Peer Review of Research Proposal

To: Anna Li

From: Han Li

Peer Review/ Proposal: Improving Gender Disparity in Department of Computer Science in UBC

Thank you for completing and uploading this proposal on time. The topic is interesting and from practical life. Please see the review of the document below with some improvable suggestions.

First Impressions:

This document leaves a good first impression. It is well-formed, with bolding subheadings increasing readability.

Organization:

• It is great to indicate the target audience at the beginning of the article.
• A good introduction with the background information and causes of gender disparity of CS in UBC.
• Bolded subtitles and proper spacing make it easy to follow.
• The subtitles are logical, answering the questions about what, why, how, and where.
• A conclusion paragraph summaries the entire proposal

Expression:

• In general, the tone is appropriate without the unnecessary use of pronouns.
• Avoid using two or three verbs in one sentence to make the proposal more concise. For example:
  • “Besides, the lack of female role models for female learners can also cause low motivation for women to pursue careers in computer science. ”
    • “can also cause” is unnecessary, and “causes” works.
• Remove some extra words like ” It’s of great importance…”.
• Avoid using negative to make the sentence clear. For example:
  • “By addressing the factors that contribute to the current phenomenon and analyzing what has been done for past years,”
    • Rewrite: By addressing the factors that led to the current phenomenon and analyzing the work done over the past few years.
• Consider splitting long sentences into two sentences or removing extra words.

Content:

The proposal follows the proposal requirements. It includes audience description, introduction, statement of problem, proposed solution, scope, methods, qualifications and conclusion. However, there are several adjusted suggestions:

• • Audience Description
    • UBC CS department is too general, considering to be more specific.
  • Introduction
    • It is more persuasive to have data support.
  • Methods
    • Primary research is a requirement, but both methods are secondary sources

Grammar and Typos:

• There are several minor errors: one example is: “It is not hard to find a university without gender disparity issues in the computer science program, UBC is no exception.”
  • Double negative shows affirmation. There is an extra “not”.
• Another example is: “the male-dominated computer science program has become more competitive than it has even been.”
  • Maybe “ever” rather than “even”.

Concluding Comments:

Thanks again for the effort. This proposal is worth reading and informative.  Gender disparities in various fields should attract more attention and change. With these small errors corrected, it will be a complete formal proposal:

• Specifying the targeted readers
• Adding some data support in the introduction
• Revising the primary research
• Considering the suggestions for expressions
• Self-editing for small typos

It is a pleasure to review this proposal. If there are any questions, please feel free to ask.

Han Li.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99c-2021wc/2022/02/15/formal-report-proposal-improving-gender-disparity-in-department-of-computer-science-in-ubc/