Our Work / Research & Evidence
Research and evidence
Our work page shows what we have built and who has used it. This page is different: it collects independent, peer-reviewed studies that have examined virtual reality training of the kind we build, published in academic venues and subject to external peer review before publication.
The distinction matters. A case study describes what was delivered and how a client experienced it, usually in the client's own words. A published research paper is written by named academics or practitioners, goes through a journal or conference's independent review process before it is accepted, and reports its methodology, sample size and statistics in enough detail that others can check the work. Both are useful; they are not the same thing, and this site keeps them apart.
The two projects summarised below were developed in partnership with Equal Reality, the DEI-focused VR development studio associated with People Tech Revolution co-founder Leonie Sanderson. Where a paper states Equal Reality's or Leonie Sanderson's involvement, the summaries quote that wording directly rather than paraphrase it.
Research summaries
VR DEI training at Google (CHI 2024)
A case-study paper co-authored by Google researchers and Leonie Sanderson of Equal Reality, published as an extended abstract at the CHI 2024 conference. It describes four VR diversity, equity and inclusion training scenarios and reports preliminary, self-reported feedback from a small group of Google employees who trialled the training in September 2023.
VR training for nurse leaders at Mayo Clinic (JONA 2024 and Social Science & Medicine 2025)
Two peer-reviewed papers by Mayo Clinic researchers examine a VR DEI and empathy training programme built for 1,149 Mayo Clinic nurse and social worker leaders, developed in partnership with Equal Reality. One paper describes the programme and its rollout; a second, using a controlled trial design, measures its effect on empathy and upstander-behaviour intentions, including a 6 to 8 month follow-up.
For full citation lines and links to the published PDFs for both papers, see the papers page.
Program evaluations and reported outcomes
Not every VR training programme has been independently peer-reviewed. Some have only a client's or partner's own program evaluation behind them. This site keeps those separate from the peer-reviewed research above, and states plainly whose figures they are.
Mater Immersive Learning Pilot
Mater Education's own program evaluation of its VR training for psychologically safe conversations, "Speaking with Good Judgement: Through the Looking Glass," reported that 93% of participating staff enjoyed the experience and 90% showed increased focus compared with conventional delivery. Figures as reported by Mater Education following the program evaluation; this is a client program pilot, not peer-reviewed research.
Further program evaluations and client-reported outcomes, including Mayo Clinic's own post-class survey results, Central Coast Council, Esuarve and Cook-It, each presented with its own attribution and caveats, are collected on the evidence and outcomes page.
A note on how to read these summaries
Every finding on the linked pages is attributed to the source that reported it, using the qualifiers, sample sizes and timeframes the source itself used. None of the outcomes described were caused by, or are claimed by, People Tech Revolution; they are the independent authors' or reporting organisations' own findings about their own programmes. The peer-reviewed papers are summarised, not reproduced in full; the program evaluations are client- or partner-reported and have not been independently reviewed. Read the original papers and reports, linked from each page, for the complete methodology and results.
This page now collects four kinds of material: peer-reviewed research papers, a curated set of featured highlights, program evaluations and other reported outcomes, and one client program pilot (Mater). Jump straight to:
Two of the studies below went through independent peer review before publication; the pilot did not. This page keeps those apart and states plainly, for every figure, whose finding it is.