Hey all,

bad news: referral.
Long Short: what 3 years ago my supervisor told me was a good "format" for my final work, was not a good format for my examiners, so much that they have thought that half of my work was something "more" or "different", while it was integral part of the planned research.

Now, ok, I can accept that somehow, interpreting their intentions. When I said "yes, but I mean, that was agreed with my supervisor that this format was ok" there was an embarrassing silence. Practically half the material was just neglected to a point that we have almost never talked about that.

The point of this thread is that after the embarrassing silence, they asked me: "yeah ok, but so in one sentence what is this about". Struck at that, I made a non-so-clear defence and had the complete feeling they almost didn't go through it. I would just want to ask you: without criticising, can I send an email to the examiners to explain the points raised by my work?

For example, I was not asked what "achievements" my work was presenting. Simply that was not considered "part" of the work they expected to judge. I can accept their judgement, but it's a little disappointing that they didn't really go through it because it was not expected.

Practical example: in my field I should present 90 minutes of music + short commentary. I agreed to make 45 minutes of music + 40.000 words (half a thesis in musicology). Their approach: "ah!, 45 minutes of music + a long commentary" (in this sort of long commentary there is a successful perceptual test). I can accept a major reviews because of some technical issues, I will accept the referral, but I would like to have them understand why that had to be reviewed in a more deep way (given that I had almost no questions about it).

Ouch. I am not surprised there was an ambarassing silence. You attempted to fend off criticism in your viva by blaming your supervisor. This was a terrible answer. You left them in thinking that half your thesis was down to him and not yourself. By the end of your PhD you should have verified for yourself that this format was correct and then you should have defended it to the hilt as though you had conceived it yourself. There is no coming back from your error. I think after you said that you were dead in the water I'm afraid.

The point of a viva - Check the following:
1) Was the thesis representing the work of the student.
2) Did the student write it.
3) Was the work significant enough to warrant the award.

You need all 3 to pass. You probably were seen to fail point 1.
In my opinion, you need to overcome that.

One sec. I can be responsible of the contents, of the methods, of the way to show that. But if at the beginning I say: "I want to do this and this: is it possible to do a mix" and my supervisor says "yeah, when there is so much theoretical work it's no problem" to just understand in the end that "the theoretical work is not something over which we judge you" (independently on quality), well, I was "fraud". I was said that (in case the work was good) that format was accepted. Here instead it was just not acceptable: I just did not have to present that, in a way. They expected 90 minutes, not half/half. My supervisor told me half/half was OK. Half of the material basically wasn't considered as material. It's not like it was not relevant, or not connected - it was something they could not take as a material for judgement.

Do suppose you make a PhD in "speed running". You ask: "can I run half way at the same speed and make a written material on how to improve speed?" - "yeah, great". Outcome: "yes, but we wanted to see you running. Why the hell have you written about speed, even though it's good? We judge you on running". You can defend that saying "that was important because the objective was.." But they ask you again "yes, but we want to see you running, anyway good to know the other part".

Basically: what you have presented is not fitting the topic of your title. I asked if for that title I could present that type of work.

Anyway, I am not criticizing the referral.

No boys. You are right.
The 3 points above weren't met. The strict definition they gave me was: "it has to be a publishable work". They did not mention original contribution to knowledge, or the level of argumentation. They just said "more minutes" - all the theoretical part not only was not attacked, it was almost not touched. They since the very beginning were thinking that was just something in "support", not a matter over which rule. Half the material got completely dismissed. They just asked after the embarrassing silence: "so, can you say in one sentence what is this about?". I did not defend well that question, that's true - it is very difficult not to think "wow, that is exactly in the beginning of the thesis". Sure is we did not went through the contents themselves, nor I was asked what were the achievements. That was just thought to be something " more".

You can't really defend something if you don't go through it. And apart a general "the work has to be publishable", I the reasons of deferral just did not mention any issue with the contents. Now I am criticizing the referral. If I was told that it's acceptable to present 50/50, in those 50/50 there is not enough reason for a referral. The referral is just: "you can't do 50/50 as you were told".

Just to give a complete panorama: the fact that my supervisor did not even opened my thesis, that he hasn't answered my emails all the last month, he didn't go through the thesis even though I presented 60% 4 months before and never received comments, that I have complained to the university 3 months before my Viva about a problem (that has come into my viva but was not matter of referral), which was referring to a complaint that I already made in my progression panel but was never solved. Does all this help to say that the thing didn't go through appropriately?