WilliamsCommentPPTLyonsJessica

Lyons, Jessica Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:00 AM Proposal Presentation Review Reviewer: Logan Williams Time: EMPIRICAL Various case studies on indigenous knowledge systems and deviant knowledge systems, e.g. pirates & ship modifications, pirates & cartography, pirates & native american waterways, development of quinine CONCEPTUAL More work on indigenous knowledge systems; Eglash and Fortun describe ways to work with the word piracy either (a)defining it and showing how the case studies support your definition or (b)tracing it discursively to see the kind of 'work' that it does METHODOLOGICAL Historical archive work; PRACTICAL Odumosu recommends that you contrast the historic study with a contemporary study, especially if you have problems finding records to support your study in the archives where you work OVERVIEW You started with Dampier the pirate historian and gave a brief overview; also your slide on future directions contained more information NEW KNOWLEDGE I think as a historical contribution, the new knowledge IS the empirical knowledge; that is, the history of science values empirical knowledge differently than mainstream STS and so that is the important //new// knowledge that you are contributing HOW Archival research DATA TYPES UK; USA (Albany, Washington D.C.); Caribbean (different countries -- I don’t remember all of them) Yes; interesting sites in Caribbean I don't remember -- I need to see your slides again Jess, you brought up what other historians of science thought about your project (that it is new/never been done; related to Circum-Atlantic History) which I think was important in showing your project's importance now to the field. Cool. yes; reading is not my preference, but when you do it, it is like listening to a story the preliminary findings slide was a nice touch. Also, I am in agreement with Tolu about adding a contemporary component -- even if you find a wealth of material on the history when you do your archival research maybe you could speak to contemporary issues at least in the preface? And, or, the conclusion? Or an appendix?
 * 1. Did the presentation clearly describe the aims of the research – empirical, conceptual, methodological and practical?**
 * 2. Did the presentation provide an overview of what we already know about the research subject, and then explain how the proposed research will create new knowledge?**
 * 3. Did the presentation provide a robust sense of** //**how**// **the research will be carried out, and of the type of data that will be collected?**
 * 4. Did the research plan presented seem credible and feasible?**
 * 5. Did the presentation provide a tangible sense of the book and other outcomes of the research?**
 * 6. Did the presentation persuade you that the proposed research is important, in this historical moment in particular?**
 * 7. Was the speaking style clear, engaging and well timed?**
 * 8. Further comments and questions.**