Smart cities need smart governance

By: Shahana Chattaraj, Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford

future city - artist's impression
The proposed Dholera smart city in Gujarat. Image: Dholera smart city.

Narendra Modi, India’s new prime minister, is a leader with an urban vision. Before becoming prime minister, he was chief minister of Gujarat, where he transformed the state capital Ahmedabad with an award-winning sustainable bus transit system and a “world-class” riverfront recreation space.

Today, Modi’s most ambitious projects in the region are two planned new “smart cities”: the Gujarat International Finance Tec-City, on the outskirts of Ahmedabad, and Dholera, an industrial hub on the Delhi-Mumbai corridor. Still in inception, these cities are at the heart of the new administration’s ambitious plan to transform the crumbling and chaotic image of Indian urbanisation by building a hundred new smart cities.

China is an inspiration for Modi, both in its larger push for modernisation through urbanisation, and its state-of-the-art new developments like Tianjin’s famous “Eco-city”. For urbanising countries like India and China, smart cities are an opportunity to turn urban growth into sustainable development.

Modi’s new policy has generated excitement amongst business leaders and urban elites tired of living in “third-world” environments. But whether India’s smart city policy will translate into the desired outcomes – more sustainable, more productive and better-governed cities – is debatable. Both smart and traditional cities need strong and effective local institutions to flourish. In India, that simply isn’t the reality.

1. India’s Megacities lack autonomous governments with the power to shape their own affairs.

Instead they’re controlled by provincial administrations, and managed by a patchwork of state, city and municipal bodies, public and private corporations and village panchayats (a sort of parish council).

But if smart cities are to have any impact on planning, coordination and governance, there needs to be a centralised metropolitan governing structure, accountable to city residents. If city governments do not have the incentives and resources, the trappings of a smart city – cyber highways, digital sensors, smart cards and computerized management systems – will remain just trappings: like the city development plans and environmental policies Indian cities regularly prepare but rarely implement.

2. Local authorities bear the financial burdens of service delivery without the powers of revenue generation.

City and local governments, responsible for basic public services, have the most direct impact on well-being, particularly that of the poor. In India, however, there is a glaring mismatch between their functions and capabilities.

Urban local bodies account for a third of public expenditure but just three percent of revenue. Property taxes, the main revenue base for municipal governments, constitute just 0.44 percent of India’s tax revenues, strikingly lower than other emerging economies.

Moreover, most so-called “smart city” or “new city” projects underway in India are happening outside official city boundaries. Most aren’t new cities at all, but self-contained commercial, residential or industrial enclaves adjacent to major cities. The revenues from such policies typically go to provincial levels of government, which are in charge of urban development policy; municipal and local authorities are left holding the costs. This pattern undermines the potential of city governments to grow into effective, well-resourced and democratically accountable institutions that can effectively improve urban conditions.

China is politically centralised, but administratively and fiscally it is far more decentralised than India. Its local governments account for half of public expenditure and 25 percent of revenue. They have the tools and resources to plan and manage growth; they can annex surrounding rural areas, and use land revenues to fund urban development. This strategy has allowed China to urbanise rapidly, with infrastructure and services keeping pace with or preceding urban population growth. India will struggle to follow suit.

3. Urbanisation in India has not been strengthening local governments

Urbanisation, historically, has been a time where public institutions are built and strengthened, from utilities to regulatory institutions, social welfare services to libraries and hospitals. So the current fragility of India’s civic institutions will have a serious impact on its ability to deliver improvements in wellbeing to its rapidly growing urban population.

Rural urbanisation accounted for nearly 30 percent of urban growth in India over the past decade. It’s created hundreds of newly-urban settlements which don’t have the municipal institutions required to collect taxes, plan development or deliver public services. As a result, slums and informal settlements, once a big city problem, are becoming more widespread.

By 2040, India’s urban population will be over 600 million. Amartya Sen describes India as a place where “islands of California” exist amidst a “sea of sub-Saharan Africa”. To mitigate, rather than entrench, inequities India needs an urban agenda that is more wide-ranging, inclusive, sustainable and locally-driven than one centered on new smart cities.

The plan to build a hundred new smart cities is both grandiosely ambitious and deeply inadequate. Even if realised, it is unlikely that the smart cities will do much to alleviate India’s urban ills or secure broad-based economic opportunities and improvements in living standards for the majority.

