phd thesis examine

PhD Thesis Guide

This phd thesis guide will guide you step-by-step through the thesis process, from your initial letter of intent to submission of the final document..

All associated forms are conveniently consolidated in the section at the end.

Deadlines & Requirements

Students should register for HST.ThG during any term in which they are conducting research towards their thesis. Regardless of year in program students registered for HST.ThG in a regular term (fall or spring) must meet with their research advisor and complete the Semi-Annual PhD Student Progress Review Form to receive credit.

Years 1 - 2

Students participating in lab rotations during year 1, may use the optional MEMP Rotation Registration Form , to formalize the arrangement and can earn academic credit by enrolling in HST.599.
A first letter of intent ( LOI-1 ) proposing a general area of thesis research and research advisor is required by April 30th of the second year of registration.
A second letter of intent ( LOI-2 ) proposing a thesis committee membership and providing a more detailed description of the thesis research is required by April 30th of the third year of registration for approval by the HST-IMES Committee on Academic Programs (HICAP).

Year 4

Beginning in year 4, (or after the LOI-2 is approved) the student must meet with their thesis committee at least once per semester.
Students must formally defend their proposal before the approved thesis committee, and submit their committee approved proposal to HICAP by April 30 of the forth year of registration.
Meetings with the thesis committee must be held at least once per semester.

HST has developed these policies to help keep students on track as they progress through their PhD program. Experience shows that students make more rapid progress towards graduation when they interact regularly with a faculty committee and complete their thesis proposal by the deadline.

Getting Started

Check out these resources for finding a research lab.

The Thesis Committee: Roles and Responsibilities

Students perform doctoral thesis work under the guidance of a thesis committee consisting of at least three faculty members from Harvard and MIT (including a chair and a research advisor) who will help guide the research. Students are encouraged to form their thesis committee early in the course of the research and in any case by the end of the third year of registration. The HST IMES Committee on Academic Programs (HICAP) approves the composition of the thesis committee via the letter of intent and the thesis proposal (described below).

Research Advisor

The research advisor is responsible for overseeing the student's thesis project. The research advisor is expected to:

oversee the research and mentor the student;
provide a supportive research environment, facilities, and financial support;
discuss expectations, progress, and milestones with the student and complete the Semi-Annual PhD Student Progress Review Form each semester;
assist the student to prepare for the oral qualifying exam;
guide the student in selecting the other members of the thesis committee;
help the student prepare for, and attend, meetings of the full thesis committee, to be held at least once per semester;
help the student prepare for, and attend, the thesis defense;
evaluate the final thesis document.

The research advisor is chosen by the student and must be a faculty member of MIT* or Harvard University and needs no further approval. HICAP may approve other individuals as research advisor on a student-by-student basis. Students are advised to request approval of non-faculty research advisors as soon as possible. In order to avoid conflicts of interest, the research advisor may not also be the student's academic advisor. In the event that an academic advisor becomes the research advisor, a new academic advisor will be assigned.

The student and their research advisor must complete the Semi-Annual PhD Student Progress Review during each regular term in order to receive academic credit for research. Download Semi Annual Review Form

*MIT Senior Research Staff are considered equivalent to faculty members for the purposes of research advising. No additional approval is required.

Thesis Committee Chair

Each HST PhD thesis committee is headed administratively by a chair, chosen by the student in consultation with the research advisor. The thesis committee chair is expected to:

provide advice and guidance concerning the thesis research;
oversee meetings of the full thesis committee, to be held at least once per semester;
preside at the thesis defense;
review and evaluate the final thesis document.

The thesis committee chair must be well acquainted with the academic policies and procedures of the institution granting the student's degree and be familiar with the student's area of research. The research advisor may not simultaneously serve as thesis committee chair.

For HST PhD students earning degrees through MIT, the thesis committee chair must be an MIT faculty member. A select group of HST program faculty without primary appointments at MIT have been pre-approved by HICAP to chair PhD theses awarded by HST at MIT in cases where the MIT research advisor is an MIT faculty member.**

HST PhD students earning their degree through Harvard follow thesis committee requirements set by the unit granting their degree - either the Biophysics Program or the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS).

** List of non-MIT HST faculty approved to chair MIT thesis proposals when the research advisor is an MIT faculty member.

In addition to the research advisor and the thesis committee chair, the thesis committee must include one or more readers. Readers are expected to:

attend meetings of the full thesis committee, to be held at least once per semester;
attend the thesis defense;

Faculty members with relevant expertise from outside of Harvard/MIT may serve as readers, but they may only be counted toward the required three if approved by HICAP.

The members of the thesis committee should have complementary expertise that collectively covers the areas needed to advise a student's thesis research. The committee should also be diverse, so that members are able to offer different perspectives on the student's research. When forming a thesis committee, it is helpful to consider the following questions:

Do the individuals on the committee collectively have the appropriate expertise for the project?
Does the committee include at least one individual who can offer different perspectives on the student's research? The committee should include at least one person who is not closely affiliated with the student's primary lab. Frequent collaborators are acceptable in this capacity if their work exhibits intellectual independence from the research advisor.
If the research has a near-term clinical application, does the committee include someone who can add a translational or clinical perspective?
Does the committee conform to HST policies in terms of number, academic appointments, and affiliations of the committee members, research advisor, and thesis committee chair as described elsewhere on this page?

[Friendly advice: Although there is no maximum committee size, three or four is considered optimal. Committees of five members are possible, but more than five is unwieldy.]

Thesis Committee Meetings

Students must meet with their thesis committee at least once each semester beginning in the fourth year of registration. It is the student's responsibility to schedule these meetings; students who encounter difficulties in arranging regular committee meetings can contact Julie Greenberg at jgreenbe [at] mit.edu (jgreenbe[at]mit[dot]edu) .

The format of the thesis committee meeting is at the discretion of the thesis committee chair. In some cases, the following sequence may be helpful:

The thesis committee chair, research advisor, and readers meet briefly without the student in the room;
The thesis committee chair and readers meet briefly with the student, without the advisor in the room;
The student presents their research progress, answers questions, and seeks guidance from the members of the thesis committee;

Please note that thesis committee meetings provide an important opportunity for students to present their research and respond to questions. Therefore, it is in the student's best interest for the research advisor to refrain from defending the research in this setting.

Letters of Intent

Students must submit two letters of intent ( LOI-1 and LOI-2 ) with applicable signatures.

In LOI-1, students identify a research advisor and a general area of thesis research, described in 100 words or less. It should include the area of expertise of the research advisor and indicate whether IRB approval (Institutional Review Board; for research involving human subjects) and/or IACUC approval (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee; for research involving vertebrate animals) will be required and, if so, from which institutions. LOI-1 is due by April 30 of the second year of registration and and should be submitted to HICAP, c/o Traci Anderson in E25-518.

In LOI-2, students provide a description of the thesis research, describing the Background and Significance of the research and making a preliminary statement of Specific Aims (up to 400 words total). In LOI-2, a student also proposes the membership of their thesis committee. In addition to the research advisor, the proposed thesis committee must include a chair and one or more readers, all selected to meet the specified criteria . LOI-2 is due by April 30th of the third year of registration and should be submitted to HICAP, c/o Traci Anderson in E25-518.

LOI-2 is reviewed by the HST-IMES Committee on Academic Programs (HICAP) to determine if the proposed committee meets the specified criteria and if the committee members collectively have the complementary expertise needed to advise the student in executing the proposed research. If HICAP requests any changes to the proposed committee, the student must submit a revised LOI-2 for HICAP review by September 30th of the fourth year of registration. HICAP must approve LOI-2 before the student can proceed to presenting and submitting their thesis proposal. Any changes to the thesis committee membership following HICAP approval of LOI-2 and prior to defense of the thesis proposal must be reported by submitting a revised LOI-2 form to HICAP, c/o tanderso [at] mit.edu (Traci Anderson) . After final HICAP approval of LOI-2, which confirms the thesis committee membership, the student may proceed to present their thesis proposal to the approved thesis committee, as described in the next section.

Students are strongly encouraged to identify tentative thesis committee members and begin meeting with them as early as possible to inform the direction of their research. Following submission of LOI-2, students are required to hold at least one thesis committee meeting per semester. Students must document these meetings via the Semi- Annual PhD Student Progress Review form in order to receive a grade reflecting satisfactory progress in HST.ThG.

Thesis Proposal and Proposal Presentation

For MEMP students receiving their degrees through MIT, successful completion of the Oral Qualifying Exam is a prerequisite for the thesis proposal presentation. For MEMP students receiving their degrees through Harvard, the oral qualifying exam satisfies the proposal presentation requirement.

Proposal Document

Each student must present a thesis proposal to a thesis committee that has been approved by HICAP via the LOI-2 and then submit a full proposal package to HICAP by April 30th of the fourth year of registration. The only exception is for students who substantially change their research focus after the fall term of their third year; in those cases the thesis proposal must be submitted within three semesters of joining a new lab. Students registering for thesis research (HST.THG) who have not met this deadline may be administratively assigned a grade of "U" (unsatisfactory) and receive an academic warning.

The written proposal should be no longer than 4500 words, excluding references. This is intended to help students develop their proposal-writing skills by gaining experience composing a practical proposal; the length is comparable to that required for proposals to the NIH R03 Small Research Grant Program. The proposal should clearly define the research problem, describe the proposed research plan, and defend the significance of the work. Preliminary results are not required. If the proposal consists of multiple aims, with the accomplishment of later aims based on the success of earlier ones, then the proposal should describe a contingency plan in case the early results are not as expected.

Proposal Presentation

The student must formally defend the thesis proposal before the full thesis committee that has been approved by HICAP.

Students should schedule the meeting and reserve a conference room and any audio visual equipment they may require for their presentation. To book a conference room in E25, please contact Joseph Stein ( jrstein [at] mit.edu (jrstein[at]mit[dot]edu) ).

Following the proposal presentation, students should make any requested modifications to the proposal for the committee members to review. Once the committee approves the proposal, the student should obtain the signatures of the committee members on the forms described below as part of the proposal submission package.

