FodnessReviewsSahebProposal

1.Does the title reflect both the specific focus of the project, and why it will be of more general (theoretical or social) interest?**
 * TITLE

It reflects the specific focus of the project, and ties it to Actor-Network Theory.

2.Does the abstract clearly specify the aims of the project?**
 * ABSTRACT

Yes.


 * 3.Does the abstract clearly articulate how the project will create new knowledge, and respond to theoretical or social concerns?**

It articulates how it will create new knowledge (although I'm not convinced that this study hasn't been done already by someone), and links the project with ANT. I'm not quite clear on how this links up with social concerns, though – it doesn't seem like it could be a widespread solution to schizophrenia.


 * 4.Does the abstract provide a succinct yet clear description of how the project will be carried out?**

Yes – it details the interviews and the locations.

5.Does the overview clearly describe the aims of the project – empirical, conceptual, methodological and practical?**
 * OVERVIEW

Yes.


 * 6.Does the overview describe the importance of the project – empirically, conceptually, methodologically and practically?**

Not really. It explains that schizophrenic people often don't get the care they need, but it is not clear why this project in particular is important.


 * 7.Are the aims of the project reflected in (clearly articulated) primary research questions?**

Yes.


 * 8.Does the overview explain and justify the type of data that will be collected for the project?**

Yes.


 * 9.Does the overview provide a “snapshot” of the various components of the research project, and a sense of the schedule on which they will be completed?**

Basically, yes. The schedule is not particularly articulated.


 * 10.Does the overview convince you that the project is feasible, and that the researcher has the appropriate expertise?**

No. There is a clear disconnect between the researcher's understanding of the problems and the potential solutions, especially social robotics as a solution to schizophrenia as being studied by the researcher. For example, if schizophrenic patients are having a hard time affording drugs, or don't have health insurance, why are expensive anthropomorphic robots the solution? Although the research for the project is doable, I am not confident that the background of the researcher has prepared her for this project, or that she has the appropriate grasp on the issues surrounding the project.

11.Does the proposal provide an adequate (not too long, nor too short) and compelling description of the “object” of the study?**
 * BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE

The background / description of the object is a bit long. The description is a little flawed – saying that there are no studies of this type and that there is no relevant background is suspect.


 * 12.Does the proposal clearly explain what literatures the project will draw on and contribute to?**

Yes.

13.Does the proposal describe the relationship between this project and previous work carried out by the researcher?**
 * PREPARATION AND WORK THUS FAR

Other than the literature already reviewed, no.


 * 14.Does the proposal provide a plan for pilot studies, literature reviews, language training or other initiatives that need to be undertaken before the project begins?**

No.

15.Does the proposal provide an understandable and compelling “snapshot” of what the researcher thinks is going on, based on preliminary investigation and existing theory?**
 * METHODS

Yes.


 * 16.Does the proposal indicate how the research questions build on existing literature?**

Not explicitly.


 * 17.Does the proposal clearly explain what data will be used to answer the research questions, and how and where this data will be collected?**

Yes.


 * 18.Does the proposal provide a very clear sense of what the researcher will do in various phases or components of the project?**

Yes – there is a detailed schedule.


 * 19.Are you convinced that the proposed data collection plan is both feasible, and appropriate to the aims of the project?**

No. There are a ton of research sites, and there is no indication of how the researcher will prepare herself for visiting these sites (for example, learning Japanese or hiring the services of a Japanese translator for the field sites in Japan). This study seems too broad in scope for a dissertation. There is also an obvious operating assumption on the part of the researcher that robots are inherently good, and will therefore be nothing but a benefit to the patients, so there is no component of the study that either questions this assumption directly or looks for viable alternatives.


 * 20.Does the proposal convince you that the researcher has a strategy for validating his or her data, and for acknowledging the biases that he or she will bring to the project?**

Validation, yes – there will be cross-collaboration with researchers in psychology and other fields. There is an obvious pro-robot bias in this research, and there are important questions regarding the appropriateness of the technology that are not being asked.


 * 21.Does the proposal provide a clear and compelling sense of how the data will be analyzed?**

Sort of. There was some language about cross-collaboration, but the extent of cross-collaboration was unclear.


 * 22.Does the proposal provide a compelling sense of how the data analysis will be written into a text – through the development of chapters that develop particular core concepts, for example?**

No.


 * 23.Does the proposal provide a strategy for addressing the ethical dimensions of the project, and a sense that that the ethical dimensions have been thoroughly thought through?**

No. It is clear that the ethical dimensions have not been thought through, and that some of the major ethical issues are not addressed at all. The issues listed in the ethics section are not core, significant issues.

24.Does the proposal provide a compelling description of the scholarly publications that will result from the project?**
 * DISSEMINATION

No.


 * 25.Does the proposal describe the scholarly audiences that will be interested in the books and articles that result from the project?**

Not in the dissemination section. There is an earlier section that discusses potentially interested audiences (feminist scholars, psychologists, etc).


 * 26.Does the proposal describe a creative strategy for circulating project results among informants, and to particular lay audiences?**

It describes cross-collaboration with various interested parties, but does not describe dissemination to lay audiences.