Hi all, first time poster here. I had my viva last week and passed with minors, just about. To make a long story short, my supervisor and I made a big mistake in the choice of the external, who wanted majors, and it was only thanks to the fantastic intervention of the internal that this was averted. Now I'm sitting around waiting for my report and am just getting angrier by the minute.

The external did not engage with my theoretical argument once (despite the fact that I cite them extensively) and instead chose to niggle about the form and structure of the thesis. I've basically written the thesis in the shape of a book and was told that I should definitely seek to publish it. Nevertheless, they now want me to make substantial changes to the structure by inserting a whole new chapter (not new material, just shifting around stuff that is already there) to make it into a more traditional "Research report" format, I.e methods chapter, literature chapter, etc). This means essentially butchering a text of which they themselves say it is perfectly fine and publishable for absolutely no good reason than to make it "gravitate more towards the mean" ( verbatim) of what a Phd thesis should look like.

I have been angrier and more frustrated over the past week than ever before in my life, and everyone congratulating me isn't helping. I'm not upset I have corrections - the internal made a very good suggestion on another point that I am happy to accept. But this restructuring to me appears pointless and a complete waste of time, and I profoundly disagree that it is necessary - wasn't allowed to contest it in the viva tho because the external was already out for blood.

do I have any leeway negotiating on the corrections when I get them? Can I refuse to accept this one or ask for another way of addressing the externals concerns? Can they still refuse to give me the phd if I don't do as they say?

The thesis traditionally takes a certain form. Think it's not really something you need to fight over. If it was an issue of substance, that would be different. But your thesis is not meant to be a book. It serves a different purpose.

I don't think there is any way out of doing the corrections. At this stage, as annoying as the corrections may be, doing them is just a means to an end, and you can do what you want with your writing and re-arrange it into a book for publication afterwards.

Thanks for your replies. It is true that there is a traditional thesis format, but in my discipline this is handled quite loosely - many of my cohort did not adhere to this formula and passed with flying colours. My mistake was to choose an external from a different discipline on the basis of content, but that is now coming back to bite me in the behind.

I heard the internal say that I could negotiate on how to implement the corrections, so there may be the option of salvaging the text and do their suggestions as an appendix or so - I'd just like to find out if anyone has successfully negotiated on corrections they disagreed with or if talking back at this point is going to get me in trouble. The tenor in this forum seems to be, do as they tell you or else, but I'm wondering why they call it a "defense" then instead of just "rewriting orders"...

My understanding is that the 'defense' happens at the meeting itself and that the outcome is what it is, but perhaps others who've been through the process can shed more light on it.

In most other countries you have no minor/major corrections. You submitted your thesis, defend it in public and pass or fail. Maybe that is the reason why you call it viva in the UK and not PhD defense like most other countries :) I also think it's strange. Never heard of that process before I found this forum.

I think you can't really negotiate. A thesis usually has to have a certain structure. I would just change it in that way and then publish the other version as a book. If you negotiate that examiner might get even more pissed. I would just do it and get rid of it ;)

Dunham, I hear you - but this really is a matter of principle...

I just re-checked my university's regulations, and while they specify that there must be a critical discussion of the relevant literature (which I obvs have), nowhere does it say that there has to be a discrete "literature chapter". So this may be "traditional" but it is not a formal requirement, and the examiners are simply acting out of personal taste. This annoys me because while I am perfectly happy to submit my work to scrutiny and criticism, they cannot just make up rules as they go along (and yes, I am from another culture, so this British way of doing things seems quite strange to me :-)

I will wait and see exactly what the report says and check in with my supervisor to see if it's worth haggling...

(Part 2)

The variation of outcomes basically covers the varying amounts of work the examiners think is needed to bring the thesis up to PhD standard (and format). What can be faced by the candidate can vary, though typical outcomes may include the following:

a. a straight forward pass (the thesis and exam were error free) - this almost never happens;

b. minor corrections, where the thesis has a few typing mistakes - this is the most common outcome for passing candidates and the candidate is asked to resubmit with errors corrected without any further examination (that's what happened to me) - the request for corrections is a token gesture by the examiners, to show they've had a good look at your work;

c. major corrections (also known as 'revise and resubmit') - this can involve a significant degree of rewriting with resubmission six months to a year later;

d. major corrections with a requirement for a second viva (re-examination) probably six months or a year later after resubmission;

e. downgrade to M.Phil. - the work was not original enough to justify a Ph.D. and an M.Phil. (Master of Philosophy - with possible corrections) is awarded instead - a Master of Philosophy is a lesser research degree not requiring the same degree of original or new work (though people originally doing an M.Phil. can also be upgraded to a Ph.D. if the level of new findings warrants this); or

f. the candidate fails because they've completely messed up - this is very rare as most supervisors would not allow examination to go ahead without being sure their candidate would pass (as said before, with no more than minor corrections) - also, clearly failing candidates generally either withdraw or downgrade to MPhil.

--------

Hope that explains things for you!!!

Ian

Mackem Beefy, where does it specify that a discrete chapter is required? I'm not trying to argue with you, just interested if there are any regulations I'm not aware of, since I was never told this by sup or anyone else.

I echo the advice of others to do the corrections and move on with your life. This is just a stage you have to go through to get your PhD. It doesn't affect what you do with the thesis afterwards, whether publishing it as a book or articles.

If you fight these corrections now you are likely to make more trouble for yourself than not. At worst you will succeed in failing the PhD. Which would be quite impressive! At best you will have annoyed your examiners, and probably supervisor too, and will have damaged your reputation as an academic for the future.

Just do the dratted things. And stop being so angry. Just do them!

And for the record it is very likely that the corrections will take only a short time. They virtually always take vastly less time than people are given to work on them. And they are usually much less severe than people think.

If you need to give yourself a bit of distance before tackling the corrections that is fine too. But don't leave them too long.

And if you continue as an academic it is likely that you will face far far worse in peer review feedback for journal papers etc. Pragmatism is key.

Bilbo, you are probably right about the pragmatism - I should be more cynical office worker and less sensitive artist :-) I just find it disturbing how coercive and undemocratic the whole thing is, and how normal everyone seems to find this. Again,it's not that I'm refusing to do any corrections at all, just this one seems arbitrary and frankly a bit abusive ("spent five years creating something you're proud of? Great, now we want you to set it on fire, then you can have your degree. And no, you cannot argue because we're your superiors which automatically makes us right, ha ha").

Yes, that's academia for you. But do we have to just lie down and accept that?

Well: you do in every other sphere of life.

Exactly. To reiterate, the thesis is not about artistry. And your articles submitted to journals will likely be mauled far more on far more tenuous grounds!