Episode #7 - Awareness of others: Building trust with others through empathy and deep listening


Host: Robert Leckey

Guests: Sara Pavan and Milad Parpouchi



In this podcast Robert Leckey talks with 2013 Scholar Sara Pavan, a strategic planning advisor with BC Housing and Milad Parpouchi, 2017 Scholar, a researcher at the Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction at Simon Fraser University. They talk about how to get people interested in your ideas and research, and how respectful communication built on trust helps involve a variety of stakeholders in research and policy.




Robert Leckey

Welcome to the Communications and Sharing Knowledge series of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, Brave Spaces podcast. 

Today, we are discussing awareness of others, communicating with empathy, and building trust. Milad Parpouchi is a public health professional, a researcher at the Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University and a former Canadian Institutes of Health Research doctoral scholar.

His work focuses on the health and human rights of marginalized and vulnerable populations. He has conducted groundbreaking research on food insecurity, sexual behavior, criminal justice involvement, and health service use among people experiencing homelessness and mental illness. And he is an accomplished university instructor and public speaker. 

Beyond his work in public health, Milad is an active volunteer and community builder. He co-founded the Health Sciences Undergraduate Student Union at Simon Fraser University and serves as a mentor to prospective graduate students. He is also a professional pianist, keyboardist, and drummer. Milad is a 2017 Trudeau scholar and a member of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation's Alumni Executive Committee.

Sara Pavan is a strategic planning advisor with BC Housing, a Crown corporation that develops, manages, and administers a range of subsidized housing options and programs across British Columbia. Prior to that, Sara was a program evaluator at BC Women's Hospital in Vancouver, BC. Sara holds a PhD in political science from Queens University, and she completed a Killam post-doctoral fellowship at the University of British Columbia. Her academic work focused on the processes through which immigrants to Canada become acquainted with political institutions, develop attitudes, such as interest in politics and trust in political institutions, and become politically active.

Throughout her past and current experience, her main interest has always been the positive effects that social services and programs can have in engaging citizens, particularly those most likely to be marginalized in the public sphere. Sara is a 2013 Trudeau scholar.

Can you tell us Sara, a little bit about yourself and how communications and knowledge sharing have been central to your work?

Sara Pavan
Yes, sure. So, I'm a public servant. I currently work in the provincial public sector in British Columbia. I'm an immigrant to Canada myself. I was born in Italy. I've lived in Canada for 12 years. I worked and studied and lived in five different countries. Communications are central to my work right now, and have been central to my growth and my development as a person for the past decades, as long as I can remember. 

Much of my work right now is really about communicating, in the sense of packaging information, specifically about housing programs and services for many different audiences, right? So very often it's the same information, but it needs to be packaged differently when it's communicated to varied audiences, like the public, citizens, MLA or MPs, ministers, and policy makers. And in my previous life as an academic, I conducted very intensive field work with immigrant communities. As you mentioned earlier on in my bio, that was done with the purpose of really getting a deeper understanding of how folks that immigrate to Canada experience Canadian politics when they settle and as they build their new life in this new country.

So, overall, 525 people were interviewed during the course of my PhD research. And then later on, during the course of my postdoc, another further 30 people are interviewed in very in-depth interviews, and those included politicians as well. And during that process, much of what I realized was that the hardest part of research was not so much the conceptual and theoretical laying the groundwork for the field work, but it was actually about understanding, how I could explain the purpose of what I was doing. And getting people interested enough in it, to be willing to participate in my work. And that was by far the most challenging aspect. When that part of the work, the field work, was concluded, I had to also relearn how to communicate people's varied lived experiences in ways that fit the traditional disciplinary academic boundaries. And that was also yet another process and another challenge. And I think throughout all of these experiences, I've come out with an awareness that I never had before with such clarity in my head, that really communications are such a fundamental part of whatever we manage to achieve in life. We can do the most amazing work, have the most groundbreaking ideas, but we are not able to get people interested in it, in these ideas, then the impact that we have will always be limited.

Wonderful.  Milad, tell us a little bit how you come at the centrality of communications and knowledge sharing.

