I have recently submitted my social science (Foucauldian) PhD and since rereading my thesis, in preparation for my viiva, I have identified problems in the thesis. The first problem is I have since noticed literature that I have not included in my review. The second problem is with one of my chapters. I have four analysis chapters, three of them are fine - I probably would tighten up in places, though overall I am happy with them. I have been told that this is quite normal to think like this. After rereading my final analysis chapter in preparation for my viva I am not happy with it. The analysis is weak in places and I think needs some more work. I probably need to rethink some of the points. The argument contained in this chapter, develops themes from the previous chapters - though my 'thesis' or original contribution is in my previous chapters. My thesis was read by both of my supervisors and they are happy with it. My first supervisor is experienced, although not in my topic - only my methdology and theory - and said it was ready to submit. Not much work was needed to get it from first to final draft. I was happy with this at the time, though after rereading parts of my thesis I wonder why they didnt notice this weakness in my final chapter. My first supervisor has been very critical of his other PhD student and he has needed to restructure most of his first draft, which makes me think is this just to do with my anxiety. It is only now that I am feeling more distant from the thesis or objective.

I have about six weeks to wait, though I am not sure what to do with these issues I have identified. My own thoughts are to read the literature I have left out and explain or I can at least demosntare I am aware of the literature. My externals, from what I know of them, are good externals to have. I am also going to continue preparing for the viva as in the same way as I was before I noticed these problems. I am in the process of getting part of a chapter published so I know that the thesis contains original ideas and parts are publishable. I have said to my supervisor and one other academic about my issue though they just said it will be fine and there is no such thing as a perfect PhD.

I am really struggling with this and keep wondering why I put myself through this. I am looking for suggestions on how best to deal with this problem. What can I do? Will this problem end in me failing the PhD or just major corrections. I am quite happy with major corrections because at least I can sort the problems out and still get my PhD.

Any experience or advice will be much appreciated.
(Foucauldian) PhD and since rereading my thesis, in preparation for my viiva, I
have identified problems in the thesis. The first problem is I have since
noticed literature that I have not included in my review. The second problem is
with one of my chapters. I have four analysis chapters, three of them are fine -
I probably would tighten up in places, though overall I a

Congratulations on having made it this far! It's good that you've read through your thesis with a critical eye, and have identified shortcomings, and areas that you would want to address in future research. If these points come up during the viva, you're prepared to demonstrate that you're well aware of them, and have thought about them. However, keep in mind that the thesis isn't meant to be your Magnum Opus. It's meant to demonstrate that you've done original work in your field, and that you understand how to do good research.

I think what you have to do next is read the manuscript again, this time looking at the strengths of your thesis, because this is what you want to highlight during the viva. Please read it again, with an eye toward what you like about it, and the points that will excite your audience. What makes your work original? What parts are you proud of? It's important to go into the viva feeling good about what you've accomplished.

My supervisor advised to approach the viva as a discussion, not a "defense" or interrogation. Personally, I psychologically distanced myself from my thesis, and handled the viva as though I were leading a discussion about someone else's work. This tactic may help by prohibiting you from feeling that the examiners are attacking your intelligence, or ideas. Another professor told me that the biggest problem he has encountered (as an examiner) during vivas is when a candidate becomes defensive, or angry about the criticisms. It's better to concede, "That's a good point. Ideally, I would have liked to..." or "I thought of that too. I should have included..." Hopefully the examiners are offering criticism that they feel will strengthen your work. They may also need to posture and show off a bit to each other, but hey, that's academia for you.

Like you, I came up with a long list of items I thought I had omitted from the literature review. It was nice to have this list, but I didn't actually need it. The best advice I received was to focus on discussing the analysis. After spending so many long hours writing in isolation, I found that just verbally articulating ideas to someone other than my sup was extremely helpful. I practiced by explaining my project to a friend who knows very little about my field. Having to explain my ideas in very plain language helped me become clearer about what I wanted to say.

I hope this is helpful! As you prepare, feel free to continue posting on the forum if it helps to alleviate anxiety that may build up over these six long weeks until the big day. Good luck!


(up)

======= Date Modified 07 May 2012 03:20:43 =======
======= Date Modified 07 May 2012 03:18:57 =======
======= Date Modified 07 May 2012 03:17:30 =======
Hi,

I handed in my PhD on Foucault 2 years ago. I had to wait 3 months for my viva and basically was worrying myself sick over many of the same things that you are during this time. I got into such a state that with  8 weeks to go I made the decision to put my thesis down until 2 days before and not think about it until then. I am not recommending this but, in my case, this drastic measure was necessary to avoid some sort of major meltdown that may have seen me not show up at all.

Anyway, and this is I hope where I can help you because, like me, you are in a very singular position for someone who has just submitted. You are currently one of the few people who will have a strong handle on all of F's 'new' literature: I'm talking about the recently published lecture series etc that there is not really much of a literature on yet. Even if your examiners have read them it is unlikely that they would have had the time to make the in depth analysis of them that you have and draw deep conclusions from them. Even if I have missed the point and you aren't using this new material after the past few years hard work your knowledge of F will be much more detailed that your examiners and I am sure that you will be able to hold your own in any discussion.

In my opinion as long as you can find a way to carry yourself into your viva with three things firmly in mind you will be well prepared.

First, the confidence that you have this  oeuvre at your fingertips, or more so than just about anyone else, as who has been thinking about these concerns as intensely as you over these past few years.

Second, is the standard viva preparation. The argument why your work is worthy, why it adds to Foucauldian or another field of scholarship, what lacunae it addresses, and most importantly, why your main thesis question was important and a good and brief summary of how you answered it.

Finally, you need to be relaxed enough on the day to admit that you might have gone into some issues in more detail and that perhaps other things could have been glossed over: perhaps even omitted. Although they will probably not admit it to you your examiners may well be intimidated by your fresh and deep knowledge of this oeuvre and, for reasons of plain old academic self-esteem, they will want to make points such as these to feel they have a contribution to make and are earning their fees. What I did when these points came up, after feeling them out that my shortcomings weren't going to be the end of the world, was to concede that they had a point and that such things could be addressed IN SUBSEQUENT PUBLICATIONS: i.e. not in any PhD revisions. If you can't get away with this, if there are a few points to rework in your thesis, there is no shame in this. If this is the case be very clear with them about how you understand their criticisms and how you intend to address them.

I don't come onto this forum much but will check it over the next few days as you should feel free to PM me if you want to exchange messages or speak over the phone. Remember most of those who have written on Foucault - critically or enthusiastically -  or even just relied heavily on his method or tools, as much as they might argue amongst themselves, are a sort of little nerdy and not very social club of near strangers who share a common passion; and this club is always looking for new members in one way or another.

I hope the above doesn't come off as haughty or vain but it helped my viva to be successful.

Sapere Aude
Chippy

======= Date Modified 08 May 2012 14:31:43 =======
============= Edited by a Moderator =============
*Removed by PostGrad Forum team - SPAM*