This document provides guidance for post-graduate students preparing to defend their thesis or final project. It discusses variations in the defense process between countries and institutions. It also addresses how defenses are evaluated, the range of questions students may face, and tips for ensuring success. Key points include outlining standards for outstanding, acceptable, and unacceptable work. It emphasizes the importance of internal consistency and addressing examiners' questions specifically for one's own university and research.

1. Exploiting Rapid
Change in Technology
Enhanced Learning
… for Post Graduate Education
SURVIVING THE VIVA OR FINAL DEFENSE

2. I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust
my sails to always reach my destination.
Jimmy Dean

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

4. Agenda
Discussion of:
1. The variations in the final parts of the journey
2. How they are evaluated
3. The range of questions you may be asked
4. What you can do to ensure success

5. 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.

6. How are theses/ dissertations evaluated?
1. Examiners may have reports/guidelines
1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-UbS2OYb-
UIk_fDpg_ts6tDDYwCsmL6caUCIS2uQu5o/edit?usp=sharing
2. 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?

7. Evaluation
What 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

8. 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

9. 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
•

10. 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 methods
Component 5: Results or Analysis
The analysis
• Is appropriate
• Aligns with the question and hypotheses raised
• Shows sophistication
• Is iterative
Amount and quality of data or information is
• Sufficient
• Well presented
• Intelligently interpreted
The author also cogently expresses
• The insights gained from the study
• The study's limitations
Component 6: Discussion or Conclusion
The 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 readers
Component 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: Theory
The theory that is applied or developed
Is appropriate
• Is logically interpreted
• Is well understood
• Aligns with the question at hand
In addition, the author shows comprehension of the theory's
• Strengths
• Limitations
Component 4: Methods
The methods applied or developed are
• Appropriate
• Described in detail

11. Range of Questions…
Value-added and originality
1. 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?
Methods
1. 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?

12. Range of Questions…
Findings
1. 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.

13. 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 needed
2. Award recommended: corrections revisions required
1. Some will require another layer of validation
3. No award now pending another viva after revisions
4. Recommended to withdraw for another masters OR major revisions for
another viva
5. Strong recommendation for Masters
6. 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.

14. Final ideas
Figure out what inspires you and keep up those exercises as you move forward

15. Evaluation
What 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

16. 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?

17. 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 panel
1. Phase 1 year 1… links for goodies to organize your thoughts, find gaps in
the lit, and fine tune your research
2. Phase 2- year 2… homework to make writing chapters easier and to
upgrade academic writing and critical analysis
3. Phase 3 – year 3 … keeping on track, tools for analysis, and motivation to
hold you through to the end
4. Phase 3 + - years 4, 5, 6, and beyond… Links and ideas to keep the
motivation up as you get close to finishing.