[Friendly advice: As a professional courtesy, be sure your committee members have a complete version of your thesis proposal at least one week in advance of the proposal presentation.]

Submission of Proposal Package

When the thesis committee has approved the proposal, the student submits the proposal package to HICAP, c/o Traci Anderson in E25-518, for final approval. HICAP may reject a thesis proposal if it has been defended before a committee that was not previously approved via the LOI-2.

The proposal package includes the following:

the proposal document
a brief description of the project background and significance that explains why the work is important;
the specific aims of the proposal, including a contingency plan if needed; and
an indication of the methods to be used to accomplish the specific aims.
signed research advisor agreement form(s);
signed chair agreement form (which confirms a successful proposal defense);
signed reader agreement form(s).

Thesis Proposal Forms

SAMPLE Title Page (doc)
Research Advisor Agreement Form (pdf)
Chair Agreement Form (pdf)
Reader Agreement Form (pdf)

Thesis Defense and Final Thesis Document

When the thesis is substantially complete and fully acceptable to the thesis committee, a public thesis defense is scheduled for the student to present his/her work to the thesis committee and other members of the community. The thesis defense is the last formal examination required for receipt of a doctoral degree. To be considered "public", a defense must be announced to the community at least five working days in advance. At the defense, the thesis committee determines if the research presented is sufficient for granting a doctoral degree. Following a satisfactory thesis defense, the student submits the final thesis document, approved by the research advisor, to Traci Anderson via email (see instructions below).

[Friendly advice: Contact jrstein [at] mit.edu (Joseph Stein) at least two weeks before your scheduled date to arrange for advertising via email and posters. A defense can be canceled for insufficient public notice.]

Before the Thesis Defense

Committee Approves Student to Defend: The thesis committee, working with the student and reviewing thesis drafts, concludes that the doctoral work is complete. The student should discuss the structure of the defense (general guidelines below) with the thesis committee chair and the research advisor.

Schedule the Defense: The student schedules a defense at a time when all members of the thesis committee will be physical present. Any exceptions must be approved in advance by the IMES/HST Academic Office.

Reserve Room: It is the student's responsibility to reserve a room and any necessary equipment. Please contact imes-reservation [at] mit.edu (subject: E25%20Room%20Reservation) (IMES Reservation) to reserve rooms E25-140, E25-141, E25-119/121, E25-521.

Final Draft: A complete draft of the thesis document is due to the thesis committee two weeks prior to the thesis defense to allow time for review. The thesis should be written as a single cohesive document; it may include content from published papers (see libraries website on " Use of Previously Published Material in a Thesis ") but it may not be a simple compilation of previously published materials.

Publicize the Defense: The IMES/HST Academic Office invites the community to attend the defense via email and a notice on the HST website. This requires that the student email a thesis abstract and supplemental information to jrstein [at] mit.edu (Joseph Stein) two weeks prior to the thesis defense. The following information should be included: Date and time, Location, (Zoom invitation with password, if offering a hybrid option), Thesis Title, Names of committee members, with academic and professional titles and institutional affiliations. The abstract is limited to 250 words for the poster, but students may optionally submit a second, longer abstract for the email announcement.

Thesis Defense Guidelines

Public Defense: The student should prepare a presentation of 45-60 minutes in length, to be followed by a public question and answer period of 15–30 minutes at discretion of the chair.

Committee Discussion: Immediately following the public thesis presentation, the student meets privately with the thesis committee and any other faculty members present to explore additional questions at the discretion of the faculty. Then the thesis committee meets in executive session and determines whether the thesis defense was satisfactory. The committee may suggest additions or editorial changes to the thesis document at this point.

Chair Confirms Pass: After the defense, the thesis committee chair should inform Traci Anderson of the outcome via email to tanderso [at] mit.edu (tanderso[at]mit[dot]edu) .

Submitting the Final Thesis Document

Please refer to the MIT libraries thesis formatting guidelines .

Title page notes. Sample title page from the MIT Libraries.

Program line : should read, "Submitted to the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology, in partial fulfillment of the the requirements for the degree of ... "

Copyright : Starting with the June 2023 degree period and as reflected in the MIT Thesis Specifications , all students retain the copyright of their thesis. Please review this section for how to list on your title page Signature Page: On the "signed" version, only the student and research advisor should sign. Thesis committee members are not required to sign. On the " Accepted by " line, please list: Collin M. Stultz, MD, PhD/Director, Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology/ Nina T. and Robert H. Rubin Professor in Medical Engineering and Science/Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

The Academic Office will obtain Professor Stultz's signature.

Thesis Submission Components. As of 4/2021, the MIT libraries have changed their thesis submissions guidelines and are no longer accepting hard copy theses submissions. For most recent guidance from the libraries: https://libguides.mit.edu/mit-thesis-faq/instructions

Submit to the Academic Office, via email ( tanderso [at] mit.edu (tanderso[at]mit[dot]edu) )

pdf/A-1 of the final thesis should include an UNSIGNED title page

A separate file with a SIGNED title page by the student and advisor, the Academic Office will get Dr. Collin Stultz's signature.

For the MIT Library thesis processing, fill out the "Thesis Information" here: https://thesis-submit.mit.edu/

File Naming Information: https://libguides.mit.edu/

Survey of Earned Doctorates. The University Provost’s Office will contact all doctoral candidates via email with instructions for completing this survey.

Links to All Forms in This Guide

MEMP Rotation Form (optional)
Semi-Annual Progress Review Form
Letter of Intent One
Letter of Intent Two

Final Thesis

HST Sample thesis title page (signed and unsigned)
Sample thesis title page (MIT Libraries)

Examination of Doctoral Theses: Research About the Process and Proposed Procedures

Reference work entry
First Online: 12 June 2018
Cite this reference work entry

Ronel Erwee 7 &
Chad Perry 7 , 8

Part of the book series: University Development and Administration ((UDAA))

1497 Accesses

3 Citations

Despite some standard thesis examination guidelines having been established by institutions, examination of theses by individual examiners was known in the 1990s and early 2000s to be an irregular and idiosyncratic process that could delay completion of candidature. This chapter reviews research that established this disappointing position about issues in the examination process and what happened a decade after this initial situation. It then proposes some standard procedures to make sound thesis examination procedures for institutions and examiners. These procedures cover many issues that affect the thesis examination process like the definition of a degree, selection of examiners, criteria to evaluate the contribution of the research, and proposals for future policies and practices.

Doctoral thesis examination
Examiner selection
Guidelines for doctoral examiners
Doctoral examination policies

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Albertyn, R.M., C.A. Kapp, and B.L. Frick. 2007. Taking the sting out of evaluation: Rating scales for thesis examinations. South African Journal of Higher Education 21 (8): 1207–1221.

Google Scholar

American Psychological Association. 2015. Publication manual of the American psychological association . 6th ed. http://www.apastyle.org/manual/index.aspx . Accessed 7 Apr 2015.

Australian Qualifications Framework. 2013. Australian qualifications framework .. http://www.aqf.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/AQF-2nd-Edition-January-2013.pdf . Accessed 18 Apr 2016.

Blass, E., S. Bertone, J. Luca, C. Standing, R. Adams, H. Borland, R. Erwee, A. Jasman, K. Tickle, and Q. Han. 2013. Developing a toolkit and framework to support new postgraduate research supervisors in emerging areas . Sydney: Report to the Office of Teaching and Learning, Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.

Department of Finance and Administration. 2002. Style manual for authors, editors and printers . 6th ed. Brisbane: Wiley.

Edith Cowan University. 2016. Research assessments – guidelines for examination of PhD theses. https://intranet.ecu.edu.au/data/assets/pdf_file/0010/418726/PhD_exam_guidelines.pdf ; http://intranet.ecu.edu.au/research/for-research-students/research-journey/thesis-examination/information-for-examiners and http://intranet.ecu.edu.au/research/for-research-students/research-journey/thesis-examination/appeals . Accessed 9 May 2016.

Holbrook, A., and S. Bourke. 2008. Consistency and inconsistency in PhD thesis examination. Australian Journal of Education 52 (1): 36–48.

Article Google Scholar

Holbrook, A., S. Bourke, H. Fairbairn, and T. Lovat. 2014. The focus and substance of formative comment provided by PhD examiners. Studies in Higher Education 39 (6): 983–1000.

Johnston, S. 1997. Examining the examiners: An analysis of examiners’ reports on doctoral theses. Studies in Higher Education 22 (3): 333–347.

Kiley, M. 2009a. Rethinking the Australian doctoral examination process. Australian Universities Review 51 (2): 32–41.

Kiley, M. 2009b. ‘You don’t want a smart Alec’: Selecting examiners to assess doctoral dissertations. Studies in Higher Education 34 (8): 889–903.

Lawson, A., H. Marsh, and T. Tansley. 2003. Examining the examiners. Australian Universities Review 46 (1): 32–36.

Luca, J., and T. Wolski. 2013. Higher degree research training excellence: A good practice framework. Presentation of Final Report to Council of Deans and Directors of Graduate Students for Office for Learning and Teaching. www.ddogs.edu.au or [email protected].

Mullins, G., and M. Kiley. 2002. “It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize”: How experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies in Higher Education 27 (4): 369–386.

Nelson, H. 1991. The gatekeepers: Examining the examiners. Australian Historical Association Bulletin 68: 12–27.

Nightingale, P. 1992. Initiation into research through writing. In Starting research – Supervision and training , ed. O. Zuber-Skerritt. Brisbane: Tertiary Education Institute, University of Queensland.

Office of Teaching and Learning. 2013. Supervision of higher degree by research students: Supervisor resource book . Canberra: Department of Education. http://researchsupervisiontoolkit.com/page/rst-ebook . Accessed 3 Apr 2016.

Perry, C. 1998. A structured approach for presenting theses. Australasian Marketing Journal 6 (1): 63–85.

Perry, C. 2013. Efficient and effective research . Adelaide: ABE Publications.

