SonyaCommentByDenver

Presenter: Sonya

Reviewer: Denver

1.Did the presentation clearly describe the aims of the research—empirical, conceptual, methodological and practical? Theoretical study of literature, interviews, observation. Socio-technical networks. Human and nonhuman actors. Conceptualization of care, trust, etc. Interactions. 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? Problems in medical treatment of schizophrenia, communication in curing schizophrenia, capability of humanoid robots. 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. A couple of field sites for interviews and participant observations. 4.Did the research plan presented seem credible and feasible? She introduced the field sites and interview objects. I'd like to know about the data analysis. 5.Did the presentation provide a tangible sense of the book and other outcomes of the research? Yes. Publications, book, interview with media, meetings. 6.Did the presentation persuade you that the proposed research is important, in this historical moment in particular? Described the potential of Social Robotics in curing schizophrenia. It should be important as people pay more attention to mental health and the increasing pressure suffered by contemporary people, but she doesn't connect the research to the current historical moment very explicitly. 7.Was the speaking style clear, engaging and well timed? Clear speaking. 8.Further comments and questions. What are the social theoretical questions of this study?