I feel like I'm the only person in the world to have contested their viva corrections. I don't agree with a lot of them (about 70%). For example, my examiners want me to explain how my thesis contributes to the field of Media Studies. I am not a media studies student and I wrote my thesis for the fields of sociology, gender & sexuality studies, cultural studies, feminism and critical sexology. I really don't want to take my thesis down a media studies route simply because it's not the field I'm writing for, nor is it my area of interest or expertise.

If anyone has contested their corrections please let me know because my school has no guidelines for this and still won't confirm whether I am able to write a report outlining why I disagree. Help!!

No, but there are quite a few posts on here with students that don't make the corrections that their examiners advise and then end up with a R&R or mPhil or...

And, ToL, am I right in thinking that there is probably an equal number of posts advising candidates to do what their examiners have advised regardless of whether they understood them or not.

In your particular case anzo7, it sounds like you have (presumably unintentionally!) made an 'original contribution' to an adjacent field and they simply want you to acknowledge that. Actuallly it sounds like something to be proud of rather than critical of!

I would recommend just doing the corrections and getting your PhD. This is just a process you need to go through. And, though you may not want to hear this, very few people will read your thesis after it is finally finished. So allow yourself some distance from it. If you get a monograph publishing deal or convert it into journal papers you can represent it as you want.

You are more likely to cause yourself a lot of problems by disputing so many corrections now. Your viva was the chance to do this. So move on.

I'll be blunt and succinct.

You can:

1) Do the corrections your examiners want and be awarded your PhD.

or:

2) Dispute or not do the corrections and leave with an MPhil or a fail.

You decide. :-)

Ian

Anz07, I do feel for you. Been there. Got two examiners who made me insert stuff that really wasn't relevant. I was given 6 months corrections but did them in 5 weeks and awarded PhD within 6 weeks. Just do what they say even if it's silly. I have now published part of my own proper version in a high impact peer-reviewed journal which was sweet revenge :-) Try think of this as a technical task that you've just got to get through and then you can move on and go back to your own brilliant style, ok? That's how you salvage some good from an admittedly shitty situation. Try take this as something to spur you on than a deterrent. Do what they want (some people go mad when they get a little bit of power so let the examiners have their day) and then do your thing. Wishing you the best.
Edit: Anz, I just want to clarify as I seem to remember I responded to you before saying I kicked and screamed a bit about the result. Now I did do this in the sense that I let the examiners, my supervisors and the head of dept know I was very displeased with the result and why. My supervisor also did. The examiners backed down a little then and seemed to regret what they did. Having said this, I did do everything they asked me to do.

Hi JStanley, thank you so much for your response. Hearing stories such as yours helps me immensely. The general consensus I'm reading from you and others is to get on with my corrections - this certainly seems to be the safest bet. I've just finished writing a two page document for my examiners about my corrections. I'm still in talks with my supervisor as to whether I can contest my corrections or not - the above responses have definitely put me off having the 'audacity' to do such a thing! In the document I have discussed about 50% of the corrections they've given me, often asking for more clarification as to how to approach the corrections instead of actively contesting them. For example, for one point I've put the following:

"In regards to the exploring the figures of the ladette (discussed on pages 20-22), Playboy (discussed on pages 7-8), metrosexual (discussed in terms of the ‘new man’ on pages 11, 108 & 254) and the girl next door (mentioned on page 15) – in what ways should I develop these discussions further and incorporate them into the thesis?"

Do you think raising issues such as this is completely futile? As you can see in my example, I feel like I've already talked about these figures & am confused as to how to develop them further.

Thank you again for telling me your story - it offers a much needed light in my current PhD darkness! I think I might even print it off and look at it when I'm feeling like I should give up!! :)

P.S. It's been over 10 weeks since my viva & the school still haven't provided me with the official copy of my viva report (they lost it & both the examiners & the chair didn't have a back-up copy). All I've been given so far (only got it last week) is an unofficial reiteration of what they said on the day of my viva.

Glad I can be of some help, Anz, and I really wish you the best with this. I know it's not easy. I guess I was ‘lucky’ that my examiners got their lists to me within a day. Their actual proper lists of corrections were more detailed and made it a little clearer but I still had to ask both internal and external for clarification as it was all still quite vague.
I think it's fine to ask them for clarification (unless your uni has rules that you can't talk to examiners - in that case see can your sup forward the query on your behalf), Anz, but can you put forward any suggestions as to how you might deal with what they are asking you to do rather than just asking them. I emailed my extern and said "you asked me to do x. My approach to this would be to do x, y and z/or "I think in response to your request on X, I would begin by looking at Y and then discussing Z." Is this what you’re asking me to do?/Would this be sufficient?/Is this what you're looking for?"
You have to box clever and let them think you’re interested in what they have to say and then just do it. It’s the only way. I did also set a deadline and said to my supervisor that I was handing it in by that date and that was it. We were very worried as the final thing I handed in was way below the standard of the original but the examiners accepted it as I did what they said. When you're sending the final version to them also submit a document listing and explaining all your changes and how you responded to their requests and say things like ‘In section X I respond to Examiner 1’s request by doing x, y and z. This really helped to make x so much clearer’ (even if it didn’t make x clear at all. Just play along!).

In my case, my examiner has asserted that I am wrong about X and Y is the case. Having looked at the case he mentioned and other sources, I am convinced that X is the case. So I have stated that there is disagreement about X and Y, but I believe X is right and elaborated further why I believe this is so.
I'm hoping that's going to be OK, as I can't honestly say that I think Y is right at all.