FodnessReviewsFisk

Proposal Presentation Review

Presenter: Nathan Fisk Reviewer: Kevin Fodness

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

Yes. Multiple slides were dedicated to the specific questions to be asked, which cover these areas.

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, and most importantly, detailed gaps in current knowledge.

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. Much detail was provided about archival research, interviews, institutional analysis, and narrative policy analysis.

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

Yes. It is sufficiently narrow in scope as to allow completion of the project within a reasonable timeframe, and sufficiently broad as to come up with results that are meaningful.

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

Not explicitly. The research could easily be used for at least one book, plus conference presentations, journal articles, etc.

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

Yes, especially with current historical trends such as moral panic, To Catch a Predator, sexting, and other examples given.

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

Absolutely. Nate is an excellent presenter.

8)Further comments and questions:

Yo, dawg. I heard you like Pedobear so I put a Pedobear in your presentation so you can LOL while you teach.