Perry, C., and A. Cavaye. 2004. Australian universities’ examination criteria for DBA dissertations. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour 7 (5): 411–421. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10282/20040713-0000/www.usq.edu.au/resources/perrycavaye.pdf . Accessed 28 Apr 2016.

Perry, C., J.L. McPhail, and L. Brown. 1998. How are marketing theses examined? Proceedings , Australia and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC98), University of Otago, Dunedin, Dec 1998.

Phillips, E. 1992. The PhD: Assessing quality at different stages of its development. In Starting research – Supervision and training , 119–136. Brisbane: Tertiary Education Institute, University of Queensland.

Pitkethly, A., and M. Prosser. 1995. Examiner’s comments on the international context of PhD theses. In Research into higher education: Dilemmas, direction and diversions , ed. C. McNaught and K. Beatte, 129–136. Melbourne: Higher Education and Research and Development Society Australasia Victoria.

Starfield, S., B. Paltridge, R. McMurtrie, A. Holbrook, S. Bourke, H. Fairbairn, M. Kiley, and T. Lovat. 2015. Understanding the language of evaluation in examiners’ reports on doctoral theses. Linguistics and Education 31: 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.06.004 .

Tewari, D.D. 2012. Examination of doctoral theses/dissertations: Models practices, and guidelines. African Journal of Business Management 6 (9): 3438–3448. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.652 . http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM . Accessed 24 Apr 2016.

University of Newcastle. 2016a. Research into the PhD examination. Study of Research training and Impact (SORTI) https://www.newcastle.edu.au/research-and-innovation/centre/sorti/publications/research-into-phd-examination . Accessed 9 May 2016.

University of Newcastle. 2016b. Thesis examination guidelines. http://www.newcastle.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/72470/Thesis-Examination-Guidelines-Nov-2015.pdf . Accessed 11 May 2016.

University of Southern Queensland. 2016. Examination process. http://www.usq.edu.au/research/research-students/current-research-students/examination . And ‘PhD by publication procedure’ http://policy.usq.edu.au/documents/13383PL . Accessed 20 May 2016.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Management and Enterprise, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia

Ronel Erwee & Chad Perry

Australian Institute of Business, Adelaide, SA, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chad Perry .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Management and Enterprise, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia

Ronel Erwee

Open Access College, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia

Meredith A. Harmes

Marcus K. Harmes

School of Linguistics, Adult and Specialist Education, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia

Patrick Alan Danaher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Erwee, R., Perry, C. (2018). Examination of Doctoral Theses: Research About the Process and Proposed Procedures. In: Erwee, R., Harmes, M., Harmes, M., Danaher, P. (eds) Postgraduate Education in Higher Education. University Development and Administration. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5249-1_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5249-1_4

Published : 12 June 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-5247-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-5249-1

eBook Packages : Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Manuscript Preparation

Know How to Structure Your PhD Thesis

4 minute read
32.6K views

Table of Contents

In your academic career, few projects are more important than your PhD thesis. Unfortunately, many university professors and advisors assume that their students know how to structure a PhD. Books have literally been written on the subject, but there’s no need to read a book in order to know about PhD thesis paper format and structure. With that said, however, it’s important to understand that your PhD thesis format requirement may not be the same as another student’s. The bottom line is that how to structure a PhD thesis often depends on your university and department guidelines.

But, let’s take a look at a general PhD thesis format. We’ll look at the main sections, and how to connect them to each other. We’ll also examine different hints and tips for each of the sections. As you read through this toolkit, compare it to published PhD theses in your area of study to see how a real-life example looks.

Main Sections of a PhD Thesis

In almost every PhD thesis or dissertation, there are standard sections. Of course, some of these may differ, depending on your university or department requirements, as well as your topic of study, but this will give you a good idea of the basic components of a PhD thesis format.

Abstract : The abstract is a brief summary that quickly outlines your research, touches on each of the main sections of your thesis, and clearly outlines your contribution to the field by way of your PhD thesis. Even though the abstract is very short, similar to what you’ve seen in published research articles, its impact shouldn’t be underestimated. The abstract is there to answer the most important question to the reviewer. “Why is this important?”
Introduction : In this section, you help the reviewer understand your entire dissertation, including what your paper is about, why it’s important to the field, a brief description of your methodology, and how your research and the thesis are laid out. Think of your introduction as an expansion of your abstract.
Literature Review : Within the literature review, you are making a case for your new research by telling the story of the work that’s already been done. You’ll cover a bit about the history of the topic at hand, and how your study fits into the present and future.
Theory Framework : Here, you explain assumptions related to your study. Here you’re explaining to the review what theoretical concepts you might have used in your research, how it relates to existing knowledge and ideas.
Methods : This section of a PhD thesis is typically the most detailed and descriptive, depending of course on your research design. Here you’ll discuss the specific techniques you used to get the information you were looking for, in addition to how those methods are relevant and appropriate, as well as how you specifically used each method described.
Results : Here you present your empirical findings. This section is sometimes also called the “empiracles” chapter. This section is usually pretty straightforward and technical, and full of details. Don’t shortcut this chapter.
Discussion : This can be a tricky chapter, because it’s where you want to show the reviewer that you know what you’re talking about. You need to speak as a PhD versus a student. The discussion chapter is similar to the empirical/results chapter, but you’re building on those results to push the new information that you learned, prior to making your conclusion.
Conclusion : Here, you take a step back and reflect on what your original goals and intentions for the research were. You’ll outline them in context of your new findings and expertise.

Tips for your PhD Thesis Format

As you put together your PhD thesis, it’s easy to get a little overwhelmed. Here are some tips that might keep you on track.

Don’t try to write your PhD as a first-draft. Every great masterwork has typically been edited, and edited, and…edited.
Work with your thesis supervisor to plan the structure and format of your PhD thesis. Be prepared to rewrite each section, as you work out rough drafts. Don’t get discouraged by this process. It’s typical.
Make your writing interesting. Academic writing has a reputation of being very dry.
You don’t have to necessarily work on the chapters and sections outlined above in chronological order. Work on each section as things come up, and while your work on that section is relevant to what you’re doing.
Don’t rush things. Write a first draft, and leave it for a few days, so you can come back to it with a more critical take. Look at it objectively and carefully grammatical errors, clarity, logic and flow.
Know what style your references need to be in, and utilize tools out there to organize them in the required format.
It’s easier to accidentally plagiarize than you think. Make sure you’re referencing appropriately, and check your document for inadvertent plagiarism throughout your writing process.

PhD Thesis Editing Plus

Want some support during your PhD writing process? Our PhD Thesis Editing Plus service includes extensive and detailed editing of your thesis to improve the flow and quality of your writing. Unlimited editing support for guaranteed results. Learn more here , and get started today!

Publication Process

Journal Acceptance Rates: Everything You Need to Know

Publication Recognition

How to Make a PowerPoint Presentation of Your Research Paper

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear Civil Engineering Papers

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

The Essentials of Writing to Communicate Research in Medicine

There are some recognizable elements and patterns often used for framing engaging sentences in English. Find here the sentence patterns in Academic Writing

Changing Lines: Sentence Patterns in Academic Writing

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

[ skip to content ]

Participants gather for a group photo at the ODU Graduate Program in International Studies’ Annual Graduate Research Conference. College of Arts and Letters

Student Guide: The Ph.D. Comprehensive Examination

Introduction.

The comprehensive examination is a critical part of the GPIS PhD program. You should not view it simply as a bureaucratic hurdle to pass over on your way to the dissertation. Instead, before embarking on narrowly focused dissertation work, the comprehensive examination establishes that you have the broad familiarity and expertise with the field that is the mark of a doctoral education. It is the checkpoint that confirms that you are ready to pass from being a student to a scholar. The process of preparing for the comprehensive exam should help you organize and reflect on the variety of things you have learned over the past few years. While to this point, each of your seminars has been a distinct learning experience, you now can think about how your interdisciplinary work in international studies fits together. Preparation for the comprehensive exam should help you become better able to integrate and utilize the knowledge you have gained in your graduate study. It is also critically important for embarking on the dissertation. The best dissertations are effectively connected to the central questions and literature of the field. Unless you have developed an integrated overview of the field you will not have the necessary foundation for dissertation work.

The Comprehensive Character of the PhD Examination

It is important to note that the comprehensive PhD examination is not simply a test of your cumulative knowledge of seminar materials. It is, rather, a test of your preparation to work as an independent scholar at the highest level. By now you should be functioning like a scholar, and not just like a student. You should be aware of the major journals in your field and should be paying attention to them. You should know what the most important books, articles, and debates are regardless of whether they were used in your classes. It may have been a few years since you took IR theory, but it is unlikely that the scholars who work in that area have stopped pushing the field forward to wait for you to get through the comprehensive exams.

The Written Comprehensive Examination Process

The written comprehensive exams are usually scheduled for a Friday and Monday the weekend before the start of the new semester. You will do your major field on one day and your minor field on the other. We will try to schedule your major field for Friday and your minor field for Monday, but the order will be determined by the scheduling needs of the full set of students taking the written comprehensives on a given day. You will have eight hours to complete each part of the exam. The exam is closed book and no notes or other aids of any kind are allowed. For each of your fields you will be given five questions from which you will choose two to answer.

The Written Exam Grading

The exam will be graded by the appointed Doctoral Candidacy Examination Committee. The committee will usually, but not always, include the Committee Chair, and directors of the relevant tracks. It will usually take about two weeks to get the written exams graded.

Passing the Written Comprehensive Exam

Different examiners may read the exams in different ways, and it is the student's responsibility to write answers that are generally accessible and appealing across the variety of GPIS faculty. Most readers will be looking for a clear and direct answer to the question, evidence of familiarity and facility with the important literature, and an ability to integrate theory and empirical cases.

To pass the comprehensive exam, students must not receive more than one failing evaluation from a committee member.

Failing the Written Comprehensive Exam

Our goal and expectations are that every student will pass the comprehensive examination. The exam is not designed to be a barrier. It is meant to be a straightforward assessment of the student's command of their declared fields and their preparation to move on to the challenges of writing the dissertation. Nonetheless, and precisely because the exam is conceptualized as an assessment of this preparedness to move on, it plays a very important role in your doctoral education. Students who do not demonstrate an effective grasp of the relevant literature and empirics or who do not effectively and explicitly answer the questions as asked will not pass.