Milad Parpouchi
Sure. Thank you. I guess I'll start by mentioning that I'm a researcher working at the Center for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction, otherwise known as CARMHA. We're based out in Vancouver. My work involves investigating health and social interventions that promote recovery among people experiencing mental illness, addiction, or homelessness. I should mention, when I say recovery, I mean, living a satisfying and meaningful life as defined by people experiencing these conditions. Generally speaking, communication or knowledge sharing, these have been really important at all phases of our research, right from the beginning, whether we're talking about the conception of a study formulating a relevant research question, all the way through to the dissemination study findings. Throughout that entire process, we're collaborating, we're communicating, we're sharing knowledge, and really learning from a variety of stakeholders. And when I say that stakeholders… a few key stakeholders in most, if not all of our projects are policy makers, people with lived or living experience of mental illness, addiction, or homelessness, also service providers and indigenous people in indigenous-led organizations.

The goal really is to mount a research project that's relevant to the populations that it's about, not only in terms of the research question, but also, how is that research to be conducted? What kinds of questions are asked? And of course, ultimately, I think we want to influence health and social policy. And in order to do those things, in my experience, it's been important to communicate, to exchange knowledge, and really to collaborate through an effective structure with the people in groups that I just mentioned and in a variety of ways: interpersonal communication, written communication, social media, mass media interviews, community, conference presentations, and so on.

So Milad, you've talked a little bit about some of the different ways in which you communicate and how important that is, but when you're being deliberate about it, how do you really set about communicating in an enriching and effective way?

So, there are a few basics that come to mind. One is, trying to communicate in an accessible way to the audience that you're writing to or communicating with. Often, it's better to, I think, get your point across in a variety of ways. Few people have access to academic journals, for example. 

At an interpersonal level, I think, one's mindset is important within the context of communication – being mindful of how subtleties in your communication come across to other people and how it makes them feel. But the person you're interacting with may have a different opinion, for example. I often work with a variety of stakeholders in research projects, and they may suggest modifications that I disagree with. But before communicating, I really do try to adopt the mindset that, hey, I might be wrong. I think I'm right, but I might be wrong. And I'm open to new knowledge and new ways of doing things. I really think that that subtle difference in your mindset undoubtedly influences the way you come across in your communication, really to enable active listening.

There's a certain vulnerability in acknowledging that you could be wrong. 
Sara, carrying on, how do you think of yourself as building effective and enriching communications?

You know, I love what Milad said before me. And as I reflected about this question, I actually had very similar thoughts to what you just shared, Milad. You know, I like the way that the question was framed, because I think that effective and enriching are two aspects of communication that tend to go together. So, how do we know if communication is effective? We generally know it, because we come out of it feeling like we have learned something new, we have known a new person, or at least we thought about something that we knew about before, but in a different way.

And this tends to feel very enriching for the person that is, maybe, conducting an interview. And generally, when it feels enriching for us, it's very likely that it feels enriching for the other party as well. It's unusual that two people in a conversation would feel radically different about the experience. They may have different ideas. But they may feel similarly about the interaction and the experience. I think… one of the things that I always try to think about is when I want to communicate with people, I want to build a relationship with them. And I think I try to go into that process with the premise that listening and exchanging ideas doesn't mean that we need to agree, right? We may find some ideas appalling. We may not like them at all. We may find that they're not safe, they're not culturally safe, they're not racially safe. But if we want to really be in an horizontal relationship with the other people, we really need to go into the process with the mindset of listening and just being open to whatever ideas or thoughts the other party may bring up. And I know, in my experience, I've experienced this a lot when I was interviewing politicians. And I know, some of their ideas were not ideas that I would normally support, and yet in conversations with them, they shared a lot about their life histories and journeys, which actually helped me to understand a lot about why they held the views that they did.

And it doesn't mean that I ended up agreeing with their views, but I ended up realizing that we are actually human, right? And so, whenever we disagree with somebody, we can always remember that we have something fundamentally common to share and we can build on that, to be more relaxed and be present with the other person as we have conversations and interactions.

So important distinguishing the potential for meaningful communication from the question of whether we're already in the same camp, huh? Sara, building on that a bit further, are there specific ways you think of trying to build trust in these kinds of 

You know, when I was conducting my field work for my PhD, I really had very little experience of going out into a community that I had no ties to and trying to get people involved in my work. And so, I had to learn a lot of new things in a relatively short period of time. And I kind of had to learn how to fly the plane when I was already flying it. But I think, over time, this experience has helped me to be very intentional about learning, what builds trust in communications and in relations with others. And I think that right now, the question of trust is so important, cause I think one of the greatest social challenges that we are experiencing is the erosion of trust in democratic institutions, the erosion of trust in experts in science, right? So how do we build those bridges? How do we create and repair, create trust and repair distrust? 

