Review+Ross


 * PRESENTER___Ross__ **
 * REVIEWER __Ross____ **
 * 1. Did the presentation clearly describe the aims of the research – empirical, conceptual, methodological and practical? **
 * Yes, but due to rushing at the end I could not elaborate on the methodological and conceptual **
 * 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, politically, culturally and the literature **
 * 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? **
 * Yes, but again, was rushed through as it was in the “back end” **
 * 4. Did the research plan presented seem credible and feasible? **
 * Yes, all built around London; have access; have host institution **
 * 5. Did the presentation provide a tangible sense of the book and other outcomes of the research? **
 * No, but it came out a bit in the question and answer **
 * 6. Did the presentation persuade you that the proposed research is important, in this historical moment in particular? **
 * I’m convinced **
 * 7. Was the speaking style clear, engaging and well timed? **
 * I usually go to fast…so I tried to slow down in the beginning…which caused me to go too slow and rush over the end. Practicing before a presentation seems to have a negative effect on me (as it makes me over think things…which makes it so I can’t think at all) ** . **It is unfortunate I had to rush at the end, as the back end material was important (some of it came out in q and a though).**
 * 8. Further comments and questions. **