Students who do not pass the written portion of the exam on the first attempt will have to retake the exam in a subsequent semester. Failure on the second attempt will prevent the student from going on to write a dissertation. At the discretion of the examination committee, the failing student may be awarded the MA degree if the performance and coursework so merit, and if they do not already have a GPIS MA.

The Oral Comprehensive Examination process

Doctoral candidates are expected to be able to communicate effectively and knowledgeably both in writing and orally. Thus, the comprehensive examinations have both a written and an oral component.

The oral portion of the comprehensive examination will take place about three weeks after the written. Three to five faculty members will administer the examination. The examiners will usually, but not necessarily, include the Director or Associate Director of GPIS and the track coordinators from the student's major and minor fields. The examination will last about one hour. Each examiner will have a chance to ask questions, but the format will often shift between relatively structured questioning and a more free-flowing discussion.

The discussion will center on the student's answers for the written exam (students may use their written exam). The scope of the exam is not, however, limited to that material. The examiners will be looking to fill in any perceived gaps in the written work, and to assess the student's facility more generally with the literature and empirical material.

Passing the Oral Comprehensive Exam

Passing the oral comprehensive exam is a matter of convincing the committee members that you have an appropriate mastery of the central material of the field and are prepared to go on to focused and independent work on a dissertation. To pass, you must not receive more than one negative vote from a member of the examining committee.

Failing the Oral Comprehensive Exam

Students who do not pass the oral exam will be asked to return in one month for a second oral exam. Students who do not pass on the second attempt will not be allowed to continue for the PhD.

Tips for Preparing for the PhD Comprehensive Exam

The most important preparation for the PhD comprehensive examination is the GPIS coursework you have completed. Reviewing the notes and materials from your seminars and trying to organize it around some integrative themes is essential preparation. The following pages offer some further suggestions for effective preparation for the comprehensive examination, and for ensuring a strong examination performance.

1. Take appropriate classes

In consultation with your adviser and other faculty, be sure to select a variety of classes that will give you the broad background you need for the comprehensive exam. It is particularly important that you choose classes that will help you gain both a breadth of field knowledge, and a depth of knowledge in a few critical areas. The seminar papers you write should particularly help you develop depth in a few critical areas.

2. Keep effective class notes and reading notes

You should be thinking about preparation for the comprehensive exams from the beginning of your program. Keeping your seminar and reading notes in an organized manner will allow for more effective comprehensive exam review. You will particularly want to be careful about the material in the core classes.

You may find it useful to develop reading notes at different levels of depth. There may be a set of books and articles for which you will have 2-3 page summaries. There may be a second, larger, group for which you have paragraph length descriptions. Finally you should have a third very large group for which you have a sentence for each reading that gives you the central thrust of the argument.

3. Work on exam preparation in groups

Working with others can help you share the labor of summarizing and reviewing material. You can work with others on identifying the critical literature and on developing answers to hypothetical test questions.

4. Pay particular attention to the broad literature of international relations theory that will help you in answering a wide variety of questions

Many of the questions across the different tracks will benefit from an effective understanding of the broad currents and debates of international relations theory. One of the things a graduate education should help you do is to apply general theory to a variety of specific situations. Displaying that ability on the comprehensive exam is a good idea.

5. Identify some historical periods and important episodes and issues around which you will develop a particular expertise

Alas, no one can know everything about everything. You will see in this collection of sample questions that it is relatively rare for a question to demand knowledge of a particular event or historical period. Nonetheless, you will also see that you are often called upon to identify a critical historical period or event. You will be expected to evince in-depth knowledge of some issues or areas. Effective in-depth knowledge of a few critical issue areas or historical episodes can help you generate appropriate material for a wide variety of questions.

6. Identify some important literature with which you will be particularly familiar

You need to have a good feel for a very broad range of literature. For a lot of books and articles, remembering the author and the central thrust of their argument and evidence will serve you adequately for the comprehensives. But, just as it is essential that you have a greater depth of knowledge about a few historical episodes are critical issues, you will want to have a set of books and articles that you know extremely well. You should have an identified set of readings that you are confident you can apply to a reasonable range of questions and that you know very well and can talk about with some depth and sophistication.

7. Practice for the exam

Using the material in this booklet, you should write some practice exams. At the beginning you may want to take several hours and write an answer with open book resources. By the end you should be practicing with closed notes and a two-hour clock to simulate exam conditions. Such practice will not only help you think about how you will engage in the actual task of taking the exam, but will give you collection of sample answers that may be easily adapted to the real test questions. Just be careful that you don't mistakenly provide the answer to a similar old question and miss the slightly changed terms or requirements that are likely to show up in the real test.

The process of preparing practice exams is another area where working in groups can be extremely helpful. Having a study group can give you a larger stock of practice answers and will allow you to get feedback and to discuss the appropriate sources and arguments for a given question.

Tips for Writing an Effective Comprehensive Exam

1. Make sure you answer the questions explicitly and clearly.

The most common comprehensive exam mistake is to not explicitly and clearly answer the question. Read the question very carefully and make sure that you offer an explicit answer to the question. Do not rely on the readers to draw out implicit answers.

2. Make appropriate reference to the literature and relevant scholarly debates.

You will not, of course, be expected to provide detailed citations. But, you should demonstrate familiarity and facility with a range of the literature. You should be able to appropriately reference the scholars whose arguments are relevant to a particular issue. You may occasionally include the name of a book or article and the date of its publication.

3. Make appropriate use of theory and of empirical and historical knowledge.

If appropriately done, it is particularly effective to use theory to inform answers on history questions and history to inform answers on theory questions.

4. Write full answers that are structured with an introduction and conclusion.

As in all writing, structure and organization are important to effective communication. Just because it is a time-limited exam is no excuse for jumbled, incoherent writing. Take the time to think through and outline your argument and its structure before you write. As in all writing, signposting, headings, and clear explicit language can help communicate your ideas. Provide a clear introduction and conclusion that can help you summarize your central point and will reassure the readers that you have, in fact, explicitly answered the question.

5. Make an argument

As a scholar prepared to embark on independent thesis work, it is important that you demonstrate an ability to effectively articulate your own views. The comprehensive exam is not just about knowing the literature. It is also about demonstrating that you can think about international issues critically and come to your own conclusions. Avoid wishy-washy answers that simply describe some of the ideas extant in the field and then conclude that they are all correct. Take a stand and defend it with appropriate theoretical, analytical, and empirical material.

6. Make choices

You will notice that most of the questions are a lot bigger than can be fully answered in the two-hours you will have on average during the written exam. You have to make choices on how you will answer so that you can display your breadth and depth of knowledge while satisfying the committee that you have effectively addressed the question. It usually helps if you can be explicit about how you are managing the question ("While there are, of course, idiosyncratic elements in the complex relationship of each President to his national security team, I will focus in this short essay on the difficult relationship between Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Cyrus Vance because it effectively illuminates the problems every foreign policy team must face"). It is rarely a good strategy to try to present a broad and superficial survey of too many things ("In this essay I will discuss the relationship of each Post-WWII American president with his respective Secretaries of State and Defense").

7. Don't make big mistakes

This, of course, is common sense, but I can't overemphasize how difficult it is to certify someone as ready to move onto writing a dissertation who fundamentally misunderstands some essential literature, or who demonstrates a wanton disregard for historical accuracy.

Tips for the Oral Examination

1. Attitude matters

Attitude is important in the oral examination, just as it will be for the remainder of your career as a scholar. As a doctoral candidate, you should be able to present your views with confidence, but without becoming defensive. The examiners are likely to push against your views and expect to see you defend them effectively, but not irrationally.

The best way to figure out the right attitude is to attend the presentations of others at research workshops, dissertation defenses, and conferences. Start paying attention to the style as well as the substance. Take note of how other scholars deal with difficult questions and criticisms. What works and what doesn't work? What makes them sound defensive? What makes them sound arrogant? What makes them sound indecisive?

2. Being nervous is inevitable

It is likely that you will be nervous. How you perform when nervous is not irrelevant to your career as a scholar. You need to demonstrate that despite being nervous you can engage in appropriate scholarly discussion.

3. We probably know more than you, but knowing everything isn't required

It is likely that all together, the three to five professors conducting the examination know some things that you don't. With some pushing, they will probably be able to find out what some of those things are. We don't expect you to know everything. We do expect you to communicate effective knowledge of a broad range of subjects, and explicit and deep knowledge of a few selected areas.

4. Practice

The best way to practice for the oral exam is to speak up and engage in discussion in your seminars, in research workshops, and at conferences. If you aren't prepared to express and defend your views in the seminar setting, it is unlikely that you will be prepared to do so in the oral exam.

5. Work with other students

Again, preparing for the comprehensive examinations with other students will help you both with the substance and with the process. Scholarly discussions of exam questions with other students will give you the chance to practice articulating and defending your views with appropriate references to the literature and empirical facts.

TECHNICAL INSTRUCTIONS

This examination will be conducted in a BAL Computer lab. In an emergency, you must inform the proctor immediately.

You may take short breaks (5-10 minutes) as needed
You are not permitted to leave the building under any circumstance
Food and beverages should be consumed during the exam
Save your work often on the flash drive provided
If any problems occur, notify the proctor immediately
The examination is closed book and no notes or other aids including cell phone are allowed
You will be given a blue book, pen, and pencil for writing notes
Once the exam begins the computer browsers will be locked down
You must sign and return the honor pledge provided

The ODU Honor Pledge will be strictly enforced, and you will be asked to sign off on this pledge on the date of the exam:

I pledge to support the Honor System of Old Dominion University. I will refrain from any form of academic dishonesty or deception, such as cheating or plagiarism. I am aware that as a member of the academic community it is my responsibility to turn in all suspected violations of the Honor Code. I will report to a hearing if summoned.

