I had this very tricky situation during my PhD defense years back and also in facing my inter-faculty committee in the concluding phases of my PhD work. Three important persons (1 on the committee, 1 at the defense and 1 on the post defense panel) insisted that one of the key components on which my work was hinged did not exist and was not plausible, the concept of the performance of identity. I found strategies to evade the road blocks and sustain my line of analysis but looking back it was a tough one for me and it threatened the output of my entire tenure of scholarship on the PhD program. I would love scholars and researchers who have faced such challenges or who may have valuable insights to share their experiences and or coping strategies for the benefit of scholars who may be facing such situations.
This situation is often pathetic and heart breaking for most scholars. I am elated you overcame the situation with an iron heart and that is what most PhD scholars must do when entangled in this same problem.
The truth is I encourage students to engage in a wide circulation of their research proposals beyond the confines of their department and institution to get feedbacks from other experts before undertaking the actual study. This may help erase doubts and tighten the seemingly weakened foundational components of the proposed research in its EARLY STATE to avoid this heartache and eventual transformation of the work. Recently, it happenee to one PhD candidate and he has been given a year to remold the study. Its just distressing. In such a case, the student must work very hard and ensure great collaboration with the team cited above so that the remediation process will be fast.
This situation is often pathetic and heart breaking for most scholars. I am elated you overcame the situation with an iron heart and that is what most PhD scholars must do when entangled in this same problem.
The truth is I encourage students to engage in a wide circulation of their research proposals beyond the confines of their department and institution to get feedbacks from other experts before undertaking the actual study. This may help erase doubts and tighten the seemingly weakened foundational components of the proposed research in its EARLY STATE to avoid this heartache and eventual transformation of the work. Recently, it happenee to one PhD candidate and he has been given a year to remold the study. Its just distressing. In such a case, the student must work very hard and ensure great collaboration with the team cited above so that the remediation process will be fast.
This is indeed a significant challenge. While I have not encountered this personally I do know others who had to deal with this situation. Based on what I have learned about positive and difficult situations that arise during the dissertation process I would say that the first strategy is to develop a solid working relationship with one's supervisor. If the supervisor and the student are not "on the same side" then everything becomes a challenge.I agree with Dickson Adom's comment and would suggest that it is important to expand the circle of conversation " beyond the confines of their department and institution." There are many ways in which this can be done: e.g., attending and presenting at conferences (even smaller regional conferences), talking to professionals in the community who work in the same or similar disciplines, writing articles, etc.
Thanks Prof Dickson, I agree that creating conversations around the work, consulting widely too would ensure that different shades of reactions to the work and its path of development are brought to the fore in good time so the candidate can look at all sides and prepare for disagreements and challenges early.
Thanks Prof kelvin, I agree with your recommendations and the tie-in with Dickson's; however, some institutions compound the problem with the regulation that publications can only be generated from the work after the completion of the dissertation and the award of the doctorate. This is contrary to what obtains in most institutions where PhD candidates are expected to publish out of their research before they complete the work. Some institutions are just so conservative but your recommendations are some of the ways to avoid the ambush I encountered.
Initially, when I heard I had to publish at least 3 papers in reputable journals from my research that must have been indexed in SCOPUS before the final defense (knowing how long indexing could take), I was asking why because most schools I know don't do that, one of the reasons given is to ensure that research go to the larger research community where it can be peer reviewed, criticized and lapses that are beyond your boundaries pointed out or whether such study had been conducted. Once you have your papers ready before such defense, it gives a lot of boldness and confidence of the research conducted. The panels would not be arguing about the foundation or basis of the work.
But again the above process takes time
Thanks Doc, the situation you experienced rings true with me and I wonder why sometimes even after doing the needful somebody who was at earlier stages of presentation and review of a research work would come up as if he/she is just waking up and start raising posers that were not there before. Especially as those earlier presentations would have entailed distribution of copies across concerned specialists in different faculties.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medical Science Nursing
- Dissertations