MitchellCommentSaheb

Presenter: Sonya Reviewer: Ross I don’t totally get how ANT fits in…although it is for studying “science in action” so it could be useful if some “action” takes place
 * 1. Did the presentation clearly describe the aims of the research – empirical, conceptual, methodological and practical?**

I got there are robots…but not enough of them…basically the opposite view of Woodhouse
 * 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?**

I heard some methods put out there, but I’m not sure how it all fits together into one coherent project
 * 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?**

Not entirely…flying all around the world and performing what seemed to be psychological studies (with no psychology background)
 * 4. Did the research plan presented seem credible and feasible?**

Not totally, but the ambitions seem quite hefty
 * 5. Did the presentation provide a tangible sense of the book and other outcomes of the research?**

I think studying how social robotics as a field is developing could be quite productive, but I find myself agreeing with Woodhouse somewhat…I’m not sure that robots are the way one should be treating schizophrenia…it seems to have the potential to cause many more problems than it solves
 * 6. Did the presentation persuade you that the proposed research is important, in this historical moment in particular?**

A bit of a dry reading, but I could understand you fine
 * 7. Was the speaking style clear, engaging and well timed?**


 * 8. Further comments and questions.**