You know, I think of three elements that I've learned through time. And again, like Milad said, I may be wrong, and maybe a few years down the line, I will say something different or I will have different ideas about these three rules that I use, or I may have new rules… But the first one of them is one that I learned from an indigenous elder that I was working with while I was a program evaluator at BC Women's Hospital. And one of the things she always shared with me is that, whenever you are building relationship with others, you have to remember that relationships go at the speed of trust, and trust goes at its own speed. So, you cannot force a relationship. You cannot rush it. If you are a researcher, if you're a policy maker, I know you have a limited timeline, but if people sense that you're trying to get into a relationship with them just to get something out of it, as opposed to just being in the moment with them and learning something from them, they will sense that really easily. And that will actually not help you build trust or build relationships at all. I know it's difficult to dedicate time to build a relationship, but it's very important to do that. We did it in personal lives, it's the same in our public lives as well. So that's number one. 

The second one also taught to me by the same indigenous elder is being authentic. And I know that there is a lot of talk about being authentic on social media. And I think people interpret being authentic in many different ways. I found out, for me, what really stuck was, you know, something that elder used to actually practice. Whenever you are in a work meeting and people are asked to introduce themselves to each other, people will normally start by saying what their work is, what their education is, what their professional credentials are. And she always used to stop people and say, okay, this is great, but I actually want to know who you are. What's your community? Why do you like doing what you're doing? What's your motivation? What brings you to this work? And I found that that was so powerful in actually making people reveal their human self and say something more than just what they're good about in their work. And again, it requires some vulnerability. It requires time, cause you cannot just expect that everybody will be so willing to share a lot about themselves when they've just met somebody else, but it can be very powerful, then it builds over time, right? So, over time it actually helps people to come together a as a community.

And the third element, connecting back to the conversation we had before about not needing to agree and just being open to learn from others is, I think, building on commonalities. And I know what I'm going to say… not everybody agrees with this, but something that really made me think a lot recently was… I was listening to a podcast by somebody who teaches, known violent communication. And she talked about, how can we get together with our relatives over Christmas or Thanksgiving? And knowing that some of them disagree with vaccine mandates, they don't want to get the vaccines, so on and so forth. How do we approach these conversations? And one of the things she said is, we have to remember to build on what we share with people. We may not agree with them on their views on vaccines and science, but what we agree with them about is, we all care about our health. We care about our health in very different ways, but we all care about our health, and it doesn't mean we need to agree with everybody else's views. But if we can start from knowing and sharing that premise that we all care about something in common, then that helps us to relax and be in the moment, as opposed to letting all of our opinions and beliefs kind of run faster than the interaction that we are having with a person in the moment. 

So, I know I'm going on and on here, but I guess the last thing I want to say is that I know I trained as an academic. I don't work as an academic right now, but that was my training. And in my scholarly work, I was trained for debate. I was trained to assess facts, to address criticism based on facts, and to try and persuade others of the value of my argument, based on the kind of intrinsic evidence-based value of my assertion. And I think this is great in science. It's great in the peer review process, it just makes our collective learning easier. It's fundamental to the work that we do in the social sciences, in the natural sciences, in the academic work in general. But when we think about the larger public, we have to remember that trying to persuade people based on the truth is actually very unlikely to succeed. I mean, I have family members that I don't really agree with a lot, and I tried in the past to persuade them with evidence. That didn't go very far, didn't go very well. So again, remembering that being right, sometimes, is less important than being able to make a connection. So, we actually have a chance to plant a seed in somebody else's mind and see where that seed grows, right? There are no guarantees that we are able to persuade somebody else, but if we try to persuade them with facts, we are less likely to succeed than if we just try to influence somebody by sharing who we are and trying to build a relationship with people.

So much wisdom in that. And your point, Sara, about how establishing trust takes time. Makes me think of some very unsuccessful efforts that universities sometimes make to consult indigenous communities. You know, they send an email and they say, we're consulting you and want to hear from you in two weeks. And we're going to move on in a kind of transactional way.
Milad, coming at this from the work you've done, how do you think of yourself as building trust?

