Hello,
I have never posted here before, but as I have the viva for my PhD (in history) in a few days I thought I might as well give it a go and ask for some advice.
I am proud of my thesis and think that I have a strong concept; I am confident in my overall argument, the arguments of all my chapters, and my points within them, but I know there are definitely some significant flaws. It took me quite a long time to settle on my argument and ended up changing my structure quite late on …..In short, the final write-up was quite rushed and it does definitely show. I didn’t use the full word count and there are definitely places where I could have used more sources to support a point or extrapolated more ideas from the analysis, so the issues seem more substantive than just typos and adding a few more citations here and there. I definitely do have a strong concept which chimes with work that my external has done herself, but she is a very good scholar and will probably be looking for a better ‘finish’ to the work.
My main concern is that my examiner will want to know why I haven’t cited works that were published before I submitted, or why I didn’t expand a point more etc. My thesis is quite wide-ranging so I am comfortable saying that I couldn’t explore every topic to the nth degree within the parameters of a PhD, and because it would be repetitive or obscure the point, which is true, but, given that it is a bit short, it’s also obvious that I didn’t have enough time. Which, for want of a better word, sounds a bit naff as an ‘excuse.’ I am reading through my thesis to demonstrate that I am aware of its flaws and familiar with the scholarly field, especially new research etc, but I was wondering if anyone has any advice for answers that can accept these points, without looking incompetent.
Any and all contributions much appreciated!Thanks! 😊