If you don't have enough time for you dissertation or have any other reason to buy it, you can buy dissertation here. Otherwise use our guide to successful dissertation writing.

Defense of the Thesis or Dissertation

Clarification of Questions

The chairperson is also looked to for clarification of technical or substantive questions on the THESIS AND DISSERTATION and on the examining committee process. For example, if the student's work has been part of a larger program of investigation directed by a faculty member, the degree to which the student has been able to maintain independence would be a reasonable area of inquiry. As another example, suppose the student has made significant use of a consultant from another university. What kind of monitoring has that consultant's participation had from committee members? For a third example, what if the candidate is deaf and will be using an interpreter to facilitate communication during the committee examination session? How can one be certain of accurate interpretation?

It is essential to anticipate such questions and to have explanations readily accessible before the session if one is in the role of chairperson. In cases when the questions are clearly for the candidate, the clarification role of the chairperson may be simply to supply a communication link between a faculty question and a student's attempt to understand the question. In any case, the role of the chairperson does not include answering faculty questions clearly directed at the candidate concerning either the investigation or what the candidate has learned through the program.

Signaling Completion of Examination

There is no magic number of minutes the session is required to last. Based on our data, the total time, from calling the meeting to order to notification of the candidate of the outcome, typically ranges between one and one-half and two and one-half hours. After every faculty member has had a chance to ask questions of the candidate, and the candidate to respond and ask questions, the chairperson should be able to sense that the time for ending the examination is drawing near. The chairperson should then try, without being arbitrary, to bring the session to a close. There are always individuals who may find it difficult to stop talking; dealing with those individuals within the context of an oral examination is the responsibility of the chairperson.

Committee Member Roles

The role of the committee member is to be a judge of quality. Specifically, it is to ascertain if the quality of the THESIS AND DISSERTATION is sufficient to admit the candidate to the ranks of those holding an honors, graduate mas-ter's, or doctoral degree. In our view, this is the essential element of the role. It is carried out in a number of ways.

The oral examination certainly does give the committee a chance to ascertain the quality of the document and the quality of the stu-dent's work. If judgments that influence the outcome go beyond that, the committee is treading on thin ice.

The candidate's lifestyle, political orientation, or championship of popular or unpopular causes all are beyond the purview of the final defense committee with respect to the mores of present-day academia. The issue may seem different, however, if the candidate is known to be engaged in dishonest, unprofessional, or illegal activities. But, even here, committees are reluctant to make judgments, in this situation , on anything very much beyond the written and the oral presentations. They tend to see such judgments as outside their role unless the activities have to do with the research itself.

Committees do assess the depth and range of the candidate's knowledge about the document at hand and the methodology used to do the study. If the candidate cannot answer detailed questions about his or her work, including the review of the literature and the methodology, committee members should delve deeper to ascertain reasons for this apparent ignorance.

One important thing the committee members look for is the congruence between the promises made in the proposal and what appears in the final draft of the study. The committee exercises approval over any changes the student makes in the study plan after the overview committee has met and approved the proposal. If the approved proposal has the attributes of a contract, then both parties must adhere to it. Therefore, the committee will be looking at the final draft to determine if the approved proposal has been carried out in the conduct of the study.

Students sometimes assume that the acceptance of the final draft by the committee for the purpose of the oral examination signals its acceptance as a document of sufficient quality to meet all the requirements of the university and the committee. This is a false assumption. What the committee action means, in fact, is that the members individually have reviewed the draft carefully and are satisfied that it is good enough to provide a basis for an oral examination. Problems that remain with the final draft will be brought out at the examination. They may or may not be communicated to the student or the advisor beforehand. That depends on the time constraints on the individuals, whether there is good communication among them, and whether the problems were actually identified earlier. Some issues do not surface until there is the interplay of minds during the examination itself. In any case, the problems that remain in the draft that goes to the committee will be worked out in committee and may become a part of the substantive revisions that must be made before the document is finally approved.