One of the most effective ways of building trust is really to invite people, key stakeholders, to be part of the research, to the table, and perhaps to even be part of the research team, to do that often. This can involve what we've done in the past is to set up a project governance committee, where members of all stakeholder groups are invited to meaningfully partner on the conception…  all the phases of the research, from the conception, the design, the implementation, the evaluation, knowledge mobilization of the research projects. And of course, hopefully, you're providing appropriate compensation and most importantly, decision-making space. This is, I think, very important if you want your research to be relevant and credible to the groups who are affected, and really for the greatest opportunity for translating findings into action. 

To build off what Sara mentioned, it's true, we don't always have to agree. And often that's the case. Empathy is what I think about. Going into a conversation, I think, consciously reminding ourselves that people have different experiences that inform their perspectives and this may seem like a no brainer, but consciously, repeatedly, reminding ourselves that people have different experiences that inform their perspectives and being mindful of that actively, I think helps to communicate with others respectfully in the presence of disagreement, or if there're a variety or plurality of perspectives, if we really intend to have a good faith conversation.

So just thinking further on that. I mean, we know there are groups that have historically been underrepresented in the corridors of power in universities, and they have faced difficulties in accessing the ways that some other people have for sharing their knowledges and their ways of knowing. So, some groups are not able to share their knowledge through academic institutions, or through the research community, or through other knowledge mobilization venues. So, how do you think we can access or connect with such individuals or communities and help them share their knowledge?

Yeah, that's, I think very important. Thinking of my own field, maybe on a bit of a tangent here, but I say it's important because I think many current sources of distress, despair, of mental illness, of addiction are related to differences in the ideas and ideologies held by different members of societies. And I think some of that is bridgeable on the basis of evidence. 

Coming back to your question, some of the strategies, I think, we've already discussed well help here, but I think there are other strategies as well. I mentioned inviting people to a research project governance committee. But what if that proves challenging because of, like you mentioned, access difficulties, or perhaps it's a lack of trust? One strategy I think, and we've employed this, is to partner with organizations that are serving the population that you'd like to work with and in their communities. They may advise you directly or refer people themselves for the study of interest, because they may have already built that trust. Other practical or logistical considerations, I think, the location of, say, participant recruitment – ensuring that's not happening in a location or at a time that's uncomfortable for the potential participant.

You can seek advice from those who you recruit to the study on the best ways to reach other members of their communities and organizations. And of course, I recognize that there are known limitations to recruiting people through organizations. Some people aren't in contact with services or organizations. And there are other ways, I think, to hopefully successfully get around that, which is direct outreach, as an example.

And Sara, what do you think about how we can access or connect with the individuals and groups that typically don't have so much access to share their knowledge? 

I really agree with everything that Milad said so far. Maybe I would just add something about checking our own intentions beforehand, because I do know that now it's becoming more and more part of funding packages, requirements, and best practices, the idea of reaching out to communities that have been underrepresented in research.
And I think, we have to really check our intention and make sure that we are just doing that because we are required to do it for funding reasons, for funding requirements, or because it sounds good that we do it. But we have to check our intention and make sure that we actually value what people have to say. And I've seen negative experience out there, where people reach out to communities that have been underrepresented and they want to engage them in research. And then the communities feel that they're actually being let down by researchers, because they can sense that the engagement is done on a rush basis, just to check a box, but there's no real value to the knowledge and the experience that people are sharing. 

So, I think we have to always approach communities really believing that we value their knowledge. And we don't just think that that's popular knowledge that's useful, but we do have knowledge that is superior to that. I think we can say that scientific knowledge may be different than popular knowledge, but we cannot start with the premise that it's superior to it. Otherwise, I think, that it will be very difficult to build genuine relationships with communities that actually do need researchers to be frank and honest and work with them to develop work that actually will benefit communities that have been historically marginalized and made vulnerable by our systems of power.

It's really interesting to think that they can tell if we're not doing it…

Oh yeah. I've seen that time and again, yeah.

Turning back to Milad for a moment. Can you think of an example of what you would say was meaningful impact, that was the upshot of respectful dialogue and communication building on trust?

