Nope. Actually I asked my supervisor whether "I would like to do this: is it possible half pieces, half theory?". And he said "yes". But at the end of my viva, and not at the beginning, they just made understand that my theoretical part... well... that's nice... but... . And I didn't really received any specific comment on why it was not valid. I guess they were not expecting that. Probably I did not make clear in my written part why that was important for my title. Unfortunately I was not asked questions like: "What is this here for. What is the context. What are the achievements. Why do you think it is important".

Now I would like to understand why for them that work that has taken 3 years to me is not contributing to knowledge, but I don't know how to ask this as I feel like I could use an irritating approach. I mean, overall it was a good result - they said that they want me to work more on what they believe is my talent, and that the other part is just... just... . And I do believe in my work, and without criticizing the judgment of my examiners, I would just like to have the opportunity to present it, as I do really believe that I could not present half of my submission. I was just allowed 1 sentence in the very end.
Notice, it's more a matter of feedback. Basically, from the informal chat with my supervisor, they want me to throw away my written part almost completely. What I want to do is to collect information to improve it, even if it is not for my resubmission. I would like to address the concerns, and to do that I think it is good to explain first what was my purpose.

The fact is that I don't understand now how the process works - whether I can collaborate with my examiners on what they will give me to do, or if I have to communicate with them only through my supervisor.

Hello everybody,

I am waiting for my reports from my examiners for a revise and resubmit. In any case, it is my intention (or better, I would like) to talk with my examiners about what they did not understand about my submission.
I have prepared a file with some questions & answers that I believe would help understand what were my objectives, and I would love to understand how to manage this situation (I have found this answer on quora which is quite positive: https://www.quora.com/What-should-I-do-about-my-my-PhD-psychology-thesis-coming-back-with-a-revise-and-resubmit-because-the-examiner-did-not-understand-my-statistics)

Can you give me your suggestion on how to behave and what not to do?

Best
Luca

Just to give a complete panorama: the fact that my supervisor did not even opened my thesis, that he hasn't answered my emails all the last month, he didn't go through the thesis even though I presented 60% 4 months before and never received comments, that I have complained to the university 3 months before my Viva about a problem (that has come into my viva but was not matter of referral), which was referring to a complaint that I already made in my progression panel but was never solved. Does all this help to say that the thing didn't go through appropriately?

No boys. You are right.
The 3 points above weren't met. The strict definition they gave me was: "it has to be a publishable work". They did not mention original contribution to knowledge, or the level of argumentation. They just said "more minutes" - all the theoretical part not only was not attacked, it was almost not touched. They since the very beginning were thinking that was just something in "support", not a matter over which rule. Half the material got completely dismissed. They just asked after the embarrassing silence: "so, can you say in one sentence what is this about?". I did not defend well that question, that's true - it is very difficult not to think "wow, that is exactly in the beginning of the thesis". Sure is we did not went through the contents themselves, nor I was asked what were the achievements. That was just thought to be something " more".

You can't really defend something if you don't go through it. And apart a general "the work has to be publishable", I the reasons of deferral just did not mention any issue with the contents. Now I am criticizing the referral. If I was told that it's acceptable to present 50/50, in those 50/50 there is not enough reason for a referral. The referral is just: "you can't do 50/50 as you were told".

One sec. I can be responsible of the contents, of the methods, of the way to show that. But if at the beginning I say: "I want to do this and this: is it possible to do a mix" and my supervisor says "yeah, when there is so much theoretical work it's no problem" to just understand in the end that "the theoretical work is not something over which we judge you" (independently on quality), well, I was "fraud". I was said that (in case the work was good) that format was accepted. Here instead it was just not acceptable: I just did not have to present that, in a way. They expected 90 minutes, not half/half. My supervisor told me half/half was OK. Half of the material basically wasn't considered as material. It's not like it was not relevant, or not connected - it was something they could not take as a material for judgement.

