doctoral dissertation defence

Defending Your Dissertation: A Guide

Written by Luke Wink-Moran | Photo by insta_photos

Dissertation defenses are daunting, and no wonder; it’s not a “dissertation discussion,” or a “dissertation dialogue.” The name alone implies that the dissertation you’ve spent the last x number of years working on is subject to attack. And if you don’t feel trepidation for semantic reasons, you might be nervous because you don’t know what to expect. Our imaginations are great at making The Unknown scarier than reality. The good news is that you’ll find in this newsletter article experts who can shed light on what dissertations defenses are really like, and what you can do to prepare for them.

The first thing you should know is that your defense has already begun. It started the minute you began working on your dissertation— maybe even in some of the classes you took beforehand that helped you formulate your ideas. This, according to Dr. Celeste Atkins, is why it’s so important to identify a good mentor early in graduate school.

“To me,” noted Dr. Atkins, who wrote her dissertation on how sociology faculty from traditionally marginalized backgrounds teach about privilege and inequality, “the most important part of the doctoral journey was finding an advisor who understood and supported what I wanted from my education and who was willing to challenge me and push me, while not delaying me.  I would encourage future PhDs to really take the time to get to know the faculty before choosing an advisor and to make sure that the members of their committee work well together.”

Your advisor will be the one who helps you refine arguments and strengthen your work so that by the time it reaches your dissertation committee, it’s ready. Next comes the writing process, which many students have said was the hardest part of their PhD. I’ve included this section on the writing process because this is where you’ll create all the material you’ll present during your defense, so it’s important to navigate it successfully. The writing process is intellectually grueling, it eats time and energy, and it’s where many students find themselves paddling frantically to avoid languishing in the “All-But-Dissertation” doldrums. The writing process is also likely to encroach on other parts of your life. For instance, Dr. Cynthia Trejo wrote her dissertation on college preparation for Latin American students while caring for a twelve-year-old, two adult children, and her aging parents—in the middle of a pandemic. When I asked Dr. Trejo how she did this, she replied:

“I don’t take the privilege of education for granted. My son knew I got up at 4:00 a.m. every morning, even on weekends, even on holidays; and it’s a blessing that he’s seen that work ethic and that dedication and the end result.”

Importantly, Dr. Trejo also exercised regularly and joined several online writing groups at UArizona. She mobilized her support network— her partner, parents, and even friends from high school to help care for her son.

The challenges you face during the writing process can vary by discipline. Jessika Iwanski is an MD/PhD student who in 2022 defended her dissertation on genetic mutations in sarcomeric proteins that lead to severe, neonatal dilated cardiomyopathy. She described her writing experience as “an intricate process of balancing many things at once with a deadline (defense day) that seems to be creeping up faster and faster— finishing up experiments, drafting the dissertation, preparing your presentation, filling out all the necessary documents for your defense and also, for MD/PhD students, beginning to reintegrate into the clinical world (reviewing your clinical knowledge and skill sets)!”

But no matter what your unique challenges are, writing a dissertation can take a toll on your mental health. Almost every student I spoke with said they saw a therapist and found their sessions enormously helpful. They also looked to the people in their lives for support. Dr. Betsy Labiner, who wrote her dissertation on Interiority, Truth, and Violence in Early Modern Drama, recommended, “Keep your loved ones close! This is so hard – the dissertation lends itself to isolation, especially in the final stages. Plus, a huge number of your family and friends simply won’t understand what you’re going through. But they love you and want to help and are great for getting you out of your head and into a space where you can enjoy life even when you feel like your dissertation is a flaming heap of trash.”

While you might sometimes feel like your dissertation is a flaming heap of trash, remember: a) no it’s not, you brilliant scholar, and b) the best dissertations aren’t necessarily perfect dissertations. According to Dr. Trejo, “The best dissertation is a done dissertation.” So don’t get hung up on perfecting every detail of your work. Think of your dissertation as a long-form assignment that you need to finish in order to move onto the next stage of your career. Many students continue revising after graduation and submit their work for publication or other professional objectives.

When you do finish writing your dissertation, it’s time to schedule your defense and invite friends and family to the part of the exam that’s open to the public. When that moment comes, how do you prepare to present your work and field questions about it?

“I reread my dissertation in full in one sitting,” said Dr. Labiner. “During all my time writing it, I’d never read more than one complete chapter at a time! It was a huge confidence boost to read my work in full and realize that I had produced a compelling, engaging, original argument.”

There are many other ways to prepare: create presentation slides and practice presenting them to friends or alone; think of questions you might be asked and answer them; think about what you want to wear or where you might want to sit (if you’re presenting on Zoom) that might give you a confidence boost. Iwanksi practiced presenting with her mentor and reviewed current papers to anticipate what questions her committee might ask.  If you want to really get in the zone, you can emulate Dr. Labiner and do a full dress rehearsal on Zoom the day before your defense.

But no matter what you do, you’ll still be nervous:

“I had a sense of the logistics, the timing, and so on, but I didn’t really have clear expectations outside of the structure. It was a sort of nebulous three hours in which I expected to be nauseatingly terrified,” recalled Dr. Labiner.

“I expected it to be terrifying, with lots of difficult questions and constructive criticism/comments given,” agreed Iwanski.

“I expected it to be very scary,” said Dr. Trejo.

“I expected it to be like I was on trial, and I’d have to defend myself and prove I deserved a PhD,” said Dr Atkins.

And, eventually, inexorably, it will be time to present.  

“It was actually very enjoyable” said Iwanski. “It was more of a celebration of years of work put into this project—not only by me but by my mentor, colleagues, lab members and collaborators! I felt very supported by all my committee members and, rather than it being a rapid fire of questions, it was more of a scientific discussion amongst colleagues who are passionate about heart disease and muscle biology.”

“I was anxious right when I logged on to the Zoom call for it,” said Dr. Labiner, “but I was blown away by the number of family and friends that showed up to support me. I had invited a lot of people who I didn’t at all think would come, but every single person I invited was there! Having about 40 guests – many of them joining from different states and several from different countries! – made me feel so loved and celebrated that my nerves were steadied very quickly. It also helped me go into ‘teaching mode’ about my work, so it felt like getting to lead a seminar on my most favorite literature.”

“In reality, my dissertation defense was similar to presenting at an academic conference,” said Dr. Atkins. “I went over my research in a practiced and organized way, and I fielded questions from the audience.

“It was a celebration and an important benchmark for me,” said Dr. Trejo. “It was a pretty happy day. Like the punctuation at the end of your sentence: this sentence is done; this journey is done. You can start the next sentence.”

If you want to learn more about dissertations in your own discipline, don’t hesitate to reach out to graduates from your program and ask them about their experiences. If you’d like to avail yourself of some of the resources that helped students in this article while they wrote and defended their dissertations, check out these links:

The Graduate Writing Lab

https://thinktank.arizona.edu/writing-center/graduate-writing-lab

The Writing Skills Improvement Program

https://wsip.arizona.edu

Campus Health Counseling and Psych Services

https://caps.arizona.edu

https://www.scribbr.com/

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

PhD Defence Process: A Comprehensive Guide

Embarking on the journey toward a PhD is an intellectual odyssey marked by tireless research, countless hours of contemplation, and a fervent commitment to contributing to the body of knowledge in one’s field. As the culmination of this formidable journey, the PhD defence stands as the final frontier, the proverbial bridge between student and scholar.

In this comprehensive guide, we unravel the intricacies of the PhD defence—a momentous occasion that is both a celebration of scholarly achievement and a rigorous evaluation of academic prowess. Join us as we explore the nuances of the defence process, addressing questions about its duration, contemplating the possibility of failure, and delving into the subtle distinctions of language that surround it.

Beyond the formalities, we aim to shed light on the significance of this rite of passage, dispelling misconceptions about its nature. Moreover, we’ll consider the impact of one’s attire on this critical day and share personal experiences and practical tips from those who have successfully navigated the defence journey.

Whether you are on the precipice of your own defence or are simply curious about the process, this guide seeks to demystify the PhD defence, providing a roadmap for success and a nuanced understanding of the pivotal event that marks the transition from student to scholar.

Introduction

A. definition and purpose:, b. overview of the oral examination:, a. general duration of a typical defense, b. factors influencing the duration:, c. preparation and flexibility:, a. preparation and thorough understanding of the research:, b. handling questions effectively:, c. confidence and composure during the presentation:, d. posture of continuous improvement:, a. exploring the possibility of failure:, b. common reasons for failure:, c. steps to mitigate the risk of failure:, d. post-failure resilience:, a. addressing the language variation:, b. conforming to regional preferences:, c. consistency in usage:, d. flexibility and adaptability:, e. navigating language in a globalized academic landscape:, a. debunking myths around the formality of the defense:, b. significance in validating research contributions:, c. post-defense impact:, a. appropriate attire for different settings:, b. professionalism and the impact of appearance:, c. practical tips for dressing success:, b. practical tips for a successful defense:, c. post-defense reflections:, career options after phd.

Embarking on the doctoral journey is a formidable undertaking, where aspiring scholars immerse themselves in the pursuit of knowledge, contributing new insights to their respective fields. At the pinnacle of this academic odyssey lies the PhD defence—a culmination that transcends the boundaries of a mere formality, symbolizing the transformation from a student of a discipline to a recognized contributor to the academic tapestry.

The PhD defence, also known as the viva voce or oral examination, is a pivotal moment in the life of a doctoral candidate.

PhD defence is not merely a ritualistic ceremony; rather, it serves as a platform for scholars to present, defend, and elucidate the findings and implications of their research. The defence is the crucible where ideas are tested, hypotheses scrutinized, and the depth of scholarly understanding is laid bare.

The importance of the PhD defence reverberates throughout the academic landscape. It is not just a capstone event; it is the juncture where academic rigour meets real-world application. The defence is the litmus test of a researcher’s ability to articulate, defend, and contextualize their work—an evaluation that extends beyond the pages of a dissertation.

Beyond its evaluative nature, the defence serves as a rite of passage, validating the years of dedication, perseverance, and intellectual rigour invested in the research endeavour. Success in the defence is a testament to the candidate’s mastery of their subject matter and the originality and impact of their contributions to the academic community.

Furthermore, a successful defence paves the way for future contributions, positioning the scholar as a recognized authority in their field. The defence is not just an endpoint; it is a launchpad, propelling researchers into the next phase of their academic journey as they continue to shape and redefine the boundaries of knowledge.

In essence, the PhD defence is more than a ceremonial checkpoint—it is a transformative experience that validates the intellectual journey, underscores the significance of scholarly contributions, and sets the stage for a continued legacy of academic excellence. As we navigate the intricacies of this process, we invite you to explore the multifaceted dimensions that make the PhD defence an indispensable chapter in the narrative of academic achievement.

What is a PhD Defence?

At its core, a PhD defence is a rigorous and comprehensive examination that marks the culmination of a doctoral candidate’s research journey. It is an essential component of the doctoral process in which the candidate is required to defend their dissertation before a committee of experts in the field. The defence serves multiple purposes, acting as both a showcase of the candidate’s work and an evaluative measure of their understanding, critical thinking, and contributions to the academic domain.

The primary goals of a PhD defence include:

• Presentation of Research: The candidate presents the key findings, methodology, and significance of their research.
• Demonstration of Mastery: The defence assesses the candidate’s depth of understanding, mastery of the subject matter, and ability to engage in scholarly discourse.
• Critical Examination: Committee members rigorously question the candidate, challenging assumptions, testing methodologies, and probing the boundaries of the research.
• Validation of Originality: The defence validates the originality and contribution of the candidate’s work to the existing body of knowledge.

The PhD defence often takes the form of an oral examination, commonly referred to as the viva voce. This oral component adds a dynamic and interactive dimension to the evaluation process. Key elements of the oral examination include:

• Presentation: The candidate typically begins with a formal presentation, summarizing the dissertation’s main components, methodology, and findings. This presentation is an opportunity to showcase the significance and novelty of the research.
• Questioning and Discussion: Following the presentation, the candidate engages in a thorough questioning session with the examination committee. Committee members explore various aspects of the research, challenging the candidates to articulate their rationale, defend their conclusions, and respond to critiques.
• Defence of Methodology: The candidate is often required to defend the chosen research methodology, demonstrating its appropriateness, rigour, and contribution to the field.
• Evaluation of Contributions: Committee members assess the originality and impact of the candidate’s contributions to the academic discipline, seeking to understand how the research advances existing knowledge.

The oral examination is not a mere formality; it is a dynamic exchange that tests the candidate’s intellectual acumen, research skills, and capacity to contribute meaningfully to the scholarly community.

In essence, the PhD defence is a comprehensive and interactive evaluation that encapsulates the essence of a candidate’s research journey, demanding a synthesis of knowledge, clarity of expression, and the ability to navigate the complexities of academic inquiry. As we delve into the specifics of the defence process, we will unravel the layers of preparation and skill required to navigate this transformative academic milestone.

How Long is a PhD Defence?

The duration of a PhD defence can vary widely, but it typically ranges from two to three hours. This time frame encompasses the candidate’s presentation of their research, questioning and discussions with the examination committee, and any additional deliberations or decisions by the committee. However, it’s essential to note that this is a general guideline, and actual defence durations may vary based on numerous factors.

• Sciences and Engineering: Defenses in these fields might lean towards the shorter end of the spectrum, often around two hours. The focus is often on the methodology, results, and technical aspects.
• Humanities and Social Sciences: Given the theoretical and interpretive nature of research in these fields, defences might extend closer to three hours or more. Discussions may delve into philosophical underpinnings and nuanced interpretations.
• Simple vs. Complex Studies: The complexity of the research itself plays a role. Elaborate experiments, extensive datasets, or intricate theoretical frameworks may necessitate a more extended defence.
• Number of Committee Members: A larger committee or one with diverse expertise may lead to more extensive discussions and varied perspectives, potentially elongating the defence.
• Committee Engagement: The level of engagement and probing by committee members can influence the overall duration. In-depth discussions or debates may extend the defence time.
• Cultural Norms: In some countries, the oral defence might be more ceremonial, with less emphasis on intense questioning. In others, a rigorous and extended defence might be the norm.
• Evaluation Practices: Different academic systems have varying evaluation criteria, which can impact the duration of the defence.
• Institutional Guidelines: Some institutions may have specific guidelines on defence durations, influencing the overall time allotted for the process.

Candidates should be well-prepared for a defence of any duration. Adequate preparation not only involves a concise presentation of the research but also anticipates potential questions and engages in thoughtful discussions. Additionally, candidates should be flexible and responsive to the dynamics of the defense, adapting to the pace set by the committee.

Success Factors in a PhD Defence

• Successful defence begins with a deep and comprehensive understanding of the research. Candidates should be well-versed in every aspect of their study, from the theoretical framework to the methodology and findings.
• Thorough preparation involves anticipating potential questions from the examination committee. Candidates should consider the strengths and limitations of their research and be ready to address queries related to methodology, data analysis, and theoretical underpinnings.
• Conducting mock defences with peers or mentors can be invaluable. It helps refine the presentation, exposes potential areas of weakness, and provides an opportunity to practice responding to challenging questions.
• Actively listen to questions without interruption. Understanding the nuances of each question is crucial for providing precise and relevant responses.
• Responses should be clear, concise, and directly address the question. Avoid unnecessary jargon, and strive to convey complex concepts in a manner that is accessible to the entire committee.
• It’s acceptable not to have all the answers. If faced with a question that stumps you, acknowledge it honestly. Expressing a willingness to explore the topic further demonstrates intellectual humility.
• Use questions as opportunities to reinforce key messages from the research. Skillfully link responses back to the core contributions of the study, emphasizing its significance.
• Rehearse the presentation multiple times to build familiarity with the material. This enhances confidence, reduces nervousness, and ensures a smooth and engaging delivery.
• Maintain confident and open body language. Stand tall, make eye contact, and use gestures judiciously. A composed demeanour contributes to a positive impression.
• Acknowledge and manage nervousness. It’s natural to feel some anxiety, but channelling that energy into enthusiasm for presenting your research can turn nervousness into a positive force.
• Engage with the committee through a dynamic and interactive presentation. Invite questions during the presentation to create a more conversational atmosphere.
• Utilize visual aids effectively. Slides or other visual elements should complement the spoken presentation, reinforcing key points without overwhelming the audience.
• View the defence not only as an evaluation but also as an opportunity for continuous improvement. Feedback received during the defence can inform future research endeavours and scholarly pursuits.

In essence, success in a PhD defence hinges on meticulous preparation, adept handling of questions, and projecting confidence and composure during the presentation. A well-prepared and resilient candidate is better positioned to navigate the challenges of the defence, transforming it from a moment of evaluation into an affirmation of scholarly achievement.

Failure in PhD Defence

• While the prospect of failing a PhD defence is relatively rare, it’s essential for candidates to acknowledge that the possibility exists. Understanding this reality can motivate diligent preparation and a proactive approach to mitigate potential risks.
• Failure, if it occurs, should be seen as a learning opportunity rather than a definitive endpoint. It may highlight areas for improvement and offer insights into refining the research and presentation.
• Lack of thorough preparation, including a weak grasp of the research content, inadequate rehearsal, and failure to anticipate potential questions, can contribute to failure.
• Inability to effectively defend the chosen research methodology, including justifying its appropriateness and demonstrating its rigour, can be a critical factor.
• Failing to clearly articulate the original contributions of the research and its significance to the field may lead to a negative assessment.
• Responding defensively to questions, exhibiting a lack of openness to critique, or being unwilling to acknowledge limitations can impact the overall impression.
• Inability to address committee concerns or incorporate constructive feedback received during the defense may contribute to a negative outcome.
• Comprehensive preparation is the cornerstone of success. Candidates should dedicate ample time to understanding every facet of their research, conducting mock defences, and seeking feedback.
• Identify potential weaknesses in the research and address them proactively. Being aware of limitations and articulating plans for addressing them in future work demonstrates foresight.
• Engage with mentors, peers, or advisors before the defence. Solicit constructive feedback on both the content and delivery of the presentation to refine and strengthen the defence.
• Develop strategies to manage stress and nervousness. Techniques such as mindfulness, deep breathing, or visualization can be effective in maintaining composure during the defence.
• Conduct a pre-defense review of all materials, ensuring that the presentation aligns with the dissertation and that visual aids are clear and supportive.
• Approach the defence with an open and reflective attitude. Embrace critique as an opportunity for improvement rather than as a personal affront.
• Clarify expectations with the examination committee beforehand. Understanding the committee’s focus areas and preferences can guide preparation efforts.
• In the event of failure, candidates should approach the situation with resilience. Seek feedback from the committee, understand the reasons for the outcome, and use the experience as a springboard for improvement.

In summary, while the prospect of failing a PhD defence is uncommon, acknowledging its possibility and taking proactive steps to mitigate risks are crucial elements of a well-rounded defence strategy. By addressing common failure factors through thorough preparation, openness to critique, and a resilient attitude, candidates can increase their chances of a successful defence outcome.

PhD Defense or Defence?

• The choice between “defense” and “defence” is primarily a matter of British English versus American English spelling conventions. “Defense” is the preferred spelling in American English, while “defence” is the British English spelling.
• In the global academic community, both spellings are generally understood and accepted. However, the choice of spelling may be influenced by the academic institution’s language conventions or the preferences of individual scholars.
• Academic institutions may have specific guidelines regarding language conventions, and candidates are often expected to adhere to the institution’s preferred spelling.
• Candidates may also consider the preferences of their advisors or committee members. If there is a consistent spelling convention used within the academic department, it is advisable to align with those preferences.
• Consideration should be given to the spelling conventions of scholarly journals in the candidate’s field. If intending to publish research stemming from the dissertation, aligning with the conventions of target journals is prudent.
• If the defense presentation or dissertation will be shared with an international audience, using a more universally recognized spelling (such as “defense”) may be preferred to ensure clarity and accessibility.
• Regardless of the chosen spelling, it’s crucial to maintain consistency throughout the document. Mixing spellings can distract from the content and may be perceived as an oversight.
• In oral presentations and written correspondence related to the defence, including emails, it’s advisable to maintain consistency with the chosen spelling to present a professional and polished image.
• Recognizing that language conventions can vary, candidates should approach the choice of spelling with flexibility. Being adaptable to the preferences of the academic context and demonstrating an awareness of regional variations reflects a nuanced understanding of language usage.
• With the increasing globalization of academia, an awareness of language variations becomes essential. Scholars often collaborate across borders, and an inclusive approach to language conventions contributes to effective communication and collaboration.

In summary, the choice between “PhD defense” and “PhD defence” boils down to regional language conventions and institutional preferences. Maintaining consistency, being mindful of the target audience, and adapting to the expectations of the academic community contribute to a polished and professional presentation, whether in written documents or oral defences.

Is PhD Defense a Formality?

• While the PhD defence is a structured and ritualistic event, it is far from being a mere formality. It is a critical and substantive part of the doctoral journey, designed to rigorously evaluate the candidate’s research contributions, understanding of the field, and ability to engage in scholarly discourse.
• The defence is not a checkbox to be marked but rather a dynamic process where the candidate’s research is evaluated for its scholarly merit. The committee scrutinizes the originality, significance, and methodology of the research, aiming to ensure it meets the standards of advanced academic work.
• Far from a passive or purely ceremonial event, the defence involves active engagement between the candidate and the examination committee. Questions, discussions, and debates are integral components that enrich the scholarly exchange during the defence.
• The defence serves as a platform for the candidate to demonstrate the originality of their research. Committee members assess the novelty of the contributions, ensuring that the work adds value to the existing body of knowledge.
• Beyond the content, the defence evaluates the methodological rigour of the research. Committee members assess whether the chosen methodology is appropriate, well-executed, and contributes to the validity of the findings.
• Successful completion of the defence affirms the candidate’s ability to contribute meaningfully to the academic discourse in their field. It is an endorsement of the candidate’s position as a knowledgeable and respected scholar.
• The defence process acts as a quality assurance mechanism in academia. It ensures that individuals awarded a doctoral degree have undergone a thorough and rigorous evaluation, upholding the standards of excellence in research and scholarly inquiry.
• Institutions have specific criteria and standards for awarding a PhD. The defence process aligns with these institutional and academic standards, providing a consistent and transparent mechanism for evaluating candidates.
• Successful completion of the defence is a pivotal moment that marks the transition from a doctoral candidate to a recognized scholar. It opens doors to further contributions, collaborations, and opportunities within the academic community.
• Research presented during the defence often forms the basis for future publications. The validation received in the defence enhances the credibility of the research, facilitating its dissemination and impact within the academic community.
• Beyond the academic realm, a successfully defended PhD is a key credential for professional advancement. It enhances one’s standing in the broader professional landscape, opening doors to research positions, teaching opportunities, and leadership roles.