Employment generation, environmental and social criteria, governance and public participation should not just be window-dressing, but must be taken seriously. Unless they are, the hundred smart cities will be nothing more than a hundred real-estate projects.


Shahana Chattaraj is a postdoctoral fellow in comparative public policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford.

This article previously appeared on CityMetric in November 2014.

Oxford set to launch largest on-street car charging pilot in the world

By: Oxfordshire County Council

A major trial will be carried out this year to investigate the best way to deliver 100 on-street electric vehicle charging stations in Oxford’s residential streets.


The trial, run in partnership between Oxfordshire County Council and Oxford City Council, will be the first on-street charging pilot on this scale in the world.

It has been made possible thanks to an £800,000 grant from the OLEV (Office for Low Emission Vehicles) Go Ultra Low Cities funding pot. The Government set up the £40m Go Ultra Low Cities scheme as part of its drive to make every new passenger vehicle sold in the UK by 2050 an ultra low emission vehicle (ULEV).

The term ULEV incorporates pure electric, plug-in hybrid and range extended vehicles which produce 75g/km or less of CO2, all of which are plug-in electric vehicles.

Currently, residents who live in Oxford’s terraced streets and do not have driveways will struggle to charge their electric or plug-in vehicles.

This summer, the Councils will invite technology suppliers to come forward with solutions to the on-street charging problem in residential areas of Oxford.

The Councils are looking to trial 30 chargers from at least six different organisations. It is hoped the trials will begin by the end of 2016.

Possible solutions already on the market range from low-tech ‘cable gullies’, which are laid into the pavement to prevent pedestrians from tripping on cables, to high-tech smart lampposts that are capable of charging a vehicle, and communicating with the car and the charging network.

The best solutions will then be rolled out in 100 sites in residential streets across Oxford. This is expected to happen in 2018.

Councillor Ian Hudspeth, Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, said: “This project will put Oxfordshire at the forefront of innovative low carbon transport solutions and will help stimulate economic growth in the electric vehicle sector.

“A high proportion of properties in Oxford do not have access to off-street parking which makes charging an electric vehicle very challenging and one of the main barriers to city-wide uptake of the technology. Overcoming this issue will therefore make electric vehicle ownership possible for more than 16,000 additional households.

“After an initial pilot project there will be 100 charging points installed across the city, helping to transform people’s quality of life by reducing CO2 emissions and improving air quality in our region.

“Securing this funding from the Go Ultra Low Cities scheme is an important step in gaining recognition as one of the most sustainable transport regions in Europe.”

Councillor John Tanner, Executive Board Member for Climate Change, said: “Climate change and poor air quality are two of the biggest issues facing Oxford and we all need to do everything we can to cut vehicle emissions.

“However, for people living in Oxford’s beautiful but narrow terraced streets, charging an electric car is a real problem. This project aims to remove that barrier.

“By installing 100 electric charging points across we are going to turn the Oxford into a city filled with electric avenues.”

The Councils have been strongly supported by BMW Group in their bid to OLEV. BMW and their partners Eluminocity have developed the ‘Light & Charge’ solution – a smart LED street lamp which doubles up as an electric vehicle charging point.

As well as looking for technology suppliers, the Councils are also looking for residents to come forward who would like to be part of the trial. The Councils are particularly looking for people who own electric vehicles and struggle to charge them because they park on-street, or residents who want to own an electric vehicle but think their on-street parking prohibits them from doing so.

Technology suppliers and Oxford residents who would like to be involved in the trial should contact Oxford City Council’s environmental team by emailing Please provide your name, address and contact details.

Further information about ultra low emission vehicles, charge point locations, test drive options and purchase incentives is available at

This article first appeared on the website of Oxfordshire County Council.

Oxford announced as finalist for European Capital of Innovation Awards 2016

competition poster

The city of Oxford was today announced by the European Commission as one of the nine finalists for the European Capital of Innovation Awards 2016, alongside Paris, Berlin, Milan, Vienna, Amsterdam, Glasgow, Eindhoven, and Turin, with Oxford being selected “for its vision to openly share the wealth of knowledge within its world-class innovation ecosystem”.

