<!DOCTYPE html>

<html data-programme="Research Integrity" data-course="Communication, Social Responsibility and Impact">

	<head>
		<title>Working with the public</title>
		<meta charset="UTF-8">
		<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge">
		<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">

		<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/project.min.css">
		<link id="basic-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print.min.css" disabled>
		<link id="summary-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print_interactive.min.css">
	<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/SCORM_12_APIWrapper.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/courseFunctions.js"></script>
</head>

	<body onLoad="javascript:Initialize();" onUnload="javascript:Terminate();">
	  
		<div id="app" v-cloak>
			<base-container
				screen-id="sre_1_50"
				current-module = "Communication, Social Responsibility and Impact"
				page-title = "Working with the public"
				screen-time = "4"
				screen-time-period = "mins">

				<page-container>

					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>
						
							<p>Researchers can, understandably, become passionate supporters of their own research and their wider field. However, regardless of how important your research is, when working with the public, it is essential that you carefully separate <em>what you know as a researcher</em> (through using valid research methods) from <em>what you believe or think you know personally</em>.</p>
							<p>As private individuals researchers can provide advice on anything they wish to anyone who will listen. However, when they are communicating in ways that are likely to be understood as professional, they have a responsibility to separate what they know professionally from their personal beliefs. This is especially important if the research involves patients or other groups that may have a vested interest in the research.</p>
							
							<h3>Drawing the line between professional and personal</h3>
							
							<p>The separation between your professional knowledge and your personal knowledge is easy to understand in principle, but can be challenging to recognise in practice. Where does research expertise give way to personal belief?</p>
							
							<instructional-text><p>Consider the questions, click on the hint to prompt your thoughts, then click the "Feedback" tab to see our thoughts.</p></instructional-text>
							<instructional-text-accessible><p>Consider the following questions and use our hint to prompt your thoughts. Then continue on to the feedback section for our thoughts.</p></instructional-text-accessible>
							
							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<process show-in-accessible-version="false" variant="reflection">
								<process-page>
									<reflection>
										<reflection-question>
											<h4>A research administrator delivering a presentation in a class on research integrity</h4>
											<p><em>"Research misconduct is rare at our university. We have only had three confirmed cases over the past 19 years."</em></p>
											<p><strong>Is this a professional or personal statement?</strong></p>
										</reflection-question>
										<reflection-hint><p>What evidence would you need to conclude that research misconduct is rare?</p></reflection-hint>
										<reflection-feedback><p>The administrator is presenting as a professional and is qualified to report the number of confirmed cases of misconduct at the university in question. Without qualification, however, the sweeping statement "misconduct is rare" would be a personal judgement, not based on research findings. </p></reflection-feedback>
									</reflection>
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<reflection>
										<reflection-question>
											<h4>Four Nobel Prize winners commenting on Impact Factors</h4>
											<p>The Twitter handle @NobelPrize circulated a video of four Nobel Prize winners warning of the dangers of Impact Factors.</p>
											<p><strong>Is the advice given by the Nobel Prize winners professional or personal?</strong></p>
										</reflection-question>
										<reflection-hint><p>What information is needed to conclude that Impact Factors are beneficial or harmful?</p></reflection-hint>
										<reflection-feedback><p>Any researchers with publishing experience have some awareness of Impact Factors, but most are not experts on the influence that Impact Factors have on research. They may be aware of how reliance on Impact Factors has affected them personally, but are they qualified to give advice to others based on their personal experience? Merlin Crossley, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and Professor of Molecular Biology at UNSW, remarked "Impact Factors and citations aren't perfect, but nor are they worthless. Metrics are simply indicators or messengers; in themselves, they are not really the problem" (Crossley, 2017). </p></reflection-feedback>
									</reflection>
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<reflection>
										<reflection-question>
											<h4>A lecturer providing their perspective on who is to be trusted when talking about climate change</h4>
											<p><em>"A climate scientist whose priority is to shape government policy in pursuit of the aim of 'saving the planet' may well behave differently to one whose absolute priority is maintaining the purity of long-established conventions of scientific practice, regardless of whether the outcomes advantage or disadvantage a certain policy position on climate change."</em> (Lee, 2014, p. 4)</p>
											<p><strong>Is the quoted position to be considered professional or personal?</strong></p>
										</reflection-question>
										<reflection-hint><p>What evidence is needed to determine a climate scientist's priorities?</p></reflection-hint>
										<reflection-feedback><p>Climate science is an example of an area of research where researchers strongly disagree with each other, to the point where they often claim that those with different views are not researchers. The result is a clash of personal positions that is difficult to resolve. When disagreements run this deep and the views are so personal, the distinction between professional advice and research findings can easily become lost.</p></reflection-feedback>
									</reflection>
								</process-page>
							</process>
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE START -->
							<accessible-block>