In essence, the PhD defence is a rigorous and meaningful process that goes beyond formalities, playing a crucial role in affirming the academic merit of a candidate’s research and marking the culmination of their journey toward scholarly recognition.

Dressing for Success: PhD Defense Outfit

• For Men: A well-fitted suit in neutral colours (black, navy, grey), a collared dress shirt, a tie, and formal dress shoes.
• For Women: A tailored suit, a blouse or button-down shirt, and closed-toe dress shoes.
• Dress codes can vary based on cultural expectations. It’s advisable to be aware of any cultural nuances within the academic institution and to adapt attire accordingly.
• With the rise of virtual defenses, considerations for attire remain relevant. Even in online settings, dressing professionally contributes to a polished and serious demeanor. Virtual attire can mirror what one would wear in-person, focusing on the upper body visible on camera.
• The attire chosen for a PhD defense contributes to the first impression that a candidate makes on the examination committee. A professional and polished appearance sets a positive tone for the defense.
• Dressing appropriately reflects respect for the gravity of the occasion. It acknowledges the significance of the defense as a formal evaluation of one’s scholarly contributions.
• Wearing professional attire can contribute to a boost in confidence. When individuals feel well-dressed and put-together, it can positively impact their mindset and overall presentation.
• The PhD defense is a serious academic event, and dressing professionally fosters an atmosphere of seriousness and commitment to the scholarly process. It aligns with the respect one accords to academic traditions.
• Institutional norms may influence dress expectations. Some academic institutions may have specific guidelines regarding attire for formal events, and candidates should be aware of and adhere to these norms.
• While adhering to the formality expected in academic settings, individuals can also express their personal style within the bounds of professionalism. It’s about finding a balance between institutional expectations and personal comfort.
• Select and prepare the outfit well in advance to avoid last-minute stress. Ensure that the attire is clean, well-ironed, and in good condition.
• Accessories such as ties, scarves, or jewelry should complement the outfit. However, it’s advisable to keep accessories subtle to maintain a professional appearance.
• While dressing professionally, prioritize comfort. PhD defenses can be mentally demanding, and comfortable attire can contribute to a more confident and composed demeanor.
• Pay attention to grooming, including personal hygiene and haircare. A well-groomed appearance contributes to an overall polished look.
• Start preparation well in advance of the defense date. Know your research inside out, anticipate potential questions, and be ready to discuss the nuances of your methodology, findings, and contributions.
• Conduct mock defenses with peers, mentors, or colleagues. Mock defenses provide an opportunity to receive constructive feedback, practice responses to potential questions, and refine your presentation.
• Strike a balance between confidence and humility. Confidence in presenting your research is essential, but being open to acknowledging limitations and areas for improvement demonstrates intellectual honesty.
• Actively engage with the examination committee during the defense. Listen carefully to questions, respond thoughtfully, and view the defense as a scholarly exchange rather than a mere formality.
• Understand the expertise and backgrounds of the committee members. Tailor your presentation and responses to align with the interests and expectations of your specific audience.
• Practice time management during your presentation. Ensure that you allocate sufficient time to cover key aspects of your research, leaving ample time for questions and discussions.
• It’s normal to feel nervous, but practicing mindfulness and staying calm under pressure is crucial. Take deep breaths, maintain eye contact, and focus on delivering a clear and composed presentation.
• Have a plan for post-defense activities. Whether it’s revisions to the dissertation, publications, or future research endeavors, having a roadmap for what comes next demonstrates foresight and commitment to ongoing scholarly contributions.
• After successfully defending, individuals often emphasize the importance of taking time to reflect on the entire doctoral journey. Acknowledge personal and academic growth, celebrate achievements, and use the experience to inform future scholarly pursuits.

In summary, learning from the experiences of others who have successfully defended offers a wealth of practical wisdom. These insights, combined with thoughtful preparation and a proactive approach, contribute to a successful and fulfilling defense experience.

You have plenty of career options after completing a PhD. For more details, visit my blog posts:

7 Essential Steps for Building a Robust Research Portfolio

Exciting Career Opportunities for PhD Researchers and Research Scholars

Freelance Writing or Editing Opportunities for Researchers A Comprehensive Guide

Research Consultancy: An Alternate Career for Researchers

The Insider’s Guide to Becoming a Patent Agent: Opportunities, Requirements, and Challenges

The journey from a curious researcher to a recognized scholar culminates in the PhD defence—an intellectual odyssey marked by dedication, resilience, and a relentless pursuit of knowledge. As we navigate the intricacies of this pivotal event, it becomes evident that the PhD defence is far more than a ceremonial rite; it is a substantive evaluation that validates the contributions of a researcher to the academic landscape.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Recent Posts

• Best 05 Research Journals for Publications in September 2024
• Best 5 Journals for Quick Review and High Impact in August 2024
• 05 Quick Review, High Impact, Best Research Journals for Submissions for July 2024
• Top Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Research Paper
• Average Stipend for Research/Academic Internships
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

Preparing For Your Dissertation Defense

13 Key Questions To Expect In The Viva Voce

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) & David Phair (PhD) . Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Preparing for your dissertation or thesis defense (also called a “viva voce”) is a formidable task . All your hard work over the years leads you to this one point, and you’ll need to defend yourself against some of the most experienced researchers you’ve encountered so far.

It’s natural to feel a little nervous.

In this post, we’ll cover some of the most important questions you should be able to answer in your viva voce, whether it’s for a Masters or PhD degree. Naturally, they might not arise in exactly the same form (some may not come up at all), but if you can answer these questions well, it means you’re in a good position to tackle your oral defense.

Viva Voce Prep: 13 Essential Questions

• What is your study about and why did you choose to research this in particular?
• How did your research questions evolve during the research process?
• How did you decide on which sources to include in your literature review?
• How did you design your study and why did you take this approach?
• How generalisable and valid are the findings?
• What were the main shortcomings and limitations created by your research design?
• How did your findings relate to the existing literature?
• What were your key findings in relation to the research questions?
• Were there any findings that surprised you?
• What biases may exist in your research?
• How can your findings be put into practice?
• How has your research contributed to current thinking in the field?
• If you could redo your research, how would you alter your approach?

#1: What is your study about and why did you choose to research this in particular?

This question, a classic party starter, is pretty straightforward.

What the dissertation or thesis committee is assessing here is your ability to clearly articulate your research aims, objectives and research questions in a concise manner. Concise is the keyword here – you need to clearly explain your research topic without rambling on for a half-hour. Don’t feel the need to go into the weeds here – you’ll have many opportunities to unpack the details later on.

In the second half of the question, they’re looking for a brief explanation of the justification of your research. In other words, why was this particular set of research aims, objectives and questions worth addressing? To address this question well in your oral defense, you need to make it clear what gap existed within the research and why that gap was worth filling.

#2: How did your research questions evolve during the research process?

Good research generally follows a long and winding path . It’s seldom a straight line (unless you got really lucky). What they’re assessing here is your ability to follow that path and let the research process unfold.

Specifically, they’ll want to hear about the impact that the literature review process had on you in terms of shaping the research aims, objectives and research questions . For example, you may have started with a certain set of aims, but then as you immersed yourself in the literature, you may have changed direction. Similarly, your initial fieldwork findings may have turned out some unexpected data that drove you to adjust or expand on your initial research questions.

Long story short – a good defense involves clearly describing your research journey , including all the twists and turns. Adjusting your direction based on findings in the literature or the fieldwork shows that you’re responsive , which is essential for high-quality research.

#3: How did you decide on which sources to include in your literature review?

A comprehensive literature review is the foundation of any high-quality piece of research. With this question, your dissertation or thesis committee are trying to assess which quality criteria and approach you used to select the sources for your literature review.

Typically, good research draws on both the seminal work in the respective field and more recent sources . In other words, a combination of the older landmark studies and pivotal work, along with up-to-date sources that build on to those older studies. This combination ensures that the study has a rock-solid foundation but is not out of date.

So, make sure that your study draws on a mix of both the “classics” and new kids on the block, and take note of any major evolutions in the literature that you can use as an example when asked this question in your viva voce.

#4: How did you design your study and why did you take this approach?

This is a classic methodological question that you can almost certainly expect in some or other shape.

What they’re looking for here is a clear articulation of the research design and methodology, as well as a strong justification of each choice . So, you need to be able to walk through each methodological choice and clearly explain both what you did and why you did it. The why is particularly important – you need to be able to justify each choice you made by clearly linking your design back to your research aims, objectives and research questions, while also taking into account practical constraints.

To ensure you cover every base, check out our research methodology vlog post , as well as our post covering the Research Onion .

#5: How generalizable and valid are the findings?

This question is aimed at specifically digging into your understanding of the sample and how that relates to the population, as well as potential validity issues in your methodology.

To answer question this well, you’ll need to critically assess your sample and findings and consider if they truly apply to the entire population, as well as whether they assessed what they set out to. Note that there are two components here – generalizability and validity . Generalizability is about how well the sample represents the population. Validity is about how accurately you’ve measured what you intended to measure .

To ace this part of your dissertation defense, make sure that you’re very familiar with the concepts of generalizability , validity and reliability , and how these apply to your research. Remember, you don’t need to achieve perfection – you just need to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of your research (and how the weaknesses could be improved upon).

Need a helping hand?

#6: What were the main shortcomings and limitations created by your research design?

This question picks up where the last one left off.

As I mentioned, it’s perfectly natural that your research will have shortcomings and limitations as a result of your chosen design and methodology. No piece of research is flawless. Therefore, a good dissertation defense is not about arguing that your work is perfect, but rather it’s about clearly articulating the strengths and weaknesses of your approach.

To address this question well, you need to think critically about all of the potential weaknesses your design may have, as well as potential responses to these (which could be adopted in future research) to ensure you’re well prepared for this question. For a list of common methodological limitations, check out our video about research limitations here .

#7: How did your findings relate to the existing literature?

This common dissertation defense question links directly to your discussion chapter , where you would have presented and discussed the findings in relation to your literature review.

What your dissertation or thesis committee is assessing here is your ability to compare your study’s findings to the findings of existing research . Specifically, you need to discuss which findings aligned with existing research and which findings did not. For those findings that contrasted against existing research, you should also explain what you believe to be the reasons for this.

As with many questions in a viva voce, it’s both the what and the why that matter here. So, you need to think deeply about what the underlying reasons may be for both the similarities and differences between your findings and those of similar studies.

#8: What were your key findings in relation to the research questions?

This question is similar to the last one in that it too focuses on your research findings. However, here the focus is specifically on the findings that directly relate to your research questions (as opposed to findings in general).

So, a good way to prepare for this question is to step back and revisit your research questions . Ask yourself the following:

• What exactly were you asking in those questions, and what did your research uncover concerning them?
• Which questions were well answered by your study and which ones were lacking?
• Why were they lacking and what more could be done to address this in future research?

Conquering this part dissertation defense requires that you focus squarely on the research questions. Your study will have provided many findings (hopefully!), and not all of these will link directly to the research questions. Therefore, you need to clear your mind of all of the fascinating side paths your study may have lead you down and regain a clear focus on the research questions .

#9: Were there any findings that surprised you?

This question is two-pronged.

First, you should discuss the surprising findings that were directly related to the original research questions . Going into your research, you likely had some expectations in terms of what you would find, so this is your opportunity to discuss the outcomes that emerged as contrary to what you initially expected. You’ll also want to think about what the reasons for these contrasts may be.

Second, you should discuss the findings that weren’t directly related to the research questions, but that emerged from the data set . You may have a few or you may have none – although generally there are a handful of interesting musings that you can glean from the data set. Again, make sure you can articulate why you find these interesting and what it means for future research in the area.

What the committee is looking for in this type of question is your ability to interpret the findings holistically and comprehensively , and to respond to unexpected data. So, take the time to zoom out and reflect on your findings thoroughly.

#10: What biases may exist in your research?

Biases… we all have them.

For this question, you’ll need to think about potential biases in your research , in the data itself but also in your interpretation of the data. With this question, your committee is assessing whether you have considered your own potential biases and the biases inherent in your analysis approach (i.e. your methodology). So, think carefully about these research biases and be ready to explain how these may exist in your study.

In an oral defense, this question is often followed up with a question on how the biases were mitigated or could be mitigated in future research. So, give some thought not just to what biases may exist, but also the mitigation measures (in your own study and for future research).

#11: How can your findings be put into practice?

Another classic question in the typical viva voce.

With this question, your committee is assessing your ability to bring your findings back down to earth and demonstrate their practical value and application. Importantly, this question is not about the contribution to academia or the overall field of research (we’ll get to that next) – it is specifically asking about how this newly created knowledge can be used in the real world.

Naturally, the actionability of your findings will vary depending on the nature of your research topic. Some studies will produce many action points and some won’t. If you’re researching marketing strategies within an industry, for example, you should be able to make some very specific recommendations for marketing practitioners in that industry.

To help you flesh out points for this question, look back at your original justification for the research (i.e. in your introduction and literature review chapters). What were the driving forces that led you to research your specific topic? That justification should help you identify ways in which your findings can be put into practice.

#12: How has your research contributed to current thinking in the field?

While the previous question was aimed at practical contribution, this question is aimed at theoretical contribution . In other words, what is the significance of your study within the current body of research? How does it fit into the existing research and what does it add to it?

This question is often asked by a field specialist and is used to assess whether you’re able to place your findings into the research field to critically convey what your research contributed. This argument needs to be well justified – in other words, you can’t just discuss what your research contributed, you need to also back each proposition up with a strong why .

To answer this question well, you need to humbly consider the quality and impact of your work and to be realistic in your response. You don’t want to come across as arrogant (“my work is groundbreaking”), nor do you want to undersell the impact of your work. So, it’s important to strike the right balance between realistic and pessimistic .

This question also opens the door to questions about potential future research . So, think about what future research opportunities your study has created and which of these you feel are of the highest priority.

#13: If you could redo your research, how would you alter your approach?

This question is often used to wrap up a viva voce as it brings the discussion full circle.

Here, your committee is again assessing your ability to clearly identify and articulate the limitations and shortcomings of your research, both in terms of research design and topic focus . Perhaps, in hindsight, it would have been better to use a different analysis method or data set. Perhaps the research questions should have leaned in a slightly different direction. And so on.

This question intends to assess whether you’re able to look at your work critically , assess where the weaknesses are and make recommendations for the future . This question often sets apart those who did the research purely because it was required, from those that genuinely engaged with their research. So, don’t hold back here – reflect on your entire research journey ask yourself how you’d do things differently if you were starting with a  blank canvas today.

Recap: The 13 Key Dissertation Defense Questions

To recap, here are the 13 questions you need to be ready for to ace your dissertation or thesis oral defense:

As I mentioned, this list of dissertation defense questions is certainly not exhaustive – don’t assume that we’ve covered every possible question here. However, these questions are quite likely to come up in some shape or form in a typical dissertation or thesis defense, whether it’s for a Master’s degree, PhD or any other research degree. So, you should take the time to make sure you can answer them well.

If you need assistance preparing for your dissertation defense or viva voce, get in touch with us to discuss 1-on-1 coaching. We can critically review your research and identify potential issues and responses, as well as undertake a mock oral defense to prepare you for the pressures and stresses on the day.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

14 Comments

Very interesting

Interesting. I appreciate!

Really appreciating

My field is International Trade

Interesting

This is a full course on defence. I was fabulously enlightened and I gained enough confidence for my upcoming Masters Defence.

There are many lessons to learn and the simplicity in presentationmakes thee reader say “YesI can”

This is so helping… it has Enlightened me on how to answer specific questions. I pray to make it through for my upcoming defense

Lovely to hear that 🙂

Really educative and beneficial

Interesting. On-point and elaborate. And comforting too! Thanks.

Thank you very much for the enlightening me, be blessed

Thankyou so much. I am planning to defend my thesis soon and I found this very useful

Very interesting and useful to all masters and PhD students

Wow! this is enlightening. Thanks for the great work.

Thank you very much ,it will help me My Master Degree. and am comfortable to my defense.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to prepare an excellent thesis defense

What is a thesis defense?

How long is a thesis defense, what happens at a thesis defense, your presentation, questions from the committee, 6 tips to help you prepare for your thesis defense, 1. anticipate questions and prepare for them, 2. dress for success, 3. ask for help, as needed, 4. have a backup plan, 5. prepare for the possibility that you might not know an answer, 6. de-stress before, during, and after, frequently asked questions about preparing an excellent thesis defense, related articles.

If you're about to complete, or have ever completed a graduate degree, you have most likely come across the term "thesis defense." In many countries, to finish a graduate degree, you have to write a thesis .

A thesis is a large paper, or multi-chapter work, based on a topic relating to your field of study.

Once you hand in your thesis, you will be assigned a date to defend your work. Your thesis defense meeting usually consists of you and a committee of two or more professors working in your program. It may also include other people, like professionals from other colleges or those who are working in your field.

During your thesis defense, you will be asked questions about your work. The main purpose of your thesis defense is for the committee to make sure that you actually understand your field and focus area.

The questions are usually open-ended and require the student to think critically about their work. By the time of your thesis defense, your paper has already been evaluated. The questions asked are not designed so that you actually have to aggressively "defend" your work; often, your thesis defense is more of a formality required so that you can get your degree.

• Check with your department about requirements and timing.
• Re-read your thesis.
• Anticipate questions and prepare for them.
• Create a back-up plan to deal with technology hiccups.
• Plan de-stressing activities both before, and after, your defense.

How long your oral thesis defense is depends largely on the institution and requirements of your degree. It is best to consult your department or institution about this. In general, a thesis defense may take only 20 minutes, but it may also take two hours or more. The length also depends on how much time is allocated to the presentation and questioning part.

Tip: Check with your department or institution as soon as possible to determine the approved length for a thesis defense.

First of all, be aware that a thesis defense varies from country to country. This is just a general overview, but a thesis defense can take many different formats. Some are closed, others are public defenses. Some take place with two committee members, some with more examiners.

The same goes for the length of your thesis defense, as mentioned above. The most important first step for you is to clarify with your department what the structure of your thesis defense will look like. In general, your thesis defense will include:

• your presentation of around 20-30 minutes
• questions from the committee
• questions from the audience (if the defense is public and the department allows it)

You might have to give a presentation, often with Powerpoint, Google slides, or Keynote slides. Make sure to prepare an appropriate amount of slides. A general rule is to use about 10 slides for a 20-minute presentation.

But that also depends on your specific topic and the way you present. The good news is that there will be plenty of time ahead of your thesis defense to prepare your slides and practice your presentation alone and in front of friends or family.

Tip: Practice delivering your thesis presentation in front of family, friends, or colleagues.

You can prepare your slides by using information from your thesis' first chapter (the overview of your thesis) as a framework or outline. Substantive information in your thesis should correspond with your slides.

Make sure your slides are of good quality— both in terms of the integrity of the information and the appearance. If you need more help with how to prepare your presentation slides, both the ASQ Higher Education Brief and James Hayton have good guidelines on the topic.

The committee will ask questions about your work after you finish your presentation. The questions will most likely be about the core content of your thesis, such as what you learned from the study you conducted. They may also ask you to summarize certain findings and to discuss how your work will contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

Tip: Read your entire thesis in preparation of the questions, so you have a refreshed perspective on your work.

While you are preparing, you can create a list of possible questions and try to answer them. You can foresee many of the questions you will get by simply spending some time rereading your thesis.

Here are a few tips on how to prepare for your thesis defense:

You can absolutely prepare for most of the questions you will be asked. Read through your thesis and while you're reading it, create a list of possible questions. In addition, since you will know who will be on the committee, look at the academic expertise of the committee members. In what areas would they most likely be focused?

If possible, sit at other thesis defenses with these committee members to get a feel for how they ask and what they ask. As a graduate student, you should generally be adept at anticipating test questions, so use this advantage to gather as much information as possible before your thesis defense meeting.

Your thesis defense is a formal event, often the entire department or university is invited to participate. It signals a critical rite of passage for graduate students and faculty who have supported them throughout a long and challenging process.

While most universities don't have specific rules on how to dress for that event, do regard it with dignity and respect. This one might be a no-brainer, but know that you should dress as if you were on a job interview or delivering a paper at a conference.

It might help you deal with your stress before your thesis defense to entrust someone with the smaller but important responsibilities of your defense well ahead of schedule. This trusted person could be responsible for:

• preparing the room of the day of defense
• setting up equipment for the presentation
• preparing and distributing handouts

Technology is unpredictable. Life is too. There are no guarantees that your Powerpoint presentation will work at all or look the way it is supposed to on the big screen. We've all been there. Make sure to have a plan B for these situations. Handouts can help when technology fails, and an additional clean shirt can save the day if you have a spill.

One of the scariest aspects of the defense is the possibility of being asked a question you can't answer. While you can prepare for some questions, you can never know exactly what the committee will ask.

There will always be gaps in your knowledge. But your thesis defense is not about being perfect and knowing everything, it's about how you deal with challenging situations. You are not expected to know everything.

