Exploiting Rapid Change in Technology

Enhanced Learning

… for Post Graduate Education

SURVIVING THE VIVA OR FINAL DEFENSE

I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust

my sails to always reach my destination.

Jimmy Dean

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time. Thomas Edison

Agenda

Discussion of: 1. The variations in the final parts of the journey2. How they are evaluated3. The range of questions you may be asked4. What you can do to ensure success

Variations

US in general…

• Supervisor or Chair, + one prof of your choice + university rep

• 15 minute overview presentation (much like a conference) and then examiners as questions and you respond

• Generally after your supervisor has agreed it is ready, he/she contacts the others and you send on your final doc by email – they set a date

Rest of world in general…

• Supervisor as witness only, 2 profs of your/your supervisors choice + outside examiner

• 15 minute overview presentation may not be required, may just be conversation as examiners have marked up and made extensive comments before hand.

• May be more formal as outside examiner may be in another country – your supervisor approves it, the university has a registry office that binds it, they send it to examiners and 6 weeks latereveryone meets.

Whose in the room, What you do, When you do it

Examiners may have strict protocols and reports they have to write.

How are theses/ dissertations evaluated?

1. Examiners may have reports/guidelines1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-UbS2OYb-

UIk_fDpg_ts6tDDYwCsmL6caUCIS2uQu5o/edit?usp=sharing2. Or they may be evolving from a common ethos based on the

examiners prior existence.3. Either way their votes are final -

How do standards develop?

EvaluationWhat Makes for Outstanding?• Original and significant, ambitious, brilliant, clear, clever, coherent,

compelling, concise, creative, elegant, engaging, exciting, interesting, insightful, persuasive, sophisticated, surprising, and thoughtful

• Very well written and organized

• Synthetic and interdisciplinary

• Connects components in a seamless way

• Exhibits mature, independent thinking

• Has a point of view and a strong, confident, independent, and authoritative voice

• Asks new questions or addresses an important question or problem

• Clearly states the problem and why it is important

• Displays a deep understanding of a massive amount of complicated literature

• Exhibits command and authority over the material

• Argument is focused, logical, rigorous, and sustained

• Is theoretically sophisticated and shows a deep understanding of theory

• Has a brilliant research design

• Uses or develops new tools, methods, approaches, or types of analyses

• Is thoroughly researched

• Has rich data from multiple sources

• Analysis is comprehensive, complete, sophisticated, and convincing

• Results are significant

• Conclusion ties the whole thing together

• Is publishable in top-tier journals

• Is of interest to a larger community and changes the way people think

• Pushes the discipline's boundaries and opens new areas for research

1. General quality – pass at the outstanding, very good or acceptable level.

2. Has internal consistency

3. Meet the benchmarks

What is Acceptable?

• Is workmanlike

• Demonstrates technical competence

• Shows the ability to do research

• Is not very original or significant

• Is not interesting, exciting, or surprising

• Displays little creativity, imagination, or insight

• Writing is pedestrian and plodding

• Has a weak structure and organization

• Is narrow in scope

• Has a question or problem that is not exciting--is often highly derivative or an extension of the adviser's work

• Displays a narrow understanding of the field

• Reviews the literature adequately--knows the literature but is not critical of it or does not discuss what is important

• Can sustain an argument, but the argument is not imaginative complex, or convincing

• Demonstrates understanding of theory at a simple level, and theory is minimally to competently applied to the problem

• Uses standard methods

• Has an unsophisticated analysis--does not explore all possibilities and misses connections

• Has predictable results that are not exciting

• Makes a small contribution

What is Unacceptable?

• Is poorly written

• Has spelling and grammatical errors

• Has a sloppy presentation

• Contains errors or mistakes

• Plagiarizes or deliberately misreads or misuses sources

• Does not understand basic concepts, processes, or conventions of the discipline

• Lacks careful thought

• Looks at a question or problem that is trivial weak, unoriginal, or already solved

• Does not understand or misses relevant literature

• Has a weak, inconsistent, self-contradictory, unconvincing, or invalid argument

• Does not handle theory well, or theory is missing or wrong

• Relies on inappropriate or incorrect methods

• Has data that are flawed, wrong, false, fudged, or misinterpreted

• Has wrong, inappropriate, incoherent, or confused analysis

• Includes results that are obvious already known, unexplained, or misinterpreted

• Has unsupported or exaggerated interpretation

• Does not make a contribution

•

Internal Consistency – Know Your Golden Threads

Methods (con’t)• In alignment with the question addressed and the theory used In addition, the author demonstrates• An understanding of the methods' advantages and disadvantages• How to use the methodsComponent 5: Results or AnalysisThe analysis• Is appropriate• Aligns with the question and hypotheses raised• Shows sophistication• Is iterativeAmount and quality of data or information is• Sufficient• Well presented• Intelligently interpretedThe author also cogently expresses• The insights gained from the study• The study's limitationsComponent 6: Discussion or ConclusionThe conclusion• Summarizes the findings• Provides perspective on them• Refers back to the introduction• Ties everything together• Discusses the study's strengths and weaknesses• Discusses implications and applications for the discipline• Discusses future directions for research

Component 1: Introduction•The introduction•Includes a problem statement•Makes clear the research question to be addressed•Describes the motivation for the study•Describes the context in which the question arises•Summarizes the dissertation's findings•Discusses the importance of the findings•Provides a roadmap for readersComponent 2: Literature Review•The review•Is comprehensive and up to date•Shows a command of the literature•Contextualizes the problem•Includes a discussion of the literature that is selective,synthetic, analytical, and thematic

