its 2022 summer fellowship. I’ll include a link in the show notes with more information about the 12-week paid summer fellowship, which is for doctoral students whose proposed independent research project intersects with one or more of Mathematica’s focus areas. Longtime listeners of On the Evidence may remember our past episodes with the 2020 and 2019 summer fellows.

Temi Ojo is a doctoral candidate at the NYU School of Global Public Health. Her research focuses on implementation science as well as the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease and other non-communicable diseases in a global setting.

Katlyn Milless is a doctoral candidate in basic and applied social psychology at the Graduate Center, City University of New York. Her research takes a psychological approach to understanding how to promote gender and racial equity in education spaces, particularly among college students in STEM—that is, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

On the episode, Ojo and Milless discuss their career paths, why they’re interested in applied research, and what they plan to do after completing their dissertations.

I hope you enjoy the conversation.

[J.B. WOGAN]

Temi and Katlyn, I really appreciate you talking with me today about the summer fellowship that you just completed at Mathematica. I wanted to start by asking you to share a little bit about your general research interests and then we can get a little bit more into the specific focus of the work you did at Mathematica. Temi, do you want to start us off?

[TEMITOPE OJO]

Sure. So, thanks, again, for this opportunity to record this podcast and share my experience at Mathematica and just in general, regarding my research. So, my research interests are in implementation science, cardiovascular disease prevention and management, and all-around non-communicable disease management in the global setting. So, for my research, I am focused on developing tools and measures that we can use to better evaluate what we call implementation science outcomes.

One of those outcomes which I’m focusing on is feasibility, which is where we’re looking at how pragmatic it is to implement a variety of public health initiatives in a particular setting. My work has been focused on trying to figure out what those contextual factors are that would influence how feasible those initiatives would be in a resource constraint setting. So, when I talk about resource constraint, I’m looking more at the classification of low- and middle-income countries, at least according to the World Bank categories.

[J.B. WOGAN]

And Katlyn how would you describe your sort of general research area?

[KATYLN LEE MILLESS]

So, probably my research interests lie in the education space. So, I take a psychological approach to understanding the ways that we can promote gender and racial equity in education spaces. So, most of my work focuses on higher ed and ways that we can increase racial and gender equity in STEM college students. Yeah, so the broad array of my research really focuses both on a student level and a faculty level, the ways that we can make intellectually safe spaces for people who have been historically minoritized or underrepresented, specifically by focusing on psychological constructs such as a sense of belonging and other psychological factors that predict whether people are likely to persist in certain domains, and creating environments and contexts that help support individuals who have historically been undermined in those aspects of psychological well-being.

[J.B. WOGAN]

So, something that I’ve learned from interviewing some of my colleagues at Mathematica, as well as other guests on this podcast, is that there’s often an origin story for how people become interested in their research area, and I wanted to put that question to you both. Maybe we’ll start with Katlyn this time. How did you become interested in equity and STEM?

[KATYLN LEE MILLESS]

I first became interested in this topic as a transfer student, switching majors, because I actually was originally a woman in physical science. I was no longer in that field. So, when I switched to psychology, I actually took a stats class that the instructor was using ideas around stereotyped threat or the idea that experiencing stereotyping can undermine people’s belonging and performance in STEM, and really resonated with that concept because it was something that I had felt I experienced myself.

So, that was sort of my first exposure to this area of using social psychology to understand educational equity, and it really does stem from my own personal experiences. And as I got deeper and deeper into my involvement and research in this area, teaching students and mentoring students, it has just, over time, the more ingrained I’ve become in this area, the more I can see and realize that there’s a huge need for this. And I hope to be able to contribute to solving some of these social issues.

[J.B. WOGAN]

This topic has come up on the podcast before about diversity in various fields. We had an episode that’s about diversity among the teaching workforce in K through 12 education and the need for more diversity. On one level, it’s just – you know, it’s a laudable goal to increase diversity, period, but I’m wondering, beyond that, when you say there’s a need for diversity–what might be the consequences, the positives or virtuous cycle of increasing diversity in the STEM fields? What’s the evidence base there?