~Honor Pledge

On the day of the exam arrive 5-10 minutes early to log into the computer and be ready to start promptly at 8:30 a.m. when the exam questions are distributed.

You will receive the exam questions, a flash drive, a blue book for notes and the honor pledge to sign and return to the proctor. Use the flash drive to save your work and give to the proctor at the end of the exam.

The examination consists of two parts.

Part 1 - questions will be on your MAJOR concentration

Part 2 - questions will be on your MINOR concentration

On both days you must answer TWO out of five questions. The questions are written broadly, but your essays must remain explicitly responsive to what is asked; simply referencing texts is not sufficient. Time is ample and running out of time is not an option. Ending early is also not advised. The examination will conclude at 4:30 p.m. and all answers must be saved on the flash drive and turned in.

Guidelines to Answering Questions

(These are the instructions that come with the exam)

There will be five questions. You must answer two.
The exam lasts a total of eight hours. Allocate your time accordingly and make sure that each question has a concluding section.
answer the questions as they are raised and not as you wish they had been raised b. illustrate your answer with appropriate empirical examples c. cite relevant sources d. make proper references to important interpretative debates, when appropriate
how effectively you address each of the questions b. how well you know and manage your facts c. how soundly you handle and cite the literature d. how well you have developed and organized your argument e. the quality of your writing
errors of fact b. misattribution of arguments in text and/or citation c. spurious citation of literature d. presentation of answer in bullet point format e. failure to develop coherent argument

Past Field Questions

American foreign policy.

According to Henry Kissinger, "It is an illusion to believe that leaders gain in profundity while they gain experience.... The connections that leaders have formed before reaching high office are the intellectual capital they will consume" during their time in office. Explain and discuss this assessment, which Kissinger made after he had served as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, with explicit references to two high level foreign policy practitioners during the two decades that followed the US intervention in World War II (1941-1961).
"Our security, our vitality, and our ability to lead," recently observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "must be based on a marriage of principle and pragmatism, not rigid ideology, on facts and evidence, not conviction or prejudice." Explain and discuss in the context of two high level foreign policy practitioners during the immediate postwar decade (1945-1965).
Identify TWO crises, events, or issues that best characterize the latter part of the Cold War and its immediate aftermath (from January 1981 to January 2001). Do NOT describe any of these crises, events or issues at length but single out the features and patterns that best explain why these are so closely identified, in your judgment, with this initial post-Cold War period.
Describe and discuss the evolution of U.S. policies toward any country (except the USSR/Russia) or region of your choice during a 6-year period of your choice, extended from January 1981 to January 2001. To introduce your answer, explain your choice of the period you wish to discuss. To conclude, explain the relevance of that region or country to current U.S. interests and policies.
Whatever might be said about the events of September 11, 2001 and the wars that followed, their consequences have been epochal - meaning, system changing. After a quick review of these events, examine the conditions of what has been called a new "post-American world." What do you think of this emerging world: first, from the narrow perspective of U.S. interests, capabilities and purpose; but also, next, from the broader perspective of power and order during the coming decade? 2. "The United States," it has been noted, "never experienced what other nations experienced in achieving a position of world power. It moved within a very brief period from a position of isolation to one of global leadership, it has never been a mere nation among other nations." Explain and discuss the influence of the nation's distinctive past on the US role in the world in the twentieth century.

TRANSNATIONALISM AND INTERDEPENDENCE

Great speculation exists on the extent to which the United States is in decline. Drawing on the central concepts and knowledge of the track, and on your broader study in the program, to what extent do you believe America is in decline? What factors could hasten or reverse this decline at the global level, insofar as you see it in play?
To what extent, if any, is the world safer in the post-Cold War era? In what measure have transnational threats (terrorism, migration, energy interdependence, etc) replaced the threats inherent in the Cold War?
Drawing on your coursework in this program, and especially on your courses in this track, to what extent do you think that the effects of anarchy can be tempered or lessened in world politics?
Realists tend to assume that world politics is cyclical; and that the basic elements of world politics do not change much over time (such as power, balance of power politics, the centrality of states, and conflict). To what extent do you agree with this key realist assumption?
To what extent, if at all, does interdependence decrease inter-state conflict in world politics?

INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

From World War II to the present, states have constructed regimes to manage some-but not all-aspects of the international economy. A once-strong regime to manage trade has weakened since the 1990s. Likewise, with the abandonment of dollar-gold convertibility in 1973, a robust regime to manage monetary relations collapsed. Conversely, states originally left finance unregulated but in 1988 created and progressively have strengthened rules to manage international banking. And in production, the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment collapsed in 1998 without ever securing necessary multilateral support. What explains these variations in institutions, both across issue areas and over the course of the last 65 years?
The integration of gendered analyses of globalization has led to a substantive body of literature within the field of international studies. Imagine that an international studies department hires you to design and teach a graduate seminar on gender and globalization. What theoretical and empirical movements within the field would your seminar emphasize? How would you elucidate the central connections between gender and globalization? In your essay response, please explain how your choice of authors, themes and content provides an innovative approach to teaching graduate students about the complex interconnections between gender and global restructuring.
After the May 2010 parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom, one observer wrote: The outcome in Britain underscores a problem roiling so many democracies. The economic change brought about by globalization and technological advances is not creating the happy, unified world of progress its promoters keep promising. Instead, it is splitting regions within nations that are fully part of the global market from those left behind. Does globalization foster or undermine democracy? Your answer should address at least one of the following dimensions of democracy: political behavior, democratic institutions, responsiveness, equality, and legitimacy. Please illustrate your argument using one democratic state of your choice.
Numerous scholars argue that historical experiences condition a nation-state's contemporary political economy. That is, a state's past policies for economic development may profoundly affect its contemporary prospects for industrialization, the reduction of poverty, and the development of political institutions. To what degree are development and democratization path-dependent processes? Can states in the contemporary political economy escape the tyranny of their history? If so, how? If not, why not?
Developing states face different economic, political and social challenges than do the wealthiest and most powerful states. Can international political economy offer us a coherent set of theoretical tools to explain such diverse problems in the global economy? Or must it rely upon ad-hoc, degenerative hypothesizing to accommodate such empirical challenges? To illustrate your theoretical argument, please compare at least one developing and one developed state.

CONFLICT AND COOPERATION

For a region of your choice identify two instances of cooperation between states that advanced/improved the regional security environment. Explain your selections in detail. Choose your examples from the last decade.
The spread of nuclear weapons is often cited as a major challenge to the international community. How might this threat best be countered? Your answer should critically review state policies and institutional responses.
In an increasingly global security environment it is far from obvious how security should be organized. Reflecting on what you have learned, how would you conceptualize a 21st century security order? Why would you conceptualize it this way?
To what extent does the transatlantic security community exist? Is it strong and if so, why? Is it weak and if so, why? What factors/developments are likely to determine its future?
For a region of your choice, discuss two events or developments over the past decade that have significantly affected regional expectations about conflict and cooperation. In your answer, make sure to demonstrate familiarity with the scholarly literature and debates at the policy levels.
Virtually absent from national policy agendas since the end of the Cold War, arms control is back. From a scholarly perspective and against the background of Cold War arms control, how do you evaluate the return of arms control, the emerging arms control agenda, and arms control's contribution to international peace and stability?
How useful are policies of deterrence in a global security environment?
From your understanding of the scholarly literature, single out two contributors whose work(s) you think have been critical in advancing the field of Security Studies. Carefully explain your choices.
Critical theorists have issued a number of challenges to traditional understandings of peace and security. Identify three such challenges and discuss. Ultimately, do these challenges represent anomalies, in the Kuhnian sense, or are they the products of normal science?

COMPARATIVE AND REGIONAL STUDIES

Both Rational-Choice and Political-Culture theories are prominent approaches in the field of comparative sociopolitical studies. What are the similarities and differences between these two approaches in terms of their intellectual geneses, theoretical assumptions, and major arguments (or hypotheses)? Discuss the major strengths and weaknesses of each approach.
New Institutionalism is believed to have succeeded the so-called "Old" Institutionalism in comparative sociopolitical studies. Explain the intellectual genesis, theoretical assumptions and major arguments (or hypotheses) of the New Institutionalism. In what respects is the New Institutionalism similar to and different from the Old Institutionalism? Do you think that the New Institutionalism has helped advance comparative sociopolitical studies? Why or why not?
Some analysts of comparative studies have advocated Statism, emphasizing the profound role of the state in shaping socioeconomic and sociopolitical developments in various countries. Explain theoretical assumptions and major arguments (or hypotheses) of Statism. Do you agree with Statism's arguments for the importance of the state (vs. society)? Why or why not?
Social movement and revolution
Democratization
Social capital
To study socioeconomic development in different regions or countries, scholars have developed two distinct approaches: Modernization Theory and Dependency Theory. Briefly explain these two approaches in terms of their fundamental assumptions and theoretical arguments. Which theory do you prefer when studying socioeconomic development in developing countries? Use evidence from any region(s) or country (countries) with which you are familiar to support your reference.

INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL STUDIES

Explain the social construction of culture(s) and its significance to current political economic realities.
Cite a case study of a post-colonial critique of nationalism. Explain the role of the imperial power and how that is legitimized or not.
How is the concept of "nation" constructed in Modernity? How is this construction relevant to issues in international studies? Cite case studies where appropriate.
Explain how cultural studies theories are important to the study and practice of international relations.
Explain the importance of the media in the construction or reflection of the identity of immigrant, multicultural or diaspora communities.
Graduate Program in International Studies (GPIS)
7045 Batten Arts & Letters
Norfolk, VA 23529

Program Director

Regina Karp

NORFOLK, VA 23529
[email protected]

NATO Accreditation

NATO, a military alliance of 31 North American and European countries, accredited the ODU GPIS degree program as a "Selected Program" for alliance members' education and training. Currently, no other civilian academic institutions have been awarded the "Selected Program" designation by NATO.