The competition will announce in April the award of cash prizes to the winner and two runners-up for the best city initiatives creating the right environment to innovate:

  • Winner: €950 000
  • First runner-up: €100 000
  • Second runner-up: €50 000

The finalists were chosen by a high-level jury of independent experts from 36 applications as follows:

  • Amsterdam (NL) – for embracing a bottom-up approach based on smart growth, startups, livability and digital social innovation
  • Berlin (DE) – for performing as an urban living lab where innovative Information and Communication Technology solutions can be tested
  • Eindhoven (NL) – for combining digital technology with creativity in its world-leading urban smart lighting strategy
  • Glasgow (UK) – for its replicable innovation model based on partnerships across industry, science and communities
  • Milano (IT) – for enhancing social inclusion and alternative models in the delivery of public services to create more opportunities for employment
  • Oxford (UK) – for its vision to openly share the wealth of knowledge within its world-class innovation ecosystem
  • Paris (FR) – for its strategy based on open innovation, connectivity and ingenuity aiming at becoming a world hub for start-up
  • Torino (IT) – for its open innovation models supporting social innovation start-ups and creating new market opportunities for urban innovations
  • Vienna (AT) – for its innovation and ICT strategies based on a citizen-centred approach and long-term developments in economy, education, research and technology


Oxford Seminars: Urban Mobilities in the Smart City


Transport Studies Unit logo

Transport Studies Unit Seminar Series

smart city control centre

The idea of the ‘smart city’ has recently gained significant appeal amongst urban policy practitioners, international organisations, the corporate sector, academics, and social enterprises. By bringing together a range of innovative technologies, infrastructure and data management techniques, smart cities promise to enhance urban sustainability, to increase economic growth and prosperity, and to facilitate greater citizen participation in urban governance.

Yet beneath these headline claims, there remains a wide variety of different understandings and discourses on smart cities, which needs to be unpacked and critically examined. Particularly urgent is the need for a more detailed and reflexive discussion of what will be the potential impacts of smart cities on the future of urban transport and mobility systems.

Against this backdrop, this seminar series will gather together a range of world-leading academics and urban policy practitioners to debate some of the key issues raised by smart cities for urban transport and mobility futures. Specific issues to be addressed will include the promises and challenges of bringing autonomous vehicles into the city, the political implications of adopting a user-centric approach to smart mobilities, and the democratic consequences of smart technologies for public participation in urban transport planning.

4pm, 19 January 2016, Gottmann Room, SoGE

Technical Efficiency, Social Deficiency?

  • Professor Michael Batty, Bartlett Professor of Planning, University College London

Chair: Dr Jennie Middleton, TSU Senior Research Fellow in Mobilities and Human Geography

Due to unforeseen circumstances Professor Geoff Vigar is no longer to attend this seminar.  As we are unable to find a replacement Professor Michael Batty will  be the only speaker on the subject of the ‘Technical Efficiency, Social Deficiency?’ 

This introductory seminar will provide an overview of the diverse theoretical concepts and frameworks that comprise contemporary ‘smart city’ discourses. Appeals to the smart city as an innovative and progressive form of modern urbanism are ubiquitous across the public, private and third sectors, as well as in many fields of academic research. Amongst other things, the meshing of hi-tech, interactive infrastructure with the ‘internet of things’, and the provision of big data manipulation capabilities to citizens, are viewed as harbingers of radically enhanced urban efficiency, prosperity and sustainability. Yet actual visions of what a smart city should look like in practice remain embryonic, especially in their accounts of the distributional politics through which expected benefits will be shared amongst urban citizens. Against this backdrop, this first seminar aims to stage a system-level debate about the promises and perils of the smart city discourse, focusing in particular on its implications for future experiences, practices, and politics of urban (im)mobility.

4pm, 2 February 2016, Gottmann Room, SoGE

Urban Mobilities in the Smart City: What about the ‘User’?

