Hi,

I requested the change of supervisors at my university after the unsuccessful examination.
I have 3 peer-reviewed publications and 3 conference papers (Hong Kong, Montreal) and a number of awards (Best Student Paper Award, Postgraduate Student of the Year, etc.).
I had my viva in Sept 2010 and I was offered MPhil after the viva, because of the lack of critical evaluation of my projects.
The 1st supervisor was asked just after my examination whether I have a chance to submit revised thesis within a year and he explained examiners that this is not possible. He hasn't informed me about ANY problems during 3 years period of my PhD studies. DoS does not have PhD award and I was his first PhD student. I am not sure whether the second supervisor was in a supervision team in the past (however 2nd supervisor has a PhD award).

I appealed against the procedure of the examination and after 4 months, the university informed me that I have one year to submit a revised thesis (Jan 2012). I then requested the change of both supervisors.

Last week, they notified me about new team. The university choice was a DoS (that was awarded PhD a few weeks earlier) and 2nd supervisor (Professor). They are both from completely different discipline than mine. I cannot accept the DoS without previous successful complettions. I am still waiting for the university's reply to my e-mails.

What are my rights now?

I have 9 months left for resubmitting of my PhD thesis and I need very good supervisors for my difficult case.

What will you do in my case now?
Please help.
Carl

Hi, I think you have probably done the right thing in changing supervisors - have you had feedback about why you failed the PhD was it the viva or the thesis. If it was the thesis have you had pointer as to what the externals felt the problem was.
You obviously need to be very clear in your mind what needs changing - more data, different interpretation or telling the 'story' of the thesis in a different way.
If you are confidant with the second supervisor appointed could you arrange a meeting with them - give them the thesis and all the feedback you have so far and plan what and how to make the changes needed.

I am concerned that you could spend a significant proportion of what is left of your time to resubmit chasing in circles.

Hi Dafydd,

I have a one page feedback from the examiners where they only mention the lack of cricital part in my thesis. This is not a detailed list of mistakes to correct, only a general list of possible corrections (1 page).
Should I meet DoS, knowing that he is not experienced well? I don't want to risk another year. I will have another viva after the submission of a revised thesis.

Should I agree to the supervisory team appointed by the university? As I mentioned before, a new DoS was awarded his PhD a few weeks before and has no experience in working with PhD students.

What do you recommend?

Carl

I have no experience with this type of problem so would urge you to treat my council accordingly.

It sounds like you need two things from a supervisory team now. Urgently more detailed critical appraisal of the Thesis and discussion of this so you understand what needs changing. Then access to review and feedback on the rewrite as it goes on. Given the time constraints, those who help you would ideally be able to read and comment on what you send quickly.

You could meet your first supervisor and be very honest about your concerns and see how confidant you feel with their reply. They may agree and assist with your finding others to help you to fulfill your needs.

Do you now think you understand what is wrong with the Thesis as submitted?

'Lack of critical part in thesis' to me means you've failed to make your literature review a critical assessment of the other published data relevant to your work. I was criticised for this by my second supervisor whilst writing up my literature review. I thus spent about a month getting this right.

At a guess, you've probably simply reported back other people's findings during your literature review. This is sufficient for an MPhil, but not a PhD. You not only need to report on findings, but criticise what you perceive to be weaknesses in their work and also point out contradictions with other authors. There may also be differences between earlier and later literature (sometimes from the same author) that have not been explained. These issues you need to address in your literature review and try to offer a plausible explanation, using the evidence available.

Also, your own data may contradict others earlier or contemporary findings and in your later discussion these should also be addressed in a similar manner.

If the supervision team's main purpose is to assess whether or not you have the level of criticality right, it may not be necessary for them to be working directly in your dicispline. They may need only to have sufficient relevent background to make this assessment. If this is the case, turning your literature review and (lesserly) discussion (probably only the odd sentence or paragraph in the dicussion concerning contradictions between your own results and literature) into a critical appraisal may not be that onerous.

If the new supervision team do have sufficient relevant background to make an assessment on critical assessment, I'd try to work with them to put this critical element in. It's poor your original Director of Studies did not have a PhD and thus might not have understood 'critical assessment' (probably one reason your appeal succeeded). With both your new supervisors having at least PhD, they will both know what this means and you should be okay.

You've eight months left and I still think you've sufficient time to sort this. However, it's a push. You could waste another couple of months getting the ideal supervision team and not have sufficient time to get your thesis right. Or you could spend the next eight months working with the new team to put this element of critical assessment in. It's a gamble, but given the time you have left I'd go for option two.