Default / Quicklinks Search ODU Search ODU Quicklinks A to Z Index Current Students Student Email Faculty & Staff Faculty/Staff Email

Enhance your college career by gaining relevant experience with the skills and knowledge needed for your future career. Discover our experiential learning opportunities.

Picture yourself in the classroom, speak with professors in your major, and meet current students.

From sports games to concerts and lectures, join the ODU community at a variety of campus events.

PhD Viva Voces – A Complete Guide
Doing a PhD
A PhD viva involves defending your thesis in an oral examination with at least two examiners.
The aim of a PhD viva is to confirm that the work is your own , that you have a deep understanding of your project and, overall, that you are a competent researcher .
There are no standard durations, but they usually range from one to three hours, with most lasting approximately two hours .
There are six outcomes of a PhD viva: (1) pass without corrections (2) pass subject to minor corrections, (3) pass subject to major corrections, (4) downgrade to MPhil with no amendments, (5) downgrade to MPhil subject to amendments, (6) immediate fail.
Almost all students who sit their viva pass it, with the most common outcome being ‘(2) – pass subject to minor corrections’.

What Is a PhD Viva?

A viva voce , more commonly referred to as ‘viva’, is an oral examination conducted at the end of your PhD and is essentially the final hurdle on the path to a doctorate. It is the period in which a student’s knowledge and work are evaluated by independent examiners.

In order to assess the student and their work around their research question, a viva sets out to determine:

you understand the ideas and theories that you have put forward,
you can answer questions about elements of your work that the examiners have questions about,
you understand the broader research in your field and how your work contributes to this,
you are aware of the limitations of your work and understand how it can be developed further,
your work makes an original contribution, is your own and has not been plagiarised.

Note: A viva is a compulsory procedure for all PhD students, with the only exception being when a PhD is obtained through publication as opposed to the conventional route of study.

Who Will Attend a Viva?

In the UK, at least two examiners must take part in all vivas. Although you could have more than two examiners, most will not in an attempt to facilitate a smoother questioning process.

One of the two examiners will be internal, i.e. from your university, and the other will be external, i.e. from another university. Regardless, both will be knowledgeable in your research field and have read your thesis beforehand.

In addition to your two examiners, two other people may be present. The first is a chairperson. This is an individual who will be responsible for monitoring the interview and for ensuring proper conduct is followed at all times. The need for an external chairperson will vary between universities, as one of the examiners can also take on this role. The second is your supervisor, whose attendance is decided upon by you in agreement with your examiners. If your supervisor attends, they are prohibited from asking questions or from influencing the outcome of the viva.

To avoid any misunderstandings, we have summarised the above in a table:

Note: In some countries, such as in the United States, a viva is known as a ‘PhD defense’ and is performed publicly in front of a panel or board of examiners and an open audience. In these situations, the student presents their work in the form of a lecture and then faces questions from the examiners and audience which almost acts as a critical appraisal.

How Long Does a Viva Last?

Since all universities have different guidelines , and since all PhDs are unique, there are no standard durations. Typically, however, the duration ranges from one to three hours, with most lasting approximately two hours.

Your examiners will also influence the duration of your viva as some will favour a lengthy discussion, while others may not. Usually, your university will consult your examiners in advance and notify you of the likely duration closer to the day of your viva.

What Happens During a Viva?

Regardless of the subject area, all PhD vivas follow the same examination process format as below.

Introductions

You will introduce yourselves to each other, with the internal examiner normally introducing the external examiner. If an external chairperson is present, they too are introduced; otherwise, this role will be assumed by one of the examiners.

Procedure Explained

After the introductions, the appointed chair will explain the viva process. Although it should already be known to everyone, it will be repeated to ensure the viva remains on track during the forthcoming discussion.

Warm-Up Questions

The examiners will then begin the questioning process. This usually starts with a few simple opening questions, such as asking you to summarise your PhD thesis and what motivated you to carry out the research project.

In-Depth Questions

The viva questions will then naturally increase in difficulty as the examiners go further into the details of your thesis. These may include questions such as “What was the most critical decision you made when determining your research methodology ?”, “Do your findings agree with the current published work?” and “How do your findings impact existing theories or literature? ”. In addition to asking open-ended questions, they will also ask specific questions about the methodology, results and analysis on which your thesis is based.

Closing the Viva

Once the examiners are satisfied that they have thoroughly evaluated your knowledge and thesis, they will invite you to ask any questions you may have, and then bring the oral examination to a close.

What Happens After the Viva?

Once your viva has officially ended, your examiners will ask you to leave the room so that they can discuss your performance. Once a mutual agreement has been reached, which can take anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour, you will be invited back inside and informed of your outcome.

PhD Viva Outcomes

There are six possible outcomes to a viva:

Immediate award of degree: A rare recommendation – congratulations, you are one of the few people who completely satisfied your examiners the first time around. You do not have to do anything further at this point.
Minor amendments required: The most common recommendation – you obtain a pass on the condition that you make a number of minor amendments to your thesis, such as clarifying certain points and correcting grammatical errors. The time you have to make these changes depends on the number of them, but is usually one to six months.
Major amendments required: A somewhat uncommon recommendation – you are requested to make major amendments to your thesis, ranging from further research to collecting more data or rewriting entire sections. Again, the time you have to complete this will depend on the number of changes required, but will usually be six months to one year. You will be awarded your degree once your amended thesis has been reviewed and accepted.
Immediate award of MPhil: An uncommon recommendation – your examiners believe your thesis does not meet the standard for a doctoral degree but meets the standard for an MPhil (Master of Philosophy), a lower Master’s degree.
Amendments required for MPhil: A rare recommendation – your examiners believe your thesis does not meet the standard for a doctoral degree, but with several amendments will meet the standard for an MPhil.
Immediate fail: A very rare recommendation – you are given an immediate fail without the ability to resubmit and without entitlement to an MPhil.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

What Is the Pass Rate for Vivas?

Based on an analysis of 26,076 PhD students who took their viva exam between 2006 and 2017, the PhD viva pass rate in the UK is 96%; of those who passed, about 80% were required to make minor amendments to their thesis. The reason for this high pass rate is that supervisors will only put their students forward for a viva once they confidently believe they are ready for it. As a result, most candidates who sit a viva are already well-versed in their PhD topic before they even start preparing for the exam.

How Do I Arrange a Viva?

Your viva will be arranged either by the examiners or by the chairperson. The viva will be arranged at least one to two months after you have submitted your thesis and will arrange a viva date and venue that is suitable for all participants.

Can I Choose My Examiners?

At most universities, you and your supervisor will choose the internal and external examiners yourselves. This is because the examiners must have extensive knowledge of the thesis topic in order to be able to examine you and, as the author of the thesis in question, who else could better determine who they might be than you and your supervisor. The internal examiner is usually quite easy to find given they will be from your institution, but the external examiner may end up being your second or third preference depending on availability.

Can I Take Notes Into a Viva?

A viva is about testing your competence, not your memory. As such, you are allowed to take notes and other supporting material in with you. However, keep in mind that your examiners will not be overly impressed if you constantly have to refer to your notes to answer each question. Because of this, many students prefer to take an annotated copy of their thesis, with important points already highlighted and key chapters marked with post-it notes.

In addition to an annotated copy of a thesis, some students also take:

a list of questions they would like to ask the examiners,
notes that were created during their preparation,
a list of minor corrections they have already identified from their viva prep work.

How Do I Prepare for a PhD Viva?

There are several ways to prepare for a PhD viva, one of the most effective being a mock viva voce examination . This allows you to familiarise yourself with the type of viva questions you will be asked and identify any weak areas you need to improve. They also give you the opportunity to practise without the pressure, giving you more time to think about your answers which will help to make sure that you know your thesis inside out. However, a mock viva exam is just one of many methods available to you – some of the other viva preparation methods can be found on our “ How to Prepare for a PhD Viva ” page.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

Impressing the Examiners: How to Prepare for Your PhD Viva

May 27, 2020

So you’ve come to the end of your PhD studies and have submitted your thesis.

Now it is time to prepare for your PhD viva.

You might feel like everything you’ve worked for is riding on it, and in some ways, it is. But as long as you’re prepared, you should have no problem on the day.

In this blog post, we’ll discuss how to prepare for your PhD viva, as well as some PhD viva tips for how to handle it on the day.

Read on for more information.

Framing the Way You Think About Your PhD Viva

There aren’t many people with PhDs. While the number is certainly growing , you’ll be entering into an elite group.

You may think that your PhD viva is an exam where internal and external experts in your field will be waiting to trip you up and look for ways to sabotage you. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

Everyone there is rooting for you to succeed. They want to add another expert to their ranks, especially one who has something important and interesting to add to that field’s conversation.

Very rarely will you have someone on your panel who is trying to make you deliberately fail.

Think of it as a chance to talk about your work with fellow experts in your field. Often, they’re excited for the conversation they’ll be having with you about your work.

You can also think of it as an opportunity to show off what you’ve done to people who are where you might aspire to be.

Preparing for a Viva

After you’ve written and submitted your thesis , it’s a good idea to take a break from it for a while. Focus on a hobby, read a few books not related to your thesis, or start a new project.

This clears your mind and allows you to look at your thesis with fresh eyes when you prepare for your viva.

Re-read your thesis before you go to your viva. It may sound silly, but you’ve been working on it for several years. Some of the arguments you’ve made may now seem a bit fuzzy to you, as you’ve been working on the minutiae of the chapters.

You need to make sure you remember the overarching theme of your thesis, as well as the arguments you’ve made in each chapter. Most examiners will allow you to bring in notes, and there will be a copy of your thesis for your referral. Don’t be afraid to make notes for yourself.

If you want to book a mock-viva with a real thesis examiner then get in touch. We run regular mock-vivas.

Overall: familiarise yourself with the major themes in both the thesis as a whole but also in individual chapters.

Practise, Practise, Practise

Practise summing up the main points of your thesis. You’ll be asked about your major argument, as well as some of the minor arguments you’ve made within the thesis.

By now, you’ve likely already presented your thesis (or parts of it) at conferences, or discussed it at length with your advisor. If you’re worried about how well you’ll be able to do this, remember that you have done this previously.

