Meaninginlife, Yes, all citations are positive. It is that paper which uses the research method. The other paper was more conceptual where we started this whole research topic/area. I can argue all I want, I don't know what will happen.

The viva lasted 3 hours. I have no doubt this guy hadn't bothered to read my thesis. But no way to prove it, and even if I do so what.

Incognito, yes, very similar situation. But only difference is I got a resubmission. It is not minor or major which I wouldn't mind, it is a resubmission, with potentially new viva and fees (to add insult to injury).

This is how I felt. It was a public prosecution. The jury had reached the guilty verdict even before the trial started. And no matter how well I defended.

I answered all his questions to the point, and he could not refute a single one. Except the last where he got me cornered was the research method. I answered why I used this method. But as my supervisor forbid me to even mention another method, I couldn't answer that why I didn't consider others. So they decided that my defense is very strong, but have given me exact same changes, the points which I answered already.

Anyway, I could go on and on. What has happened has happened. I will try to find the fastest and best way out now. If it means making those damn corrections so be it.

One possibility is to discuss with this examiner and try to establish if there could be any misunderstanding or miscommunication on your research method. (Of course, your research method is unlikely the best approach from current point of view, but it is possibly reasonable say three years ago.) So, if possible, try to convince him that this research method is reasonable when you proposed your research initially. But time has changed, there are other discoveries now. One year later, the so-called “new research method” may be obsolete again.

Alternatively, you could convince the examiner that there was miscommunication such that “it is your fault” that you did not completely elaborate and justify the research method. (Say limited time, limited funding and resources etc) But your research method is still reasonable. Unless you agree that there was better research method and this was not a good decision, from the perspective of three years ago.

Otherwise, in pursuit for a new research method, this examiner should be acknowledged as national hero? You may have to thank him for more papers published with the new research method? But this possible new research method could be done as post-doc?

It is also possible that the supervisor 'approved' or 'guided' certain research method for some "political reasons".
Postgraduate students may not be aware or informed why certain equipment should 'also' be used, for example.

Therefore, it depends on whether the supervisor tries to explain more details to the jury under the table...

Hi this part seems quite odd to me too. Surely you should have given a thorough explanation as to why you did not use established theories, if only to say why yours is better. Isn't this standard practice? It's very strange that your supervisor 'forebad' you to even mention other theories. My supervisor is always pushing me to do the opposite, because I have explain why my approach is better and where it fits in with the discipline. I get the impression I would be in serious trouble if I didn't do this.

Double post sorry - pesky phone.

Yes. I should have perhaps convinced my supervisor to mention other methods. But honestly it wouldn't have made a huge difference. This examiner just wanted to find "things" to object. He should have provided grounds for suggesting those changes too. He hasn't pointed to specific errors or shortcomings so that is also part of my argument,

Meaninginlife, the problem was quite opposite. I used a newer method, where the examiner is a believer of traditional methods. I have criticized them, which I guess didn't sit we'll with him. The supervisor is willing to talk to the examiners and explain to them. Things will eventually sort out. Just that the humiliation and embarrassment will remain, for a short while at least.

Thanks all for your messages. I have received some good advice here, and perhaps it has helped me calm down too.

There are a few more things that your supervisor can share with the examiners:
1. If possible, establish that the new method has similar findings as the traditional.
2. Count the number of researchers that cite your papers which mention the new method.
3. The postgraduate felt that he was over defensive during the viva (well, postgraduates tend to be nervous during viva); it may be good for you to make an apology for attacking the traditional method.
4. The postgraduate need to graduate and earn a living… any other compassionate reasons related to family…

Hopefully, the revise and re-submit decision can be changed to minor revision. If not, many other postgraduates who have no publications and citations will be shivering when they go for viva exam…

I don't want to sound discouraging, but as your supervisor has clearly given you some really bad advice thus far, be very careful about his claims to be able to sort everything out behind the scenes. At both the university where I did my PhD and where I work now, this would quite simply be impossible. The examiners' reports would have been written and signed off by the dean, and to get the PhD you have to do what they say. The only route would be a formal appeal. Now your university might have different procedures, but I'd genuinely be surprised. Given the growing litigiousness of students when they don't get the result they want, most universities have really become much more careful to have set procedures and to follow them to the letter.
Reading between the lines, it sounds like you've done some great research but possibly not followed the expectations of what a PhD thesis should contain. It sounds like your supervisor's odd advice about not mentioning other methods had left you open to the criticism that you weren't aware of the wider literature, which is actually a serious flaw in a PhD thesis. Where I work there are criteria for passing a PhD (available to students) and each examiner has to independently submit a written report on the thesis prior to the viva rating the thesis against those criteria. If both examiners had decided there was a serious flaw in the thesis prior to the viva (and the reports agreed on what the problem was), then to some extent, the decision was already made however well you defended. Good luck, but I'd check everything your supervisor tells you from here on in against the regulations to protect yourself.

Hi brit27

One possibility your supervisor forbids you to even mention another method is that you may criticise all other methods? Actually, there seems no necessity to criticize traditional methods. It appears that you confronted the examiner? Perhaps you should have a reflection.

Perhaps you have emphasized achievements such as 3 paper publications, 80 citations, one award, $2m funding during the viva? However, it is possible that some examiners are simply not impressed and feel the need to let certain postgraduate to learn a lesson through “revise and re-submit”… Even some folks in this forum do not feel sympathetic about this case… Perhaps it is because the idiot examiner was really intimidating?

