JessCommentByDenver

Presenter: Jess

Reviewer: Denver

1.Did the presentation clearly describe the aims of the research—empirical, conceptual, methodological and practical? Who participated in the proliferation of western science. Pirate and specific knowledges in identification. Knowledge gap in the construction of Western science. Lay contribution of scientific knowledge. Non-Western contribution to western science. Appropriation of technology. 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 historical review of the research object. 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? Discourse analysis. A number of research sites (mainly for literary study). 4.Did the research plan presented seem credible and feasible? Yes, especially considering the rich foundings from preliminary research. 5.Did the presentation provide a tangible sense of the book and other outcomes of the research? Some future research plans. 6.Did the presentation persuade you that the proposed research is important, in this historical moment in particular? Postcolonial and alternative theory. Deviant knowledge. 7.Was the speaking style clear, engaging and well timed? Clear speaking. 8.Further comments and questions. Except the contribution to Western science, did piracy have some effects in transmitting western science to non-western communities?