JenReviewGareth

Proposal Presentation Review

Presenter: Gareth Reviewer: Jen Barton

1. Did the presentation clearly describe the aims of the research – empirical, conceptual, methodological and practical?

Yes.... Honestly, I'm a bit in post-curry stupor. The empirical stuff came through well, the conceptual a little bit, and I kind of missed the rest. But that's likely the fault of too many pakoras.

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 lots about what's been written medical tourism from within the field and by the popular press, which was informative. Has scholarly stuff been done on it?

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?

Didn't have time.

4. Did the research plan presented seem credible and feasible?

Didn't have time.

5. Did the presentation provide a tangible sense of the book and other outcomes of the research?

Didn't have time.

6. Did the presentation persuade you that the proposed research is important, in this historical moment in particular?

Yes, in the sense that medical tourism is just getting going. And I find especially compelling the element of choice and responsibility and how those elements are being negotiated and codified.

7. Was the speaking style clear, engaging and well timed?

As always. You are a very engaging speaker. Timing.... well, you need to rehearse that part. Visual “aids” don't count as aids if they don't aid anything! Actually, I liked them anyway.

8.Further comments and questions. How do different stakeholders/ or participation in different social worlds affect how people experience similar methods of care differently? (this was your answer to Linda's request for a research question). I like it.