  • Professor Gillian Rose, Professor of Cultural Geography, Fellow of the British Academy, The Open University
  • Professor Stephen Potter, Emeritus Professor of Transport Strategy, The Open University

Chair: Dr Tim Schwanen, Director of the Transport Studies Unit

Optimisation of service provision to users and user experience is a cornerstone of almost all smart city initiatives. With regard to everyday mobility the emphasis is not merely on the provision of real time information provision about mobility options but also about turning mobility itself into a service that is convenient, comfortable and enjoyable. Nonetheless, users and use often remain abstract categories in smart city and intelligent mobility discourses, in part because visioning and practical experiments tend to be initiated and shaped by coalitions of entrepreneurial (local) governments and (global) businesses. User involvement in the design is often restricted to consultation and downstream participation, which raises a range of pertinent questions that feature prominently in this seminar: how are users and use imagined in smart city visions and experiments? To what extent are heterogeneity in needs, commitments, preferences, identities and capabilities of users considered and catered for in intelligent mobility initiatives? In how far do smart city and intelligent mobility projects benefit all rather than perpetuate and even exacerbate already existing inequalities in urban mobility?

4pm, 16 February 2016, Gottmann Room, SoGE

Autonomous Vehicles – Beyond the Hype?

  • Professor Graham Parkhurst, Director, Centre for Transport and Society, University of the West of England
  • Professor Paul Newman, Professor, Department of Engineering Science

Chair: Dr Nihan Akyelken, Departmental Lecturer, Department for Continuing Education

The seemingly imminent arrival of autonomous vehicles in our cities represents perhaps the most significant technological development in personal urban mobility since the invention of the car itself. Optimists in the car manufacturing industry and beyond envisage such vehicles as the key to not simply reducing, but entirely eradicating, accidents and congestion from the urban landscape, and moreover as a crucial means of empowering those whose personal mobility is in some way impaired within the existing socio-technical regime. Yet beneath this veneer there lurk a number of thorny issues relating to the impact of autonomous vehicles on the use of public transport and cycling and on energy consumption and CO2 emissions, to their implications for the form and implementation of legal-regulatory frameworks around road safety and responsibility, and to the potential consequences for privacy, and cyber-security, of integrating such vehicles with other ‘smart’ innovations in the urban setting. This seminar aims to unpack these issues in detail, and in so doing to reflect upon the implications that the arrival of the autonomous vehicle may have for the geographies of mobility in the smart city of the future.

4pm, 1 March 2016, Gottmann Room, SoGE

Smart Technologies and Public Participation in Transport Planning

  • Dr Richard Kingston, Head of Planning and Environmental Management, University of Manchester
  • Dr Bryan Marshall, Research Fellow, Nominet UK

Chair: Dr Idalina Baptista, Associate Professor in Urban Anthropology, Kellogg College

One of the core ideas behind Smart Cities is that the progress in information technologies enables urban and transport planning to be based on better informed decisions using data-driven solutions to urban problems. Yet our understanding of how the emerging role of technology and data in our cities will shape public participation in urban and transport planning is still limited. A well-discussed pitfall is that smart city technologies can give the false idea that urban planning becomes simply a matter of efficient administration, leading to technocratic approaches in decision-making. Despite the potential of such smart technologies to engender new forms of public participation and reduce information gaps between citizens and local governments, another pitfall is that not all social groups equally have the appropriate skills and resources to use these new technologies to influence planning decisions. In both cases, an uncritical adoption of smart cities can undermine participatory planning, either by withdrawing the political and participatory dimension of planning, or by exacerbating the social imbalance of who gets to be heard. This seminar will provide critical view on smart cities and discuss some of its implications to rethink the role of citizen engagement in urban and transport planning.

The information on this page originally appeared on the website of the University of Oxford’s Transport Studies Unit.

Mapping human mobility with social media data

By: Jonathan Bright, Oxford Internet Institute

One of the key aims of the NEXUS project is to explore the extent to which human mobility patterns (e.g. commuting, tourism, migration) can be effectively mapped using social media data. Effective information on mobility is of vital importance to policy makers, yet is often in short supply or is expensive and difficult to collect (take as an example the traffic surveys which are notorious for causing jams, like the one reported on below). If such information could be produced cheaply from already available sources of data, this would be a real boon.

worcester news - traffic survey chaos

In order to get a handle one whether social media data can be used in this way, we have been collecting geolocated tweets from the UK over the last year or so (see map below). As you might expect they spread out over the UK according to centres of population (left panel). BUT we can also use this data to observe when people tweet from more than one location, which may give us a handle on patterns of movement and traffic (right panel). The image below is using one day’s worth of data. At the scale of the UK, we can see that, even with this very limited data source (as not every tweet is geolocated and many people do not tweet twice a day) there is considerable “signal” in terms of patterns of movement around the country.

uk tweet patterns - points uk tweets - lines of movement

The images below do the same on a much smaller scale, for Oxford. The pattern is what you might expect – peripheral areas connecting largely to the city centre. The question is, do these correlate with commuting patterns which can be observed? This is something we will be exploring as the project progresses.

