FodnessReviewsMitchell

Proposal Presentation Review

Presenter: Ross Mitchell Reviewer: Kevin Fodness

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

Most of the aims were contained on the last slide of questions, and could have used more explanation. The lack of explanation could have been a factor of time.

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?

Yes. It described current trends and how the science works. The new knowledge component was not as detailed as it could have been, but again, could have been a factor of time.

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?

It provided a list of research subjects, but did not go into a great deal of detail over what specifically will be collected.

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

Yes. Ross has already been in contact with King's (Kings?) College and has gotten informal authorization for his research, and has clearly done a great deal of planning. However, since the research plan was not as clear as could be, I can only speak to the elements that have been specifically detailed.

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

It was implied, but not explicitly stated. The research area seems ripe for at least one book and some conference presentations, journal articles, etc.

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

Yes. It appears that the chimera research is progressing without any sort of social control and little public exposure (beyond the Michael Crichton novel and some localized conflicts).

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

Mostly. Could use a little polish, perhaps – looking at the computer screen significantly more than the audience, and the speaking style was not as smooth and practiced as it could have been.

8)Further comments and questions:

The presentation seemed to have too much emphasis on the background and not enough emphasis on the intended research trajectory.