Role of the Candidate

Preparation is the key to success. The final oral examination is the culmination of a long preparation process. The candidate has been guided in pre-THESIS AND DISSERTATION study by an academic advisor, a person who is usually a member of the committee. The candidate has thoroughly reviewed the literature, designed the methodology, and conducted the study under the guidance of the advisor and committee. Finally, the THESIS AND DISSERTATION was written with the advice and consultation of the whole committee. Every committee member had a chance to see it and comment on it before the final defense meeting. With all that background, there should be no great surprises, and the final defense should go smoothly.Yet, it is not uncommon to find important problems at the end. Why? We have made a list of three main reasons reported by colleagues and from our own experience.

1. The advisor has been misled about how much of the work-the design, the literature review, the data gathering, and analysis (including the knowledge base from which these are drawn)-was really done or understood by the candidate. Because of that, seri ous weaknesses come out at the final oral examination and then are pursued by the committee, often to the point at which it becomes acutely embarrassing and uncomfortable for everyone.

2. The advisor errs in allowing the candidate to come to the final defense before the research is thoroughly and carefully done and before it represents a work of excellence. Sometimes, the candidate is convinced that he or she is ready for the final defense and convinces the advisor of this when, in fact, there is a good deal more work to do. Often, there is pressure of time, such as a statute of limitations, a baby due, an upcoming job in another city, or a tenure decision to be made on the candidate who is a faculty member at another institution. Sometimes, there is simply a factor of fatigue, when the advisor and the student have revised the work over and over again and, in effect, throw themselves on the mercy of the committee.

3. Occasionally, the candidate is unrealistic in assessing personal skills, ability, commitment, or the amount of time and detailed work required to complete the THESIS AND DISSERTATION, and the advisor is unsuccessful in communicating with the candidate about the problems. The advisor then decides to bring the full force of committee rejection to bear to convince the candidate.

The role of the candidate in the final defense meeting is important. In our view, the role is one of openness , honesty , and mature expertise. Openness about the data and problems of the study is the only ethical way to approach this final test. Honesty is the one most important attribute of a researcher. Maturity motivates candidates to do their own work, accept the responsibility for all that was done in the study, live up to the promises made at the time of the proposal, and treat colleagues in an ethical and unbiased, objective manner.

Responsiveness of a positive, constructive kind is another essential attribute. The final defense is not the place to become “defensive.” It is a time for calm, reasoned responses to questions or suggestions. When a response is appropriate, a direct, to-the-point answer is usually best. There is nothing fatal about a straight “I don't know” when that is the simple truth, either, although that response often should not be necessary. In most cases, the candidate's thorough knowledge of a fairly specialized subject area means that the candidate has the most expert knowledge in the committee room. There is no reason, though, for the candidate to flaunt that knowledge. Such behavior is unnecessary and dysfunctional. The time for the candidate to expound with great erudition and wisdom is (if at all) after the awarding of the degree, not during the defense of the research for the degree.

In addition to responding to questions and comments of the committee, the candidate's role includes that of note taker regarding changes suggested by the committee during the oral examination. Sometimes, this responsibility can be delegated to a fellow graduate student who is sitting in on the oral examination. The chairperson and committee members take notes, too. In any case, the responsibility lies with the candidate to see that, in one way or another, the job is done. Remember, too, that not all changes proposed during the examination survive the critical appraisal of the full committee during the committee's end-of-session deliberations. It is what is conveyed to the candidate by the chairperson after the examination that really counts as far as required changes are concerned. It is the candidate's role to raise any question if suggestions for change agreed on in committee are not clear. It is also within the student's role to defend against suggested changes in the THESIS AND DISSERTATION that seem unfair, inconsistent with the promises of the research proposal or overview, unethical, or untenable in light of the research. Of course, one would want to be very careful in resisting suggested changes, and perhaps substantial reliance on the views of the chairperson would be appropriate at this point. In our experience, however, there have been very few cases in which a final defense committee suggested a change that was not also seen as desirable by the candidate.

All the above chores are simplified if a voice-activated tape recorder is switched on during the examination. It may be under the control of the chairperson, with the tape remaining in that person's custody. It could then be listened to by the candidate afterward for the purpose of ensuring that the committee's requirements regarding changes and additions are clearly understood and verified.