Do suppose you make a PhD in "speed running". You ask: "can I run half way at the same speed and make a written material on how to improve speed?" - "yeah, great". Outcome: "yes, but we wanted to see you running. Why the hell have you written about speed, even though it's good? We judge you on running". You can defend that saying "that was important because the objective was.." But they ask you again "yes, but we want to see you running, anyway good to know the other part".

Basically: what you have presented is not fitting the topic of your title. I asked if for that title I could present that type of work.

Anyway, I am not criticizing the referral.

Hey all,

bad news: referral.
Long Short: what 3 years ago my supervisor told me was a good "format" for my final work, was not a good format for my examiners, so much that they have thought that half of my work was something "more" or "different", while it was integral part of the planned research.

Now, ok, I can accept that somehow, interpreting their intentions. When I said "yes, but I mean, that was agreed with my supervisor that this format was ok" there was an embarrassing silence. Practically half the material was just neglected to a point that we have almost never talked about that.

The point of this thread is that after the embarrassing silence, they asked me: "yeah ok, but so in one sentence what is this about". Struck at that, I made a non-so-clear defence and had the complete feeling they almost didn't go through it. I would just want to ask you: without criticising, can I send an email to the examiners to explain the points raised by my work?

For example, I was not asked what "achievements" my work was presenting. Simply that was not considered "part" of the work they expected to judge. I can accept their judgement, but it's a little disappointing that they didn't really go through it because it was not expected.

Practical example: in my field I should present 90 minutes of music + short commentary. I agreed to make 45 minutes of music + 40.000 words (half a thesis in musicology). Their approach: "ah!, 45 minutes of music + a long commentary" (in this sort of long commentary there is a successful perceptual test). I can accept a major reviews because of some technical issues, I will accept the referral, but I would like to have them understand why that had to be reviewed in a more deep way (given that I had almost no questions about it).

If that could turn dangerous, should we mention this to any authorities?

Thank you Rewt, precious information. I will contact the hosting university and ask to be put in contact with some funding co-ordinator to discuss the topic.

Meanshile, I have found this website which looks full of information about grants of any kind. Hope it could turn useful to others!

Here another that might turn useful to other postgraduates:

Hi Rewt,

I had used once a database that was working quite well (monthly subscription) but can't remember the name. As soon as I will find it again, I will post it here. Meanwhile I have found this search algorithm. Try to see if it is good also for your fields: https://www.grantforward.com/index
It looks nice.

Indeed I was wondering about asking the faculty - often they tell you "That would be great - if you find some funding". Should I answer something like: "have you got any idea if there is some external funding I could apply for?" to the advisor or should I maybe send an email to a specific office in the University?

Hi all,

I received an invitation for a research visit in the USA to collaborate with an expert of my field. I have messaged already the Mellon Foundation to ask for possible grant opportunities.

Has anybody any grant database that would like to suggest? (In my case it's Humanities/Arts, but other fields can turn useful to other people)

Best

Hi there. I try to follow the efforts of Tudor_Queen to open some discussion for those interested.

Recently it has happened to me to write an article. There were 2 main journals I could submit my paper to. One more fitting with the article's content but with no blind-review while the other less fitting but blinded. I have chosen the latter on the idea of scientific moral integrity.

Indeed I was impressed by this article

The second interviewed researcher named Eva, says that the most important thing she pays attention when accepting or denying a review is indeed the scientific moral integrity. Do you think should researcher prioritize blind-reviewed journals?

This is a little off-topic but still of interest to many PhD and postdocs I guess.

I would really like a "I like" button for this topic.

Anyway, maybe it's different for humanities, but my supervisor and the head of department have recurrently denied this statement: "As a prospective PhD student, you are precious. Institutions want you – they gain funding, credibility and profile through your presence."

Is a PhD-related work fitting with your purpose?

I don't know if it is right or not ethically. It's quite common for sure: