Thanks for the advice and constructive comments. My main supervisor picked the examiners (the original external examiner had to drop out and was replaced at short notice); I left it to him and I now think this was a little naive - I would advise people to be more proactive in the appointing process, especially if their methodology is a little unconventional. If you are trying something a little different I have now learnt that it is essential to have examiners with an open mind who are not precious about their subject beliefs. Thanks for the advice about being re-viva'd - I may look into this. I will certainly gather more evidence about what constitutes 'data' and thanks for the Geertz reference, I think I need to back up my methodological stance with such references, Thanks for the help- I appreciate it!

Thanks for the comments. I think it was an issue of methodology - my thesis is about social class and education and the examiners seemed to think that it was unethical to research school pupils and have a strong subjective view about the affect that class has on achievement. It was my value free stance that they objected to but my supervisors believed that I had justified this. They also seemed to object to the lack of 'thick' traditional data; a lot of my data was anecdotal/observational. They had a very conservative view of what constitutes data. Anyway thanks for the comments and a week after the viva I feel confident that I can move forward and turn things around although my faith in the fairness of the system is a little shaken. The lack of any objective assessment criteria at doctoral level is a little intimidating - our efforts seem to be judged on the subjective whims of academics in their ivory towers. I now feel like I am changing the essence of my thesis to satisfy the beliefs of examiners; not a nice feeling!

I'm an EdD student and had my viva on Friday. My 2 supervisors were very confident that I had produced an excellent thesis, my main supervisor said he'd be 'flabbergasted' if I didn't pass. The examiners did not share this opinion, the viva was very hard work and the examiners took a very conservative view of my thesis which was trying something different. I've now been given a year to incorporate changes based on the examiners view. If the thesis was bad I could understand and accept this decision, yet 2 highly rated supervisors told me the thesis was a very good piece of work. How can this happen? How can supervisors and examiners have two very different views of a thesis and how are we as students meant to deal with this. Based on my supervisors' opinions I couldn't have done anything more yet I didn't pass?!! My supervisor was very apologetic but I have a hard year of rewriting ahead of me and I've lost confidence in the system. Has anyone else experienced this?