[KATYLN LEE MILLESS]

Yeah. So, you know, I think that, in addition to being able to disseminate high-quality education, regardless of what social groups you belong to, I personally think that, for instance, scientific inquiry will be all the better for having diversified points of view and having people who bring different experiences and perspectives to the table. We know that bringing diversified points of view makes people more creative. That’s some classic social psychology for you; right? People have more creative solutions to problems. There’s less groupthink and people are beckoned to think more critically because of being exposed to different perspectives.

So, I think all those things carry over to scientific advancement. And I think it’s one of the things that I always make as a point of the importance of this work more broadly is that there is so much good scientific advancement to be had by including folks who have been historically marginalized because they bring a different perspective and they maybe have been trained differently. They bring their lived experiences to the table.

One of the cornerstones of my work, for instance, is looking at how people can take the curriculum they learn in school and think about how might I apply this in my community and my life? What are interesting ways that I might take this mathematical formula and use it in a way to better my community? So, I think even having the insight to be able to think creatively about applying standard curriculum, you know, in lived experience communities and applied spaces is something that could drastically be bettered by increasing diversity.

[J.B. WOGAN]

Okay. Great. Temi, what about you, what’s the origin story or, yeah, how did you become personally interested in feasibility of implementation science?

[TEMITOPE OJO]

So, as you may know, implementation science, at least with public health, is a relatively new discipline. So, I did not know about it, even while I applied to PhD programs. What I knew I was interested in was understanding how to develop or improve the continuum of care when it comes to chronic diseases, and cardiovascular diseases being the leading, on a global scale, the leading cause of mortality and morbidity when it comes to chronic diseases, actually of all diseases, pretty much. So, I knew there was a – I identified the need in that space quite early on in my MPH degree.

And I think halfway through my MPH degree, when I was getting into my field work, which was looking at how we could potentially leverage a network of community-held volunteers to improve awareness and knowledge, as well as mobilize health activities around non-communicable diseases, and this was in Uganda. So, this was the research that pretty much prompted my application to PhD programs. So, very early, first semester into the program, was when I started to learn about implementation science from one of my mentors who is stationed at NYU Langone. He was about that time starting up an implementation science lab. So, I joined up.

And I would say that, for me, it felt like a logical progression of what I was trying to do with understanding how to – understanding and exploring ways to improve continuum of care. The reason being that implementation science is really focused on how we implement pretty much, how we do stuff, how we execute in different spaces. And it’s very concerned with the process of doing those things and also being able to evaluate our process to ensure that we are achieving optimal results for these evidence-based interventions.

What also resonated for me is the fact that my pursuit in public health, which has been around chronic diseases, non-communicable diseases, has always been – one issue that kept resurfacing is the issue of having evidence that works in theory but looking at what happens in real time, it doesn’t seem to work. And I know that that process takes a lot of time, takes a lot of resources, can be very demotivating also when you think about the range of people and platforms that we engage with when we do global research, but then not always having a lot to show for it. So, for me, implementation science became that practical lens for which to further explore how we can pragmatically implement those cardiovascular health initiatives, especially in spaces where there are challenges to health systems and there are gaps in care, and how to be able to develop programs and initiatives that do work in that setting.

[J.B. WOGAN]

Okay. That’s great. Can I ask one other clarifying question? When you say cardiovascular initiatives, what’s an example? Is there, like, an easy-to-understand—

[TEMITOPE OJO]

Oh, yeah, absolutely. Pardon my technical language there. So, cardiovascular health is anything that has to do with the heart, right, the heart health. So, programs around hypertension, increase in hypertension, screening and diagnosis, ensuring that people are able to engage with health care services, right, get referrals, and not just getting the referrals but being able to continue to go in for healthcare services. It could also be one that is centered around task shifting. So, this would be training non-clinical healthcare workers to provide some of the health services, things not as complicated as, you know, screening blood pressure screening, for instance, points of care testing for if you’re looking at diabetes or high blood sugar, or even helping with counseling, lifestyle counseling around physical activity, eating healthy.

[J.B. WOGAN]

Okay. Great. And you mentioned middle- and low-income countries. What are some of the countries where this would take place?