DECISION MAKING REGARDING THE ORAL DEFENSE

Applying Criteria for Approval

The criteria for approval the committee uses should be made explicit. The THESIS AND DISSERTATION evaluation form (Fig. 5-1) was designed to help achieve that purpose. It is useful both at this point as a last-minute check before the final defense and earlier in the THESIS AND DISSERTATION process as the draft version is being written. It seems essential to us that all criteria that have significant weight be stated on the THESIS AND DISSERTATION evaluation form. The committee owes that to the candidate, to the institution, and to themselves.

Ambiguities and hidden agendas create misunderstandings and disputes; clarity and openness help to prevent them. We recommend the THESIS AND DISSERTATION evaluation form at this point as a summative evaluation form as we recommended it for formative evaluation throughout the preparation phases.

Conditional Approval

There are two forms of conditional approval. If the document is acceptable but minor revisions are needed, the committee will simply indicate where changes should be made and rely on the candidate and the research advisor to make the alterations. Under these circumstances, the candidate makes the minor revisions, submits them for a final review by the research advisor, and then circulates the corrected copy to the committee. Committee members sign and the chairperson sends the document to the appropriate university office.

The second level of provisional approval is much more tentative. It may be used with a final draft that has major problems, but ones that the candidate understands and can probably clear up in a reasonable time. In this case, the candidate is instructed to carry out the major changes and to bring the complete THESIS AND DISSERTATION or the altered portions back to a committee meeting or for approval by individual members. This form of provisional approval is short of failure, but if the revisions are not a sufficient improvement over what the committee reviewed at the oral examination, the candidate simply does not pass.

The process of getting back to the committee varies, but in any case, the responsibility is on the candidate to make the substantial revisions on a timely basis and get them to the advisor and, after advisor approval, back to the committee. In such cases, individual committee members do not sign the approval form until completely satisfied that the revised document reflects credit on the candidate, the advisor, the committee, and the university.

Formal Voting

Practice varies from institution to institution, but usually a final oral committee is comprised of an odd number of members, which implies that a vote, if taken, should not be a tie. Usually, only members of the graduate faculty may vote, although others, even from outside the institution, may serve on the committee. Whether the chairperson votes depends on the institution, as does the issue of whether a passing vote must be unanimous, simply a majority, or a specified number of votes.

Our experience and research indicate that there is seldom an issue about the vote. The committee tends to work as a group and, with the help of the chairperson, arrives at a consensus acceptable to all. If one member, or a minority of members, is adamant about a point or decision, usually the committee hears all the arguments, weighs the issues, and comes to a conclusion that seems fair.

A committee can be persuaded to take an action by one member if that member's arguments are good enough and if those arguments support fairness and the concept of high quality in graduate research standards. Usually, the committee chairperson knows what the formal votes will be before passing the official approval form around because agreement on the wisest course of action has been reached by voice vote in committee. When the committee members sign the formal approval form, they are, however, casting formal votes that become a matter of record and for which they are accountable.

Notification and Interpretation to the Candidate

At the end of the oral defense, the candidate should clearly understand the decision of the committee. Sometimes, that decision has to be interpreted to the student. The situation may be stressful, or the student may simply not understand the implications of the decision.

A common point of misunderstanding, we have found, is when the committee is calling for major revisions and the student hears the call in terms of minor modifications that can be accomplished in a short time. Committees usually remain calm and quiet, at least in front of the candidate, and speak in low tones and short sentences. The atmosphere of the final defense session may mislead the candidate to believe everything is going well when in fact it is not.

The research advisor ought to make clear to the student at the end of the meeting the decision of the committee. A good procedure is to have the candidate recount what was decided and what changes are being required in the draft. Further sessions should also be scheduled with the advisor and, if advisable, with individual committee members to check progress. This keeps the candidate focused on the future rather than on rehashing the committee meeting. Some self-pity is natural and human, particularly if the final oral examination did not go well, but it is dysfunctional. It is best for the candidate to start immediately on what remains to be done.