James Hayton writes on his blog that examiners will sometimes even ask questions they don't know the answer to, out of curiosity, or because they want to see how you think. While it is ok sometimes to just say "I don't know", he advises to try something like "I don't know, but I would think [...] because of x and y, but you would need to do [...] in order to find out.” This shows that you have the ability to think as an academic.

You will be nervous. But your examiners will expect you to be nervous. Being well prepared can help minimize your stress, but do know that your examiners have seen this many times before and are willing to help, by repeating questions, for example. Dora Farkas at finishyourthesis.com notes that it’s a myth that thesis committees are out to get you.

Two common symptoms of being nervous are talking really fast and nervous laughs. Try to slow yourself down and take a deep breath. Remember what feels like hours to you are just a few seconds in real life.

• Try meditational breathing right before your defense.
• Get plenty of exercise and sleep in the weeks prior to your defense.
• Have your clothes or other items you need ready to go the night before.
• During your defense, allow yourself to process each question before answering.
• Go to dinner with friends and family, or to a fun activity like mini-golf, after your defense.

Allow yourself to process each question, respond to it, and stop talking once you have responded. While a smile can often help dissolve a difficult situation, remember that nervous laughs can be irritating for your audience.

We all make mistakes and your thesis defense will not be perfect. However, careful preparation, mindfulness, and confidence can help you feel less stressful both before, and during, your defense.

Finally, consider planning something fun that you can look forward to after your defense.

It is completely normal to be nervous. Being well prepared can help minimize your stress, but do know that your examiners have seen this many times before and are willing to help, by repeating questions for example if needed. Slow yourself down, and take a deep breath.

Your thesis defense is not about being perfect and knowing everything, it's about how you deal with challenging situations. James Hayton writes on his blog that it is ok sometimes to just say "I don't know", but he advises to try something like "I don't know, but I would think [...] because of x and y, you would need to do [...] in order to find out".

Your Powerpoint presentation can get stuck or not look the way it is supposed to do on the big screen. It can happen and your supervisors know it. In general, handouts can always save the day when technology fails.

• Dress for success.
• Ask for help setting up.
• Have a backup plan (in case technology fails you).
• Deal with your nerves.

PhD Dissertation Defense Slides Design: Start

• Tips for designing the slides
• Presentation checklist
• Example slides
• Additional Resources

Purpose of the Guide

This guide was created to help ph.d. students in engineering fields to design dissertation defense presentations. the guide provides 1) tips on how to effectively communicate research, and 2) full presentation examples from ph.d. graduates. the tips on designing effective slides are not restricted to dissertation defense presentations; they can be used in designing other types of presentations such as conference talks, qualification and proposal exams, and technical seminars., the tips and examples are used to help students to design effective presentation. the technical contents in all examples are subject to copyright, please do not replicate. , if you need help in designing your presentation, please contact julie chen ([email protected]) for individual consultation. .

• Example Slides Repository
• Defense slides examples Link to examples dissertation defense slides.

Useful Links

• CIT Thesis and dissertation standards
• Dissertations and Theses @ Carnegie Mellon This link opens in a new window Covers 1920-present. Full text of some dissertations may be available 1997-present. Citations and abstracts of dissertations and theses CMU graduate students have published through UMI Dissertation Publishing. In addition to citations and abstracts, the service provides free access to 24 page previews and the full text in PDF format, when available. In most cases, this will be works published in 1997 forward.
• Communicate your research data Data visualization is very important in communicating your data effectively. Check out these do's and don'ts for designing figures.

Power Point Template and other Resources

• CEE Powerpoint Slide Presentation Template 1
• CEE Powerpoint Slide Presentation Template 2

Source: CEE Department Resources https://www.cmu.edu/cee/resources/index.html

• CMU Powerpoint Slide Template

Source: CMU Marketing and Communications

https://www.cmu.edu/marcom/brand-standards/downloads/index.html

• Use of CMU logos, marks, and Unitmarks

Email me for questions and schedule an appointment

Top 7 tips for your defense presentation

1. show why your study is important, remember, your audience is your committee members, researchers in other fields, and even the general public. you want to convince all of them why you deserve a ph.d. degree. you need to talk about why your study is important to the world. in the engineering field, you also need to talk about how your study is useful. try to discuss why current practice is problematic or not good enough, what needs to be solved, and what the potential benefits will be. , see how dr. posen and dr. malings explained the importance of their studies..

• Carl Malings Defense Slides with Notes
• I. Daniel Posen Defense Slides with Notes

2. Emphasize YOUR contribution 

Having a ph.d. means that you have made some novel contributions to the grand field. this is about you and your research. you need to keep emphasizing your contributions throughout your presentation. after talking about what needs to be solved, try to focus on emphasizing the novelty of your work. what problems can be solved using your research outcomes what breakthroughs have you made to the field why are your methods and outcomes outstanding you need to incorporate answers to these questions in your presentation. , be clear what your contributions are in the introduction section; separate what was done by others and what was done by you. , 3. connect your projects into a whole piece of work, you might have been doing multiple projects that are not strongly connected. to figure out how to connect them into a whole piece, use visualizations such as flow charts to convince your audience. the two slides below are two examples. in the first slide, which was presented in the introduction section, the presenter used a flow diagram to show the connection between the three projects. in the second slide, the presenter used key figures and a unique color for each project to show the connection..

• Xiaoju Chen Defense Slides with Notes

4. Tell a good story 

The committee members do not necessarily have the same background knowledge as you. plus, there could be researchers from other fields and even the general public in the room. you want to make sure all of your audience can understand as much as possible. focus on the big picture rather than technical details; make sure you use simple language to explain your methods and results. your committee has read your dissertation before your defense, but others have not. , dr. cook and dr. velibeyoglu did a good job explaining their research to everyone. the introduction sessions in their presentations are well designed for this purpose. .

• Laren M. Cook Defense Slides with Notes
• Irem Velibeyoglu Defense with Notes

5. Transition, transition, transition

Use transition slides to connect projects , it's a long presentation with different research projects. you want to use some sort of transition to remind your audience what you have been talking about and what is next. you may use a slide that is designed for this purpose throughout your presentation. , below are two examples. these slides were presented after the introduction section. the presenters used the same slides and highlighted the items for project one to indicate that they were moving on to the first project. throughout the presentation, they used these slides and highlighted different sections to indicate how these projects fit into the whole dissertation. .

You can also use some other indications on your slides, but remember not to make your slides too busy.  Below are two examples. In the first example, the presenter used chapter numbers to indicate what he was talking about. In the second example, the presenter used a progress bar with keywords for each chapter as the indicator. 

Use transition sentences to connect slides 

Remember transition sentences are also important; use them to summarize what you have said and tell your audience what they will expect next. if you keep forgetting the transition sentence, write a note on your presentation. you can either write down a full sentence of what you want to say or some keywords., 6. be brief, put details in backup slides , you won't have time to explain all of the details. if your defense presentation is scheduled for 45 minutes, you can only spend around 10 minutes for each project - that's shorter than a normal research conference presentation focus on the big picture and leave details behind. you can put the details in your backup slides, so you might find them useful when your committee (and other members of the audience) ask questions regarding these details., 7. show your presentation to your advisor and colleagues, make sure to ask your advisor(s) for their comments. they might have a different view on what should be emphasized and what should be elaborated. , you also want to practice at least once in front of your colleagues. they can be your lab mates, people who work in your research group, and/or your friends. they do not have to be experts in your field. ask them to give you some feedback - their comments can be extremely helpful to improve your presentation. , below are some other tips and resources to design your defense presentation. .

• Tips for designing your defense presentation

How important is your presentation, and cookies?

• Next: Tips for designing the slides >>
• Last Updated: Jan 9, 2024 11:18 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.cmu.edu/c.php?g=883178

Preparing for your thesis defence

As you start thinking about the end stages of your PhD, it’s important to understand the processes and timelines related to the thesis defence.

Even if your defence feels far away, there are steps you can take early on in order to ensure that the end of your PhD and defence process runs smoothly.

Jump to: What is a PhD defence? | Who's at the defence? | What happens at the defence? | What are the possible outcomes of the defence?  

What is a PhD defence?

The thesis defence is a unique opportunity to share with other experts what you did as part of your PhD research, what you found or discovered, and why it’s important. Although there are a lot of regulations guiding the defence process, remember that this process is really about you and your work.  

Goals of the PhD defence:

• Allow you to show your mastery of the subject matter
• Prove you are the author of the world
• Demonstrate your ability to engage in scholarly discourse in your research area

Who's at the PhD defence?

The primary attendees of your PhD defence are the Chair of the defense and your examining committee. The Chair is an impartial faculty member from outside your department who is well-versed in the rules and proceedings of thesis examinations. The Chair does not question you and does not assess your work.

Examining committee:

• Supervisor(s) - Your thesis supervisor(s) that have supervised your research.
• Internal member - A member of your department; typically part of your advisory committee.
• Internal/external member - An "internal" member of the university, but "external" to your home department. This person has suitable knowledge of the subject matter, even though they are from another discipline.
• Additional member - Typically a member from your advisory committee.
• External examiner - A person with a doctoral degree and expertise in the subject matter who evaluates the thesis from a fair an impartial perspective.

At University of Waterloo, it is also standard to have defences open to the public, so you can invite your friends, family and colleagues to be there! Check with your department to figure out what options are available to you.  

In some cases, such as when there are intellectual property concerns, a closed thesis examination can be requested. This means that all those in attendance at the thesis examination, including the examining committee members, must sign a non-disclosure agreement.  Closed examinations must be requested as early as possible.

What happens at the defence?

The first component of the defence is the welcome. The Chair will open up the defence, go over the order of proceedings, introduce the examining committee, and welcome the attendees.

After the welcome, the examination will formally begin with your oral presentation. The presentation is no more than 30 minutes, but the exact length and format can vary by department or discipline. It's best to check with your supervisor to confirm departmental expectations, but overall, the presentation should focus on your main contributions and conclusions. 

The final component of the defence is the questioning period. This is not meant to be an interrogation, rather, a discussion amongst colleagues about the subject of your thesis.

• The examination Chair monitors the question period, which goes in "rounds".
• During the first round of questioning, each committee member will have 15 minutes to ask their questions, provide their comments, and discuss these with you.
• After each committee member has had their turn to ask questions, there may be additional rounds for more questions. The Chair and committee decide when the questions will end.
• Typically, the Chair will reserve some time at the end to accept questions from non-committee members.

While there is no set time for defences at the University of Waterloo, they typically range from 2-3 hours. 

What are the possible outcomes?

Once your formal defence has concluded, the examination Chair will arrange for a private deliberation between the committee members. The examination committee's decision is ultimately based on your written thesis, as well as your ability to defend it, as the decision is determined by a majority vote.

In the event of a tie decision, or if the external examiner's vote is not in the majority, the decision will be deferred to the Associate Vice President (AVP), Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs. The AVP will consult the Faculty Associate Deans and come to a final decision. 

Once the deliberation has concluded, the Chair will inform you of your examining committee's decision.

There are three possible outcomes to a PhD defence:

• Accepted: The thesis is completed to the satisfaction of the examining committee. There may still revisions required, but they are likely minor and typographical or editorial in nature. In this case, you would have one month to complete all revisions and submit your approve thesis to UWspace.
• Accepted conditionally: The oral defence and the thesis are acceptable, but content changes are required that are time intensive. In this case, you would have four months to complete revisions to the approval of your committee and submit the final version to UWspace. A re-examination is not required. 
• Re-examination: The oral defence is not to the satisfaction of the committee and/or substantial changes to the thesis are required. In this case, the candidate must be re-examined within 1 year. 

Re-examination is very rare, and the vast majority of candidates have their thesis accepted at their first examination.

Related links

• Thesis and defence
• Timeline to defence
• Successful defence tips
• Remote defence tips

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Prepare for Your Dissertation Defense

4-minute read

• 1st August 2023

After years of research and study, you’ve finally reached the grand finale of your PhD years: your dissertation defense. Since defending your dissertation is the culmination of all your hard work, it’s essential to do everything you can to prepare for it.

In this post, we’ll take you through how to ready yourself for your dissertation defense so you can focus on your accomplishments and excel during this crucial professional moment.

What is a Dissertation Defense? 

The dissertation defense is the crowning moment of years of research – the final examination before a PhD student is awarded their doctoral degree.

During a dissertation defense, the student presents their research, methodology, findings, and conclusions to a committee of faculty members and experts in their field. The committee then engages in a question-and-answer session to assess the student’s understanding of the subject matter, the quality of their research, and their ability to defend their work under scrutiny.

Many PhD students consider it to be the defining moment of their academic career and their chance to prove their expertise in their chosen research field.

If all this sounds overwhelming – don’t worry. If you’re a PhD student, you’ll have plenty of time and opportunity to adequately prepare for your dissertation defense. Below are some strategies to help you get ready for this significant occasion in your career.

1.   Know the Requirements

Familiarize yourself with your institution’s guidelines and requirements for the defense process. Understanding the format, time limit, and expectations for the presentation will help you to prepare your material and anticipate any issues.

2.   Review Your Dissertation

Even if you think you know it inside and out, review your dissertation from beginning to end. It may have been some time since you’ve last read and considered certain portions of your research and findings. Consider what your committee might ask about your research questions , data analysis, and conclusions.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

3.   Work on Starting Strong

To begin your defense on a strong note, work on creating a clear and engaging introduction. You can start by briefly outlining the purpose of your study, research questions, and methodology . Try to stay on topic and don’t veer off track by discussing unrelated or unnecessary information.

4.   Practice Presenting

Practice your presentation skills by rehearsing your defense multiple times. Focus on clarity and pacing and try to stay within the allotted time limit. It also helps to record yourself so that you can see yourself from your audience’s point of view.

5.   Practice Q&A Sessions

To build your confidence, enlist friends and colleagues to conduct mock question-and-answer sessions. When practicing, remember to pause before answering questions you’re unsure of. It’s better to take your time delivering a response than it is to give an inaccurate or incorrect answer.

6.   Seek Feedback

Find out if your institution offers mock defense sessions where peers or mentors play the role of the committee, ask you questions, and give feedback . You can also have colleagues, mentors, or advisors review your presentation and offer practical feedback.

7.   Create Visual Aids

Think about any visual aids , such as slides, you may want to use to illustrate your defense and prepare them in advance. Be sure to check that your university allows visuals or images and that they enhance, rather than overwhelm, your presentation.

8.   Stay Calm and Confident

It’s natural to feel nervous but try to stay calm and composed during your defense. Take deep breaths and remind yourself of the expertise you’ve gained through the experience of writing your dissertation.

Expert Proofreading Services

The best way to prepare for your dissertation defense is to have your dissertation professionally proofread. Our editing experts have extensive experience with a wide variety of academic subjects and topics and can help ensure your dissertation is ready for presentation. Send in a free sample of 500 words or less and get started today.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Applications and Funding

Career and Networking

Thesis and Dissertation

• Academic AI Tools

Our Mission

Work with us, advertise with us, run a webinar, sponsored posts, write an article, create a talk, stories, advice and support for your academic journey..

From Nerves to Triumph: Your Personal Guide to Dissertation Defense

• August 26, 2023
• Aberystwyth University
• Dissertation Defence/ Viva , Mental Health , Thesis and Dissertation , Thesis Tips , Wellbeing

Picture this: after countless hours of research, writing, and refining, you’re now standing on stage with your cohort, in a gown and funny hat, because … you’ve finally completed that last important milestone in your academic journey – defending your doctoral dissertation. It’s a culmination of years of dedication, determination, and sleepless nights.     You’re not there yet—but you’re close. So how do you make it past this final, nerve-wracking hurdle?  

In this article, we’ll deep-dive into the dissertation defense process, with tips, strategies, and straight-up information. I’ll share my expertise as a coach whose job it is to get people up on that stage.  

What to expect during the dissertation defense

A dissertation defense typically consists of an oral presentation to your dissertation committee, who have already received and read the final draft of your dissertation manuscript. Other members of your cohort and institution, and outside readers or experts, might also be present in the audience.  

Without fail, I see two different reactions to this news from my coaching students: either they are terrified of having their work scrutinized by their committee in public, or they are extremely laid back, knowing that they’ve already done all the hard work in the manuscript. (These later students are the ones paying attention to me).  

You probably already know the general gist of what happens in a defense presentation: you present the highlights of your study, the committee ask questions, and then they vote on whether you pass or need to complete further revision. So, here are some things you might not yet know:

• The oral defense gives the committee the opportunity to ask you about any areas of your study that are still unclear or weak on paper – so that you can prove they are not unclear or weak in real life. In other words, it’s a chance to get anything that got stuck in your head (rather than making it on to paper) out and in front of your committee.

• Your chair or supervisor and committee should not be allowing you to complete the defense process unless they are already confident that the biggest issues with your work have already been resolved.

• Questions are normal – your committee are working with you because your work interests them (hopefully), so questions are as likely to indicate their excitement about your work as a problem they have spotted.

• Revisions are normal – from requests to polish the grammar to insisting you add more supporting sources or develop your recommendations more thoroughly, “pass with revisions” is a normal, common, and expected end result. To pass with no revisions is pretty rare (although I have had a few students achieve this – looking at you, YY!) – like getting 100% on a calculus test in school.

In short, your defense presentation is nothing to be scared of. You are lined up for defense because both you and your committee feel you know your stuff, and now all you need to do is share what you’ve produced and learned and engage people in discussion about it. You got this!

Preparing for Your Dissertation Defense

Still nervous? Ok, that’s fair enough. As with many things, good preparation can help you get those nerves under control, so here are some top tips to help you get ready.

Tick the Boxes

It’s essential to understand the requirements and expectations of your defense committee. Get familiar with the specific guidelines and procedures set by your institution, and make sure you meet all necessary criteria. If you’re giving them what they ask for, you are definitely off to a strong start.

Know Your Stuff

This defense is about you showing off what you know, so before you stand up in front of the crown, take a deep dive into your own research masterpiece. Thoroughly review your dissertation, scrutinizing each chapter, section, and argument. Make notes. Look for anything that might provoke questions or debate. Remember, this is your opportunity to showcase your expertise and demonstrate the depth of your knowledge.

Seek Wise Counsel

Your advisor and committee members are the best resources you could ask for about defense. They set the guidelines, and they judge whether you have done well. Reach out to them for guidance, feedback, and advice—their collective wisdom and support can be instrumental in honing your presentation. And, if they are not all that … well, remember there are others out there who can help, including coaches, mentors, and past students.

Just like any performance, practice makes perfect. Take the time to rehearse your presentation multiple times, refining your delivery and strengthening your command over the content. By doing so, you’ll build confidence and ensure a smoother delivery when the day arrives. Even more importantly, you’ll settle the key points of your study firmly in your brain, making sure you sound like the expert you are.

Anticipate the Unknown

Obviously, you can’t predict every question or comment that will come up during your defense. However, you can still prepare yourself for potential challenges. Get cozy with the research landscape in your field and the interests of your committee members. Step outside of your own perspective and view your work through a stranger’s eyes to anticipate areas of critique or alternative viewpoints. This will enable you to respond thoughtfully and demonstrate your ability to engage in scholarly discourse.

Managing Nerves and Anxiety

You know what’s coming and you know how to prepare – are you still nervous? If so, know that that is completely normal. Here’s how me and two of my students got their dissertation defense nerves under control.

An Awesome Supervisor

For my own dissertation defense (known as a viva voce in the UK), I was incredibly lucky to have a supervisor with whom I had a strong, supportive, and nurturing relationship. Although the main examination of my work was handled by the external reader, who sat across from me behind a big desk, my supervisor sat behind him and nodded and smiled encouragingly every time I said something. Words can’t describe how much that calmed me down and gave me confidence. If you are as lucky as me and have an awesome supervisor, tell your nerves they can stand down – your supervisor’s got your back!

You Can Get Used to Anything

One of my students, who graduated last year, suffered from terrible defense nerves because she was worried about holding so much complex information in her head and delivering it coherently. Her solution? She practiced endlessly, over the course of about a month.

With me as her coach playing the role of audience, or with her kids and other family members, her cohort peers, her dog, and even other academics, she presented that study until she could do so in her sleep. The point was that, by the time the actual defense day rolled around, presenting the study to people was comfortable, familiar territory. Done and dusted!

Temporary Denial

Another student, who graduated shortly after, took completely the opposite approach to managing dissertation defense nerves. This student was burnt out from a huge rush to meet an unexpectedly tight deadline for the final manuscript when her chair decided to retire at the last minute. Rather than burn herself out further, she hit send on the manuscript, paid a designer to polish the design of the presentation rough draft, and then shut down her devices and went on holiday with her family. For one week, she did not look at or talk about her research at all. Instead, she sat on the beach, ate ice cream, and scrolled Instagram (probably). Then, she returned to work (a week before the presentation), refreshed and feeling excited about her work again. The break enabled her to practice and prepare in a calm frame of mind.

Some Parting Thoughts

I won’t walk you through the other obvious stuff, like what makes a good presentation PowerPoint or how body language and appearance can improve your presentation skills—that stuff is what Google is for. You’re an expert by now at finding the information you need, so get out there and find it. However, know that if you need help getting ready for your defense, there are definitely humans around you (and some dogs) who want to help – whether that’s your chair, your family, or a coach like me. I recommend you find them now and let them tell you just how ready for this you are.

Jennifer Harrison

Mixed Methods PhDs: An Applied Guide

Are you thinking about using mixed methods (both quantitative and qualitative data) in your PhD? This article guides you through different ways of doing mixed methods PhD research, from proposal writing to collecting and analysing data. It emphasises the importance of rigor in mixed methods research and how to achieve this.

To Be or Not To Be (a Reviewer 2): Should I Review Articles as a PhD Student?