[TEMITOPE OJO]

Okay. So, low- and middle-income countries, this is a World Bank categorization based on per capita products per person. And I think for – so, anything below $12,000 in terms of the products per person, that would be the middle income. And anything below that – so, that would be from middle to low income. So, Uganda is one of them. All the African countries on the continent fall under low- and middle-income countries. We also have a huge swath of Asia. So, China is considered upper middle income. We have India as well. The reason why I’m mentioning these countries is also because of the population size. So, more than two-thirds of the world, at least we’re talking about over two billion people in the world live in low- and middle-income country settings. And this is why, again, there is – I feel there should be a big emphasis on tailoring cardiovascular health initiatives to be suitable for those settings, given these unique resource constraints.

[J.B. WOGAN]

One question I have, and this is definitely a question I like to ask the economists that I come across at Mathematica, and statisticians, because there are definitely lines of research that one could do, in economics that would not be applied, but I’m curious just what it was that appealed to both of you about taking the methods and expertise that you’ve accreted, that you’ve gained during your time in grad school, and taking it into an applied realm. Katlyn, do you want to start us off?

[KATYLN LEE MILLESS]

One of the things that really drew me to being interested in conducting my research in applied settings is really more of a draw to impact and implementation rather than knowledge generation. I think that, you know, knowledge generation obviously is a super important part of science and we need that foundation of knowledge in order to make justifications or predictions for how we might move into an applied space. But I think for me, personally, having just intrinsic interest in educational settings, which is sort of inherently applied, I loved the idea of being able to take an approach to my science that really integrates people’s lived experiences. And, again, being able to take your work and see an impact of that, see the ways that it might be adopted into broader populations in service of social good was something that really appealed to me.

[J.B. WOGAN]

Temi, what about you? Is there anything that Katlyn said that resonated or do you have a similar story?

[TEMITOPE OJO]

So, one thing that Katlyn said that very much still drives my approach in my research is this in my interest in the implementation side of things over knowledge generation. And I would say I have a healthy appetite for knowledge generation, empirical research, but, very much so, I also have a sense of urgency around translating theoretical knowledge into practical settings. Having this evidence play out in real time, that is something that very much drives my research.

So, I would say one thing also that I am getting – that I appreciate about implementation science is that it is not something that can happen in a siloed situation. It is not research that can be conducted sort of like from an ivory tower. It is research that forces you to engage a diverse set of stakeholders. So, it would mean that if you want to go into a community and you want to start let’s say like a hypertension prevention program, it means that you are going to engage with the health care system there, possibly the Ministry of Health, you’re going to engage with gatekeepers in the community, you’re going to engage with your patients or your soon-to-be participants.

So, there’s this whole space, even within implementation science, called patient-centered research or human-centered design. So, that’s something whereby you design your implementation process, as well as the intervention, of course, but a lot of the implementation as well is designed around what would work best for that participant in that setting. So, that’s what implementation science forces us to do is to look at our procedure, look at our processes, tailor and adapt it for the people who they are designed for so that we can achieve the optimal results for that setting.

And what it also means is, like, what works in one place would not work in the other. The science could be correct, but if the implementation is not done well, it would mean that project would fail or would not achieve as good of a result as it could. So, that is something that I continue to enjoy with implementation science is forcing us to live within our reality and ensuring that the work we do, the effort we put in, the resources we use to promote these projects are things that actually applies to the real-world setting.

[J.B. WOGAN]

Yeah, it’s interesting. I see some blurring of the lines in terms of what you’re talking about from a research standpoint and from the role that I have or that some of my colleagues have here at Mathematica where, from a communications standpoint, we’re often thinking about, well, who is the audience we’re trying to reach, what language are we trying to use, what points, how do we order, prioritize information, to make sure that we’re reaching the right people in a language that makes sense and that we’re providing them with the most relevant information possible so that it has the biggest impact. I want to stick with you, Temi. We’ve talked about your research area more broadly, but what did you focus on during your time as a summer fellow at Mathematica?

[TEMITOPE OJO]

So, for my fellowship, I was working on the third aim of my dissertation, which is a survey that is still being administered to researchers and implementers within the space of cardiovascular health. And for these researchers and implementers, they need to be people who have experience conducting that research or implementing these cardiovascular health initiatives in low- and middle-income country settings. So, technically, what that means is the person does not have to be a resident in that country but they should have had that experience working in that setting, which is what a lot of – at least with global health, that’s what we see is we have people from different parts of the world working in other parts of the world, right, and being able to impact positively in that space.

