Oral defense of Dissertation

What exactally is involved in the Oral Defense of the Dissertation?

 

You stand or sit in a room in front of your committee (and, depending on the school, anyone else who wants to be there) make a presentation on your research and dissertation and then answer any and all questions. Time frame form 1 to 4 hours.

Questions do not have to be about what you presented but can cover anything even remotely related to the topic.

 

hipsociety: "What exactally is involved in the Oral Defense of the Dissertation?"


Cehi: The purpose of a typical oral defense of a dissertation is to answer questions that your dissertation committee would like to ask about your research. It also gives you the opportunity to showcase the depth of knowledge that you have acquired during your research.

Initially, depending on the requirements of your department, you will be required to make a 20 minutes presentation on overhead (there are new technologies now). Thereafter, you will then proceed to answer the questions that are posed to you. The whole process can take about 90 minutes or more. At this time, these questions will begin with the committee members and followed by the audience, if allowed.

If you have impressed the committee members by demonstrating a superb mastery of your field, and they feel good that you have contributed new knowledge to your field, they will vote "yes" to grant you the doctorate degree. If they vote "no" , then, you are out of luck. You will not get the doctorate degree. I might add that, these 'no' cases are very few, but they do happen.

I hope this information has been helpful. Thank you.

 

I have attended several dissertation defenses at three different universities. This is how they typically work:

1. Introduction of the candidate and the panel (made up of the members of the dissertation committee and other faculty and administrators who have expertise in research design and areas related to the dissertation topic). Other visitors are sometimes introduced. Typically only university personnel and other graduate students are allowed to attend the defense.

2. The candidate give a brief synopsis of the major sections of the dissertation (Introduction, statement of the problems, major research questions, abbreviated literature review and methods for data collection and anlysis).

3. The candidate presents the major findings of the dissertation and states what the implications of the findings are, inlcuding recommendations for future study).

4. After the candidate's presentation is completed, the members of the panel question the candidate about the research. Questions vary from second-guessing the candidate's research design, choice of statistics and findings. The candidate may be questioned about the choice of subjects, why he or she did (or did not) look at certain variables, or a host of other topics related to the study.

The purpose for the above is to determine how well the candidate is able to defend the purposes, rationale, methods and conclusion of the dissertaiton study before a panel of scholars (hence the name "oral defense"). The panel can judge the defense as "successful", "successful with conditions/modifications (usually requiring a re-write of certain parts of the dissertation or going back and performing some addiditonal statistical analyses) or "unsuccessful". It is extremely rare that someone would be able to get all the way to the dissertation defense stage (where that person would know more about the dissertation topic than anyone else in the room) and not be able to (at least) without being able to pass with conditions/modifiction. In the dozen or so defenses that I have witnessed, I have never seen anyone "flunk" the defense (although I have seen many that needed to go back and do some additional work before they were completely "passed).

If the candidate is successful, the faculty of the school awarding the degree confirm that the candidate is, indeed, a "doctor" (i.e. recognized expert) in the topic of the dissertation. The oral defense is the culmination of doctoral studies and work in research doctoral programs.

Tony Pina
Administrator, Northeastern Illinois University

 

Mr. Pina has done an exceptional job in explaining the process. At my own defense, I had several fellow sutdnets in the room as well. Some Universities require or espect "public defense" which means attendance and questioning is open.

A final point of importance: any chair worth his or her salt will do everything in their power to prepare you for the process and to guide the process as it happens so that you can be protected from the absurd!

 

I have been led to believe that in this sad circumstance, it is considered to be as much a failure for the advisor as for the doctoral candidate. This is because the dissertation advisor is charged with:
1) insuring the quality of the research
2) preparing the candidate for the oral defense
3) working with the commitee and the department to insure a smooth defense
Jack

 

I had a peer who got the big "no". After he picked himself off the floor, he was allowed one second chance to redo the work and defend. It took more than two years to survive the process. Another peer survived the defense, but was required to do a major re-write and return to the committee to defend the changes.