For the wheels to continue turning in research, we need reviewers. Although often a thankless endeavour (littered with Reviewer 2 jokes), acting as a gatekeeper for the integrity of your research field remains vital. As a PhD student, you may find the process of reviewing a manuscript pretty novel, but a reviewer request email may enter your inbox in the near future. This article guides you through the pros and cons of reviewing articles.

‘Stairway to Lecture’: A Roadmap to Progress from PhD to Lecturer

Landing a lecturing role after a PhD can be difficult, and rejection is commonplace. To lower the chances of rejection, it is important to focus on your career planning and gain experience as early into your PhD as possible. Therefore, if you are serious about becoming a lecturer, here are four things you can start doing now.

All views expressed are those of the individual authors and do not reflect the views of The PhD Place Ltd. See our Disclaimer

The PhD Place Ltd Is A Registered Limited Company In England & Wales, Number 14300924. Our registered address is 167-169 Great Portland Street, 5th Floor, London, England, W1W 5PF

© Copyright 2023. All Rights Reserved.

How Do I Prepare for a Successful Defence?

Vivas and Presentations

• First Online: 19 October 2023

Cite this chapter

• Sue Reeves   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3017-0559 3 &
• Bartek Buczkowski   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4146-3664 4  

649 Accesses

Once you have submitted your dissertation, you may be asked to do a defence of your dissertation. This could be in the form of an oral presentation, a poster presentation of your findings, or you could be invited to a viva voce. Vivas, as they are usually known, are particularly common for research degrees such as MPhils or PhDs and are essentially a verbal defence of your thesis that is conducted in an interview style format. At a minimum, the viva is a way of checking you authored the thesis yourself and understand the detail, but it is also an opportunity to discuss your research findings and interpretations in depth with experts. Preparation is key for defending your thesis in a viva or a presentation format. With a bit of groundwork, you could even enjoy the discussion, after all the thesis is the culmination of all your hard work, and no one knows it better than you.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Ratcliffe R (2015) How to survive a PhD viva: 17 top tips. https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/jan/08/how-to-survive-a-phd-viva-17-top-tips. Accessed 3 Mar 2023

Further Reading

Levin P, Topping G (2006) Perfect presentations. Open University Press

Google Scholar  

Smith P (2014) The PhD viva: how to prepare for your oral examination. Macmillan, New York

Book   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Roehampton, London, UK

Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK

Bartek Buczkowski

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Reeves, S., Buczkowski, B. (2023). How Do I Prepare for a Successful Defence?. In: Mastering Your Dissertation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41911-9_14

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41911-9_14

Published : 19 October 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-41910-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-41911-9

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Want to Get your Dissertation Accepted?

Discover how we've helped doctoral students complete their dissertations and advance their academic careers!

Join 200+ Graduated Students

Get Your Dissertation Accepted On Your Next Submission

Get customized coaching for:.

• Crafting your proposal,
• Collecting and analyzing your data, or
• Preparing your defense.

Trapped in dissertation revisions?

Preparing for your dissertation defense, published by steve tippins on april 4, 2019 april 4, 2019.

Last Updated on: 30th August 2022, 04:43 am

Preparing for your dissertation defense is one of the most important things you’ll do as a doctoral candidate. Now that you’ve completed your dissertation, it’s up to you to present the results to your committee.

However, the results aren’t just about your study. Your committee wants to see what you learned through the process and whether you are ready to take on the responsibility of being a scholar.

What is a Dissertation Defense?

When you finish your dissertation and your committee has said you are ready to move forward, there is a formal meeting–your dissertation defense–where you have the opportunity to explain what you did and what you found.

Your committee then has the opportunity to ask questions related to your work, the implications of what you found, and your future. It is a chance for you to stand before your peers and be welcomed into the academy. Defending your dissertation is one of the great rites of passage into the world of academia.

How to Prepare for Your Dissertation Defense

Rather than write a quick list of dissertation defense tips, I thought I’d create a comprehensive guide to defending your dissertation. After chairing and sitting on countless dissertation committees, these are the steps I recommend you take.

Cultivate The Right Attitude

Perhaps the most important thing to have as you prepare to defend your dissertation is a revised view of your academic self. You’ve spent years gaining knowledge on your chosen subject, and now is your time to shine. While it’s natural to be nervous — after all, you’re jumping the highest hurdle in academia — keep in mind that this is your moment to shine and that you are now an expert on the topic.

One way to look at the dissertation defense is as a rite of passage. You are being tested, and just as with any rite of passage, the more rigorous the test, the prouder you will be of making it through.

During the process of your defense, keep this in mind: your committee tests you not only to ensure your worthiness but also to enable you to see just how much you know; to step into your new role as “expert.”

Prepare For Your Committee’s Questions

With this attitude in mind, you will want to prepare to demonstrate your expertise. That means anticipating questions the committee may have about your research.

If your dissertation asserts the likelihood of a recession in the presence of particular economic indicators, your committee will want to know what socio-political conditions are linked to these indicators. If you found that high achieving students are more likely to have had parents who volunteered in their schools, your committee members will likely ask you to speculate about how to increase parent involvement in schools.

In other words, you’ll need to be able to participate in discourse beyond your results — questions that speak to the relevance and implications of your research.

This kind of preparation goes beyond creating a PowerPoint of your findings (though that is necessary too); it’s part of your stepping into your expert role.

One thing I always tell my students is “Be able to explain your topic to your grandparents,” because to elucidate someone who knows nothing about the topic (no offense to the grandparents!) you must know it inside and out.

Of course, you’ll also want to know your topic well enough to discuss the topic with the top researchers in the field, but at this stage, you’ll have read enough of their work that you’ll feel you know them personally. It’s usually more difficult for academics to simplify than to complicate.

To ready yourself for potential questions, give your abstract to a few friends outside your academic program and have them ask you questions about your study. The advantage is their “outsider” perspective; you’ll have fun answering their questions and will likely have to make a few new neuronal connections to do so. Practicing like this will also help you relax during the actual defense.

Here are some questions you may be asked during your dissertation defense :

• “What are the strengths and weaknesses of your study?”
• “What was the most surprising thing you found?”
• “What will you do next with your results?”
• “If you could do this over, what would you do differently?”

Organize Your Presentation

Keep in mind that your presentation to your committee can double as your presentation to the faculty at any university to which you apply; your preparation will serve a dual purpose. You’ll need, therefore:

• a concise overview of the literature in which your study is grounded,
• a clear description of your study’s purpose, methodology, and findings,
• and a discussion of the implications of these findings.

Naturally, you will need to consult your department’s and college’s specific requirements, but every dissertation committee (and faculty search committee) will want to fully understand these basic elements of your work.

I have provided a list of questions to help prepare your dissertation defense. If you have time restrictions I would put more emphasis upon your results and the implications of your work. Think of organizing your slides according to these questions:

1. Why did I choose to study this? Don’t be afraid to reveal something personal about your motivation, as long as you can do so with poise and dignity. Your committee members will appreciate this humanizing element but keep it brief!

2. What have other people interested in this topic found? If your study is the next clue in the hunt for answers about this topic, what were the clues that led you here? What paths have past researchers gone down — both fruitful and not? What solid theoretical foundation stands under your study?

This portion of your presentation is the easiest to overdo. You will likely need to edit it again and again to ensure it is both concise and comprehensive. Stick to the major themes in your presentation but be prepared to answer questions about less dominant streams of research.

Hack Your Dissertation

5-Day Mini Course: How to Finish Faster With Less Stress

Interested in more helpful tips about improving your dissertation experience? Join our 5-day mini course by email!

3. How did my research question evolve? Answering this question links your research to what has already been established, placing your study in the stream of knowledge. Keep it brief but don’t skip this step, as it is key to showing you as an academic, rather than a student.

4. How did I organize my study? This is a description of the basics of your study and the “whys” of these choices. You can expand a bit here, as the decisions you made at this stage demonstrate your ability to think critically about approaching a research question. Why did you choose your particular methodology? What was the benefit of this design over another option you might have chosen?

5. What did I find? You can begin this section with what you expected to find and why, then explain what you actually found. Keep this section simple and factual.

6. What do the findings mean in relation to the question? Whether or not your findings matched your expectations, they tell you and your colleagues something important about the topic. What is it? Can we speculate that this is a promising area of research, or is this a path we might think of as a dead end? What, exactly, does this study tell us?

7. What’s next for me and for the research? You’ll want to give your committee (and any faculty search committee) a preview of your prospective academic career. What new questions has your study sparked for you? What would you hope other researchers would look at next? How do you intend to fit into the academic conversation on this topic?

Depending on your committee and requirements, you may want to include potential grants you will consider applying for to fund your next study. (This inclusion becomes more important when applying for academic positions.)

Prepare Yourself Mentally

Going back to attitude, remind yourself that a dissertation defense is your opportunity to step into your new role. This is your domain now. Breathe deeply and feel the pride that comes with a job well done. Know that you belong in this realm and the dissertation defense is your chance to prove it. Be humble, too; after all, you stand on the shoulders of giants.

Getting enough rest the night before, drinking water and bringing some with you to drink when your mouth gets dry, and being wise about what you consume prior to the defense (maybe go easy on the carbs and caffeine) are all obvious but frequently overlooked pointers. Your committee members want to know you can handle the pressure and take care of yourself under duress .

You might want to give yourself a few minutes of silence and rest before heading in to defend. Take those moments to recognize whatever you’re feeling, then humbly begin your academic career by presenting your most important work to date. And then get ready to roll up your sleeves for the next one. Congratulations, Doctor!

Steve Tippins

Steve Tippins, PhD, has thrived in academia for over thirty years. He continues to love teaching in addition to coaching recent PhD graduates as well as students writing their dissertations. Learn more about his dissertation coaching and career coaching services. Book a Free Consultation with Steve Tippins

Related Posts

Dissertation

Dissertation memes.

Sometimes you can’t dissertate anymore and you just need to meme. Don’t worry, I’ve got you. Here are some of my favorite dissertation memes that I’ve seen lately. My Favorite Dissertation Memes For when you Read more…

Surviving Post Dissertation Stress Disorder

The process of earning a doctorate can be long and stressful – and for some people, it can even be traumatic. This may be hard for those who haven’t been through a doctoral program to Read more…

PhD by Publication

PhD by publication, also known as “PhD by portfolio” or “PhD by published works,” is a relatively new route to completing your dissertation requirements for your doctoral degree. In the traditional dissertation route, you have Read more…

Dissertation Defense | Strategies & Tips

Introduction

The doctoral program, the dissertation stage, what is a dissertation defense, what is the structure of a dissertation defense, preparation for your dissertation defense, what happens after you defend your dissertation.

The dissertation is the centerpiece of a graduate student's career at the doctoral level. It is a demonstration of a doctoral student's ability to conduct and present research with the skills necessary to contribute to scientific knowledge. As a result, the dissertation defense (sometimes called a thesis defense in non-American contexts) is the main opportunity for doctoral students to demonstrate they can contribute to scholarly discussion.

Many graduate students think of the dissertation defense as a final examination or a job interview. It is often a key final step to complete the doctoral degree.

Graduate studies are the venue in which students build expertise in a particular field and focus area. There are different kinds of graduate degrees, but what separates the doctoral journey from all others at this level is one's ability to generate or discover new knowledge through research. Mastery of trivia or encyclopedic knowledge is far less important to doctoral studies than a systematic organization of that knowledge through established research methodologies .

Requirements for a doctoral degree will vary depending on the institution and the program and may include coursework, comprehensive examinations, research experience, and an established record of research publication . In most cases, however, graduate students complete a doctoral degree when they successfully defend their dissertation.

The culmination of a doctoral program is the graduate student's demonstration of their abilities to conduct and present research in academic work. Not only must students show their understanding of theories, methods, and argumentation necessary for contributing to scientific knowledge, they must also navigate the intricacies inherent to academic institutions in a way that shows that they can cohesively work with and engage scholars.

The dissertation represents this understanding and mastery of skills necessary to work in established academic contexts. The research in a dissertation is deemed credible and worthy of being considered scientific knowledge when a university approves it and adds it to its repository, which is made available to all of its members so they can, in turn, conduct research and generate knowledge. However, this approval comes after a lengthy process that involves assembling members of the academic community together to review and develop research.

To be sure, the main objective of dissertation research is to present new knowledge, but the manner in which students conduct that research should also illustrate their understanding of how to generate insights rigorously, ethically, and in collaboration with others. As a result, doctoral programs, while varying with each other on some level, share a number of core characteristics outlining a long-established process of facilitating dissertation research.

Dissertation committee

A dissertation requires an audience of knowledgeable academic scholars who can comment on and critique the research. A committee made up of faculty members internal or external to the student's university fulfills this role by guiding the research, providing feedback, and asking questions about the resulting dissertation. Is the research that the student has produced "state of the art"? Does it meet reasonable standards of research rigor and transparency? Will the research make a valuable contribution to future academic discussions or practical developments outside of the academy?

It's the job of dissertation committee members to help develop and critique the research. Through this process, graduate students can refine their research design and attain guidance on key theories and methodologies . In turn, committee members gain insight from fresh perspectives on the graduate student's research.

The main committee member is your dissertation chair, which might be your supervisor or a committee member who is most knowledgeable about the research you want to conduct for your dissertation. Beyond that, a good committee member is an established scholar who can provide useful insight about the research context, the issues or theories currently being discussed within the research context, and the methods used to further develop those theories.

Oftentimes, students rely on a faculty member whose classes they have taken to serve as committee members. Students might also identify potential external committee members in academic conferences or by asking for recommendations from their professors.

Dissertation proposal

Designing a robust and rigorous study often requires discussion among colleagues within academia so that research methods can be refined before all the data is collected and analyzed.

The proposal stage gives doctoral students a chance to gather preliminary feedback on their prospective research as well as an opportunity to practice their ability to defend their expertise in their chosen field and focus area. At the dissertation level, this aspect of an academic career is represented by the proposal.

The dissertation committee approves the study design as an indication that the dissertation research has potential. Think of the writing and presentation of the dissertation proposal as a practice run for the eventual defense, while the substance of the proposal, in many cases, becomes part of the final dissertation as it details the underlying theories and methodology for the study.

Dissertation research

While the proposal lays out the research design , the study itself is where you will collect and analyze all the data necessary for the findings and discussion sections of your dissertation. Needless to say, the theoretical developments and actionable insights will come from this part of the dissertation process.

Plan, organize, and develop your research with ATLAS.ti

Powerful tools are there to accompany you at every stage of the research process. See how with a free trial.

The oral defense of your dissertation synthesizes every step of the research process you have undertaken for your research project. It's best to look at it like an opportunity to show off your expertise about the research in your field and, more importantly, your methodological process for developing your original research.

What is the role of a defense?

The defense is the main forum in which you share your research with the larger academic community. Some think of it like a job interview or a test where the committee members assess the worthiness of the research and the student who conducted it. Others consider a defense to be more of a coming out party, a critical event where the student is elevated from a novice scholar to an established expert in their chosen research field.

However it is interpreted, the dissertation defense is a critical event in a graduate student's career. In a successful defense, the doctoral candidate is no longer a newcomer but a scholar who understands the intricacies of academic research and can contribute to it in a substantive manner.

Is a dissertation defense just a formality?

If you are well-prepared and your research is robust and rigorous, you should have no problems passing your oral defense. That said, it is by no means "just" a formality. A graduate student who wants to demonstrate expertise should be prepared enough to anticipate and answer questions from the committee that might otherwise stump or confuse a layperson.

While defenses will differ depending by program and institution, there are a couple of common elements.

First, the doctoral candidate presents their research in a short presentation or lecture. While your committee is already familiar with your research, many defenses are open to the entire academic community who may be interested in your field but may not have the necessary context to understand your research. As a result, this presentation is vital to providing the fundamental knowledge necessary for later discussion.

That discussion, mainly moderated by your dissertation chair and involving all committee members, serves as the central portion of the defense. Committee members will direct questions to you to interrogate your research, but they will also discuss the research amongst themselves to build their own understanding of the key theories and insights.

In some programs, the audience will also have an opportunity to pose questions to the candidate toward the end of the defense. The dissertation committee wants to know if you can engage with outsiders who are less familiar with your research field. This part of the defense is a test of your ability to share scientific knowledge with the greater academic community.

When you get to this stage of the process, most of the preparation for your defense is already complete. That said, the defense is its own event as it is the sole opportunity for the dissertation committee to determine if your research is state of the art and advances scientific knowledge.

In many cases, a dissertation defense can last about two hours and typically follows a set order. It's important to know how to prepare for each part of a defense.

Preparing your dissertation

At this point, the dissertation should be as close to polished as you can make it, but keep in mind you may still receive substantive feedback from your committee members. With the exception of your dissertation chair, members of your committee likely will not deeply engage your research until the oral defense itself. Even so, you still need to present as complete a study as possible during your defense. The key to preparation is to be able to demonstrate a working knowledge of every step of the research process, from research design to how you contribute novel and interesting insights to your field. Successfully defending a dissertation means having a thorough understanding of every major aspect of your study and the surrounding scholarship.

Presenting your dissertation

The dissertation defense typically begins with the student presenting themselves and their research. In many cases, this presentation is similar to those found at conferences or workshops, where the presenter needs to demonstrate that they can showcase their research in a succinct and accessible manner. After all, the audience at a defense will often include members of the academic community who may have a general interest in the research but not a deep familiarity with the specifics of the research.

The presentation itself should be detailed enough to lay out the most important points of the research but within a reasonable amount of time. This presentation lays the groundwork for the ensuing discussion with the rest of the academic community. The dissertation committee or program will often prescribe a set time limit for this presentation; it would be a mistake not to consider this time limit when making your presentation. An overly lengthy presentation or a presenter who meanders with no clear direction will be less persuasive and will not garner the interest of the audience. More importantly, successful time management during the presentation leaves more time for your committee to more thoroughly engage with the research through questions and answers.

Fielding questions asked

Dissertation defense questions make up the primary part of the discussion. This is the main opportunity for members of your committee to point out the novel aspects of your research as well as critique any weak points that should be addressed in revisions to your dissertation.

Ultimately, a successful defense will result in lively discussion among dissertation committee members. A dissertation committee will often look highly on research that engages their thinking and expertise, meaning that novel insights will prove incredibly valuable to a defense.

You may get a question from a committee member to which you may not readily have an answer. After all, it's impossible to anticipate every possible question posed within two hours of scholarly discussion. In the case where a question is truly outside of your knowledge, it's important to acknowledge this and at least explain your thinking about how you would address the question to get a meaningful answer. In other words, it's not always about giving the "correct" answer to all questions asked but demonstrating your ability to reflect and engage in scholarly discussion around your research.

Keep in mind that the defense itself is not the end of the doctoral journey. More often than not, the dissertation committee will accept the dissertation on the condition that revisions will be made based on the committee members' feedback. Even the most successful defense will likely require the doctoral student to make revisions to their dissertation.

In many cases, revisions to the dissertation can be more challenging than the dissertation defense itself. Up until this point, your advisor or dissertation chair was likely the main source of feedback on your dissertation research. After your defense, you will have gained a great deal of rich feedback that you can constructively build on to further hone your dissertation as you move forward in publishing and sharing your research.

ATLAS.ti turns data into critical insights

Download a free trial to see how you can make the most of your qualitative data.

• Utility Menu

Psychology Graduate Program

• Psychology Department
• Dissertation & Defense

The doctoral dissertation is the culmination of scholarly work in graduate school. Every PhD candidate in the Harvard Griffin Graduate School of Arts and Sciences is required to successfully complete and submit a dissertation to qualify for degree conferral. The dissertation must be submitted in one of two formats.  

• The traditional format is described in detail here .
• Three articles describing original empirical research that the dissertation committee deems “of publishable quality.”  The student must be the first author on each paper  or obtain approval from their committee to include papers for which they are not the first author . At least one of the three papers must be under review, in press, or published in a peer-reviewed journal. 
• An introductory chapter that thoroughly reviews the literature relevant to the three papers.
• A concluding chapter that describes what was learned from the three papers.

Post-prospectus changes :  If students would like to make substantive changes to the content and/or format of the dissertation after prospectus approval, they must revise their prospectus and obtain approval of the revised version from all committee members. Another meeting of the prospectus committee may be required if the changes are substantial.

If students would like to make changes to the composition of their dissertation committee after prospectus approval, they must obtain 1) approval from the primary advisor/ committee chair to make the change, 2) approval from the DGS by submitting their revised committee using this form , and 3) approval of the prospectus by any new committee member(s). If the new member doesn't approve of the prospectus as written, the prospectus may need to be revised. If the revisions are substantial, students may need to have another full prospectus meeting to ensure the revised version of the prospectus is approved by every member of the committee.  

Dissertation Advisory Committee:   The Dissertation Advisory Committee (DAC) is comprised of the three members of the prospectus committee. Students also have the option to add one or more committee members who were not a member of the prospectus committee. The GSAS DAC guidelines can be found here . DACs must be approved by the DGS. If there are post-prospectus changes or additions to the DAC, students should submit your new committee for review using this form at least two weeks before submitting the dissertation to your committee. Students will need to submit a CV for any requested non-Harvard committee members.   

Dissertation Approval:   The dissertation must be approved by the student’s advisor before it is submitted to the dissertation advisory committee. After the student sends the dissertation to the committee, they will have three weeks to read and assess the work. Each committee member should complete a  Dissertation Approval Form  and return it to the student and Graduate Office within three weeks. 

The committee members will receive an evaluation form, where they select among these options:

• Not acceptable in current form and cannot be corrected without major revisions and consultation of committee.
• Needs considerable revision, to be seen by me again. Needs committee consultation: [yes/no]
• Is acceptable with a few minor revisions, to be seen by me again.
• Is acceptable with voluntary minor revisions.
• Is acceptable as is.

If substantive revisions are required, the student will need to respond to these revisions, distribute a revised version to the committee, and the committee will have two more weeks to read and assess the revised version. All committee members must approve "as is" or "with voluntary minor revisions" before the defense can proceed.  