So, for my fellowship, I was administering that survey. And a good part of the fellowship also meant brainstorming on how to target this audience, right, figuring out where they are. And I think for me something that came up was beginning to see new intersections within public health and implementation science. So, for instance, having to appeal to a platform of digital health researchers, that is another angle of that; right? I am normally used to cardiovascular health researchers, but digital health very much plays into some of these health initiatives that are done in low- and middle-income country settings.

And also part of my experience at Mathematica also meant brainstorming with some members of the implementation science affinity group and kind of trying to understand, because I do know that parts of the projects that are done in Mathematica engages with really complex health initiatives and multi-year monitoring evaluation and development of learning points, right, lessons learned from those experiences. So, that was something I was very much interested in, is to understand what engaging at that very, again, at that real-world setting, how have these projects progressed over time. What are some of those salient lessons that, as an implementation scientist, I should be looking out for, say, for instance, for a future project.

Another thing I would say the fellowship also allowed me to do was to get into what I would say the intermediate analysis of my survey. So, I had the opportunity sort of like to do a trial run of my analysis for the tool I’m hoping to develop from the survey data. So, the survey questions in itself are questions that are asking the researcher or the implementer, based on their experience, as to what some factors are that influence how feasible their projects have been in a low- and middle-income country setting. So, for instance, to what extent was leadership engagement influential in that process? To what extent was the availability of let’s say consistent training for, like, implementers, for community health workers or for nurses, to what extent was that component influential to how feasible the project turned out?

So, some of the things that, at least running that trial analysis, at least helped us to – helped me, I would say, to identify a set of questions that we believe are beginning to crystalize what we’ll call the overlapping or crosscutting factors that brought together for just about a typical researcher implementing in that space. This set of questions are actually quite important for them to be asking in regards to evaluating how feasible their intended project could be or evaluating how feasible their projects have been so far.

And that is why, for me, this is exciting research because, with the data that I’m seeing, it helps us to start developing sort of a scale, right, that researchers can very early on answer a set of questions and get a score that would give them an idea of how feasible that project is or could be. And not just to, you know, get the score on feasibility but also get to identify areas that probably need more attention; right? Areas that could allow – that could support their decision-making process or support the way they prioritize different components of the project in itself.

[J.B. WOGAN]

That’s really interesting. So, the tool can be used both retrospectively and prospectively, as an evaluation tool retrospectively or almost like a checklist on the front end.

[TEMITOPE OJO]

Almost like a checklist, yes. Of course, I would encourage prospectively, because that’s sort of where we’re trying to push people to is people need to be proactive about or preemptive with some of those questions so that there is an added level of preparation when you actually get into the field. But, of course, retrospectively is a way to reflect on what some of those factors were that influence how the project went. Of course, as we know with public health initiatives, the goal is to sustain them if they are beneficial. If there is evidence that they are beneficial, it would be to sustain them. So, having a tool that sort of helps with this checks along the stages of sustainability would be – I think would be beneficial. So, that is why, again, this project is so very dear to me in that regard.

[J.B. WOGAN]

Katlyn, so what did – again, we’ve talked a little bit about your overall research interest and how you became interested in that topic, but more narrowly, what did you focus on during your time at Mathematica as a summer fellow?

[KATYLN LEE MILLESS]

Similarly to Temi, this summer, I worked on my dissertation. So, my dissertation is focused on understanding the experiences of Black and Latina women in STEM and higher ed. So, there are two prongs to my dissertation. The first is understanding how Black and Latino women interact with various STEM instructors to understand how might diversification at the faculty level be a way to foster belonging and intellectual safety for these groups.

The second part of my dissertation is focused on, well, how might we change faculty behavior in order to make more equitable environments in STEM classrooms. So, one of the ways that I’m going about that, taking a strong intersectional approach as I am centering Black and Latina women in my studies is looking at the efficacy of social justice STEM pedagogy as a way to create these equitable and safe environments. So, yeah, I mostly worked on that first prong, looking at Black and Latina women’s perception of STEM instructors.