Anyway, your supervisor may consider telling the examiner that you’ve learnt a lesson first. Then check if he was really against of the new method or unhappy with your defence?

The revision could be simply the inclusion of a table which compare traditional and modern methods in the appendix…

i have spoken to some Nobel Prize winners, but i feel that they are quite humble…

Bewildered, You raise valid points. We also have similar rules. The whole thing (in my case) is about what a phd thesis should contain. It fulfills all requirements, but the structure and content correspond to this newish method. It has been followed before. In fact there are examples I now know on this board who graduated last autumn.

I only have pre-oral from the other examiner. He only raised three points, which were relevant and I am happy to incorporate. He even sent a message post viva outlining his changes which were reasonable and fall within minor changes. i havent yet received pre oral report from other examiner (I've asked), which he had to submit in a week. So lets see what that contains. To me this whole episode is due to the "ignorance" of this particular examiner to this new method, and his lack of appetite to learn new things. Even if he disagrees, he could have familiarized himself with this method. Research I thought was about pushing boundaries and learning /exploring new stuff. Anyway lessons learnt, possibly the hard way. But hopefully not the hardest!

It should be good to check all the papers that cited your work. Then find out how many have graduated by looking for their thesis. Maybe also how many are still postgraduates. There could be many more who are lucky who passed with this new method... :-)

Waiting for your good news.

HI Brit27,
I sympathise with your predicament, as someone who's having his own issues with examiners (my internal to be specific). Can you not simply acknowledge the presence of the other research methods in your thesis prior to explaining why you use yours? I did that with my theoretical framework: I explained the different theories before emphasising the relevance of the one I choose to my case study.

As far as your publications/citations, that is impressive. In fact, as far as whether this would be conducive in a viva, it is a double-edged sword: some examiners would be impressed, others wouldn't: I presented at a conference for RAF intelligence officials, and while my internal is aware of my presentation (which was widely praised, including by the head of my department), it did not stop him from challenging me and giving me a torrid time in the viva. I agree with Dr. Jeckyll that jealousy could be at play here, or simply ego (which is the case in my situation).

Finally, whilst I understand what bewildered is saying about formal appeals, I still believe you should give it a shot as a last resort. I feel like you have a very strong case; in my case I certainly will go for that option if he doesn't approve the last two corrections. I think appeals boards can distinguish between "fake" and "genuine" appeals, and yours sounds like a genuine one. Don't let that deter you.

Will keep in touch as I am very interested in your case due to the similarities. Chin up I promise you'll be Dr. Brit27! I don't think unis fail students in their PhDs unless their theses are TERRIBLE (i.e. not even fit for a Masters). I would advise u to do what I did this time around for the revisions: DOCUMENT EVERYTHING!! I wrote a separate report explaining what I did, page numbers, etc... This would reinforce my case should I consider an appeal.

Meaninginlife, incognito, you raise good points. I will keep you posted about my progress. Also, just a small clarification. My papers, citation or other publications did not get a mention at the viva at all. Of course, a list of publication has been provided at the beginning of my thesis as a standard practice. Also, a quick google will reveal citations etc, but I did not mention it during the viva at all, neither the funded pilot, subsequent funding or anything like that.

I am (and was) ready to acknowledge other research methods in my thesis. But the whole point of resubmission is a bit of a "disproportionate punishment", just because they have not been mentioned.

Also, I should clarify that these research method is simply applied by me. Myself or my supervisor haven't contributed to it in any way. They have been used in other fields for quite some time now.

Incognito, having an internal making your life difficult is even more surprising and sad. Most probably a case of ego or jealousy like you mention. Could you not overcome by some internal processes or by having a quiet word? Good luck to you and fingers crossed.

I'm really not sure it is, I'm afraid. The whole point of a PhD is to show your contribution and where your work fits into prior research and moves things on. If - admittedly under advice, seemingly erroneous from your supervisor - you totally failed to discuss other existing research methods and why you did not use them then that could make it very hard for you to be seen as reaching the originality/contribution criteria, and thus no pass - not even with major corrections - could be possible.

Sorry, but that's how I feel. And I still think you just get on with the resubmission and move on. You seem to have been woefully advised by your supervisor. But that in itself isn't cause for appeal. Ultimately it was your choice to write the thesis in that way.

I'm not sure I agree with you here. Perhaps you misunderstood research method with prior research and body of knowledge?

I don't mean prior research, or other work which possibly even use other research methods. I have a chapter that deals with prior literature, prior research and a thorough analysis of the subject area. We are talking about methods such as quantitative, qualitative, action research etc. The one I used is also an "existing" research method. Even if I had mentioned other methods, I would still have used this particular method. I am not contributing to methods, I am contributing to a particular theory and the research field that I work in. By conducting my research say under "action research" or "quantitative" or "qualitative" etc, my research contributions wouldn't have become more or less significant. It is just that a particular method was considered more appropriate. At the end of the day, it is "means to an end", not the end in itself.

In hindsight, I fully agree that I should have mentioned other methods, but just because a particular method is used does not make the research weaker or stronger. The focus should be on substance. In fact, research rigor is one of the important guidelines of the method that I have used.