								<h4>Question 1 of 3:</h4>
								<h4>A research administrator delivering a presentation in a class on research integrity</h4>
								<p><em>"Research misconduct is rare at our university. We have only had three confirmed cases over the past 19 years."</em></p>
								<p><strong>Is this a professional or personal statement?</strong></p>
								<h4>Hint:</h4>
								<p>What evidence would you need to conclude that research misconduct is rare?</p>
								<h4>Feedback:</h4>
								<p>The administrator is presenting as a professional and is qualified to report the number of confirmed cases of misconduct at the university in question. Without qualification, however, the sweeping statement "misconduct is rare" would be a personal judgement, not based on research findings.</p>

								<hr>

								<h4>Question 2 of 3:</h4>
								<h4>Four Nobel Prize winners commenting on Impact Factors</h4>
								<p>The Twitter handle @NobelPrize circulated a video of four Nobel Prize winners warning of the dangers of Impact Factors.</p>
								<p><strong>Is the advice given by the Nobel Prize winners professional or personal?</strong></p>
								<h4>Hint:</h4>
								<p>What information is needed to conclude that Impact Factors are beneficial or harmful?</p>
								<h4>Feedback:</h4>
								<p>Any researchers with publishing experience have some awareness of Impact Factors, but most are not experts on the influence that Impact Factors have on research. They may be aware of how reliance on Impact Factors has affected them personally, but are they qualified to give advice to others based on their personal experience? Merlin Crossley, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and Professor of Molecular Biology at UNSW, remarked "Impact Factors and citations aren't perfect, but nor are they worthless. Metrics are simply indicators or messengers; in themselves, they are not really the problem" (Crossley, 2017).</p>

								<hr>

								<h4>Question 3 of 3:</h4>
								<h4>A lecturer providing their perspective on who is to be trusted when talking about climate change</h4>
								<p><em>"A climate scientist whose priority is to shape government policy in pursuit of the aim of 'saving the planet' may well behave differently to one whose absolute priority is maintaining the purity of long-established conventions of scientific practice, regardless of whether the outcomes advantage or disadvantage a certain policy position on climate change."</em> (Lee, 2014, p. 4)</p>
								<p><strong>Is the quoted position to be considered professional or personal?</strong></p>
								<h4>Hint:</h4>
								<p>What evidence is needed to determine a climate scientist's priorities?</p>
								<h4>Feedback:</h4>
								<p>Climate science is an example of an area of research where researchers strongly disagree with each other, to the point where they often claim that those with different views are not researchers. The result is a clash of personal positions that is difficult to resolve. When disagreements run this deep and the views are so personal, the distinction between professional advice and research findings can easily become lost.</p>

							</accessible-block>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE END -->
							
							<h3>Two simple rules for avoiding personal bias</h3>
							
							<p>What can researchers do to avoid mixing personal views with professional advice? For a start, when you engage in some type of decision making or are in a position that requires you to provide advice, you should follow two simple rules:</p>
							
							<ol>
								<li>Provide a complete and balanced account of your research (what you say should be based directly on that research)</li>
								<li>Clearly inform your audience when information or advice goes beyond your research knowledge or could be influenced by conflicts of interest.</li>
							</ol>
							
							<instructional-text class="non-interactive-swap-out"><p>Consider each of the statements from researchers below, and determine whether it is breaching either of the rules set out above.</p></instructional-text>
							<instructional-text-accessible class="non-interactive-swap-in"><p>In the following activity, consider each of the statements from researchers and determine whether it is breaching either of the two rules for avoiding personal bias.</p></instructional-text-accessible>
							
							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<process show-in-accessible-version="false" restart="true" score="true" variant="mcq" class="non-interactive-swap-out">
								<process-page>
									<mcq>
										<mcq-question>
											<p><strong>Researcher providing advice to a government committee:</strong> <em>"As the acknowledged world expert in this area, I appreciate the opportunity to provide advice to this important committee. To save time, instead of discussing our methods and the data in detail, let me cut directly to the conclusion of our research, which corresponds with a common sense understanding of the problem and justifies further funding for this important research."</em></p>
											<p><strong>Which of the two rules (if any) is the researcher violating?</strong></p>
										</mcq-question>
										<mcq-options>
											<mcq-option incorrect>
												<mcq-answer>Rule 1</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>Incorrect. There is a good chance that the researcher is violating both rules, unless some qualifications immediately follow. By presenting only the conclusions the researcher is failing to provide a more detailed discussion that may take into account contradictory information, different interpretations, or potential methodological issues. By referring to the group as an "important committee", appealing to "common sense" and referring to their "important research", the researcher could be attempting to get the committee's support for their own research, which is a clear conflict of interest.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option incorrect>
												<mcq-answer>Rule 2</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>Incorrect. There is a good chance that the researcher is violating both rules, unless some qualifications immediately follow. By presenting only the conclusions the researcher is failing to provide a more detailed discussion that may take into account contradictory information, different interpretations, or potential methodological issues. By referring to the group as an "important committee", appealing to "common sense" and referring to their "important research", the researcher could be attempting to get the committee's support for their own research, which is a clear conflict of interest.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option correct>
												<mcq-answer>Both</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p><strong>Correct!</strong> There is a good chance that the researcher is violating both rules, unless some qualifications immediately follow. By presenting only the conclusions the researcher is failing to provide a more detailed discussion that may take into account contradictory information, different interpretations, or potential methodological issues. By referring to the group as an "important committee", appealing to "common sense" and referring to their "important research", the researcher could be attempting to get the committee's support for their own research, which is a clear conflict of interest.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option incorrect>
												<mcq-answer>Neither</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>Incorrect. There is a good chance that the researcher is violating both rules, unless some qualifications immediately follow. By presenting only the conclusions the researcher is failing to provide a more detailed discussion that may take into account contradictory information, different interpretations, or potential methodological issues. By referring to the group as an "important committee", appealing to "common sense" and referring to their "important research", the researcher could be attempting to get the committee's support for their own research, which is a clear conflict of interest.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
										</mcq-options> 
									</mcq>
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<mcq>
										<mcq-question>
											<p><strong>Researcher responding to a question from a reporter:</strong> <em>"If you want my personal take on your last question, I can provide it, but understand that what I say will not be based on my research expertise. I have strong feelings about the course of action we should take to address the problem we have been talking about, but I am not an economist or a policy expert. If you quote me on the policy question, please mention that my opinion was personal, not research based."</em></p>
											<p><strong>Which of the two rules (if any) is the researcher violating?</strong></p>
										</mcq-question>
										<mcq-options>
											<mcq-option incorrect>
												<mcq-answer>Rule 1</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>Incorrect. Assuming that the researcher's prior answers were based on a balanced and complete view of the research in question, the researcher is violating neither rule (since they have paused to separate their personal views from their professional stance).</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option incorrect>
												<mcq-answer>Rule 2</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>Incorrect. Assuming that the researcher's prior answers were based on a balanced and complete view of the research in question, the researcher is violating neither rule (since they have paused to separate their personal views from their professional stance).</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option incorrect>
												<mcq-answer>Both</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>Incorrect. Assuming that the researcher's prior answers were based on a balanced and complete view of the research in question, the researcher is violating neither rule (since they have paused to separate their personal views from their professional stance).</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option correct>
												<mcq-answer>Neither</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p><strong>Correct!</strong> Assuming that the researcher's prior answers were based on a balanced and complete view of the research in question, the researcher is violating neither rule (since they have paused to separate their personal views from their professional stance).</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
										</mcq-options> 
									</mcq>
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<mcq>
										<mcq-question>
											<p><strong>Researcher speaking at a meeting of a non-profit organisation:</strong> <em>"It is a privilege for me to talk to you tonight about the ways in which our research findings support your efforts to change our outdated current regulations. Our work leaves no doubt that new legislation is needed, as I will illustrate with a few examples of what we have discovered."</em></p>
											<p><strong>Which of the two rules (if any) is the researcher violating?</strong></p>
										</mcq-question>
										<mcq-options>
											<mcq-option incorrect>
												<mcq-answer>Rule 1</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>Incorrect. If the dialogue presented here goes unqualified, there is a good chance that the researcher is violating both rules. The researcher was probably introduced as an expert and has given no indication that they might be presenting personal positions. By presenting only "a few examples of what we have discovered", the researcher risks failing to provide a balanced view of the research.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option incorrect>
												<mcq-answer>Rule 2</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>Incorrect. If the dialogue presented here goes unqualified, there is a good chance that the researcher is violating both rules. The researcher was probably introduced as an expert and has given no indication that they might be presenting personal positions. By presenting only "a few examples of what we have discovered", the researcher risks failing to provide a balanced view of the research.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option correct>
												<mcq-answer>Both</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p><strong>Correct!</strong> If the dialogue presented here goes unqualified, there is a good chance that the researcher is violating both rules. The researcher was probably introduced as an expert and has given no indication that they might be presenting personal positions. By presenting only "a few examples of what we have discovered", the researcher risks failing to provide a balanced view of the research.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option incorrect>
												<mcq-answer>Neither</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>Incorrect. If the dialogue presented here goes unqualified, there is a good chance that the researcher is violating both rules. The researcher was probably introduced as an expert and has given no indication that they might be presenting personal positions. By presenting only "a few examples of what we have discovered", the researcher risks failing to provide a balanced view of the research.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
										</mcq-options> 
									</mcq>
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<mcq>
										<mcq-question>
											<p><strong>Researcher teaching an undergraduate class:</strong> <em>"If you are wondering why the field experience for this introductory research class has been cut this semester, it's because state funding for higher education has been reduced this year. Support for higher education has been diverted to other areas."</em></p>
											<p><strong>Which of the two rules (if any) is the researcher violating?</strong></p>
										</mcq-question>
										<mcq-options>
											<mcq-option incorrect>
												<mcq-answer>Rule 1</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>Incorrect. If the content of this course was responsibly delivered, the researcher did not violate rule 1. However, when you work in a professional setting or are introduced as a professional, it is assumed that everything you have to say is based on your professional experience. The researcher did not alert the class to the fact that the view they expressed on the loss of funding was a personal one that was not based on any research. When you address topics outside your area of expertise, you should let your audience know. A simple "personally" or "based on my personal experience" is needed to alert your audience to the fact that you are assuming a different role.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option correct>
												<mcq-answer>Rule 2</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p><strong>Correct!</strong> If the content of this course was responsibly delivered, the researcher did not violate rule 1. However, when you work in a professional setting or are introduced as a professional, it is assumed that everything you have to say is based on your professional experience. The researcher did not alert the class to the fact that the view they expressed on the loss of funding was a personal one that was not based on any research. When you address topics outside your area of expertise, you should let your audience know. A simple "personally" or "based on my personal experience" is needed to alert your audience to the fact that you are assuming a different role.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option incorrect>
												<mcq-answer>Both</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>Incorrect. If the content of this course was responsibly delivered, the researcher did not violate rule 1. However, when you work in a professional setting or are introduced as a professional, it is assumed that everything you have to say is based on your professional experience. The researcher did not alert the class to the fact that the view they expressed on the loss of funding was a personal one that was not based on any research. When you address topics outside your area of expertise, you should let your audience know. A simple "personally" or "based on my personal experience" is needed to alert your audience to the fact that you are assuming a different role.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option incorrect>
												<mcq-answer>Neither</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>Incorrect. If the content of this course was responsibly delivered, the researcher did not violate rule #1. However, when you work in a professional setting or are introduced as a professional, it is assumed that everything you have to say is based on your professional experience. The researcher did not alert the class to the fact that the view they expressed on the loss of funding was a personal one that was not based on any research. When you address topics outside your area of expertise, you should let your audience know. A simple "personally" or "based on my personal experience" is needed to alert your audience to the fact that you are assuming a different role.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
										</mcq-options> 
									</mcq>
								</process-page>
							</process>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE START -->
							<accessible-block class="non-interactive-swap-in">
								<h4>Question 1 of 4:</h4>
								<p><strong>Researcher providing advice to a government committee:</strong> <em>"As the acknowledged world expert in this area, I appreciate the opportunity to provide advice to this important committee. To save time, instead of discussing our methods and the data in detail, let me cut directly to the conclusion of our research, which corresponds with a common sense understanding of the problem and justifies further funding for this important research."</em></p>
								<p><strong>Which of the two rules (if any) is the researcher violating?</strong></p>
								<h4>Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Rule 1</li>
									<li>Rule 2</li>
									<li>Both</li>
									<li>Neither</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>The correct answer is:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Both</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>Feedback:</h4>
								<p>There is a good chance that the researcher is violating both rules, unless some qualifications immediately follow. By presenting only the conclusions the researcher is failing to provide a more detailed discussion that may take into account contradictory information, different interpretations, or potential methodological issues. By referring to the group as an "important committee", appealing to "common sense" and referring to their "important research", the researcher could be attempting to get the committee's support for their own research, which is a clear conflict of interest.</p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 2 of 4:</h4>
								<p><strong>Researcher responding to a question from a reporter:</strong> <em>"If you want my personal take on your last question, I can provide it, but understand that what I say will not be based on my research expertise. I have strong feelings about the course of action we should take to address the problem we have been talking about, but I am not an economist or a policy expert. If you quote me on the policy question, please mention that my opinion was personal, not research based."</em></p>
								<p><strong>Which of the two rules (if any) is the researcher violating?</strong></p>
								<h4>Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Rule 1</li>
									<li>Rule 2</li>
									<li>Both</li>
									<li>Neither</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>The correct answer is:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Neither</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>Feedback:</h4>
								<p>Assuming that the researcher's prior answers were based on a balanced and complete view of the research in question, the researcher is violating neither rule (since they have paused to separate their personal views from their professional stance).</p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 3 of 4:</h4>
								<p><strong>Researcher speaking at a meeting of a non-profit organisation:</strong> <em>"It is a privilege for me to talk to you tonight about the ways in which our research findings support your efforts to change our outdated current regulations. Our work leaves no doubt that new legislation is needed, as I will illustrate with a few examples of what we have discovered."</em></p>
								<p><strong>Which of the two rules (if any) is the researcher violating?</strong></p>
								<h4>Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Rule 1</li>
									<li>Rule 2</li>
									<li>Both</li>
									<li>Neither</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>The correct answer is:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Both</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>Feedback:</h4>
								<p>If the dialogue presented here goes unqualified, there is a good chance that the researcher is violating both rules. The researcher was probably introduced as an expert and has given no indication that they might be presenting personal positions. By presenting only "a few examples of what we have discovered" the researcher risks failing to provide a balanced view of the research.</p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 4 of 4:</h4>
								<p><strong>Researcher teaching an undergraduate class:</strong> <em>"If you are wondering why the field experience for this introductory research class has been cut this semester, it's because state funding for higher education has been reduced this year. Support for higher education has been diverted to other areas."</em></p>
								<p><strong>Which of the two rules (if any) is the researcher violating?</strong></p>
								<h4>Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Rule 1</li>
									<li>Rule 2</li>
									<li>Both</li>
									<li>Neither</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>The correct answer is:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Rule 2</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>Feedback:</h4>
								<p>If the content of this course was responsibly delivered, the researcher did not violate rule 1. However, when you work in a professional setting or are introduced as a professional, it is assumed that everything you have to say is based on your professional experience. The researcher did not alert the class to the fact that the view they expressed on the loss of funding was a personal one that was not based on any research. When you address topics outside your area of expertise, you should let your audience know. A simple "personally" or "based on my personal experience" is needed to alert your audience to the fact that you are assuming a different role.</p>
							</accessible-block>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE END -->
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->
							