So, similarly to Temi, I did a survey that I developed and disseminated online. I got a lot of help from people at Mathematica, consulting with people outside of my expertise, understanding the ways that I could disseminate my research more efficaciously to policy-minded folks or to more straight-up education-minded folks. So, that was super helpful. And also thinking about the implications of my work for, say, universities or even things such as mentoring programs. Also thinking about creative ways that, even outside of the educational setting per se, I could think about implementing the findings of my work.

[J.B. WOGAN]

All right. So, if you feel comfortable, can you give listeners a sneak peek of some of the findings from your work this summer? Temi, why don’t you go first?

[TEMITOPE OJO]

So, I would say from this summer, I’m trying to decide if to sort of give sort of like a prelude because the dissertation in itself is three parts for me, and one part flowing into the other, pretty much. So, very early on, we, after doing a very comprehensive systematic review as well as interviewing nine key informants who were with expertise in the space of LMIC-based, so low- and middle-income countries, based cardiovascular health research. We saw that, you know, like some of the things that were salient towards was the fact that having an invested leadership stakeholder engagement process does improve the feasibility of implementing projects in the spaces and also builds legitimacy and trust.

We also saw that also having a well-rounded knowledge of what the individual assistance level barriers and facilitators are to participating in cardiovascular health initiatives also improved feasibility of implementing those projects. Something that I think kind of speaks to a notion I had discussed earlier about being able to engage a diverse set of stakeholders is the fact that when projects are implemented through an empowering model of engagement and training, that builds a sense of ownership within the communities or settings where these projects are, and it also increases knowledge and investment in the process for the implementers.

With these themes coming out, we were able to now develop the survey questions which makes up the survey we are now administering. So far with the survey, what we’ve seen is that, across the board, most of our respondents so far are researchers in this space. And we see that about 68 percent of them are carrying out secondary-level prevention initiatives. So, secondary-level prevention initiatives would be something around hypertension management, meaning that people have already developed risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, but you know are engaged in managing those risk factors.

Something else we did see was that, for a very large amount of them, so about 86 percent of them agree with the way we define feasibility from the implementation science standpoint. That is good because we know there is consensus, right, at the knowledge level around what feasibility means. What we’ve seen, at least with the questions, and I did mention about questions fostering to come out as crosscutting questions that people should be asking, at least as a researcher or implementer in this space. So, some of those questions that have had high reliability score, those questions are questions around the context for which an intervention is being designed, questions around the structural characteristics of the setting. So, do we have physical facilities, how well are the – do we have equipment to carry out some of these projects? So, those things do matter.

We also saw that identifying – rather, having an implementation climate that supports the intervention is also quite important. Another thing is the readiness to implement. So, how ready is that setting, including the stakeholders, how ready are they to implement? And part of readiness, when we talk about readiness, we’re looking into, has there been training provided? Does the implementation fit the daily routine of participants as well as the implementors? So, so far, this is some of the results I have, of course, not concluded yet because more data is coming in. But, yes, this I could share with you.

[J.B. WOGAN]

Let me ask a similar but different question, which is, if listeners are going to take one thing away, they’re going to remember one thing from the research you’ve done this summer, what would you want them to know?

[TEMITOPE OJO]

So, what I want them to know is the fact that context matters. Going into a setting without preparing for the context in terms of what is the – sort of like what the let’s say organization setup is like, what is the external set of factors are, going into that space without understanding that context does a disservice to an evidence-based intervention. So, the whole premise of my research has been centered around understanding context, including context into research. For me, in terms of developing a tool, being able to include these contextual features into a skill that would allow researchers and implementers to better understand what that context is that they’re going into in order for them to plan for more feasible implementation experience.

[J.B. WOGAN]

Okay. Katlyn, I’ll put that same question to you. In terms of findings, if there was one thing that you would want people to remember or to know about what you’ve learned from your research this summer, what would that be?

[KATYLN LEE MILLESS]

Yeah, so I think the most important thing that I found during my research this summer was that having examples of your racial group present in educational spaces is a super important signal of safety for students of color, and particularly women of color. So, I found that over and above, for instance, gender, that women of color reported more feelings of anticipated belonging. So, they felt they would be more valued in those classes. They reported a higher sense of advocacy, so thinking that instructors of color were more likely than white instructors to advocate for them in the classroom.

