Review+Anna


 * PRESENTER___Anna__ **
 * REVIEWER __Ross____ **
 * 1. Did the presentation clearly describe the aims of the research – empirical, conceptual, methodological and practical? **
 * Conceptual could be fleshed out more **
 * 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? **
 * Nano developments without proper regulation/input **
 * 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? **
 * Robust no, but I get the gist of it. **
 * 4. Did the research plan presented seem credible and feasible? **
 * Way too many sites, I have no idea how all of these locations could be visited/people interviewed. **
 * 5. Did the presentation provide a tangible sense of the book and other outcomes of the research? **
 * Yes **
 * 6. Did the presentation persuade you that the proposed research is important, in this historical moment in particular? **
 * Nano and neoliberalism = bad **
 * 7. Was the speaking style clear, engaging and well timed? **
 * Too fast **
 * 8. Further comments and questions. **