GarethCommentByDenver

Presenter: Gareth

Reviewer: Denver

1.Did the presentation clearly describe the aims of the research—empirical, conceptual, methodological and practical? Transfer and enforcement of specific medical knowledges. Reconfiguration of medical institution. 2.Did the presentation provide a overview of what we already know about the research subject, and then explain how the proposed research will create new knowledge? Yes. A sufficient introduction of “Medical Tourism”. Including the relevant countries promoting medical tourism. 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? National programs. Locations. 4.Did the research plan presented seem credible and feasible? I think so, he has rich understanding of what's going on around the topic of medical tourism, but he didn't have time to address his research plan sufficiently. 5.Did the presentation provide a tangible sense of the book and other outcomes of the research? Not much, because of the time issue. 6.Did the presentation persuade you that the proposed research is important, in this historical moment in particular? Yes. He had introduced the various views around medical tourism and the changed notion of care and choice under the Neoliberal thoughts. 7.Was the speaking style clear, engaging and well timed? Very confident way of presenting. Need a better time control. 8.Further comments and questions. I'd like to know about what data will be collected and how will them be analyzed.