And in terms of educational decision-making, they were more likely to enroll in a core class with instructors who shared a race with them. So, I think, you know, the major takeaway from my work that I’ve done this summer is that race matters, diversity matters, and the optimal environment that we can create if we want students of color, and particularly women of color, to feel safe in STEM spaces is to diversify the faculty body.

[J.B. WOGAN]

That’s great. Okay. So, what’s next for you after the summer fellowship over the next year or so, and beyond?

[KATYLN LEE MILLESS]

Yeah. So, in terms of what’s next for me, I, of course, will be working on my dissertation, working on graduating, hopefully securing a job that will ultimately turn into my career. I’m looking for hopefully to be involved in the education policy analysis area. And also extending my research further. I’m super interested in the next phase of my dissertation, obviously, which will be focused on instructors endorsing social justice STEM pedagogy and the effect that has on women of color, but also, I’m super interested in extending the sort of center of my research to, for instance, following students over time, looking at teacher training. If I can implement some of these things like social justice pedagogy while teachers are learning how to teach, what effect might that have on the students that they ultimately go on to teach.

I’m also really interested in looking at some of these dynamics and how they manifest for younger students. So, so far, this whole area of research for me has been looking at higher ed, so college students, but I am super interested in looking at K through 12. We know that, for instance, children develop a sense of stereotypes and realize that they’re being treated differently as young as first, second grade. It’s something that children are intuitively picking up on. So, I think it is an important focus and probably some of my next steps in this area.

[J.B. WOGAN]

That sounds really exciting. Temi, why don’t you bring us home? What’s next for you?

[TEMITOPE OJO]

So, research-wise, it would be to at least be able to, by the time I conclude the PhD, to have at least a first prototype of the psychometric scale I’m developing from my survey in all the other data sets I’ve collected so far, and to bring it to a point where it can be validated by other independent groups of researchers. And, you know, I hope that as it gets widely validated, we can, of course, make tweaks to it to make it better, let’s say user-friendly as well as more adapted for maybe a different public health subject content beyond cardiovascular disease. So, that’s something I’m looking forward to research-wise.

And then professionally, I will be going on into management consulting after the program. And something I’m looking forward to in that space is being put in a space where I am able to work with a diverse set of people, right, to come up with solutions around complex problems, and not just from the health care perspective but from other sectors in the society. And also an opportunity to better understand how stakeholder engagement works because I think public health has very complex issues and different people can bring different things to the table. But I think sometimes where we miss the point when it comes to public health initiatives or the progress we make is when we are not able to find common ground amongst diverse stakeholders. So, that’s something I’m interested in developing, at least improving my knowledge about, and also experience of, and that’s something I’m looking forward to in this next phase as it regards to management consulting.

[J.B. WOGAN]

Terrific. And where can listeners follow you and your work?

[TEMITOPE OJO]

Oh, so everything I do is – well, not everything, but most of my work is documented on LinkedIn. So, honestly, I would say LinkedIn is, like, the place to look in terms of what I’m up to. Google Scholar, because we do get to have profiles on Google Scholar now. So, in terms of checking out some of my publications, they’re all up there on Google Scholar under my first name and last name, so Temitope Ojo, you would find my work.

[J.B. WOGAN]

Okay. Katlyn, where can people follow you and your work?

[KATYLN LEE MILLESS]

Professionally, you can find me on LinkedIn as well. I’m also on academic Twitter. So, if you want random musings from me or lots of retweets from other people’s interesting work, you can find me on Twitter. My handle is @KatlynMilless. And then, yeah, if you want access to my publications, you can email me or you can also find them on Google Scholar.

[J.B. WOGAN]

Thank you so much for talking with me today. It’s been a pleasure.

[TEMITOPE OJO]

Thank you, J.B.

[KATYLN LEE MILLESS]

Thanks for having me. This was great.

…

[J.B. WOGAN]

Thanks to our guests, Temi Ojo and Katlyn Milless. In the show notes, I’ll include more information about how you can follow their work. I’ll also include links to the Mathematica summer fellowship web page and our past podcasts with the 2019 and 2020 summer fellows. As always, thank you for listening to another episode of On the Evidence, the Mathematica podcast. To stay up-to-date with the show, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts or follow us on Twitter. I’m at JBWogan. Mathematica is at MathematicaNow.