Oxford tweet points oxford - tweet lines of movement


This article was first published in January 2016 in the Smart Cities Research Blog of the Oxford Internet Institute.


Oxford City Debates – Urban governance and its discontents

February 18-19, 2016, St. Anne’s College, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6HS

poster for conference

The yearly conference on  “Urban Governance and its Discontents” will be held on 18-19 February 2016 at the University of Oxford. A cornerstone initiative of the Oxford Programme for the Future of Cities, the conference will build on the long tradition of public debates here, and will bring together urban thinkers and practitioners to discuss the unprecedented challenges of urbanization to life on this planet in the 21st century.

The Future of Cities group are proposing a new format for presenting and elaborating thinking on what cities are and what they should be. The ‘University of Oxford City Debates’ will place scholars who are on the cutting edge of global urban research face-to-face with established and innovative practitioners—architects, activists, policy makers, and artists. Through a series of rigorous yet accessible public dialogues, practitioners and scholars will grapple with the intellectual and material implications of their interventions and theories on contemporary cities. We hope to encourage production of simultaneously visionary and grounded strategies for the future of city life. And we plan for a media push that will reach broad audiences worldwide. The conference will be organized around four central debates:

  • Making the city: Spontaneous vs Planned? Challenges for the 21st century.
  • Governing the city: Where do infrastructure, democracy, and social justice meet?
  • Mobilizing the city: Amidst global urban protests, the ‘right to the city’ is the right to what?
  • Representing the city: How do writing and painting reflect and shape migration to cities?

Each debate will be preceded by a small panel of academics and practitioners presenting papers that speak to the same key issues as the respective debates. Building on the long-standing Oxford tradition of public debate, it aims to encourage productive engagement between intellectuals and practitioners, in the believe that such engagement is too often missing from discussions of the city and it is crucial not just for the future of cities, but of human knowledge more generally. 

The planned themes of the panels are:

Panel 1 – Making the city: spontaneous VS Planned? Challenges of the 21st century

 In the last two decades, a focus on the importance of informality for urban governance, on cities of the Global South, and on the organic growth of metropolis has opened space for the recognition of the role of spontaneous urbanism. In particular, the effectiveness of contextual solutions and everyday practices to urban resilience and liveliness has been extensively documented and put in opposition with previous modernist dreams of complete control and management. At the same time, the growth of Chinese cities and the diffusion of the Singapore model, defined by public transportation infrastructure, regulations, and centralized planning, raise questions over the future of these two approaches, the conflicting aspirations of cities and its inhabitants, and the challenges of planetary urbanization. Are the two types of urbanism really opposed to one another? How and where do they co-exist? What future do they prefigure and what past do they reorganize?  Who is excluded and included in each of them? Is it possible to plan “spontaneity”? Are these strategies effective in specific contexts and in-effective in others? With these unresolved questions in mind, we invite the submission of papers which analyse, either theoretically, ethnographically, or comparatively these themes. We are particularly interested in opinionated pieces with the potential of spurring further conversations, as the resulting panel will work as a springboard for following urban debate.

Panel 2 – Governing the city: where do infrastructure, democracy, and social justice meet?

Infrastructure, Graham and McFarlane have argued, is “not just a ‘thing’, a ‘system’, or an ‘output’, but is a complex social and technological process that enables—or disables—particular kinds of action in the city.” In this panel we aim at investigating how specific infrastructures, financing systems, and their imagined temporalities enable or disable popular participation, democratic activities, as well as social justice. In particular, we are looking for stimulating pieces which engage with the role of infrastructure in creating corridors as well as raising walls, allowing and filtering flows, and creating specific forms of mobility and mobilization. Moreover, we are interested in papers that reflect on the futures, possibilities, and burdens created by specific financial tools as well as by massive infrastructural investment which may allow forms of participation today while also leaving economic, social, and ecological debts for the next generations. We therefore invite the submission of papers which analyse these themes, either theoretically, ethnographically, or comparatively. We are particularly interested in opinionated pieces that have the potential of spurring further conversations, as the resulting panel will work as a springboard for subsequent urban debate.