Yeah, so I worked on a Pan Canadian…. it was a research demonstration project. It was called At Home/Chez Soi. I worked on the Vancouver site, and it essentially involved an experiment, testing a supported housing model called Housing First, which essentially involves the provision of permanent housing in the private market, combined with community-based health and social services for people experiencing mental illness and homelessness. 

The first activity of the study team in Vancouver was to convene focus groups of people with lived experience and also service providers in different settings, like shelters on the street, people in prison, and to ask them, what forms of assistance they would most value. They also advised on the development of the study protocol, there was space to meet and discuss different perspectives respectfully and with an open mind. The research team didn't come and say, hey, what do you think about this study design? It was asking them about their perspectives. And consequently, the study had an actually extremely high follow-up rate, it was 90 something percent. The research team partnered with community agencies who referred people experiencing serious mental illness and homelessness to the study. All of these activities, I think, ensured that the research was more relevant and sensitive to the needs of the participants and their communities. The study interviewers were trained. They knew how to debrief with distressed participants, being flexible in meeting participants in the locations and times that were convenient for them. They communicated in nonjudgmental and respectful manner. There were peer interviewers that were involved, and all of this undoubtedly contributed to trust building.

I'll mention at the same time policy makers at all three levels of government, they were engaged heavily from the beginning, with honest discussions about the study, the results as they arose. Later, there was a study published, I think it was in 2017, where key informants expressed that it was this continuous contact throughout the study, the trusting relationships between researchers and policy makers that had formed and really provided a space for different perspectives to come together, as opposed to just everyone going their own way or engaging in… building off what Sara was saying, just a funding requirement or tokenism. There was also a speaker's bureau, where participants themselves could present findings of the study and their own experiences, as one form of the knowledge mobilization. 

I should say, in the end, one of the impacts through this process was, the housing and support intervention that was tested in the study was adopted in Canada's Federal Homelessness Strategy. Now, of course, there were other important factors as well that made that happen. But honest communication between multiple stakeholders throughout the study, I think, was key.

Wow. Thank you very much. Milad, you were talking about engaging with the groups that aren't necessarily insiders in our academic institutions. And when you go back to share with them, where the work has gone or what you've learned from them, what are the ways in which you do that sort of follow up?

Yeah. So, when I mentioned the speaker’s bureau through the At Home/Chez Soi study, that's one way, for example. The study doesn't… it's not like we have the findings and that's it, goodbye, and it's over. A lot of the times what we've done is to co-create materials for dissemination with participants, and to present those to community meetings, community agencies. And so, we're working with people who were participants and people with lived experience. And so, it's not a kind of, the study's over and now that's it. We were still writing manuscripts. This study ended… the At Home/Chez Soi project ended formally in 2013, and we're still writing papers.

One thing that kind of put a damper on things was COVID. And during that time, research projects… it was hard to meet with people because of public health restrictions and whatnot. So, there were obstacles. But the approach is to work with participants and the communities that they come from, to work on the resolution of the study, and what the findings are, and how we want to go about disseminating results.

And Sara, when you think of how you can see respectful dialogue and communication arising from trust, leading to impact, what do you think of?

I think that there are micro impacts. Like the one that Milad was just talking about as an example, and there's also macro impacts that you can see and feel at the interpersonal level. And I think that those can be very powerful and transformative, because just as we talked about the fact that people can sense whether a researcher, a policymaker or whomever, the expert is… people can sense whether they're being genuine or not. And if they are not genuine, they will feel, they would be unlikely to participate and engage. At the same time, when people feel that somebody is being genuine and really cares about the knowledge and the experience that communities have to share, that can really start to change the perception that people have of researchers and experts, right? So, we all actually hold a little bit of power in transforming existing perceptions and biases. Well, not biases, because some of them are based on evidence, right? Existing perceptions and beliefs and opinions that communities may have about experts out there, right? So, remembering that power, I think, is very important. And what we bring into interactions with people in our work has a lot of potential to transform the way that different communities, that whole different levels of power can come together. 