Dissertation Defense Date: Students are responsible for coordinating the schedule for their dissertation defense date. Due to the difficulty of coordinating schedules for several faculty, students are encouraged to find a mutually agreeable tentative date and time (we recommend a 2-hour duration) for the defense and ask committee members to pencil it in. However, it is crucial to recognize that this date will be confirmed only when the student has received approval from all members of their committee. In addition, the department must advertise the defense for two weeks before the date it can be held. Therefore, we strongly recommend the dissertation be submitted to the committee ten weeks before tentative defense date to accommodate time for rounds of revisions. The date will be pushed back if the student has not received approval from all members. 

Defenses can take place at any point in the year, as long as the committee agrees to convene. However, note there are deadlines to complete the defense in time for November, February, and May degree conferrals. The Department recommends that the defense be held at least 1-2 weeks prior to the dissertation submission deadline for that degree period. Deadlines for the current year can be found online on the  Harvard Griffin GSAS Degree Calendar .

To submit: Email your dissertation as a single Word Doc or PDF file (or both) to your committee, cc’ing the Graduate Program. The Graduate Program will follow up on this email by distributing the Dissertation Approval Form .  

Oral Defense:   Once the dissertation committee has approved the written dissertation, the student should book a room for the defense and send an abstract to the Graduate Office, which will announce the defense to the Department. WJH 1550 and 105, and NW 243 are the most common choices for a room. Students should submit a room request through FAS RoomBook . Committee members may participate remotely via Zoom, if necessary.  The Department does not have a budget to fly in committee members from other institutions, although students should consult with their individual advisors to determine whether they would cover travel costs. A parking pass can be provided for committee members at nearby institutions.

The oral examination is moderated by the student's advisor, who is the DAC Chair. The advisor will introduce the student. The student gives a formal presentation summarizing their dissertation work. The duration of this presentation varies by area; please check in with your advisor to confirm. Next, each committee member will take turns asking questions (this is what is referred to as the ‘defense’). If there is time, the advisor may invite questions from the audience. At the conclusion of the questions, the candidate and audience are dismissed, and the committee meets to make a final evaluation of the student’s candidacy for a Ph.D. In cases of a positive evaluation, the committee members sign the Thesis Acceptance Certificate . 

Thesis Acceptance Certificate (TAC):   Students must complete a thesis acceptance certificate (TAC), which includes the title of the dissertation and signatures of all committee members. Prior to the oral defense, the Graduate Office will prepare a TAC, which includes the title of the dissertation, student name, and signature lines for each committee member The title on the TAC must read exactly as it does on the title page of the dissertation. A copy of the signed TAC should appear before the title page of the online dissertation submission; no page number should be assigned to the TAC. The TAC will be included in all copies of the dissertation.  

Final Dissertation Submission to GSAS:   Following the successful oral defense, students must submit their dissertation in PDF format to the FAS Registrar’s Office through  ProQuest ETD by the deadline established for each degree conferral date (see the Harvard Griffin GSAS  Degree Calendar  or the  Registrar’s Office website ). Please carefully review the  dissertation formatting  before submitting online. Formatting errors may prevent students from receiving their degree. The TAC must additionally be uploaded as a separate "Administrative Document" when submitting the electronic dissertation. The Registrar’s Office will review the dissertation for compliance and will contact the student to confirm acceptance or to request alterations. More details on the dissertation submission process can be found here .

• Required Courses
• First Year Project
• Second Year Project
• Master's in Passing
• Graduating & Commencement

/images/cornell/logo35pt_cornell_white.svg" alt="doctoral dissertation defence"> Cornell University --> Graduate School

Defending your thesis or dissertation.

Certain special exams are required to earn an advanced degree in the research-based programs at Cornell. Often, these exams need to be taken with consideration of anticipated completion dates.  Enrollment in future semesters after the date a student passes their M or B exam is not permitted. See Taking Exams for more information.

All exam forms are available on our Forms  page.

Exams Required for M.A. and M.S. Degree Defense

If you are enrolled in an M.A. or M.S. degree program, you must pass the final examination for the master’s degree. You can take this after all degree requirements have been fulfilled, but no earlier than one month before completing the minimum number of enrolled semesters.

To pass the exam unconditionally and receive a degree, all regular, proxy, and field-appointed members of the examining committee must assent that the exam was passed unconditionally. If you are enrolled in an M.S./Ph.D. degree program where the M.A. or M.S. degree is a prerequisite for your Ph.D., you may petition your special committee to approve combining the final examination for the master’s degree with the examination for the admission to candidacy.

Exam forms required for the master’s degree include “Schedule Master’s Examination” and “Master’s Exam Results Form and Instructions.”

Exams Required for Ph.D. Degree Defense

The B exam is an oral defense of your thesis or dissertation. This exam can be taken after completing all degree requirements, but not earlier than one month before completing the minimum number of enrolled semesters. At least two semesters of successful registration must be completed between the passing of the A exam and the scheduling of the B exam.

Exam forms required for the Ph.D. degree include “Schedule A Examination and Research Compliance Form,” “Schedule B Examination,” “A Exam Results Form,” and “B Exam Results Form.”

The qualifying exam, or Q exam, is required in some fields for Ph.D. applicants. This exam helps the special committee determine your ability to pursue doctoral studies, continue in a program, and tailor an appropriate program of study.

2024-2025 University of Denver Graduate Bulletin

Doctoral Dissertation Oral Defense

An oral defense of the dissertation is required and is conducted by the candidate’s oral defense committee. The defense is concerned primarily with the dissertation or research project but also may include other information in the major field as the committee deems pertinent. The defense must be held at least three weeks before the end of the quarter in which the degree is to be granted. All members of the defense committee must receive a copy of the candidate’s dissertation at least two weeks prior to the scheduled defense.

The defense is expected to be held with the student and committee members being present in person.  However, if circumstances make it impossible for the student and/or committee members to be physically present, a defense with the student and/or faculty participating by conference call, webcast or other medium is allowed if agreed upon by the student, the dissertation director and committee members. If a disagreement arises with the format of the defense, the Senior Vice Provost or their designee will work with student, chair and committee members to resolve the matter.

Scheduling of the Oral Defense

Prior to scheduling the defense, the student and dissertation director must have established the candidate's oral defense committee in compliance with the associated policies and have submitted the Thesis/Dissertation Oral Defense Committee Recommendation form (found on the OGE website ) to the Office of Graduate Education for review. 

The student must make arrangements for the date and time of the oral defense with the dissertation director, committee and oral defense committee chair.  Students must submit a completed Schedule of Oral Defense form (found on the OGE website ) to their academic program and the Office of Graduate Education no later than four weeks prior to the date of the defense.

Conducting the Defense

The Oral Defense Committee Chair will preside over and manage the defense process. The chair is responsible for making certain that the defense is conducted in a professional manner and that the student has a fair opportunity to defend the dissertation. The chair is expected to provide opportunities for each voting member of the oral defense committee to participate in the defense and to ensure that the defense is of high quality while remaining within proper limits of inquiry. Interested faculty members, and in accordance with departmental policy, currently enrolled graduate students also may attend the oral defense. After the oral defense committee has conducted the essential examination of the candidate, questions may be asked by others present if pertinent and appropriate, as determined by the Oral Defense Committee Chair and common practice in the discipline.

When the defense is completed, the chair will request that the candidate and all other persons not on the defense committee leave the room and will call for a motion to pass or fail the candidate. A recommendation to pass can have no more than one negative vote from members of the committee. If the motion is a recommendation to pass, the committee must then agree on the conditions of the recommendation as follows:

• Pass with no revisions means that only grammatical, labeling or numbering changes are required. Only a limited number of sentence additions or deletions should be necessary.
• Pass with minor revisions indicates that the candidate will be required to reorganize portions of the manuscript and change some of the content.
• Pass with major revisions means that a complete chapter or chapters must be rewritten, additional tables are required and interpreted, or the general format must be changed. Responsibility for seeing that needed revisions are made rests with the dissertation director, but committee members also may require their approval before final submission.
• Fail indicates that the dissertation content is not of acceptable quality or that the candidate cannot defend the research. In most cases, failing the defense results in the rejection of the student’s dissertation and a new or related study usually will need to be undertaken.

A candidate who fails the oral defense may petition the department/program chair for a maximum of one re-examination. The petition should include the reason for the request and committee composition.  The Chair of the program will solicit input from the committee before rendering a decision.  In the case the Chair is a member of the committee the petition goes to the Dean or their designee.  If granted, the re-defense must be scheduled through the Office of Graduate Education and must occur within normal timelines.

The Result of Oral Defense form must be signed by all committee members and returned immediately to the Office of Graduate Education.  The form cannot be submitted by the student. 

Print Options

Send Page to Printer

Print this page.

Download Page (PDF)

The PDF will include all information unique to this page.

Download 2024-2025 Undergraduate Bulletin

Download a PDF of the entire 2024-2025 Undergraduate Bulletin

Download 2024-2025 Graduate Bulletin

Download a PDF of the entire 2024-2025 Graduate Bulletin

Defense and Dissertation Overview

Once a student’s box is checked, the BPH student should set up a one-on-one “Defense Packet Meeting” with the BPH Associate Director to review the Defense and Dissertation Process, which includes reviewing all required materials, logistics, timing, FAS/Harvard Griffin GSAS Form of the Dissertation, sample forms, and to answer student questions related to these processes.

• Defense Committee Chair: One member of the student’s DAC, often the DAC chair, is required to chair the oral defense. This required holdover from the DAC serves the purpose of providing insight to the examiners regarding the path the student has taken in completing the dissertation research. Their primary role is to assess committee satisfaction with the written dissertation, administer the exam, arbitrate any problems that may arise, and make final recommendations for completion of necessary corrections and additions to the dissertation. No other DAC members can serve on the defense committee .
• At least one member must be a BPH faculty member, often from the same academic department.
• One member of the examination committee must be from outside of Harvard University.
• The fourth member may be from either BPH or another Harvard-affiliated program.
• Co-authors and collaborators cannot be members of the Defense committee

DEFENSE TIMING AND FORMAT

• Students should notify the BPH Program as far in advance as possible with the details of the exam. 
• The student is required to notify the BPH office no later than 3 weeks in advance of the defense with the final dissertation title.
• At least two weeks before the date of exam, defense members should be sent copies of the dissertation for review. A copy of the dissertation should also be sent to the BPH program.
• If any defense committee member foresees problems with the exam, they should contact the chair of the defense committee in advance of the meeting. If major problems are found with the written document, the Committee can decide to postpone the oral defense until satisfactory changes are made. While rare in our program, these occasions can involve the insufficient or improper use of statistical methods, grossly overstated conclusions, insufficient background or discussion, or evidence of plagiarism.
• More details about the timing and format are provided in the “Defense Packet Meeting” held with each student.

STIPEND GUIDELINES

If a student successfully defends the dissertation before the 15th of the month, the stipend will be terminated at the end of that month. If the student successfully defends on or after the 15th, the next month’s stipend will be the final month the student is paid, at the discretion of their advisor.

Students are encouraged to speak to their advisors directly about how they should be paid as they complete their graduate work. If an advisor wishes to pay the student for one additional month, beyond what has been explained above, the advisor must notify the department’s financial administrator. For administrative reasons, a stipend cannot be issued to a student after their graduation/degree conferral date.

ORAL DEFENSE PROCEDURES

Part 1: Public Seminar As part of the exam, the PhD candidate will present a public seminar followed by a private oral examination.  The public presentation lasts no longer than 1 hour, which includes time for the advisor’s introduction, the student’s oral presentation and acknowledgements, and time for audience questions and answers.  The Defense Committee is required to attend the public seminar; however, it is customary for members of the defense committee to hold their questions until the private oral exam.

Part 2: Private Oral Examination A private oral examination follows the public seminar.  Initially, the student will be asked to leave the room for several minutes, along with the dissertation advisor if the dissertation advisor has decided to remain for the private exam.  During this time, the committee will discuss the merits of the dissertation, any issues with the dissertation, and areas they may want to focus on during the oral exam.  The student (and advisor if present) is then asked back into the room for the exam.

Each member of the defense committee will direct questions to the candidate based on their review of the dissertation and presentation of the seminar. The Defense Chair will moderate the discussion between the panel and the student.  The closed defense takes up to two hours and involves detailed technical questions as well as broader questions on the conclusions, impact, and limitations of the research.  Dissertation advisors may be present, but they must not participate in the exam (e.g., answer questions posed by the committee).

At the end of the examination, the student (and advisor if present) is once again asked to step out of the room for several minutes.  The Committee will discuss any revisions needed for the thesis and whether these revisions need to be reviewed and by whom.  Once the committee determines the outcomes, the student will be asked back into the room and the Committee provides the student with any [minor] changes needed to the dissertation. While it is extremely rare for the student to fail at this stage, the committee will provide recommendations to the student on their research, communication skills, and development as a scientist, as well as delineating the required changes to the dissertation.

PREPARING FOR THE DEFENSE/WRITING THE DISSERTATION

Students preparing to write and defend their dissertation must review University requirements as outlined in “ Dissertations ” with guidelines published at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

Students are also welcome to visit the BPH Student Lounge (Building 2, Room 113) to look at copies of previous BPH bound dissertations.

Writing the Dissertation Each student must write a comprehensive PhD dissertation on their research topic and the original results of their research. There are a variety of ways a dissertation can be composed, but the core elements described below must be included. The dissertation must show original treatment of the subject, contain a scholarly review of the pertinent literature, provide evidence of independent research of publishable quality, and be clearly, logically, and carefully written. In addition to a compendium of the student’s research, including detailed methods and results, the dissertation must contain a thoughtful discussion of the conclusions, impact, and limitations of the research. The completed work should be critically reviewed by the dissertation advisor before being submitted to the Dissertation Defense Committee.

In some cases, the student has done all of the work in the dissertation; more often portions of the dissertation result from collaborative research. In all dissertations containing collaborative results, the dissertation should indicate concisely who contributed to the work and how.  For example, a chapter containing multi-authored, published work must include a complete reference of the publication and a brief description of the candidate’s and the colleagues’ contributions. For work that is not published but which resulted from multiple researchers, the contributors must be named and respective attributions made clear. This policy allows stylistic flexibility; depending on the amount of collaborative work in the dissertation and the status of publication(s), the attributions can be, preferably, on or accompanying the cover page for each chapter or within an extended acknowledgements section at the end of each chapter. It is recommended that if figures or figure panels are included that are the work of others that the figure panels be clearly identified and the work properly attributed. It is permissible for more than one student to include work from the same collaboration or publication as long as the required attributions are clear, justified, and complete.

Individual chapters can be that of published articles as long as there are also comprehensive Introduction and Conclusion chapters written by the student. While the text can be the same, use of journal reprints as a chapter is not permissible. A word document of the published article must be used, and the pages in the dissertation must be consecutively numbered. Furthermore, the figures and accompanying figure legends must be integrated into the main body of each chapter, preferably following the first mention of the given figure, not clustered at the end of the chapter. Any dissertation that varies significantly from the Graduate School or FAS guidelines, or is not neat and readable, is subject to required stylistic revision before acceptance by the University. (For further information, please visit https://gsas.harvard.edu/academics/dissertations ).

DEFENSE FORMS AND PAPERWORK

Thesis Acceptance Certificate (TAC) Before the examination, the BPH Program Office will provide the Defense Committee Chair with a copy of the official Thesis Acceptance Certificate. This certificate must be signed by all readers of the dissertation at the end of the examination and returned to the BPH Program Office. This certificate will be scanned and sent to the student so it can be inserted as page one of the dissertation prior to the online submission. The student must submit the one original, official copy to the Registrar’s in Cambridge by the appropriate deadline.

If extensive corrections are to be made, the BPH Program Office will hold the certificate until the Defense Committee Chair, and/or assigned reviewer(s) provide a written notification to the BPH Program to confirm that the corrected work has been reviewed and approved.

Dissertation Defense Exam Report The Dissertation Defense Exam Report is completed by the members of the Dissertation Defense Committee to provide a record of any comments or recommendations they may have. The report must be signed by all members immediately after the private exam. The completed report must be submitted to the BPH Program Office at the same time as the Dissertation Acceptance Certificate.

Sample Dissertation Title Page Please click here to see a sample BPH Dissertation Title Page.  Again, please refer to the Dissertation website for guidelines about how to format your dissertation.

News from the School

Air pollution exposure in infancy may limit economic mobility in adulthood

Reducing health inequities in the Mississippi Delta

Climate change and planetary health concentration launches

Orientation 2024: New students encouraged to engage across differences

Search Rochester.edu

• PhD Defense

Preparing for a PhD Defense

Table of contents, preparing to start, nominate a faculty member to serve as chair for your defense, selecting a defense date, international students and work visas, registration categories for defense, dissertation writing and guidelines, preparing your dissertation for defense, registering your dissertation for the final oral exam, know the rituals.

• Use PowerPoint

Public Lecture

Dress Professionally

Items to Bring to the Defense

The Closed Examination

Address Questions with Confidence

Student Status

Final corrected copies of the dissertation, publishing your final dissertation, binding your final dissertation, before defense.

Before you can start your thesis you must:

• Complete all courses, exams, and research requirements
• Meet with your advisory committee to ensure that everyone agrees that the work is ready to defend
• Decide on a date for the defense
• Inform your graduate administrator that you have started the process to prepare for your defense

A chair is appointed for each PhD oral defense to monitor and promote fairness and rigor in the conduct of the defense. To help eliminate pre-established judgments on the candidate’s work, the chair should be from a different program/department than the student. For more information about chair responsibilities, read the instructions for the chair .

You must identify a faculty member to serve as chair for your defense. The chair must be:

• A current full-time faculty member at assistant professor rank or higher
• Outside the department offering the degree program, or outside your advisor's department (interdisciplinary degree programs only)
• Someone who has not had prior involvement in your research

The selection of the chair is subject to the approval of the department/program, th Arts, Sciences and Engineering dean of graduate education and postdoctoral affairs, and the University dean of graduate studies.

The chair must be physically present during the entire defense, including the public oral presentation (if applicable) and the questioning session. The chair is welcome to read and comment on the dissertation and/or the defense presentation, but this is not required. The chair does not need to be an expert in your research area.

It is your responsibility to get a copy of the final dissertation to the chair at least one week prior to the defense.

You should begin scheduling the actual defense date three months in advance to ensure that your advisor, committee members, and chair are able to be present and that rooms are available on the date and time selected.  

Defenses can be held on any day the University’s Graduate Studies Office is open (not weekends, evenings, holidays, or the days between Christmas and New Year’s). Check the  academic calendar  for important dates and deadlines.

Use the  PhD calendar  to determine the deadline dates for getting your paperwork to the Office of Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs and department committee.

When all committee members and your chair agree to a specific date and time for the defense, inform your graduate administrator as soon as you possibly can, but no later than six weeks prior to your defense date . Your graduate administrator will advise you of any program-specific requirements for the defense as well as work with you to prepare for your thesis defense. They will also help you determine who will schedule the room for your thesis defense.

You should provide your committee members at least two weeks to read and comment on your dissertation before the date you need to register your dissertation.

Participating Via Video Conferencing

While you, your advisor, and the chair must all be physically present in the room for the defense, other committee members are allowed to participate in the defense remotely via Skype or other video conferencing technology so long as all committee members agree to the arrangement. This must also be approved by the AS&E dean of graduate education and postdoctoral affairs and the University dean of graduate studies before the dissertation is registered for defense.

Someone other than you and your committee must handle the IT setup and be on standby for any problems. If anyone involved finds that remote participation is interfering with the defense, he or she can request that the defense be rescheduled.

We strongly recommend that international students meet with an  International Services Office (ISO)  representative as soon as permission to start writing is granted. The ISO will provide information on visa options, documentation, and timelines for applying for a visa for employment in the United States.

You will register for one of the following categories while preparing your defense:

• 999: Dissertation —Indicates the PhD student has completed all of the requirements for the degree except the dissertation and is in residence as a full-time student
• 995 : Continuation of Enrollment —Indicates the PhD student has completed all of the requirements for the degree except the dissertation and is not in residence as a full-time student

See the registration page for more information about these categories.

The Preparing Your Doctoral Dissertation manual is a great resource to help you bring your dissertation up to the required standard of organization, appearance, and format for the University of Rochester. Before preparing the defense copy of your dissertation, check the contents of the manual carefully to help avoid mistakes that can be time-consuming and costly to correct.

Before beginning your dissertation, you should consult with your advisor for your department or program’s preferred style guide (APA, MLA, Chicago).

Including material produced by other authors in your dissertation can serve a legitimate research purpose, but you want to avoid copyright infringement in the process. For detailed instructions on avoiding copyright infringement, please see ProQuest’s  Copyright Guide .

The University requires that you provide copies of the dissertation to your committee members and exam chair. You should check with your committee members to see if they prefer printed or electronic copies (or both). Printed copies do not need to be printed on heavyweight, expensive paper unless there is the need to do so for figures and images. 

Printing and binding a dissertation can be expensive. You can use the Copy Center or FedEx Office to print and bind your dissertation.

In order to register your dissertation, you or your graduate administrator will need to create a record on the Graduate Studies PhD Completion website . This record will include:

• Degree information
• Past degrees
• Contact information
• The defense version of your dissertation as a PDF
• Other relevant documents

The version of your dissertation attached to your online record is considered the registration copy.

When your PhD completion record is finalized, committee members will receive emails with links to access your record and approve your dissertation to progress to defense. You’ll need to provide copies of the dissertation identical to the registration copy to all members of your committee, including the chair, at least two weeks before the record is finalized. Everyone but the chair is required to comment or sign off on the dissertation before it is submitted.

There may be deadlines for registering your dissertation specific to your program. Consult with your graduate administrator to ascertain those deadlines and follow them carefully.