FOLLOW-UP AFTER APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL

Usually, the follow-up period is one of extremes of feeling on the part of the candidate. If the study is approved, the candidate may be so happy that it is easy to forget to make the revisions and do the other procedural things that are necessary before graduation is a reality. If the results of the oral examination seemed disastrous, the candidate may understandably exhibit avoidance behavior with respect to the whole process and everyone attached to it. Neither extreme is functional or task oriented with respect to reaching that difficult, time-consuming goal everyone agreed to at the beginning. The thing to do is to start picking up the pieces immediately.

Candidate and Research Advisor's Roles

Whatever happened at the defense, the advisor's role is to help the candidate calm down, reassess, reevaluate, and redirect toward what ever it takes to reach the goal. Failing the oral defense is not necessarily irretrievably final.

Candidates have renegotiated with their committee and redone the same or different research with success. It takes more time. Sometimes, it means learning new skills, taking additional courses, and the appointment of a new committee, but it can be and often has been done.

On the other hand, it may be that the candidate cannot muster the resources, cannot take the time, or is too discouraged to begin again. In that case, the advisor has a counseling role to help the candidate arrive at a realistic self-perception. It may also be possible for the candidate to do better in another department or another university or school.

Even when the THESIS AND DISSERTATION has been approved, there are usually some revisions to make, and sometimes these are substantial. All of the rules of the university, too, concerning the filing of abstracts, corrected copies, and binding as well as rules concerning the mechanics of actually becoming a graduate of the university, have to be followed after the successful examination session. Both the candidate and the advisor have to guard against the temptation to let things slide because the major work has been done. For both, whether the time is one of sadness after disapproval or happiness after approval, this period is one that should be devoted to reexamination of original goals, the determination of the relevancy of these goals in light of the final defense committee's decision, and, if appropriate, the renewed determination to reach the goals.

Disseminating the Results of the Study

In major universities, dissertations are copyrighted, microfilmed, and indexed in Dissertation Abstracts . There is a fee attached to these services. The copyright is designed to protect the author's work from use by others without permission. Microfilming and indexing the document through the University Microfilms process makes it available to other scholars and to libraries for review and even purchase. In using University Microfilms, the author agrees to permit these uses and, under certain circumstances, receives a royalty. The author is often offered the opportunity to have the dissertation listed in the sur vey of earned doctorates awarded in the United States , and these forms are available at universities that grant earned doctorates.

University Microfilms will make available to authors printed copies of the abstract of the dissertation written by the author. These abstracts can be used effectively to disseminate the results of the study. In some cases, a dissertation will be accepted for inclusion in one of the storage and retrieval systems mentioned above. This can bring wide dissemination. Abstracts may also be sent to professional societies having a professional interest in the subject of the dissertation for printing in their publications.

Professional societies provide another dissemination opportunity. In almost every case there are annual meetings where authors read papers. There are journals and reviews of research that publish not only some of the papers given at the annual meetings, but also manuscripts submitted for review by the journal. While a journal would rarely publish a whole thesis or dissertation as such, it may be happy to publish an article or chapter from one. For publication, revision is usually necessary to make the work fit into the style and format of the journal.

We recommend using the professional societies for dissemination purposes because the process not only makes the study available to others, but also contributes to the recognition, security, and standing of the author. In fact, we recommend that the advisor and candidate explore the possibility of sharing findings, when appropriate, even before the completion of the THESIS AND DISSERTATION. For a student to give a paper at an academic or professional meeting is a great learning experience. Often, the help of the research advisor is critical to providing the opportunity.

Finally, there are some investigations that by their nature lend themselves to publication commercially. Historical studies, for example, sometimes find their way into a book or a number of articles. If the work has enough general interest or is topical at the time of publication, it may be successful commercially. This means it will sell as a general work, as a textbook, or as a professional work of merit. In this case, the author may be on the way to more publications and some success as a writer. All of these possibilities are addressed in more detail in the next chapter.

SUMMARY

This chapter explains the process of THESIS AND DISSERTATION defense, including the oral examination, suggestions for preparing the examining committee session, and the conduct of the oral examination. The kinds of decisions and how they may be arrived at are discussed. Finally, the need for follow-up after the final defense and the need to disseminate results are described.