You may even want to hold a practice viva where some of your friends or family members ask you about your research. You should be able to explain it in a way that is understandable to them, on some level. Obviously, they’re not experts in your field, but they should be able to have some grasp of what your thesis is about after explaining it to them.

Your PhD Thesis. On one page.

Anticipate the questions.

Speak to your advisor before you have your viva. Discuss with him or her some of the questions that may be asked beforehand. Or, you can ask your department, who may have a guide for PhD or MA students defending their theses. Or, you can look at the guide we’ve published .

If you can anticipate the questions beforehand, you won’t feel as nervous when they’re asked. While they may ask you a few questions you won’t anticipate to ensure you’ve written the thesis yourself, you will still likely be able to rehearse the answers to the majority of their questions.

On the Day of the Viva

On the day of the viva, arrive early with plenty of time to spare. You may consider spending the night nearby if you live far away. Make sure you know where to go, and are properly fed and hydrated. You may wish to bring water with you to the viva itself. Re-read your notes and try to focus on relaxing. Don’t overthink it.

Manage Your Expectations

Don’t expect to pass with zero corrections. This does happen but is usually very rare. You may hear of your colleagues doing this, and feel disappointed if you don’t.

Most people pass with minor or major corrections. Some people will be required to resubmit following very major revisions. This may seem like a huge blow, but remember that most people go on to resubmit their thesis successfully.

Very rarely do people not pass, or are awarded a lower degree because their thesis was not “good enough.” Your advisor has likely done a great job of helping shape your PhD, and you should expect that you will pass if you’re prepared, but likely with some form of corrections.

How to Prepare for Your PhD Viva

We hope this article answered your question of how to prepare for a PhD viva. Preparing for a viva can be nerve wracking, as it may feel as though the culmination of the past few years are all riding on this one moment. Remember, everyone is rooting for you to pass, even your examiners.

Not quite ready to submit your thesis? Have a look at our PhD thesis writing course , where we can help you become a better writer and be ready to take your PhD with confidence.

Hello, Doctor…

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Be able to call yourself Doctor sooner with our five-star rated How to Write A PhD email-course. Learn everything your supervisor should have taught you about planning and completing a PhD.

Now half price. Join hundreds of other students and become a better thesis writer, or your money back.

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

/images/cornell/logo35pt_cornell_white.svg" alt="phd thesis examine"> Cornell University --> Graduate School

Defending your thesis or dissertation.

Certain special exams are required to earn an advanced degree in the research-based programs at Cornell. Often, these exams need to be taken with consideration of anticipated completion dates. Enrollment in future semesters after the date a student passes their M or B exam is not permitted. See Taking Exams for more information.

All exam forms are available on our Forms page.

Exams Required for M.A. and M.S. Degree Defense

If you are enrolled in an M.A. or M.S. degree program, you must pass the final examination for the master’s degree. You can take this after all degree requirements have been fulfilled, but no earlier than one month before completing the minimum number of enrolled semesters.

To pass the exam unconditionally and receive a degree, all regular, proxy, and field-appointed members of the examining committee must assent that the exam was passed unconditionally. If you are enrolled in an M.S./Ph.D. degree program where the M.A. or M.S. degree is a prerequisite for your Ph.D., you may petition your special committee to approve combining the final examination for the master’s degree with the examination for the admission to candidacy.

Exam forms required for the master’s degree include “Schedule Master’s Examination” and “Master’s Exam Results Form and Instructions.”

Exams Required for Ph.D. Degree Defense

The B exam is an oral defense of your thesis or dissertation. This exam can be taken after completing all degree requirements, but not earlier than one month before completing the minimum number of enrolled semesters. At least two semesters of successful registration must be completed between the passing of the A exam and the scheduling of the B exam.

Exam forms required for the Ph.D. degree include “Schedule A Examination and Research Compliance Form,” “Schedule B Examination,” “A Exam Results Form,” and “B Exam Results Form.”

The qualifying exam, or Q exam, is required in some fields for Ph.D. applicants. This exam helps the special committee determine your ability to pursue doctoral studies, continue in a program, and tailor an appropriate program of study.

Final Examination and Ph.D. Thesis Submission - Elmore Family School of Electrical and Computer Engineering - Purdue University

PhD Thesis and Final Examination

Printable copy of these instructions and check sheet

PhD students must follow the steps below for their final examination and to submit their thesis. The final examination is given after the thesis and all other requirements have been completed. The final examination covers primarily the thesis and related topics.

The main steps of this process are as follows; details are below.

Schedule the final examination with your advisory committee members.
Reserve a room for the final examination.
Submit Form 8 in myPurdue to officially schedule the final examination.
Deliver a copy of the thesis to all committee members at least two weeks before the final examination.
Following your final examination, submit the Thesis Acceptance Form (Form 9) through myPurdue.
Deposit your thesis.

Step 1: Schedule your final examination with your advisory committee members.

Note: There must be at least two academic sessions/semesters (counting summer session) of research registration between the semester of the preliminary examination and the semester of the final examination. Contact Matt Golden ( [email protected] ) in the ECE Graduate Office for additional information.

At least 3 weeks before the desired date of the final examination, consult with your major professor and your doctoral advisory committee to find a suitable date and time to hold the examination. Your examination should be held on the West Lafayette campus or may, with the approval of your doctoral advisory committee, be held virtually.

Final examination committee members: The final examination committee is typically the student’s doctoral advisory committee. However, the Dean of the Graduate School reserves the right to appoint additional committee members.

Final examination timing:

The final examination must be completed before the semester deadline (approximately one week before the last day of classes), but we strongly recommend you do not wait until this late date. See the Graduate School deadlines here: Graduate School Calendar .
If you are registered for Exam Only , your final examination must be completed by the eighth week of classes in Fall or Spring or by the sixth week of summer session.

Step 2: Reserve a room for the final examination.

Once you have established the date of your final examination, reserve a room:

Go to the Resource Allocation Tool .
Enter the desired date and select a room.
Click View Calendar .
Scroll down to see the calendar.
After confirming the availability of the room, select Request Reservation in the left-hand navigation.
Select the room and enter a date and time; click Continue .
In the Select an Administrator list, select Elisheba Van Winkle.
You will receive an email confirmation.

If you are unable to reserve a room using the instructions above, send the request by email to Elisheba Van Winkle ( [email protected] ).

On the day of the exam: If the room is locked, see an area secretary for a key. If the area secretary is not available, see the ECE Graduate Office (MSEE 140).

Step 3: Submit Form 8 in myPurdue to officially schedule the final examination and submit an abstract.

Follow these steps to submit Form 8 and submit your abstract:

Log into myPurdue and go to the Plan of Study Generator under the Academics tab.
This request requires approvals from the Graduate Office, the chair of your advisory committee, and the Graduate School.
Send an abstract (250 words or less) of the thesis research clearly defining the problem and its significance to Matt Golden ( [email protected] ) in the ECE Graduate Office.

Late requests: Please be aware that late requests to schedule your final examination do not allow sufficient time to process your request and adequately publicize your examination date. Any requests to schedule a final examination less than three weeks in advance must be approved by Matt Golden and will be approved only in exceptional circumstances.

Final examination posting: The time and location of the final examination will be posted on the ECE website. University regulations permit visitors to attend the final examination. Such visitors are permitted to ask questions of the candidate after having been recognized by the major professor, but they may not be present while the committee deliberates on its decision.

Step 4: Deliver a copy of your thesis to all committee members at least two weeks before the exam.

Preparing your thesis: Before beginning to write your thesis, you are strongly advised to review the information on the Graduate School Thesis and Dissertation Office website .

Templates: You must use the LaTeX (recommended) or MS Word templates that the Graduate School provides.

Step 5: Following your final examination, submit the Thesis Acceptance Form (Form 9) through myPurdue.

Follow these steps to submit Form 9:

Log into myPurdue and go to the Plan of Study Generator under the Academics tab.
Complete and submit for Form 9.

Results: The advisory committee will report the results of the final examination through the Graduate School Web Database. No more than one dissenting vote is acceptable in certifying the candidate to receive the PhD. If the final examination is unsatisfactory, at least one semester or summer session must elapse before the final examination is repeated.

Embargo and confidentiality: Be sure to discuss with your major professor whether your thesis should be confidential prior to submitting the request or if there will be a delay in the publication.

Your major professor will certify that they have used iThenticate software to check your thesis for plagiarism in the electronic Thesis Acceptance Form. They will also confirm confidentiality or Embargo (delayed publication of the thesis) if you have marked these.

Students should consider an embargo over confidentiality in all cases. An embargo is commonly used when applying for patents, pending publications, or when proprietary rights are involved.

Confidentiality should only be used with ITAR/Export controlled or confidential sponsored information is included in the thesis. Indefinite confidentiality can only be requested when there is contract information on file with Sponsored Program Services. All indefinite requests will be subject to approval by the SPS office. All confidentiality requests will also be reviewed by Thesis Office staff to ensure this program is being utilized properly.

Step 6: Deposit your thesis.

Follow the instructions on the Graduate School Thesis and Dissertation Office Deposit Requirements webpage to deposit your thesis.

For more detailed steps or questions about the on-line thesis deposit process, refer to the Graduate School Thesis and Dissertation Office website or contact staff in this office.

Thesis deposit time limit policy: Effective Fall 2020, students are required to deposit their theses and dissertations within three consecutive sessions of receiving a decision of PASS on their final examination (including the session in which the final examination was passed). The thesis or dissertation must be deposited no later than the end of the semester Deposit Deadline of the third consecutive session for full consideration of the sought degree. For example, a student who passes the final examination in a fall session has through the end of the semester Deposit Deadline of the following summer to deposit. To uphold the integrity of the defended research, if a student is unable to deposit their thesis or dissertation within three sessions, they must re-defend their research and deposit within the session they receive the decision of PASS on the second final examination to be conferred the degree.

PhD thesis examination regulations

Table of contents

PhD thesis examining committee

Display period.