Component 3: TheoryThe theory that is applied or developedIs appropriate• Is logically interpreted• Is well understood• Aligns with the question at handIn addition, the author shows comprehension of the theory's• Strengths• LimitationsComponent 4: Methods

The methods applied or developed are

• Appropriate

• Described in detail

Range of Questions…Value-added and originality1. What are the most original (or value-added) parts of your thesis?2. Which propositions or findings would you say are distinctively your own?3. How do you think your work takes forward or develops the literature in this field?4. What are the ‘bottom line’ conclusions of your research? How innovative or valuable are they? What

does your work tell us that we did not know before?5. What are the origins and the scope of the research?6. Can you explain how you came to choose this topic for your doctorate What was it that first

interested you about it? How did the research focus change over time?7. Why have you defined the final topic in the way you did? 8. What were some of the difficulties you encountered and how did they influence how the topic was

framed? 9. What main problems or issues did you have in deciding what was in-scope and out-of-scope?

Methods1. What are the core methods used in this thesis? Why did you choose this approach? 2. In an ideal world, are there different techniques or other forms of data and evidence that you’d have

liked to use?3. What data or information do you feel is critical to understanding the outcomes of your study?4. What are the main sources or kinds of evidence? Are they strong enough in terms of their quantity

and quality to sustain the conclusions that you draw? Do the data or information you consider appropriately measure or relate to the theoretical concepts, or underlying social or physical phenomena, that you are interested in?

Range of Questions…Findings1. How do your findings fit with or contradict the rest of the literature in this field?

2. How do you explain the differences of findings, or estimation, or interpretation between your work and

that of other authors?

3. What will you do after graduation with your topic?

4. What are the main implications or lessons of your research for the future development of work in this

specific sub-field? Are there any wider implications for other parts of the discipline? Do you have ‘next

step’ or follow-on research projects in mind?

1. Be prepared to discuss your empirical work – is it verifiable?2. Have you delimited your scope?3. What are the assumptions you made before you started and how did they influence your outcomes?4. Are these assumptions acceptable within your field? Can you give an example of who else has worked

with or mentioned them?5. What scales operationalize your variables? How do you know they are valid?6. What are your findings in terms of effect size?7. For quantitative evidence – take us through your test(s) of power.8. For qualitative evidence – take us through the process through which you developed/triangulated

your themes.

Range of Experiences

Manage the expectations of your family & friends – the question most likely is how much work will still be required?

1. Universities may have 6 possible outcomes: 1. Award recommended no corrections needed2. Award recommended: corrections revisions required

1. Some will require another layer of validation3. No award now pending another viva after revisions4. Recommended to withdraw for another masters OR major revisions for

another viva5. Strong recommendation for Masters6. No degree should be awarded (very rare).

2. It is YOUR responsibility not to leave confused about what is next to be expected of you.

3. Questions can be mild to in depth, from knowledgeable to “where did that come from?”

4. Examiners can be polite, encouraging to strict or hostile feeling.

Final ideasFigure out what inspires you and keep up those exercises as you move forward

EvaluationWhat Makes for Outstanding?• Original and significant, ambitious, brilliant, clear, clever, coherent,

compelling, concise, creative, elegant, engaging, exciting, interesting, insightful, persuasive, sophisticated, surprising, and thoughtful

• Very well written and organized

• Synthetic and interdisciplinary

• Connects components in a seamless way

• Exhibits mature, independent thinking

• Has a point of view and a strong, confident, independent, and authoritative voice

• Asks new questions or addresses an important question or problem

• Clearly states the problem and why it is important

• Displays a deep understanding of a massive amount of complicated literature

• Exhibits command and authority over the material

• Argument is focused, logical, rigorous, and sustained

• Is theoretically sophisticated and shows a deep understanding of theory

• Has a brilliant research design

• Uses or develops new tools, methods, approaches, or types of analyses

• Is thoroughly researched

• Has rich data from multiple sources

• Analysis is comprehensive, complete, sophisticated, and convincing

• Results are significant

• Conclusion ties the whole thing together

• Is publishable in top-tier journals

• Is of interest to a larger community and changes the way people think

• Pushes the discipline's boundaries and opens new areas for research

1. General quality – pass at the outstanding, very good or acceptable level.

2. Has internal consistency

3. Meet the benchmarks

Answers You’ll Need Specific to Your University…

1. What guidelines are you writing to and how strict will the examiners be?

2. Who/ How Many Examiners Will There Be? And who are they to you/ your supervisor?

3. Will they expect a presentation or overview or will they just jump in?

4. Can you make changes or work at improving your document after you turn it in?

5. Will you hear the results at the end? For many you’ll know the recommendation – required changes will follow in 7 day

6. If you have required revisions – how long do you have to complete them? 6 week, 6 months or 1 year Prioritize these

7. What is the endgame if you have to turn in revisions? Who judges them? How long before you hear results.2?

8. Copyediting?? – Who signs off ?

9. How does your university manage the publication of your final doc once approved?

What’s Up at DoctoralNet?

May 2016 - our emails & control panel done in Phases/ or by Year per the theme – so theme for May = thinking/planning ahead for summer

Sign Into doctoralnet.com – top right of page – click on control panel1. Phase 1 year 1… links for goodies to organize your thoughts, find gaps in

the lit, and fine tune your research2. Phase 2- year 2… homework to make writing chapters easier and to

upgrade academic writing and critical analysis3. Phase 3 – year 3 … keeping on track, tools for analysis, and motivation to

hold you through to the end4. Phase 3 + - years 4, 5, 6, and beyond… Links and ideas to keep the

motivation up as you get close to finishing.