							<p>Failure to abide by these simple rules could damage your reputation as a researcher. If you are seen as more partisan than objective, your voice will be weakened in public discussions. Mixing expertise with personal advice also undermines the reputation of research for providing reliable and relatively unbiased information.</p>
							
							<h3>Summary</h3>
							
							<p>Assuming you are passionate about your research, you should not hesitate to put what you learn to good use &ndash; for your benefit and the benefit of society. This includes helping others understand the implications of your work and how it can be used. In doing so, it is important to separate what you know professionally from any personal positions you have that might not be directly supported by your research.</p>
							
						</page-content-main>

						<page-content-sidebar>

							<!-- USEFUL LINKS START -->
							<pod variant="a" has-modal="true">
								<pod-heading>Useful links</pod-heading> <!-- pod title -->
								<pod-content></pod-content>
								<!-- pop-up pod content -->
								<pod-modal-heading>Useful links</pod-modal-heading>
								<pod-modal-content>
									<hosted-link id="RI_INT_sre_1_50">
										<ul>
											<li><a href="https://senseaboutscience.org/" target="_blank">Sense About Science</a></li>
											<li><a href="http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/" target="_blank">National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement</a></li>
										</ul>
									</hosted-link>
								</pod-modal-content>
							</pod>
							<!-- USEFUL LINKS END -->

						</page-content-sidebar>
					</page-row>
					
				</page-container>
			</base-container>
		</div> <!-- END content wrapper -->
		
		<!-- scripts -->
		<script src="../js/vendor.min.js"></script>
		<script src="../js/vue-components.min.js"></script>
		<script>
			new Vue({
			  el: "#app",
			  data: {},
			  mounted: function () {
				var core = document.createElement('script');
				core.src = "../js/core.min.js";
				document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(core);

				var project = document.createElement('script');
				project.src = "../js/project.min.js";
				document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(project);
			  }
			});
		</script>

	</body>
</html>