After all committee members have provided their approval, your thesis will be reviewed by your faculty director/department chair, the AS&E dean of graduate education and postdoctoral affairs, and the office of the University dean of graduate studies. When all of these officials have approved your committee and dissertation for defense, your dissertation is considered registered. You will be able to track these approvals in your online record and will receive a confirmation email when approvals are complete.

The GEPA Office and the AS&E dean of graduate education and postdoctoral affairs, as well as the University Graduate Studies Office, may make corrections to the PDF of your dissertation. This annotated copy of your dissertation, along with the original version, will be stored in the PhD completion website. You are not allow to distribute updated versions of your dissertation prior to the defense, but be sure to incorporate any corrections before uploading your final dissertation to ProQuest®. 

After the defense, if the committee has required major revisions to be approved by one or more of its members, it is your responsibility to provide them with the corrected final version for their approval.  They will be asked to submit written confirmation of that approval to the University Graduate Studies Office. Failure to do so could delay conferral of your degree.

After the defense, you will receive additional instructions by email for completion of all PhD degree requirements.

It is important to walk into the defense knowing that your committee wants you to pass. Even if criticism is harsh, it is meant to be constructive. The defense is not solely an opportunity for the committee to compliment and congratulate you for the work you have done. It is also meant to challenge you and force you to consider tough questions.

The Defense

The best way to prepare for your defense is to regularly attend the defenses of your colleagues throughout your graduate program, not just several weeks prior to your own defense.

You can also talk to people in your department who already defended to find out what their defenses were like. You should also speak with your advisor to get a sense of his/her specific expectations of a defense.

Guidelines for Presentations

Use PowerPoint or Other Software to Create Slides

You should prepare a presentation of the research that comprises the thesis. Your slides should encapsulate the work and focus on its most salient contributions. In preparing, ask yourself these questions: “What do I want people to know about my thesis? What is the most important information that I can present and talk about?”

Here are some basic tips:

• Use text large enough to be read by the audience (especially text from figures)
• Ensure graphics and tables are clear
• Don’t clutter your slides—if necessary, have things come up on mouse clicks
• Use spell check and proofread your slides
• Practice your presentation with your peers
• Work on pronunciation, if required
• Time your presentation to ensure it will fit the allotted time while allowing time for questions

If your defense includes a public lecture, we recommended that you do a trial run a day or two before in the room that has been booked for your lecture. This will allow you to familiarize yourself with the space and the equipment and to address any problems that arise during the trial run. 

Plan your public lecture to allow enough time for questions. Present enough information so that the audience understands what you did, why you did it, what the implications are, and what your suggestions are for future research.

Friends and family are welcome to attend your public lecture. Faculty and students in the audience are given the opportunity to ask questions.

Plan to dress professionally for the defense in the same way you would if presenting a paper at a conference or for a job interview. You will be standing for a long time on the day of your defense. You might want to keep this in mind when selecting the shoes you will wear for your defense.

Essentials for your public lecture include:

• Your presentation
• A laser pointer
• A copy of your dissertation
• A pen or pencil
• A bottle of water 

You will be asked to leave the room while your committee reviews your program of study, and decides whether:

• The thesis is acceptable/not acceptable
• Whether members will ask sequential questions or whether each member will be allotted a specific time period for questioning

The person to start the questioning is designated. You will be called back into the examining room and questioning will begin. After all questions have been addressed, you will be asked to leave the room while your committee decides the outcome of the exam. You will be asked to return to the room to be informed of the outcome by the chair of your exam committee.

• Listen  to the entire question no matter how long it takes the faculty member or student to ask it (take notes if necessary).
• Pause and think  about the question before answering.
• Rephrase  the question.
• Answer  the question to the best of your ability; if you do not know the answer, remain calm and say so in a professional way.
• Remember  that no one will know the ins and outs of the thesis and your research materials as well as you.  You  are the foremost expert in the thesis topic and  YOU know the research involved. Be positive!

Possible outcomes include:

• Acceptable with minor or no revisions (no further approval required)
• Acceptable with major revisions in content or format (in this case, one or more committee members must be responsible for overseeing and approving the major revisions before the final copies are submitted)
• Not acceptable

After the Defense

You can submit the final corrected copies of your dissertation as soon as you address any remaining comments that were brought up during the defense or noted in the registration copy of your dissertation, which will be returned to you usually within a few days before or after the defense. You can take up to one semester following the defense to address any comments, during which you can remain a full-time student. Your degree conferral date will depend on when you submit the final corrected copies of your dissertation.

The day after your defense, you will receive an email from the University dean of graduate studies that provides instructions on how to:

• Submit the final corrected copies of your dissertation through ProQuest
• Provide authorization for the release of your dissertation through UR Research
• Complete a mandatory online exit survey
• Verify to the University dean of graduate studies’ office that the dissertation has been submitted

The University of Rochester requires all doctoral candidates to deposit their dissertations for publication with ProQuest Dissertation Publishing and with the University libraries. Hard copies are not required. The library receives an electronic copy of the dissertation from ProQuest, but students must give the University permission to obtain it.

For questions regarding publishing through ProQuest, contact Author Relations at [email protected] or (800) 521-0600 ext. 77020.

Check with your graduate administrator to see if your department wants a bound copy of your dissertation, and, if so, how the cost of binding is covered.

If you want a bound copy for yourself or your family, you can purchase one through ProQuest .

Hints for PhD Defenses

At Columbia, PhD defenses are generally not public, although CS usually allows a student audience. Defenses consist of four parts: first, the candidate introduces themselves, then presents a summary of their work, interrupted and followed by questions from the committee. Finally, the committee meets in private to discuss the presentation and dissertation.

While most of the committee will have read most of your thesis, you cannot assume that everyone has read every chapter.

The committee needs to be able to assess impact and depth. Usually, the committee has some idea of this before the defense, but whatever the student can say to make this assessment easier, perhaps just through emphasis, is likely to make the defense go much more smoothly.

Generally, the whole defense will not take more than two hours, but should take considerably less time. Part of the challenge of a defense is to convince the committee that you can summarize the important points of your work in a very limited time.

• What is the problem you are studying?
• Why is it important ?
• What results have you achieved?
• Some committee members will want to know if the works has been published and where and how it was received. For example, if you have written software, indicate where it is being used, either for follow-on work or in some production or test environment.
• Have a list of your thesis-related publications as a slide. Indicate any awards that a paper may have received. For most people, it's easier to list some honor than "brag" about it in person.
• If you have presented your work in a conference or at job talks, be sure to anticipate and address the most common questions asked there.
• The committee should be handed a copy of your slides.
• Be prepared to briefly summarize your background (undergraduate degree, how long at the university, etc.)
• No more than 30 slides, plus "back up" slides with additional material in case of questions. The most effective way of making your committee members mad is to come unprepared with a stack of 80 slides and then madly skip through them.
• Number your slides, particularly if one of your committee members is linked in via speakerphone. Consider using some kind of remote presentation software.
• List your contributions early.
• When presenting your contributions, be sure to use "I" and not "we" so that the committee will know what aspects of the work where yours, and which were group projects.
• Keep discussions of related work very brief, but be prepared to answer questions of the "how does this differ from so-and-so's work" succinctly.
• You will not be asked to prove results again.
• Be prepared to back up any comparative statement with facts, in particular statements like "works better", "faster", "scalable" or "optimal". If you are presenting a protocol, how do you know that it works correctly?
• If you have multiple parts in your dissertation, consult with the committee ahead of time as to whether it makes sense to omit some of them for the presentation.

Hints for Dissertations

• It is better to focus deeply on a single area then to work on several topics, each of which is pursued to a moderate depth.
• Systems work must be coupled with implementation and some kind of numerical comparitive analysis to demonstrate the improvements from existing or alternate approaches.
• Your thesis needs a one page executive summary that a layperson should be able to understand. Test: give it to a relative of yours that does not have an engineering degree...

Miscellaneous Hints

• You are likely only to defend a PhD thesis only once; your defense is a special occasion, so consider dressing appropriately, at least business casual, but a suit is not inappropriate.
• It is customary to provide refreshments for the audience, such as coffee, bagels, cookies and fruit, depending on the time of day.

The Role of PhD Committee Members

• Committee members (should) read the draft thesis (and provide feedback). Obviously, students appreciate an in-depth reading, but it is common for committee members to focus on chapters closest to their expertise. Reading depths varies - some provide line edits, others just suggest larger issues that should be addressed ("Your related work section in Chapter 10 is a bit sparse and ends in 2005."). While this is probably not the place to suggest "do another year of research", filling in gaps is ok and I'd rather postpone a defense by a month if needed. Before the committee gets the thesis, I've done a first or sometimes second reading, but the whole point of the committee is to keep the advisor honest (and complement his or her knowledge or taste).
• Committee members attend the PhD defense, usually in person. Typically, this lasts about 90 minutes. Take notes on any editorial improvements (e.g., "make clear that the throughput graph is measured in gallons/minute"). Vote on the outcome and sign the form.
• If the student is given a set of changes to implement, the advisor asks students to detail on how they implemented the changes, similar to how an author may respond to reviewer comments for a journal. The committee informally signs off, or not, on these changes. There is no need to re-read the thesis.

Checklist for Dissertation

• Spell check;
• Check for missing chapter or figure references;
• Section, Chapter, Figure are capitalized;
• All references converted from [1][2][3] to [1,2,3];
• Consistent capitalization in captions;
• Verify expansion of all abbreviations at first instance;
• Avoid "tremendous", "huge" and other similar adjectives;
• End to end -> end-to-end;
• Check references for capitalization of abbreviations and missing data such as page numbers.

(Contributions by Ed Coffman, Jonathan Rosenberg and Sal Stolfo.)

Translations: Polish

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Sustainability
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Inside the new world of online dissertation defenses

Press contact :, media download.

*Terms of Use:

Images for download on the MIT News office website are made available to non-commercial entities, press and the general public under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license . You may not alter the images provided, other than to crop them to size. A credit line must be used when reproducing images; if one is not provided below, credit the images to "MIT."

Previous image Next image

Call it another MIT innovation. When PhD student Jesse Tordoff passed her dissertation defense this month, she learned about the outcome in a new way: Her professors sent a thumbs-up emoji on the Zoom screen they were all sharing.

Welcome to the new world of the online dissertation defense, one of many changes academia is making during the Covid-19 pandemic. For generations, dissertation defenses have been crowning moments for PhD candidates, something they spend years visualizing. At a defense, a student presents work and fields questions; the professors on the dissertation committee then confer privately, and render their verdict to the student.

Which, in Tordoff’s case, was delivered in good humor, via a familiar little symbol.

“That was my most 2020 moment, learning I passed my defense by Zoom emoji,” says Tordoff, a biological engineer specializing in self-assembling structures.

With the pandemic limiting activity on the MIT campus from mid-March onward, moving dissertation defenses to Zoom has been a necessary adjustment. MIT students who defended dissertations this spring say they have had a variety of reactions to the change: They appreciated that family members could suddenly watch their defenses online, and some felt more relaxed in the format. But students also felt it was more challenging to engage with their audiences on Zoom.

And, inevitably, social distancing meant students could not gather in person with advisors, friends, and family to rejoice, as per the usual MIT tradition.

“That feeling of celebration — it is not something you generate by yourself,” says André Snoeck, who in late March defended his dissertation on last-mile issues in supply chains, for MIT’s Center for Transportation and Logistics.

That moment when you learn you have passed your doctoral dissertation defense. Congratulations to @MITSloan 's Dr. Maarten Meeuwis! @MIT @MITGradStudents @MIT_alumni @MITSloanAlumni pic.twitter.com/U7wNdmBPx7 — MIT Sloan PhD (@MITSloanPhD) April 21, 2020

On Zoom, grandparents in the room

Dissertation defenses are typically quasipublic events, where an audience can attend the student’s presentation but then leaves before faculty tell a student if the defense was successful. Many MIT departments stage parties afterward.

A defense on Zoom means the circle of attendees is no longer restricted by geography — something students appreciated. 

“My mom logged on in South Africa from her retirement village and watched online,”  says Ian Ollis, from the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, who in May defended his dissertation about public perceptions of mass transit in the Boston area. “She wouldn’t have been able to do that if it was done in person.”

Julia Zhao, a Department of Chemistry PhD student, says the defense was a unique opportunity for family and friends to watch her in a professional setting.

“It was nice to see all my friends, and my family could attend too,” Zhao says, whose research focuses on polymers that have both metal and organic components. “They were going to fly in for graduation but not attend my defense, so they got to sit in on that and listen to me talk about what I’ve been doing the last five years. So that was really cool.”

Tordoff also felt that on Zoom, she could focus more easily on her remarks.

“I was less nervous than if I had been standing up there in front of a group of people,” Tordoff says. “I was sitting on my couch.” One reason for that good feeling, Tordoff adds, is that when she logged on to Zoom before the defense, the only other people already there were her grandparents, watching from England.

“I was so happy,” Tordoff says. “That never would have happened in person.”

And in Snoeck’s case, his advisors did orchestrate a virtual toast after the defense, so they could celebrate simultaneously, if not in the same room.

Congratulations Dr. Julia Zhao ( @jouleszhao )!!! Today was her defense through zoom!!! We are so proud of how you finished your PhD through a pandemic in such an impressive fashion!!! @ChemistryMIT #PhDone #AcademicChatter pic.twitter.com/En5gCtDZjQ — The ~Remote~ Jeremiah Johnson Group (@johnsonchem) May 1, 2020

Kudos from strangers

At the same time, MIT students note, being on Zoom limited their interaction with the audience, compared with the nature of an in-person talk. 

“You can’t read the room,” Ollis says, adding: “It’s different. You don’t have a complete perspective on the audience — you see squares of people’s faces, whereas if you do it live, you get a sense of who you’re talking to by seeing faces you recognize.”

The slightly mysterious nature of Ollis’ audience became apparent to him almost immediately after he wrapped up his online defense.

“There were quite a few people watching, who, well, I didn’t know who they were,” Ollis says. “I’ve been staying in the Ashdown grad dorm, and I was walking to the elevator after doing the defense, and somebody walked past who I didn’t recognize, and said, ‘Hey! Good job! I enjoyed that!’ I had no idea who the person was.”

Overall, Ollis says, “I thought it was a good experience. I got good feedback from people.” Even so, he adds, “I prefer being in a room with people.”

For his part, Snoeck, who has accepted a job with Amazon, felt his defense was somewhat “more like a series of Q&As, rather than a conversation” — simply due to the dynamics of the format, like the segmented nature of Zoom and its slight delays in audio transmission.

“It is weird to have a conversation with some lag in it,” notes Zhao, who will soon begin a job with a Boston-area startup, developing hydrophobic coatings. “But I made an effort to say, ‘If I interrupted, please continue.’ It is a little awkward.”

I am very happy, honored and thankful to announce I successfully defended my PhD at MIT last Monday! Special thanks to all mentors and colleagues for your guidance and support during the last five years. pic.twitter.com/bsn4RA2nbk — Felipe-Oviedo (@felipeoviedop) May 14, 2020

The blended defense

That said, for years now, academic faculty have sometimes been participating in dissertation defenses via Skype, Zoom, and other platforms. That typically happens when dissertation committee members are located at multiple universities, or when a professor is traveling for research or a conference. In Snoeck’s case, one of his committee members was already going to join remotely from the Netherlands anyway.

Zhao noticed a student in her department webcasting their defense last year, which seemed “a little out of the ordinary” in 2019, she recalls. But from 2020 onward, it may become standard.

“It’s kind of nice to have an extra component of people who aren’t in town but want to participate in the closing of your degree,” Zhao says. “It will definitely be more normalized, I think.”

Not all MIT PhD students defend dissertations. In MIT’s Department of Economics, the thesis consists of three papers that must be approved, and there is no formal defense, although finishing students do give fall-term presentations. Still, even for economics students, this year seems different.

“The biggest challenge has been a feeling of a lack of closure,” says Ryan Hill, a graduating MIT PhD in economics, who studies the dynamics of scientific research. “It’s been a long road.” In that vein, Hill adds, “I was really looking forward to commencement, and the doctoral hooding ceremony.” Those events will take place on May 29, online, with an in-person ceremony to be held at a later date.

To be sure, Hill is keeping matters in perspective. “In the grand scheme, it’s not bad,” says Hill, who will spend a year as a Northwestern University postdoc, and has accepted a tenure-track job at Brigham Young University.

For any new PhD, crossing that academic finish line is a huge achievement — and relief. Zhao, for instance, had to scramble to complete her lab research before MIT shuttered, and then finish writing the thesis, before the dissertation defense could occur.

“It’s been a pretty crazy two months,” Zhao reflects. “I’m just happy to be done with it.”

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Article: “Zooming past a milestone”
• Office of Graduate Education

Related Topics

• Graduate, postdoctoral
• Commencement
• Center for Transportation and Logistics
• Urban studies and planning
• School of Architecture and Planning
• MIT Sloan School of Management
• School of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences

Related Articles

MIT student applies her doctoral research to the Covid-19 emergency

Life and learning find a way during a pandemic

Hacking life inside and outside the laboratory

Risk, failure, and living your life: The economics of being an early-career scientist

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Improving biology education here, there, and everywhere

Read full story →

Liftoff: The Climate Project at MIT takes flight

Bridging the heavens and Earth

MIT OpenCourseWare sparks the joy of deep understanding

A wobble from Mars could be sign of dark matter, MIT study finds

Enhancing LLM collaboration for smarter, more efficient solutions

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

• Campus Life
• ...a student.
• ...a veteran.
• ...an alum.
• ...a parent.
• ...faculty or staff.
• Class Schedule
• Crisis Resources
• People Finder
• Change Password

UTC RAVE Alert

Final defense, the final defense process.

Note: Each candidate is required to successfully complete a minimum of 12 Dissertation credit hours (Ed.D.) / 15 Dissertation credit hours (Ph.D.) and defend the Dissertation. The candidate must be enrolled in a minimum of 2 Dissertation credits (LEAD 7999) during the semester in which the Final Dissertation Defense is held.

When the Chair is satisfied with the quality of the written work (including any revisions requested at the Pre-Defense) and determines the Dissertation is ready for Final Defense, the Chair distributes the final complete draft of the manuscript and the Final Defense PowerPoint to all members of the Committee via the Dissertation course space (UTC Learn)  at least 14 days in advance . The Chair will then contact the candidate and Committee to set a Final Defense date and time (allotting 90 minutes) at least 14 days in advance.  It is the Committee members’ responsibility to be as flexible as possible when scheduling the Final Defense. To qualify for graduation in a given semester, the final defense process and dissertation manuscript must meet the Graduate School deadlines as published on the Graduate School website (link:  Thesis and Dissertation ). 

• Once the date and time have been established, the Chair will notify the Program Office ( [email protected] ) via email and will submit the Dissertation title and abstract for the campus announcement.  
• The Program Office will distribute appointment invites to the candidate and Committee and will provide the candidate with step-by-step instructions to submit the Notice of Defense information to the Graduate School. The Notice of Defense must be submitted  at least 14 days in advance , according to Graduate School policy. The Graduate School shall publicly announce the Final Defense to the campus community.  
• The Chair will guide the candidate in preparing for the public research presentation and private defense. The majority of Committee members must contribute synchronously at the Dissertation defense. The candidate is responsible to being able to access an electronic copy of research and presentation materials for the defense (a backup plan is strongly recommended). The candidate will present a  25-30   minute oral defense   of the study with an emphasis on the findings and the conclusions. The oral defense may not exceed 35 minutes. Candidates are expected to dress in professional business attire for the defense presentation. Family members and friends may be permitted to attend, however, candidates should be aware that the defense is an official proceeding and their work will be publicly reviewed and potentially criticized. The typical defense consists of a public forum that is open to the entire University community.  
• At the start of the defense proceeding, the Program Director/Advisor will outline the defense proceedings and the Dissertation Chair will introduce the Committee and candidate.  
• After the candidate’s oral presentation, Committee members and guests will be given an opportunity to pose questions related to the research. The Chair will act as moderator to keep the exchange relevant and timely.  
• Once all general questions have been addressed, any guests in attendance will be asked to adjourn. The Committee will then meet with the candidate in a private session.  
• Following the private session, the Chair will ask the candidate to leave while the Committee deliberates. Only the candidate is to return for feedback from the Chair and Committee.

Evaluation of the Final Defense

There are three possible results from the Dissertation Committee vote:

      Pass

     Re-examination

     Failure

The evaluation of  Pass  indicates that a majority of members of the Dissertation Committee concluded that the candidate met or exceeded the requirements set forth in the Dissertation Proposal, however s/he may be required to make editorial and/or formatting modifications to the Dissertation.

An evaluation of  Re-examination  indicates that two or more members of the Committee found substantive problems in the work or the defense of the Dissertation. The members of the Committee will prepare a list of modifications or improvements required before a second Dissertation defense will be scheduled. The re-examination will occur in the same or subsequent semester unless the Dissertation Committee and the Dean of the Graduate School grant additional time to effect the necessary changes.

An evaluation of  Failure  indicates that the majority of the Dissertation Committee judged the quality of the candidate’s Dissertation and the defense of the Dissertation to be below the standards expected of doctoral level scholarly performance. In the event of a result of Failure, the candidate may petition the Chair and Program Director for the opportunity for re-evaluation.

