Several aspects of this week went well. Having reunited for lunch with fellow scholars after Trinity term concluded, the first tasks to complete included becoming familiar with our teams and having an introductory session with our Graduate Impact Advisor. Here, we dismantled the research brief and started to take the reins of the project for ourselves. It was particularly rewarding to receive such extensive autonomy when considering possible angles for the research to be approached from this summer.

Following further introductions, we then learnt how to optimise our efficiency with data of different forms via Excel and NVivo. These were each the more alien experiences of the week as unilateral teaching was taking place and learning began from square one, as opposed to collaboratively bouncing ideas of each other as a team where the relationship was bilaterally operating.

Once better learned in these applications, focus returned to the research proposal where we had discussions around possible ideas we would each like to explore as members of the team. Before we could decide on any particular angle, we spent the afternoon individually researching different source material available online to allow us to construct and literary map of the area regarding connections between schools curriculums and educational policy. This was useful because it allowed us to identify gaps in the academic field that could provide opportunities for the most beneficial returns on our research since it might be able to stand more independently from existing work.

The desired approach was originally to explore what forms of evidence are considered or not considered by policymakers, and why the evidential threshold varies depending on the type of evidence provided. Early findings clearly showed a disparity between attainment-based evidence and other forms, but there were seldom explanations as to why this was the case, and many writings suggested this might be representative of an ideological boundary that causes policy-based evidence to be distinguishable from evidence-based policy. This immediately caught our attention, but we agreed that our proposal had to be refined to our research could be tailored to a more specific matter, thus increasing the probability of findings leading to capacity for actionable change.

Upon drawing this conclusion, we narrowed the scope of our proposal to an investigation into the challenges faced by non-attainment-based and developmental evidence that prevents these forms from being able to shape policy as effectively as say, for example, attainment-based evidence.

Our team worked well by use of clear communication to effectively divide the proposal between one another such that no one member was overworked or left behind. Each of us made a contribution to a first draft, to which 'the floor was opened' so to speak for anyone to suggest amendments to any section, and then a final draft was perfected before Friday morning where we are now due to present our plan.

The week has been exciting, and has provided a smooth and strong start to the summer.