Having spent an hour discussing examiners with supervisors yesterday, being told it is vital to get them right, I am panicking. What criteria are important?

- is it important to pick people whose work you have cited, used, engaged with?
- should it be people you have totally agreed with, how dangerous is it to pick someone whose work you have criticised?
- what are the problems with having someone outside your discipline working on different things using a different approach (as suggested for my internal)
- how difficult is it really to get someone to agree to examine? I was told it is usually reciprocal (you examine one of my students; I'll do one of yours) which wont work with my thesis cos as one of my sups said yesterday I am in a minority of one here doing this stuff.

I'm being asked to say who i think would be suitable, but every name I suggest (based on authors whose work I have used a lot) i get blank looks. I am really starting to worry that i will end up with someone who just doesnt get it and will have failed before I get to a viva.

Hi there - firstly, what stage are you at? Are you near to submission? (The reason I ask is because my thesis changed emphasis about half way through and the examiners I would have thought to be appropriate then would ultimately not have been.) I also don't think the onus to choose an external should rest *completely* with you - supervisors should also be able to offer suggestions in addition to any ideas you might have. Do they have no ideas at all?

With regard to your other points, I would say probably not a good idea to choose someone whom you have heavily criticised in your work. However I don't think it's necessarily a faux pas to have someone whose work you haven't cited. As long as they are sympatico with your research methods (IE, if you have produced a qualitative analysis, don't choose a statistitian or vice versa), that is the key issue.

I agree with Kronkondile completely. A mis-match in methodological approach or theoretical stance would be the biggest no-no for me. I did not cite my external much (only 2 or 3 times) but I knew he was sort of sympathetic to my methods. Well, I had one qual chapter and that was an issue, the quant was fine!

I don't think it is that hard to get people to examine from what I have been told. I also agree that this decision should not entirely be yours, you do need some input from supervisors.

Good luck.

thanks krondodile and fluffymonster. I am planing to submit in September, so need to get examiners finalised in the next couple of months. I have a first draft written, so I know what my thesis is going to look like. Sups seem to think it is totally obscure and there's hardly anyone who working with same but i didnt think it was that out of the ordinary. Its social theory so an empiricist wouldnt be good, and its constructionist which i know is sniffed at by a lot of people. sups are rapidly empiricist and i think they just dont know the sort of people who would be ok with what I've done.