Final Dissertation Approval and Digital Submission

Following the successful Final Defense:

• The Chair will request that the Program Office circulate the Examination Results Form for digital signatures from each Committee member and the Program Director/Advisor. The Program Office will submit the Examination Results Form to the Graduate School for processing.  
• The candidate will make any additional revisions as recommended by the Committee and will submit the revised manuscript to the Dissertation course space (UTC Learn) for the Chair to review.  
• Once the manuscript has been approved by the Chair, the Chair will notify the Program Office ( [email protected] ) via email that the manuscript is ready for initial formatting review at the program level.  
• Once the initial program-level formatting review is complete and the candidate has made any additional revisions, the Program Director/Advisor will notify the Program Office ( [email protected] ) via email to send the candidate information regarding next steps.  
• A pre-populated  Verification of Standards and Bibliography Software Form  to digitally sign and return to the Program Office. The Verification Form indicates that the  Standards  for formatting were followed, verifies the bibliography management software used, provides the name of the software (EndNote), and indicates the word processing software used (Microsoft Word) to produce the dissertation. Once the Verification Form has been digitally signed by the candidate and returned to the Program Office, the Program Office will submit the Verification Form to the Graduate School for processing.  
• Instructions to submit the Dissertation manuscript electronically to the Graduate School via UTC Scholar for formatting review (link:  Thesis and Dissertation ). The candidate should list the Dissertation Chair (or Co-Chairs) as a co-author(s) in UTC Scholar. Submission deadlines are posted to the Graduate School website. The Dean of the Graduate School (or an appointed representative) will review the Dissertation to ensure compliance with the Thesis and Dissertation Standards, which can also be found on the Graduate School website (link:  Thesis and Dissertation ). Graduate School standards stipulate that all theses and dissertations must use bibliography management software. The Learning and Leadership Program requires all candidates to use EndNote bibliography management software. Compliance with UTC formatting / style guidelines is the responsibility of the candidate.  
• Upon completion of the initial format review, the Dissertation manuscript will be accepted or returned to the candidate for corrections. The candidate must make the requested corrections and resubmit a revised electronic copy for review. The review process continues until the document is confirmed as acceptable.  
• Once the Dissertation manuscript is accepted, the candidate will receive an email that the document has been posted, which means the Graduate School Dean has accepted the document and the Dissertation requirement has been filled. Questions regarding the UTC Scholar submission process may be directed to the Graduate School.   
• The candidate should forward a copy of the UTC Scholar notification to the Dissertation Chair (or Co-Chairs) and Program Office ( [email protected] ).  
• The Program Office will provide the candidate with information regarding final steps in preparation for Commencement.

Note: There is no fee for electronic submission of the Dissertation to UTC Scholar. The final transcript and diploma may be withheld until the UTC Scholar submission and approval process has been successfully completed. Digital submission to ProQuest is optional; it is not required by the University. For more information, visit the ProQuest website (link: ProQuest UMI ). If you choose to submit your manuscript to ProQuest through the UMI ETD Administrator site, you must notify the Graduate School Dean (or appointed representative) of your submission. 

Learning and Leadership Doctorate's Program

Applied leadership & learning.

• Hunter Hall #412
• Dept 4141
• 651 McCallie Avenue
•   423-425-5445
• [email protected]

Dr. Shaphan Roberts Defends Innovative Doctoral Dissertation on Civil Unrest, Community Trust, and Policing

Shaphan Roberts, an accomplished leader in conflict resolution and adjunct professor at Pepperdine University's renowned Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, has reached a major academic milestone with the successful defense of his doctoral dissertation. His cutting-edge research, titled The Aftermath of Civil Unrest: Insights into Community Trust, Hope, and Perceptions of Police , provides a pioneering exploration of the effects of large-scale civil unrest on community hope, trust, and perceptions of law enforcement. Utilizing content analysis, Roberts unveils the patterns and narratives that shape these crucial relationships over time, offering profound insights into the challenges and opportunities for rebuilding community trust in the wake of civil unrest.

Roberts, currently serving as senior director for strategic initiatives and global expansion at the Straus Institute, is widely recognized for his transformative contributions to the field of dispute resolution. He has consistently demonstrated a visionary approach to conflict management, particularly in fostering collaboration between historically divided groups—most notably, law enforcement and the communities they serve. Drawing on his experience as the former director of the Los Angeles City Attorney's Dispute Resolution Program, Roberts has played a pivotal role in reshaping how communities and law enforcement interact, develop trust, and resolve conflicts.

His leadership in the "Beyond the Dialogue" initiative underscores his deep commitment to bridging divides between police officers and local residents. This initiative provides law enforcement and community members with transformative mediation and de-escalation training, creating a lasting framework for trust-building and meaningful, sustainable dialogue. Roberts' innovative approach in blending skills-based training with direct, honest conversation is widely regarded as a model for conflict resolution in polarized communities.

Dr. Roberts earned his doctorate in Business Psychology from the Chicago School of Professional Psychology, further solidifying his expertise at the intersection of human behavior, leadership, and conflict resolution. His dissertation marks not just an academic achievement, but a testament to his dedication to advancing scholarship in bridge-building, community engagement, and conflict resolution at Pepperdine University and beyond.

With his combination of academic rigor, practical experience, and leadership, Roberts continues to push the boundaries of what’s possible in creating resilient, trust-based community relationships in even the most challenging environments.

Keep up with the latest Pepperdine Caruso Law news by joining our mailing list.

• Alumni News
• Campus News
• Faculty News
• Announcements
• Events/Announcement Requests

Copyright  ©  2024  Pepperdine University

• Privacy Policy
• GDPR Privacy Notice
• Clery Notice
• Terms of Use
• Title IX
• Web Accessibility

Founded in 1962, UVI is a public, co-ed, land-grant HBCU in the United States Virgin Islands.

• Mission, Vision, & Values
• Office of the President
• Accreditation & Memberships
• Programs & Centers
• Covid 19 Information

Admissions & Aid

We invite you to join the UVI community.

• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Admissions
• International Applicants
• Financial Aid
• Our Campuses
• Admitted Students

Check out our degrees and programs, find one that fits you, and come join the family.

• Find a Program
• Schools & Colleges
• Graduate Studies
• Honors Program
• Study Abroad
• Student Success
• UVI Catalog
• Academic Calendar
• Online Learning

UVI invests in over a dozen research programs across many fields of study.

• Sponsored Programs

Student Life

At UVI, you will find many ways to get involved and explore new interests.

• Health & Wellness
• Student Affairs
• Safety & Security

• Dissertation Defense
• Program Overview
• Admission Requirements
• Creativity and Leadership for Change (CLC) Track
• Educational/Academic Leadership for Change (ELC)Track
• Organizational Development and Leadership (ODL) Track
• Graduation Requirements
• PhD in Creative Leadership

Dr. James Maddirala, Director, Creative Leadership for Innovation and Change, Ph.D. Program invites you to the Public Dissertation Defense

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Archived funding opportunity

Nsf 23-502: cultural anthropology program - doctoral dissertation research improvement grants (ca-ddrig), program solicitation, document information, document history.

• Posted: October 12, 2022
• Replaces: NSF 19-560
• Replaced by: NSF 24-605

Program Solicitation NSF 23-502

Full Proposal Target Date(s) :

     January 17, 2023

     January 15, Annually Thereafter

     August 15, 2023

     August 15, Annually Thereafter

Important Information And Revision Notes

• This solicitation provides instructions for preparation of proposals submitted to the Cultural Anthropology Program (CA) for Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants (DDRIG).
• This revision increases the direct cost limit for DDRIG proposals to $25,000.
• This revision eliminates the requirement that a PI Letter be included as a supplementary document attached to the proposal.
• This revision does not alter the restriction that a DDRIG proposal may only be re-submitted once without a waiver for an additional submission.
• This revision reaffirms the explanation of NSF's mission to support fundamental research, rather than applied research, or descriptive ethnographic work with primarily humanistic objectives, or non-generalizable data collection centered on describing a particular ethnographic site or sites.
• The revision includes additional guidelines related to the inclusion of a well-developed data analysis plan in the project description.
• The revision includes additional guidelines related to the inclusion of a clear and systematic sampling strategy in the research plan.
• The revision includes additional budgetary guidance.
• Additional solicitation-specific guidelines are described in the proposal preparation and submission instructions below. Failure to comply with the CA-DDRIG solicitation-specific instructions may result in a proposal being returned without review.

Innovating and migrating proposal preparation and submission capabilities from FastLane to Research.gov is part of the ongoing NSF information technology modernization efforts, as described in Important Notice No. 147 . In support of these efforts, proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation must be prepared and submitted via Research.gov or via Grants.gov and may not be prepared or submitted via FastLane.

Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. The NSF PAPPG is regularly revised and it is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements specified in this solicitation and the applicable version of the PAPPG. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Summary Of Program Requirements

General information.

Program Title:

Cultural Anthropology Program - Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants (CA-DDRIG)

The primary objective of the Cultural Anthropology Program is to support basic scientific research on the causes, consequences and complexities of human social and cultural variability. Contemporary cultural anthropology is an arena in which diverse research traditions and methodologies are valid in investigations of human cultural variation. Recognizing the breadth of the field's contributions to science, the Cultural Anthropology Program welcomes proposals for empirically grounded, theoretically engaged and methodologically sophisticated research in all sub-fields of cultural anthropology. Because the National Science Foundation's mission is to support basic research, the NSF Cultural Anthropology Program does not fund research that takes as its primary goal improved clinical practice, humanistic understanding or applied policy. A proposal that applies anthropological methods to a social problem but does not propose how that problem provides an opportunity to make a theory-testing and/or theory-expanding contribution to anthropology will be returned without review. Program research priorities include, but are not limited to, research that increases our understanding of: Sociocultural drivers of critical anthropogenic processes such as deforestation, desertification, land cover change, urbanization and poverty. Resilience and robustness of sociocultural systems. Scientific principles underlying conflict, cooperation and altruism, as well as explanations of variation in culture, norms, behaviors and institutions. Economy, culture, migration and globalization. Variability and change in kinship and family norms and practices. General cultural and social principles underlining the drivers of health outcomes and disease transmission. Biocultural work that considers the nexus of human culture and its relationship with human biology. Social regulation, governmentality and violence. Origins of complexity in sociocultural systems. Language and culture: orality and literacy, sociolinguistics and cognition. Theoretically-informed approaches to co-production in relation to scientific understandings of human variability and environmental stewardship. Mathematical and computational models of sociocultural systems such as social network analysis, agent-based models, multi-level models, and modes that integrate agent-based simulations and geographic information systems (GIS). As part of its effort to encourage and support projects that explicitly integrate education and basic research, CA provides support to enhance and improve the conduct of doctoral dissertation projects designed and carried out by doctoral students enrolled in U.S. institutions of higher education who are conducting scientific research that enhances basic scientific knowledge.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

• Jeffrey Mantz, Program Director, W13148, telephone: (703) 292-7783, email: [email protected]
• Jeremy Koster, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-8740, email: [email protected]
• Tarini Bedi, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-8740, email: [email protected]
• Angelica T. Brewer, Program Specialist, telephone: (703) 292-4636, email: [email protected]
• 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 40 to 50

During a fiscal year, Cultural Anthropology expects to recommend (either on its own or jointly with one or more other NSF programs) a total of 40-50 doctoral dissertation research improvement (DDRIG) awards.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $800,000

Anticipated Funding Amount is $800,000 pending availability of funds. Project budgets should be developed at scales appropriate for the work to be conducted. The total direct costs for CA DDRIG awards may not exceed $25,000; applicable indirect costs are in addition to (that is, on top of) that amount.

The proposer may concurrently submit a doctoral dissertation proposal to other funding organizations. Please indicate this in the "Current and Pending Support" section of the NSF proposal, so that NSF may coordinate funding with the other organizations. The "Current and Pending Support" section of the NSF proposal should also list the proposal itself. The proposer may submit a DDRIG proposal to only one NSF program although they may request that the proposal be co-reviewed with one or more other NSF programs; actual co-review will be at the discretion of the relevant program officers.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) - doctoral degree granting IHEs accredited in, and having a campus located in, the U.S., acting on behalf of their faculty members.

Who May Serve as PI:

The proposal must be submitted through regular organizational channels by the dissertation advisor(s) on behalf of the graduate student. The advisor is the principal investigator (PI); the student is the co-principal investigator (co-PI). The student must be the author of the proposal. The student must be enrolled at a U.S. institution, but need not be a U.S. citizen. To be eligible to serve as the PI, the advisor must be available during the period of submission, review, and performance of the research to relay information and communications from NSF to the student.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI:

There are no limitations on the number of DDRIGs that may be submitted by an organization on behalf of a single faculty member during a specific competition or over the course of their career. But an organization may submit only two proposals (an original submission and if necessary a resubmission) for a particular student over the student's career, barring special dispensation from the Cultural Anthropology Program for an additional resubmission. Such dispensations are exclusively at the discretion of the CA Program Officer(s). A student and their advisor therefore should carefully consider at what point during the student's graduate program the student is ready to submit a DDRIG proposal, keeping in mind that proposal processing normally takes approximately six months.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. proposal preparation instructions.

• Letters of Intent: Not required
• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required
• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: ; NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply. The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .
• Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ).

B. Budgetary Information

Not Applicable

C. Due Dates

Proposal review information criteria.

Merit Review Criteria:

National Science Board approved criteria apply.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:

Standard NSF award conditions apply.

Reporting Requirements:

Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.

I. Introduction

The Cultural Anthropology Program awards Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants (DDRIGs) in all areas of cultural anthropological science supported by the program. The primary objective of the Cultural Anthropology Program is to support basic scientific research on the causes, consequences and complexities of human social and cultural variability. DDRIGs support the development of the next generation of cultural anthropologists to pursue those questions.

Contemporary cultural anthropology is an arena in which diverse research traditions and methodologies are valid in investigations of human cultural variation. Recognizing the breadth of the field's contributions to science, the Cultural Anthropology Program welcomes proposals for empirically grounded, theoretically engaged and methodologically sophisticated research in all sub-fields of cultural anthropology. Because the National Science Foundation's mission is to support basic research, the NSF Cultural Anthropology Program does not fund research that takes as its primary goal improved clinical practice, humanistic understanding or applied policy. Program research priorities include, but are not limited to, research that increases our understanding of:

• Sociocultural drivers of critical anthropogenic processes such as deforestation, desertification, land cover change, urbanization and poverty.
• Resilience and robustness of sociocultural systems.
• Scientific principles underlying conflict, cooperation and altruism, as well as explanations of variation in culture, norms, behaviors and institutions.
• Economy, culture, migration and globalization.
• Variability and change in kinship and family norms and practices.
• General cultural and social principles underlining the drivers of health outcomes and disease transmission.
• Biocultural work that considers the nexus of human culture and its relationship with human biology.
• Social regulation, governmentality and violence.
• Origins of complexity in sociocultural systems.
• Language and culture: orality and literacy, sociolinguistics and cognition.
• Theoretically informed approaches to co-production in relation to scientific understandings of human variability and environmental stewardship.
• Mathematical and computational models of sociocultural systems such as social network analysis, agent-based models, multi-level models, and modes that integrate agent-based simulations and geographic information systems (GIS).

II. Program Description

CA Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants provide funds for items not usually available from the student's U.S. academic institution. The awards are not intended to provide the full costs of a student's doctoral dissertation research. Funds may be used for valid research expenses. The funds may not be used for post-field research writing, analysis and thesis production costs. Funds may not be used for stipends, tuition or the purchase of textbooks or journals. Further details concerning allowable as well as non-allowable expenses can be found in the budgetary information section of this solicitation.

While NSF provides support for doctoral dissertation research, the student (co-PI) is solely responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of results for publication. NSF, therefore, does not assume responsibility for such findings or their interpretation. This program does not support research with applied, disease-related goals, including research directly focused on the etiology, diagnosis or treatment of disease or dysfunction.

III. Award Information

Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.

IV. Eligibility Information

V. proposal preparation and submission instructions.

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions : Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov.

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg . Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] . The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number.
• Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov . The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: ( https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

See PAPPG Chapter II.C.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

In addition to the guidelines in the PAPPG or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide, specific instructions for Cultural Anthropology (CA) Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant (DDRIG) proposals are:

Proposal Set-Up

Select "Prepare New Full Proposal" in Research.gov. Search for and select this solicitation title in Step 1 of the Full Proposal wizard. The information in Step 2, Where to Apply, will be pre-populated by the system. Select "Research" as the proposal type. In the proposal details section, select "Single proposal (with or without subawards). Separately submitted collaborative proposals will be returned without review. The project title must begin with "Doctoral Dissertation Research:". The title should be descriptive rather than clever. It should emphasize the generalizable science that the research will address, such as the main research question that the student aims to investigate.

You may select additional programs if you would like those programs to consider co-review of your proposal with Cultural Anthropology. After the proposal is created click on the 'Manage Where to Apply" link on the proposal main page. This will open the "Manage Where to Apply" page where additional programs can be selected. Note that a request for co-review should be made only when the PIs believe the proposed work makes a strong case for advancing theory and basic knowledge in multiple communities served by multiple programs and when the project description engages literature from those communities. Methods that are relevant to other programs are not sufficient to merit co-review; the contribution must be theoretical and scientific. Not all standing programs support the co-review of DDRIG proposals. You should verify that the proposed program is willing to co-review a DDRIG proposal.

Senior Personnel

List the primary dissertation advisor as the "PI" and the student as the "co-PI."

Cover Sheet

• Mark human subjects as pending, approved or exempted.

Project Description

• This section is limited to 10 single-spaced pages of text.
• If the proposal is a resubmission, the first paragraph of the project description must summarize how the proposal has responded to previous reviewer concerns.
• The "Results from Prior NSF Support" section is NOT required for DDRIG proposals.
• A statement of the research problem and its scientific importance, specific aims, questions or hypotheses. The research questions or hypotheses must be empirically driven. Arguments that are not subject to falsification via empirical discovery and data analysis will be returned without review. Projects that are motivated strictly by philosophical or humanistic questions, or that source information in service of a particular theoretical position (without putting that theoretical position at risk of falsification through data collection and analysis), will also be judged to be unsuitable for funding and returned without review.
• A section addressing intellectual merit (we recommend you clearly label it in a way that highlights the basic scientific value of the project, e.g., "intellectual merit," "scientific generalizability," or "scientific merit"). This section should describe the project's potential contribution to advancing anthropological theory beyond the site and context of the project itself. It should include a focused review of what is thought to be known about the topic of study and a clear statement of what the project's original contribution will be and why that contribution will be significant. Proposals that list areas of scholarship without reference to the specific means by which theory will be tested, queried or advanced are not sufficient. The project description must describe the project's potential contribution to advancing anthropological theory beyond the site and context of the project itself. Projects that are focused narrowly on the sociological or cultural context of a particular site that fail to frame the project in terms of a larger, generalizable set of questions will be returned without review.
• A section labeled broader impacts that discusses the broader impacts of the proposed activities and the pathways by which those broader impacts will be realized. Broader impacts are significant effects beyond basic science. They might include communicating results to policy makers, contributing to the knowledge base to solve an important social problem, engaging students of any age in the research enterprise, doing outreach to the public, producing databases that contribute to scientific infrastructure, strengthening international research collaborations, broadening the scientific participation of underrepresented communities, or strengthening research capacity in developing nations. Partisan activities explicitly related to advocacy and/or activism should not be included.
• A discussion of any preliminary studies performed by the student, the results of those studies and how they inform the project.
• An account of whether the student has the relevant technical training, language competence and other preparation necessary to make the project feasible. This must also include an explanation of how the student has obtained the relevant methodological training (at their institution or elsewhere) to conduct a scientific research project.
• A statement of steps taken to ensure objectivity given student positionality with respect to their research site(s), question(s) and hypotheses;
• A research design that includes a discussion of the research site(s) and source(s) of data, the methods by which data will be collected to answer the questions or test hypotheses posed by the proposal, and the reasons those methods are the most appropriate.
• A clear description of the systematic strategy that will be used to recruit research participants (i.e., sample design) and a justified estimate of the sample size necessary to achieve research objectives. Research sample design and estimates of sample size should be carefully described; the researcher should explain how these strategies mitigate sampling bias, omitted variables and confirmation biases.
• A well-developed data analysis plan (usually one page in length) that explains how the data will be systematically analyzed to address the specific research questions, aims or hypotheses posed within the proposal.
• A research schedule or timeline that includes the date that funds are required.

Budget and Budget Justification

• The budget justification pages should be used to detail and explain the rationale for each item requested.
• Travel expenses may include food and lodging as well as transportation while the researcher is living away from their normal place of residence. All travel expenses should be requested under "Travel - Domestic" or "Travel - Foreign."
• All other expenses should be requested under "Other Direct Costs."
• No items may be budgeted under "Consultants" or "Subawards". If casual or itinerant labor is being requested to assist in data collection activities (e.g., the hiring of local field assistants at a research site), this may be budgeted under "Other Direct Costs."
• Incentive payments to research participants to participate in the study should be budgeted under "Other Direct Costs." These should not be described as "gifts."
• Any software requested should be at academic pricing where available.
• Salaries or stipends for the graduate student or the advisor are not eligible for support. Therefore, after the PI and Co-PI(s) are entered on the cover page, their names must be manually removed from the senior personnel listing on the budget pages. This is to avoid construal as voluntary committed cost sharing, which is not permitted.

Facilities, Equipment & Other Resources

• If you have resources (such as a research awards from another sources) that will be used to supplement any NSF award, those resources should be listed here (rather than in the budget justification).

Data Management Plan

A data management plan (DMP) is required for all research proposals, and proposals that do not include one will not be able to be submitted. The DMP should address the following questions:

• What kinds of data, software and other materials will your research produce?
• How will you manage them (e.g., standards for metadata, format, organization, etc.)?
• How will you give other researchers access to your data, while preserving confidentiality, security, intellectual property and other rights and requirements?
• How will you archive data and preserve access in publicly accessible and institutionally maintained repositories in the short and the long term? (A departmental website is not adequate.)

