JenCommentByDenver

Presenter: Jen

Reviewer: Denver

1.Did the presentation clearly describe the aims of the research—empirical, conceptual, methodological and practical? Movements, place-based identity, new knowledge production, expert and lay knowledge, knowledge and place. Translation of the MTR stories. Role of media. Movements and knowledge. 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? A clear background introduction in an impressive way. 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. Interviews, Participant Observation, Media Analysis. 4.Did the research plan presented seem credible and feasible? Yes, she has a profound understanding and has developed many interesting research questions about her research objects. 5.Did the presentation provide a tangible sense of the book and other outcomes of the research? Not much, will rewrite proposal later. 6.Did the presentation persuade you that the proposed research is important, in this historical moment in particular? It sounds meaningful in extending the STS research, with a unique focus on place and knowledge. 7.Was the speaking style clear, engaging and well timed? Yes, she performs well, a creative story-telling style. 8.Further comments and questions. What contexts have shaped the research object?