Panel 3 – Mobilizing the city: amidst global urban protest, the ‘right to the city’ is the right to what?

The discourse of “right to the city” emerged, in the 1960s, out of a conversation between activist networks, workers, students, and academics. Since then it has gained momentum across the world, providing a basis and a tool of struggle for slum dwellers, homeless people, squatters, people with disabilities, among many others. At the same time, a larger critique of the discourse of rights—whether civil, human, or to the city—has emerged, especially from critical legal scholars. They challenged the effectiveness and usefulness of the language of rights to push forward radical collective politics arguing that it frames struggles as individual, support the neoliberal project, or just provide a palliative distraction from radical challenges to social injustice. Aware of both these traditions and political arguments we ask: What do different actors mean by “rights to the city”? How are notions of ‘right to the city,’ and the concept of rights more generally, understood, discussed, and practiced by those for whom they are meant to protect. Do these rights speak to individual or collective efforts? How can they be enforced and what are the limits of this approach? Is the idea of rights to the city useful to contemporary urban struggles? If so how? With these questions in mind, we invite the submission of papers which deal, whether theoretically, ethnographically, or comparatively, with the uses, limitations, and practical conceptualisations of “rights to the city” as a tool of political mobilization and struggle, the assessment of its strength, weakness, and limitations in specific contexts, or explore alternative tools. We are particularly interested in opinionated pieces that have the potential of spurring further conversations, as the resulting panel will work as a springboard for following urban debate.

Panel 4 – Representing the City: Can art project, refigure, and challenge urban futures?

 Art has the ability not only to represent reality but also to shape and give form to it. From novels to painting and direct creative interventions, imaginative renderings of the city enact and render glimpses of urban futures in the present. This panel proposes to explore the relation between urban art and urban futures. We ask: Can creative practice work to prefigure of urban life? How can practitioners working towards constructing urban futures benefit from the representational and imaginative powers of creative engagements with the city. What are the points of interface where creative practitioners can assist in shifting material realities? More largely, is the dichotomy between ‘creative’ and ‘practitioner,’ ‘policy’ and ‘art’ as vast as it is often held to be? With these questions in mind, we invite the submission of papers which deal, whether theoretically, ethnographically, or comparatively, with the role of technology, new media, and creative digital practices in opening avenues for future-oriented scholarly research. Similarly we are interested in interventions which explore effective collaborations toward fostering physical change and participation but also question whether creative and arts-based urban interventions inherently promote gentrification and “revanchist” urbanism or they can also subvert these dynamics. We are particularly interested in opinionated pieces that have the potential of spurring further conversations, as the resulting panel will work as a springboard for following urban debate.

You can find out more here.

The information in this article is taken from website of the Oxford Programme for the Future of Cities.

Oxford in new Internet of Things Research Hub

symbolic image representing an IoT hub

Oxford is one of a consortium of nine UK universities involved in the newly announced £23 million Internet of Things (IoT) Research Hub. 

Oxford’s participation in the consortium is led by the e-Research Centre and Oxford Internet Institute, and also involves the Department of Computer Science, the Department of Engineering Science and the Saïd Business School, with further collaborations planned.

The project will run over a three-year period and explore issues in privacy, ethics, trust, reliability, acceptability, and security (known as PETRAS).

The project is part of IoTUK, an integrated £40 million initiative between Government, industry, the research community and the public sector to help advance UK global leadership in the Internet of Things (IoT) and increase adoption of high quality IoT technologies and services by businesses and the public sector in the UK, benefiting citizens. The Hub will draw in substantial support from over 47 partners from industry and the public sector.

Professor Philip Nelson, EPSRC’s Chief Executive, said, ‘In the not too distant future almost all of our daily lives will be connected, in one way or another, to the digital world. Physical objects and devices will be able to interact with each other, ourselves, and the wider virtual world. But, before this can happen, there must be trust and confidence in how the Internet of Things works, its security and its resilience. By harnessing our world-leading research excellence this PETRAS research Hub will accelerate IoT technology innovation and bring benefit to society and business.’


This article originally appeared on the website of the Mathematics Physics and Life Sciences Division of the University of Oxford.