FodnessReviewsLange

Proposal Presentation Review

Presenter: Jon Lange Reviewer: Kevin Fodness

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

Yes – how is the science changing as a result of the crisis, and how is its relationship to the state and economic forces shaping the transformation?

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. There isn't much on the subject in terms of STS analysis, but there is a large body of work on the history of hydrology.

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, and archival research will be used, analyzing researchers, administrators, activists, news media, scientific literatures, case studies, etc.

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

Credible, yes. There are many field sites and many interviews, so it may be unwieldy to manage.

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

Yes. A slide was presented on the intended destination of the research as a book, at conferences, web conferences, journals, etc.

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

Yes. His introduction detailed reasons why the study of hydrology is important, and especially right now – understudied in STS, current and projected problems with control over water, etc.

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

Yes.

8)Further comments and questions:

Pump it spray it dam it rain it hold it flow it fill it drain it clean it pipe it Hydrologic

(If you don't get the reference look up lyrics to Daft Punk's “Technologic”)