PIs are encouraged to consult the American Anthropological Association's (AAA) Statement on Professional Ethics , Section 5: Make Your Results Accessible, and Section 6: Protect and Preserve Your Records, as well as the AAA's data management course modules . In addition to describing the AAA's practice standards, these web pages include links to other helpful resources on data management. PIs who plan to use a standard archive, such as the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) archive housed at the University of Michigan, Harvard University's Dataverse or the Qualitative Data Repository (QDR) at Syracuse University, are strongly advised to contact the archive before undertaking the research to ascertain any specific requirements for permissions or metadata, which would require advance planning. The AAA maintains a wiki where researchers can identify where their data are archived or deposited. We recommend use of this facility to enhance data sharing.

Individuals with disabilities who need reasonable accommodations as part of the proposal process must contact the NSF Office of Equity and Civil Rights (OECR) at least 30 days prior to the proposal target date.

Supplementary Documentation

• Up to two pages of technical illustrations, maps, or sample survey questions may be included as a supplementary document.
• If the project's success depends on access to a non-public site (such as a clinic, Native American or Indigenous territory or business), PIs are advised to obtain a letter providing that access. This should not be an endorsement of the proposal. Please use this template:

To: NSF _________(Program Title)___________ Program From: ____________________________________ (Printed name of the individual collaborator or name of the organization and name and position of the official submitting this memo)

By signing below (or transmitting electronically), we acknowledge that we are listed as providing resources, access or assistance for the project described in the proposal entitled. Barring unforeseen events, I/we agree to provide the access, resources or assistance as described in the project description of the proposal.

Signed: _______________________ Organization: ________________________________ Date: _________________________

Letters of reference or evaluation are NOT allowed. The Cultural Anthropology Program does NOT require a letter from the department assessing the student's progress to degree.

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Budget Preparation Instructions:

Proposers may request up to $25,000 in direct costs and durations of up to 24 months. There are no indirect cost limitations; proposals submitted in response to this solicitation are subject to the awardee's current federally negotiated indirect cost rate. Indirect costs are in addition to (that is, on top of) the maximum direct cost request of up to $25,000. Project budgets should be developed at scales appropriate for the work to be conducted and may only include costs directly associated with the conduct of dissertation research. Please allow 6 to 8 months after the target date for an award to be made.

DDRIG awards provide funding for research costs not normally covered by the student's university. Expenses that may be included in a DDRIG proposal budget include:

• Costs associated with travel and related expenses (budgeted under Line E) to conduct research at field sites, archives, specialized collections or facilities away from the student's campus.
• Costs for data collection activities.
• Costs for modest field equipment (e.g., laptops; photo, video or audio equipment), and materials and supplies (usually budgeted under Line G1) necessary for the conduct of the project that will be devoted to the project over the duration of the award. (Note that any equipment purchased with NSF funds becomes property of the awardee organization.) Costs should be based on appropriateness to the scientific need of the study and current market prices. Top-of-the-line equipment is generally not funded unless there is a specific and well-justified explanation as to why standard equipment will not suffice.
• NOT ALLOWABLE: donation of books to a needy school or gifts simply because it is cultural custom.
• ALLOWABLE: purchase of books needed to perform a study that will take place at a school, incentives (including pre-paid gift cards) for participation in a study that would likely not be able to be completed without incentives (e.g., a very long survey to fill out, a study that requires multiple follow-up sessions, medical testing, etc.), subject payments for survey respondents.
• Costs for casual or itinerant research assistance (budgeted under Line G6), such as the hiring of local field assistants at a research site, if essential to the execution of the study.
• Costs for other research services that are essential for the research and are not otherwise available.
• Costs for travel-specific insurance (such as for medical evacuation and repatriation of remains), if appropriately justified.
• Costs for modest (i.e., typically less than State Department per diem rates) living expenses for the Co-PI during research in locations away from the university or normal place of residence.
• Costs of obtaining a visa required for the research.
• Costs related to achieving the broader impacts of the proposed work.
• Costs for the expenses of relatives or dependents, including childcare, are allowable as specifically authorized by 2 CFR §200.475. We recommend contacting program officers in advance of proposal submission, wherever possible, to discuss allowability of specific costs.

Costs that cannot be reimbursed by DDRIG awards include the following:

• A stipend or salary for the doctoral student or advisor;
• Costs for tuition, university fees, the purchase of textbooks or journals (except publication costs), dissertation preparation, routine medical insurance, mortgage payments, personal clothing, toiletries, over-the-counter medicines or other items not directly related to the conduct of dissertation research.
• Costs for transcription services are not ordinarily allowed.
• Costs for consultants budgeted under Line G3.
• Subawards budgeted under Line G5Costs for expensive cameras and computers unless justified in terms of the research goals.
• Insurance for equipment.
• "Gifts" or "tokens" for research participants/informants that are requested because it is a cultural norm to exchange gifts.

D. Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via Research.gov:

To prepare and submit a proposal via Research.gov, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html . For Research.gov user support, call the Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail [email protected] . The Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research.gov system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html . In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: [email protected] . The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation. Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.

Proposers that submitted via Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/ .

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Leading the World in Discovery and Innovation, STEM Talent Development and the Delivery of Benefits from Research - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 - 2026 . These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.

1. Merit Review Principles

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:

• All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
• NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
• Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

2. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

• Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
• Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

• Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
• Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
• To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
• Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
• How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
• Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Panel Review.

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. notification of the award.

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF . Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Build America, Buy America

As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America's Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.

Consistent with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Division G, Title IX, Subtitle A, November 15, 2021), no funding made available through this funding opportunity may be obligated for an award unless all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. For additional information, visit NSF's Build America, Buy America webpage.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

VIII. Agency Contacts

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

For questions related to the use of FastLane or Research.gov, contact:

• FastLane and Research.gov Help Desk: 1-800-673-6188
• FastLane Help Desk e-mail: [email protected]
• Research.gov Help Desk e-mail: [email protected]

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

• Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: [email protected] .

IX. Other Information

The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences . Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website .

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov .

About The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.E.6 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 (NSF Information Center) (703) 292-5111 (703) 292-5090   Send an e-mail to: or telephone: (703) 292-8134 (703) 292-5111 Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See System of Record Notices , NSF-50 , "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51 , "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records." Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Suzanne H. Plimpton Reports Clearance Officer Policy Office, Division of Institution and Award Support Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management National Science Foundation Alexandria, VA 22314 Institut for Geovidenskab og Naturforvaltning Ph.d.-forsvar PhD defense: Kedra Moh... PhD defense: Kedra Mohammed Ousmael Kedra Mohammed Ousmael defends her thesis: Implementation of high-throughput DNA markers for efficient breeding tactics of forest tree species Zoom link Supervisors: Associate Professor Ole Kim Hansen, IGN Senior Researcher Jon Kehlet Hansen, IGN Assessment Committee: Associate Professor Maria del Rosario Garcia Gil, SLU - Sweden Researcher Laurent Bouffier, INRAE - France Associate Professor Anders Ræbild (chair), IGN Summary: Traditional tree breeding programs are hindered by their retrospective nature, focusing on a limited number of economically important species, and requiring significant time and resources. Therefore, and in response to climate change and the growing population, there is a need for new and more flexible breeding strategies suitable for a wider range of species. The challenge lies in balancing the resource intensive long-term genetic improvement with the urgency of addressing evolving environmental pressures. This thesis explores the use of highthroughput DNA markers to enhance tree breeding efficiency, particularly focusing on trees of lower economic interest with limited resources for breeding programs. The thesis includes four papers/manuscripts, and a brief overview is presented as follows:  First, the effectiveness of partial SNP genotyping in increasing breeding efficiency and managing genetic diversity was evaluated. For this purpose, we used breeding seedling orchards (BSOs) – the primary breeding effort − of Cordia africana located in Ethiopia. Partial genotyping using the reduced representation-based SNP genotyping technique named DArTseq was used to estimate realized genomic relatedness between individuals in the BSOs. Genotyped and non-genotyped individuals were co-evaluated using a single-step approach. Genotyping a subset of the individuals not only improved genetic parameter estimates but also enabled diversity management by revealing inbreeding and genetic differentiation among provenances. Recognizing the challenge posed by the scarcity of genomic resources in many tree species, the thesis work proceeded with investigating cost-effective methods of identifying markers in trees with no genomic resources. Firstly, the issue of trees with mega genomes was addressed by utilizing a reference genome of a closely related species, an own de novo assembly and reference free approaches. Secondly, the simultaneous identification of markers in multiple angiosperm species by leveraging conserved regions within their genomes was explored, aiming to streamline the process. For the first case, Nordmann fir was used, a conifer with a large and complex genome. A combination of the above-mentioned techniques identified a high density of SNPs (up to 1 SNP every 176 bases), and a subset of them was validated via identity and genomic relatedness analysis. For the second case, universal target capture probes were used to sequence specific regions across 11 different angiosperm species and assess the presence of sufficient within species variation inside those regions for kinship analysis. Sufficient SNPs were identified in all 11 species and validated through cluster analysis, genomic relatedness analysis, and comparison to genome-wide SNPs. Cluster analysis grouped individuals according to their families. The relatedness values from angiosperm353-based SNPs correlated highly (r = 0.95, p < 0.001) with the values obtained using thousands of genome-wide DArTseq SNPs in C. africana. Potential for scaling up was shown through successful design and in silico primer amplifications in Alnus glutinosa and Faidherbia albida, with 85.3% and 87% success rates, respectively. Additionally, 57% of A. glutinosa primers were transferable to Alnus rubra. Lastly, fast and efficient methods of incorporating markers in breeding to address occasional disorders or newly emerging challenges were investigated, exemplified by the study of current season needle necrosis in Nordmann fir. A total of 1545 randomly selected reference trees from two production stands (Mariager and Tørring) established with seeds from the FP.266 Skibelund clonal seed orchard were utilized for ad hoc breeding to enable backward selection among the parents. Additionally, to complement the ad hoc breeding, which employs quantitative genetic analysis, 495 moderately to severely damaged trees (Sel-495) were specifically selected from the most affected area at Mariager to screen parents based on the proportion of their offspring in these affected trees. The majority (55.6%) of the offspring in Sel-495 came from 20% of the clonal parents in FP.266. The low narrow-sense heritability (h2 = 0.08 ± 0.04) and low predictive accuracy (average in Mariager = 0.32 (0.12); average in Tørring = 0.35 (0.12)) indicate that neither the simple ranking based on the proportion of affected offspring nor ranking based on breeding values offer a perfect solution. Therefore, a combination of breeding value-based ranking and ranking based on over-frequency of offspring in the Sel-495 trees emerged as a more effective approach for selection against the disorder. Overall, the thesis provides practical solutions for developing and utilizing high-throughput DNA markers to improve tree breeding efficiency and implement new breeding tactics, ultimately contributing to genetic diversity management and sustainable forestry practices. A digital version of the PhD thesis can be obtained from the PhD secretary at [email protected]  before the defence. After the defence the thesis will become available from the Royal Danish Libary at [email protected] Tid: 4. okt. 2024, kl. 12.30 Sted: Auditorium A3-24.11, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg C Arrangør: Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management Select language PhD Defense: Incidence, microbiology and management of acute otitis media and ear discharge in primary care Phd defense of saskia hullegie. Besides ear pain and fever, the sudden onset of a runny ear is a sign of an acute middle ear infection. A small tear in the eardrum allows fluid to drain from the middle ear into the ear canal. The main aim of this thesis was to gain insight into the incidence, microbiology and management of acute middle ear infections (AOM), in particular AOM with ear discharge (AOMd), in primary care. Chapter 2.1 reports that general practitioner (GP) visits for middle ear infections dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chapter 2.2 shows that the incidence of acute middle ear infections in adults were stable over 2015-2018 with on general 5.3 episodes per 1,000 adults each year. Oral and topical antibiotics were prescribed in 46%, and 21% of episodes. Chapter 3 reports that Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes are globally the most common bacteria present in the ear discharge of children with AOMd. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) data are sparse and mainly limited to S. pneumoniae. Our trial reported in chapter 4 was not able to demonstrate non-inferiority of antibiotic-corticosteroid eardrops to oral antibiotics, but suggests that oral antibiotics might work better for symptom relief and shortening the duration of AOMd in children. In chapter 5, we show that topical and oral antibiotics had a similar effect on the gut bacteria and the number of antibiotic-resistant genes in the stool of children with AOMd.  In chapter 6 the thesis’ main findings, including our trial’s recruitment challenges and what this means for future research in primary care, are discussed. Share on LinkedIn Share on Facebook Share on WhatsApp Share via email Utrecht University Heidelberglaan 8 3584 CS Utrecht The Netherlands Tel. +31 (0)30 253 35 50 389 IMAGES Defense of a Doctoral Dissertation The Ultimate Guide to Delivering an Outstanding Dissertation Defense The Ultimate Guide to Delivering an Outstanding Dissertation Defense Invitation to my doctoral defense PPT Tips for preparing your PhD defense [EASY dissertation defense VIDEO Doctoraatsverdediging Doctoral defence at Uni Bremen #phdlife #graduation #unibremen Manas Gaur-Dissertation Defence-Knowledge-infused Learning Lectio praecursoria, Elisa Vilhunen 14.04.2023 My Final Defense presentation (1/2) Disease and Ageing Biomarker Identification from multimodal magnetic resonance imaging COMMENTS Defending Your Dissertation: A Guide The first thing you should know is that your defense has already begun. It started the minute you began working on your dissertation— maybe even in some of the classes you took beforehand that helped you formulate your ideas. This, according to Dr. Celeste Atkins, is why it's so important to identify a good mentor early in graduate school. PhD Defence Process: A Comprehensive Guide for 2024 The PhD defence, also known as the viva voce or oral examination, is a pivotal moment in the life of a doctoral candidate. PhD defence is not merely a ritualistic ceremony; rather, it serves as a platform for scholars to present, defend, and elucidate the findings and implications of their research. The defence is the crucible where ideas are ... Preparing For A Viva Voce (Dissertation Defence) Preparing for your dissertation or thesis defense (also called a "viva voce") is a formidable task. All your hard work over the years leads you to this one point, and you'll need to defend yourself against some of the most experienced researchers you've encountered so far. It's natural to feel a little nervous. How to prepare an excellent thesis defense How to prepare for a thesis defense quick guide. Check with your department about requirements and timing. Re-read your thesis. Anticipate questions and prepare for them. Create a back-up plan to deal with technology hiccups. Plan de-stressing activities both before, and after, your defense. PhD Dissertation Defense Slides Design: Start This Guide was created to help Ph.D. students in engineering fields to design dissertation defense presentations. The Guide provides 1) tips on how to effectively communicate research, and 2) full presentation examples from Ph.D. graduates. The tips on designing effective slides are not restricted to dissertation defense presentations; they can ... Dissertation Defense Dissertation Defense. The oral defense of your dissertation is, in essence, your formal introduction to your new colleagues—you are the expert on your subject. In the defense you'll be expected to cogently and clearly explain your work and how it fits with other research and scholarship in your field. The exact nature of the oral defense ... Preparing for your thesis defence Once the deliberation has concluded, the Chair will inform you of your examining committee's decision. There are three possible outcomes to a PhD defence: Accepted: The thesis is completed to the satisfaction of the examining committee. There may still revisions required, but they are likely minor and typographical or editorial in nature. PDF Faculty and Candidate Guide to the Dissertation Oral Defense Introduction In the case of a sudden absence prior to, or on the oral defense date, doctoral Dissertation Advisors should reach out to the Office of Doctoral Studies as soon as possible for assistance. The Oral Defense Moderator. One member of the Dissertation Oral Defense Committee serves in the . role of Defense Moderator. How to Prepare for Your Dissertation Defense The dissertation defense is the crowning moment of years of research - the final examination before a PhD student is awarded their doctoral degree. During a dissertation defense, the student presents their research, methodology, findings, and conclusions to a committee of faculty members and experts in their field. From Nerves to Triumph: Your Personal Guide to Dissertation Defense From Nerves to Triumph: Your Personal Guide to Dissertation Defense. Jennifer Harrison. August 26, 2023. Aberystwyth University. Dissertation Defence/ Viva, Mental Health, Thesis and Dissertation, Thesis Tips, Wellbeing. Join Dr. Jen Harrison on a compelling voyage as she delves into the world of defending a dissertation/thesis. Mastering Your Ph.D.: Defending Your Thesis With Flair A thesis defense is a cross between an exam and a ceremony. As with all ceremonies, rules must be followed, such as standing when the examiners enter the room and not addressing the examiners by their first names. ... Survival and Success in the Doctoral Years and Beyond (Springer, 2006). Gosling is a senior medical writer at Novartis Vaccines ... How Do I Prepare for a Successful Defence? If you are doing a PhD or an MPhil then you will definitely need to do a viva, and this will be conducted by at least two examiners, usually one from inside the university and one external to the university who is an expert in the field. At BSc or MSc level you may be asked to do a viva, however you may be expected to do an oral or a poster ... Preparing For Your Dissertation Defense Last Updated on: 30th August 2022, 04:43 am. Preparing for your dissertation defense is one of the most important things you'll do as a doctoral candidate. Now that you've completed your dissertation, it's up to you to present the results to your committee. However, the results aren't just about your study. Your committee wants to see ... PDF A Guide for Graduate Students Preparing for a PhD Defense ur department Chair will approve the thesis for registration using the same online system. Then, requests for review and approval will go to the Arts, Sciences and Engineering Dean of G. duate Studies office and finally to the office of the University Dean of Graduate Studies. When all of these officials have appro. Dissertation Defense The dissertation is the centerpiece of a graduate student's career at the doctoral level. It is a demonstration of a doctoral student's ability to conduct and present research with the skills necessary to contribute to scientific knowledge. As a result, the dissertation defense (sometimes called a thesis defense in non-American contexts) is the ... Dissertation & Defense The doctoral dissertation is the culmination of scholarly work in graduate school. Every PhD candidate in the Harvard Griffin Graduate School of Arts and Sciences is required to successfully complete and submit a dissertation to qualify for degree conferral. ... Dissertation Defense Date: Students are responsible for coordinating the schedule ... 13 Tips to Prepare for Your PhD Dissertation Defense 12. Get Plenty of Rest. Out of the dissertation defense preparation points, this one is extremely important. Obviously, sleeping a day before your big event is hard, but you have to focus and go to bed early, with the clear intentions of getting the rest you deserve. 13. Defending Your Thesis or Dissertation : Graduate School Exams Required for Ph.D. Degree Defense. The B exam is an oral defense of your thesis or dissertation. This exam can be taken after completing all degree requirements, but not earlier than one month before completing the minimum number of enrolled semesters. At least two semesters of successful registration must be completed between the passing ... Doctoral Dissertation Oral Defense Doctoral Dissertation Oral Defense. An oral defense of the dissertation is required and is conducted by the candidate's oral defense committee. The defense is concerned primarily with the dissertation or research project but also may include other information in the major field as the committee deems pertinent. The defense must be held at ... Defense and Dissertation Overview Once a student's box is checked, the BPH student should set up a one-on-one "Defense Packet Meeting" with the BPH Associate Director to review the Defense and Dissertation Process, which includes reviewing all required materials, logistics, timing, FAS/Harvard Griffin GSAS Form of the Dissertation, sample forms, and to answer student questions related to these processes. Preparing for a PhD Defense When your PhD completion record is finalized, committee members will receive emails with links to access your record and approve your dissertation to progress to defense. You'll need to provide copies of the dissertation identical to the registration copy to all members of your committee, including the chair, at least two weeks before the ... Hints for PhD Defenses Miscellaneous Hints. You are likely only to defend a PhD thesis only once; your defense is a special occasion, so consider dressing appropriately, at least business casual, but a suit is not inappropriate. It is customary to provide refreshments for the audience, such as coffee, bagels, cookies and fruit, depending on the time of day. Inside the new world of online dissertation defenses When PhD student Jesse Tordoff passed her dissertation defense this month, she learned about the outcome in a new way: Her professors sent a thumbs-up emoji on the Zoom screen they were all sharing. Welcome to the new world of the online dissertation defense, one of many changes academia is making during the Covid-19 pandemic. Final Defense The Final Defense Process. Note: Each candidate is required to successfully complete a minimum of 12 Dissertation credit hours (Ed.D.) / 15 Dissertation credit hours (Ph.D.) and defend the Dissertation. The candidate must be enrolled in a minimum of 2 Dissertation credits (LEAD 7999) during the semester in which the Final Dissertation Defense ... Dr. Shaphan Roberts Defends Innovative Doctoral Dissertation on Civil Shaphan Roberts, an accomplished leader in conflict resolution and adjunct professor at Pepperdine University's renowned Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, has reached a major academic milestone with the successful defense of his doctoral dissertation. Dissertation Defense PhD in Creative Leadership PhD in Creative Leadership; Dissertation Defense; Dr. James Maddirala, Director, Creative Leadership for Innovation and Change, Ph.D. Program invites you to the Public Dissertation Defense ... Director, Creative Leadership for Innovation and Change, Ph.D. Program invites you to the Public Dissertation Defense . Name ... PhD Program Dissertation and defense. All PhD students will research and write an original piece of scholarship based on primary source research. The dissertation must "embody creative scholarship" and "must add to the sum of existing knowledge and give evidence of considerable literary skill." After completing the dissertation, the candidate ... Cultural Anthropology Program The Cultural Anthropology Program awards Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants (DDRIGs) in all areas of cultural anthropological science supported by the program. ... to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of ... PhD defense: Kedra Mohammed Ousmael PhD defense: Kedra Mohammed Ousmael. ... A digital version of the PhD thesis can be obtained from the PhD secretary at [email protected] before the defence. After the defence the thesis will become available from the Royal Danish Libary at [email protected]. Detaljer . Tid: 4. okt. 2024, kl. 12.30 Sted: Auditorium A3-24.11, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 ... PhD Defense: Incidence, microbiology and ... The main aim of this thesis was to gain insight into the incidence, microbiology and management of acute middle ear infections (AOM), in particular AOM with ear discharge (AOMd), in primary care. Chapter 2.1 reports that general practitioner (GP) visits for middle ear infections dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic. assignment essay homework paper phd report review speech thesis