 

To me, it is unconscionable--but utterly routine--for a candidate to get that far and be denied. The committee, which has access to both the candidate and the dissertation prior to the defense, should not come to the meeting and sandbag the candidate like that. Sure, there'll be times when no amount of prior intervention--by the committee or the advisor--can help. But should the defense even happen at that stage?

What could possibly arise during a defense that was (a) unanticipated or unknowable or (b) would really change the outcome?

I wonder how many failures are due to the committee's laziness in doing their homework?

 

To me, it is unconscionable--but utterly routine--for a candidate to get that far and be denied. The committee, which has access to both the candidate and the dissertation prior to the defense, should not come to the meeting and sandbag the candidate like that. Sure, there'll be times when no amount of prior intervention--by the committee or the advisor--can help. But should the defense even happen at that stage?

What could possibly arise during a defense that was (a) unanticipated or unknowable or (b) would really change the outcome?

I wonder how many failures are due to the committee's laziness in doing their homework?

 

Most useful and trenchant replies, guys. Thank you.

 

Story 1: 15 minutes into my 'defense,' my chairman was called away on a family emergency. He scrawled a note, handed it to the 2nd in command, apologized, and left. 4 hours later, after the ordeal, and handshakes, the glass of champagne, and everyone's departure, I went back into the room and retrieved the note the chairman had written, which had been tossed away. "Please give John my apologies for leaving, and my congratulations on having passed."

Story 2: At the start of my wife's session at Vanderbilt, her chairman said, "Marina Bear is here to defend her dissertation..." "No, I'm not," she interrupted. All eyes turned. "I'm here to explain it," she said. And goodness, she needed to, since three of the five faculty had clearly not read it.

Great book, long out of print: Doctors Orals by George Rippey Stewart. Insider's account, by long-time faculty member at Berkeley.

 

Jack Tracey: " I have been led to believe that in this sad circumstance, it is considered to be as much a failure for the advisor as for the doctoral candidate. This is because the dissertation advisor is charged with:
1) insuring the quality of the research
2) preparing the candidate for the oral defense
3) working with the commitee and the department to insure a smooth defense
Jack"



Cehi: You are aboslutely correct that it is much as a failure to the advisor as well. These few cases occur when things just goes wrong such as when a student suddenly, willingly and carelessly deviates from an approved method for a research design for another unapproved method. It is always hoped that nothing would go wrong.

I agree, a good advisor should do everything possible to properly guide his/her student through the defense process for the desired outcome....a yes/pass vote. Thank you, Jack.

 

Here is what NCU prescibes as the outcomes of the oral defense in their dissertation handbook:

After the defense is over, you will be asked to leave the room while your Committee confers about your dissertation and your performance during the defense. When they are finished, one of four results will be announced to you.

1. The dissertation is accepted without revision.

2. The dissertation is accepted with minor revisions, which will be reviewed by your Committee Chair prior to submission for publication.

3. The dissertation is accepted with substantial changes, which require subsequent review by the Dissertation Committee.

4. The dissertation is not accepted at this time. You will be asked to make substantial revisions under the direction of the Dissertation Committee and return for another oral defense.

Although any of the four results is possible, NCU strives to ensure that the first result is achieved. NCU stresses the need for your Committee members to be actively involved in the dissertation process, by providing printed guidelines for a proven dissertation format, and by recommending a sequence of steps for you to follow.

Remember the members of your Dissertation Committee have invested their time, effort and professionalism toward the success of your dissertation and in its defense. They want you to succeed.[COLOR]

 

Binkwile:

Thanks for sharing that. It shows how a school focused on professional and academic success can change the emphasis of the process. Instead of trying to introduce rigor by an unknowable defense process, the school can introduce it by expecting success from its candidates.

It's like military training. When I went through basic training, our instructors would scream all kinds of invectives and were as vulgar and threatening as possible. They don't do that anymore, and still find they're able to train effectively. Go figure.