Hi Mackem and Dafydd,

Thank you very much for your help.
I really appreciate it.
I have already the university that I don't want to risk another unsuccessful examination.
I am not keen to work with a person who awarded PhD a few weeks ago.
I know that this person might be better than my previous DoS (without PhD and also knowledge and practice in my research), but I am still not sure why the university has chosen this person as DoS, not 2nd supervisor.

However, Mackem you might be right that they know what critical thinking mean and they will help me to do this.
My new supervisors are from different disciplines (architecture and critical theory). My subject is interactive cinema/films.

What do you think about such a combination of different disciplines?

What is more, my examination had a presentation of a practical part and as far I know, the examiners were happy with the presentation.
Do I have to do this presentation again for the new viva for the same examiners? I have to say that it is very unlikely that I can do this, because of huge costs involved.

I need to work on my thesis: add critical evaluation, write proper literature review....and other issues that were mentioned by Mackem.

Coming back to my viva, one examiner was happy with the thesis (minor correction) and the other (very unhappy with my writing - not possible to pass), and they decided to offer me MPhil only. There was no chair during the examination. Is that correct? I agree with examiners feedback, but it is pity that I learn about it from them, not from supervisors.

I am waiting for your comments.
Carl

======= Date Modified 19 Apr 2011 13:21:49 =======

This is perhaps due to the time commitments of other staff. Also, the fact this person has passed a few weeks ago will mean they'll still have fresh in their minds what is needed.



That is a big jump to be honest and a little further away than I would be comfortable with. However, time is pressing and if the issue is lack of criticality then this at least they should be able to help you with that. You basically have to understand the writing style required for critical review and that's half the battle over.



Quite probably, as you're doing the viva from scratch. Do you want the PhD? Verify this.



It's not as difficult as you think.

For example, the below is not critical:

Person A reported that X resulted in Y, however, Person B reported that X resulted in Z.

However, this is critical:

Person A reported that X resulted in Y, however, this was contradicted by Person B who reported that X resulted in Z. The difference in result may be attributable to Person A obtaining their data from a population and under conditions. This may have resulted in a more skewed set of data because , thus person A's data should be treat with caution.

Sorry if this sounds too like 'Science', however, that's my background (I've tried to be as generic as possible).



Perhaps different places have different regulations, however, I had internal plus external examiners, plus my main director of studies. I thought a chair and panel were more an American approach, to be honest.



I'll make no bones about it, it's going to be tough. However, do you waste another couple of months getting the ideal supervisors (possibly ending up with one of your originals - I'd have kept one of the old ones - the second supervisor) or do you push on and give yourself as much time as possible to redo your thesis?

I don't think you have time to waste.

I'll be honest, you may still end up with the MPhil. However, you've a second chance and if you knuckle down to add that critical element, you may give yourself a fighting chance.

Ian (alias 'Beefy')

Hi,

thank you very much for your reply.
Your example of what is critical gives me a better understanding of what is needed.
Such a simple answer...it is pity that my supervisors didn't see that problem.
I am very motivated to get a PhD, because MPhil is not recognizable award in the most of the continental Europe, am I right?
The other issue is that my background is in science (I have MSc), and I am doing PhD in Arts now, which is completely different approach to research. I took me a few years to understand a difference, and my old DoS take it for granted that I won't be able to write critically....can I do this?
Regards,
Carl

I think going from science to arts is a big step, and full credit to you for managing as well as you did.

My first degree was a science one, and I started a full-time science PhD before falling seriously ill.

Arts (humanities specifically) was quite a challenge to me, but I worked up from a new BA(Hons), then a Masters, then the PhD. And even then I was struggling with the non-scientific approach to writing.

The best book that I found when working on my part-time humanities PhD (my second go at a PhD, having had to leave the full-time science one many years earlier) was Dunleavy's "Authoring a PhD". It's useful for all disciplines, but I found it particularly good for explaining the approach taken in more humanities subjects. I'd recommend you look at it if you get a chance.

I think you can successfully complete with the help of your new supervisors, and I'm not convinced that looking for other supervisors would be a sensible use of your time. What you need to do is start going through your thesis, line by line, and identifying the areas where you can improve the critical analysis. You've been given some really good tips here on how to write like that. I think you can do this on your own, but with supervisors providing backup support.

Good luck!