FodnessReviewsFiskProposal

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

The version of the proposal that was circulated prior to the presentation did not include a title, so I cannot evaluate this aspect of the proposal at this time.

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

Yes – it clearly defines the research questions to be answered and the broader impact of the research.


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

Yes. It addresses theoretical concerns about how understandings of youth Internet usage are produced, and social concerns of addressing moral panic.


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

Yes.

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?**

Yes. The overview states that youth using the Internet presents a safety concern for parents, which is largely contained within the moral panic framework.


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

Yes, very much so.


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

Yes – it describes the interviews and archive work that will be done, and explains why it is necessary.


 * 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?**

The components are clearly described, but the schedule is not. The schedule is covered in more detail later in the proposal.


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

Absolutely.

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

Yes, in a very concise way.


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

Yes. The literatures were extensively described.

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

Yes – the study that Nate did while at RIT and work that has been done since then will contribute to the study.


 * 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?**

Most of the work that needs to be done before the study begins – including pilot studies, literature reviews, etc – has already been done.

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?**

Yes – Nate links the research questions to the literature review very well.


 * 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 – the data will come from interviews, archival research, and the data already collected as part of the RIT study.


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

Yes. The research plan is divided up into logical components.


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

Yes. An advantage here is that much of the actual study of youth culture online has already been done as part of the RIT study.


 * 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?**

By attempting to remain as unbiased as possible in collecting the data and making analysis, yes, although this topic is not explicitly dealt with in the proposal.


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

Not really. It detailed what data was going to be gathered and what data was going to be analyzed, but not how the data would be analyzed.


 * 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?**

Not explicitly. There are logical structures to where the data is coming from that could easily map into different chapters, but it is not explicitly discussed.


 * 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?**

Not specifically. However, most of the ethical dimensions involved were a component of the original study, and have been dealt with there. Obviously, there are some ethical dimensions that will need to be dealt with in this project, but they are less significant than the original study.

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

Primarily just the dissertation. There is discussion at the end of the proposal about this work feeding into broader work on deviance and moral panic, but no specific information about other publications.


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

Yes – the audiences will be fairly wide ranging.


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

Not in depth, but it does discuss dissemination via training workshops for schools.