I wanted to share an example of a micro impact that I hope I had earlier on in my PhD work. I was interviewing people and one of the questions that I asked them was how people identify themselves. This question is very often asked in a structured way. So, the question would be, how would you identify yourself culturally, or ethnically? And then a number of options are suggested like European, white, British, indigenous, Asian. But I didn't actually follow up with any cues. I framed that as an open-ended question. In this specific case, I was interviewing a community leader. So, somebody that actually had a lot of experience talking to experts, talking to the public and doing a lot of public speaking. And I was met with silence for a while and, you know, I was getting worried. So, I just, oh my God, what did I say? And then he actually teared up and he said, you know what, thank you. I've never been asked this question this way. And you know, this has just given me a chance to think about myself in a way that I have not before. Now I felt honored to be part of that interaction. And I felt that it was very important for my own research as well, to be able to realize, how much labels that we create in questionnaires actually have a way of shaping people's perceptions of themselves. And when we've removed those labels, people actually had an opportunity to think in their own terms.

I don't know, the person never revealed to me how they felt, but I know that they were impacted. And I wonder to this day, whether they remember that interaction and what came out of it. But I just wanted to share that as an example of those little micro impacts that we can have in our interactions with others, and we can have those impacts in our everyday lives as well, right? Just remembering how we engage with others and what we are bringing to those interactions, and the potential that those interactions have to change power relations and systems.

In that moment you created space that that participant did not otherwise experience.

Exactly, exactly.

So, Sara, of all the ideas and things that have influenced you, if you had to recommend to us a book or podcast, or video, or other form of media that you'd recommend to us, what would that be?

Recently, in the past two years, I've been studying a lot about nonviolent communication. And this came out of a class that I was taking on leadership. One of the questions that I asked the instructor was, how can I learn to be assertive and how can I learn to be able to influence others while being kind and compassionate? What are the tools out there that can help me to do that? And one of the things that she suggested was, look up nonviolent communication. And this was a technique that was invented by a guy in the US called Marshall Rosenberg. I think he was a psychologist. I think he passed away a few years ago, who actually thought about nonviolent communication as a new language that people can learn, just as we learn a second language. And it's a technique of being in the moment with people, particularly in charged, intense conversations. Where we disagree, where there is conflict, where there's no consensus and it doesn't seem like consensus can even be found. And it teaches us to be in an interaction with somebody and listen to what they have to say, and try to think about the need that they are expressing while they're speaking with us, while also being aware of our own need, without actually judging either what we are feeling or where the other person is coming from. I'm no expert at nonviolent communication, I'm still very much of a student, but I think it's a technique that holds some potential, particularly to teach us a new way to, in difficult situations of which there are so many nowadays, right? And I think that social divides and tensions are not going to subside anytime soon. So, I think we do really need to learn new techniques as people, as experts, as public intellectuals to actually be in conflict with others while respecting each other.

People may listen to this podcast later. But it's hard for me not to think of all the trucks lined up in Ottawa at the moment. And so, yeah.

I don't know what the solution is to that. Because I know, I'm aware of the tension between listening to people and also being aware of the fact that some of what people have to say, maybe, shouldn't have a space in the public sphere, right? So, there maybe isn't a space for racist, violent, antisemitic rhetoric out there. That's all true. I'm not sure if I was a politician, what I would learn from nonviolent communication. But I tried to learn about that as a regular folk, as an individual, and tried to think about how I can use it in my everyday interactions with people that I may disagree with.

And I know there's people out there that, for instance, I never would've imagined that they were afraid of vaccines. They were against restrictions. They were against the vaccine mandate… Sorry, the green pass, whatever that's called in different provinces. And yet they are, right? And so how can I be in conversations with them while disagreeing with them and without our views becoming more and more polarized?

And I think that if we can learn how to do that, then maybe there is less potential for extremely radical and polarized situations like the one that is happening right now in Ottawa. There's no guarantees, we can only try and see how it works for us.

Milad, what would you recommend – something you've read, listened to, seen that has informed your views?

I would have to say, so Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. But in case everyone's already read that, there was an article that was published a few years ago. I found it interesting. It was a group of graduate students that got together, and this was a peer reviewed publication, it's open access. It's called Finding the Hidden Participant: Solutions for Recruiting Hidden, Hard-to-Reach, and Vulnerable Populations. It's interesting, it’s in the context of my own field, but it gets at some of the things that we've been discussing about accessing or contacting, reaching people who have traditionally had difficulty accessing academic institutions, building trust. Really practical advice, and I found that very interesting and a good kind of primer, an introduction to the topic, especially for people just beginning research and working with vulnerable and marginalized populations.

Wonderful. Milad, Sara, it's been such a pleasure speaking with you today. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

My pleasure. Thank you.