Guidelines for thesis examination and public disclosure
Theses written in french

Procedural guidelines

Format for defences, participation through electronic media (remote participation), absent committee members, phd thesis examination.

The PhD thesis examination is the culmination of the candidate's research program. The exam is intended to allow the candidate to demonstrate their mastery and expertise in the chosen area of study through a presentation of their research. The exam also presents an opportunity for the candidate's work to be subject to scholarly criticism by members of the academic community. Through the process of defending the thesis, the candidate further demonstrates their capacity to engage meaningfully in scholarly discourse in their chosen area.

Based on an evaluation of the written thesis and the candidate’s performance in the thesis examination, the examining committee will render a decision as to whether the candidate’s work has satisfied the requirements for a PhD.

Prior to defence

Prior to submitting the thesis, it is recommended that the candidate meet with their supervisor and/or advisory committee (if applicable). The candidate should seek endorsement that the research is of sufficient quality to proceed to defence and that the candidate is able to meet the requirements of the oral defence. Although a negative assessment does not prohibit the candidate from proceeding to defence, this should occur only in rare cases and is not recommended.

The Graduate Officer of the department in which the candidate is enrolled will recommend to the Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies a PhD Thesis Examining Committee for approval. Sufficient information should be supplied in order to facilitate the Associate Dean’s decision, including notes on adjunct appointments and declarations of any conflicts of interest.

A date and location for the examination will be set according to availability of Examining Committee members. The candidate should be prepared to defend the thesis within 4 - 6 weeks of depositing it in the Faculty Graduate Studies Office (see Display Period below).

The Examining Committee consists of a minimum of five voting members:

External Examiner

Supervisor or Co-supervisors

Internal Member (from the home department)
Internal-external Member (external to the home department)
Other Member(s)

The PhD Thesis Examination is chaired by an impartial faculty member with ADDS status from outside the candidate's department. The Chair is appointed by Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA). The Chair is responsible for proper conduct of the examination and does not vote.

The external examiner must hold a doctorate and be knowledgeable in the field of the candidate’s research. In addition, to ensure fairness and impartiality, the external examiner must be at arm's length from the candidate’s thesis, candidate and supervisor(s), and must not be in a potential conflict of interest with regards to the outcome of the thesis examination. There is a conflict of interest when:

A proposed external examiner is, or was in the last six years, from the same university, organization or department, or belongs or belonged, in the last six years, to the same research unit as the supervisor(s) or candidate; or
There is an administrative or family link between the proposed external examiner and the supervisor(s) or candidate (e.g., head of the department, Dean of the Faculty, etc.); or
A proposed external examiner is an industrial or government representative or professional who is or was in the last six years directly involved in collaborative activities with the supervisor(s) or candidate; or
A proposed external examiner is a former research supervisor or graduate student of the supervisor(s) or candidate; or
A proposed external examiner has collaborated or published with the supervisor(s) or candidate within the past six years; or
A proposed external examiner is a planned future research supervisor or employer of the candidate or plans to collaborate or publish with the candidate in the foreseeable future; or
The proposed external examiner is uncomfortable with reviewing the proposal due to previous conflicts or any other reason (e.g., past student or supervisor, even if more than six years ago, or personal conflict); or
The Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies, has reason to believe that a specific proposed external examiner should not be involved in the review.

In cases where the candidate’s thesis research has involved collaborations with other local members of the examining committee beyond the supervisor(s) within the past six years, the external examiner must be free of potential conflict of interest under the guidelines above with those members as well.

Recommendation of an individual to serve as external examiner is made by the supervisor(s) or Graduate Officer/Associate Chair, Graduate Studies, as appropriate, to the Faculty, Associate Dean, Graduate Studies for approval. The Graduate Officer/Associate Chair is responsible for determining that the requirements for arm’s length have been met, and the recommendation must be accompanied by a curriculum vitae covering the past six years and a conflict of interest statement, as well as full disclosure of any past affiliations involving the candidate and supervisor(s) to assist in confirming an arm's-length relationship.

The Associate Dean is the contact for the external examiner regarding the thesis and its defence. At no point should the candidate be in communication with the external examiner prior to the defence. The Department may communicate with the external only for the purposes of other arrangements not related to the defence (e.g. arrangements for a research talk).

The external examiner must provide the Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies with a written assessment of the thesis at least one week before the scheduled defence. Whether the assessment is positive or negative, the Associate Dean will copy the report of the external examiner only to the supervisor, who will inform the candidate of any major criticisms of the thesis, so that the student can respond to these, but the evaluation must not be shown to the candidate. The candidate may be shown the evaluation after the defence, with the permission of the external examiner. Should the assessment be negative, the Associate Dean may wish to advise that the candidate withdraw the dissertation and defend with the same external examiner at a later date. A candidate may withdraw the thesis only once. Despite a negative assessment, a candidate has the right to proceed to a defence.

The student’s supervisor serves on the Examining Committee.

In the case that there is more than one supervisor, all co-supervisors are expected to attend the defence and the supervisor vote is divided fractionally among the co-supervisors such that each may vote independently but the total supervisor vote (one) remains unchanged.

Only with the approval of the Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies may a co-supervisor be absent from the exam. In that case, the other co-supervisor, who must have ADDS status, will represent them.

Internal Member

The internal member is normally drawn from the student’s Advisory Committee and is from the student’s home department.

Internal-External Member

The internal-external should have suitable knowledge of the subject matter of the dissertation and is normally external to the student’s home department. The internal-external member ensures that the thesis meets university standards of quality and helps to assess the performance of the candidate at the defence.

In rare cases, identifying an internal-external who is able to make a meaningful contribution to the examination is problematic. In such circumstances, the requirement that the Internal-External be external to the department may be waived by the Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies based on a rationale provided by the Graduate Officer. Holding an adjunct or cross appointment in the student’s home department does not preclude serving as an internal-external.

Normally, this committee member is drawn from the student's Advisory Committee. The member normally holds a tenured or tenure track position at the University of Waterloo or has another type of ongoing faculty appointment.

Adjunct faculty on Examining Committees

In some cases it may be beneficial for a student to have access to the expertise of a particular adjunct faculty member. The Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies may give permission for an adjunct faculty member to serve on the Examining Committee as the Internal-External or Member, provided that the Adjunct faculty members holds a PhD. No more than one adjunct faculty member (including Professors Emeriti) may serve on the Examining Committee, with the exception of cotutelle student defences, which may involve the participation of more than one adjunct faculty member.

When a candidate is ready to proceed to defence, they must deposit the thesis to the Faculty Graduate Office. Faculties may request either paper or electronic copies.

Copies are distributed to members of the PhD Thesis Examining Committee and a copy is held in the Faculty Graduate Office for at least four weeks, where it may be requested by any member of the University for examination. The Daily Bulletin announces the submission of the thesis and the date and location of its defence.

If a candidate is requesting a closed examination (see Guidelines for Thesis Examination without Public Disclosure below), the thesis will be displayed but with the requirement that a non-disclosure agreement be signed by anyone wishing to review the thesis.

Major criticisms of the thesis by members of the University must be submitted in writing to the Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies no later than one week before the thesis defence. The Faculty Associate Dean will forward these concerns to the supervisor(s) and/or address these concerns and/or convey them to the Chair of the Committee, if necessary.

Members of the PhD Thesis Examining Committee who have major criticisms of the thesis are encouraged to submit written comments to the Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies no later than one week before the thesis defence. The Faculty Associate Dean will share these concerns with the supervisor and candidate. If written comments are not submitted in advance, criticisms can be discussed at the defence but should not be discussed with other members of the Examining Committee prior to the defence.

Guidelines for thesis examination without public disclosure

Central to the University of Waterloo’s mission is the creation and dissemination of knowledge. As new scholars, graduate students are expected to disclose and publicly defend their research results to ensure review from their peers and acceptance and inclusion of their findings in open scholarly discourse.

At times, graduate students may wish to protect their research results, particularly when they contain material of commercial or marketable value, or when restricted by a publication agreement. It is expected that in the vast majority of these cases that protection of the intellectual property will be obtained in a timely manner, well before the preparation and examination of the student’s thesis (for example in the form of filing a patent application). In those rare cases where such protection is not obtained in advance, it may be necessary to restrict the disclosure of thesis results from the public arena. In cases where private companies or other supporting organizations are involved in the research through a research contract or agreement, this request may be required by the terms of that agreement. In these cases:

The graduate student and supervisor(s) must begin the process to restrict disclosure of the thesis results as early as possible to ensure timely completion of the thesis examination. Normally, this recommendation to restrict disclosure will be forthcoming from the supervisor and, where appropriate, the Advisory Committee, to the Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies.
Any request for a closed thesis examination must be forthcoming, at the latest, one week prior to the submission of the thesis to the Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies by completing a Request for a Closed Thesis Examination Form. This ensures that committee members are aware of the requirements for non-disclosure before examination of the thesis.
Examining Committee members, including the external examiner, will be asked by the University of Waterloo to sign a Confidential information thesis non-disclosure agreement form (Graduate Studies forms website) regarding the contents of the thesis before examining the thesis. Potential committee members have the right to refuse to sign the agreement; however this will result in the requirement to resign from the committee. Any member who refuses to sign the agreement will not be permitted to view the thesis and/or attend the defence.
All parties should recognize that the time required to secure this agreement from all Examining Committee members may result in a longer period between submission and defence of the thesis, unless this consent is obtained in advance of the thesis submission.
The thesis will be displayed but with the requirement that a Confidential Information Thesis Non-Disclosure Agreement Form (Graduate Studies forms website) be signed by anyone wishing to review the thesis.
The examination, including any oral presentation associated with the examination, will be open only to members of the University community who agree to sign a non-disclosure agreement under these terms. It is the responsibility of the graduate student and/or thesis advisor(s) to prepare and manage these agreements.
The requirements for non-disclosure will expire once the thesis is published in UWSpace. In most cases, student will request a one year restriction on the circulation of the thesis in UWSpace. Any extension to that time period must be approved by the Associate Vice-President, Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs.

Failure to follow these guidelines in their entirety will result in the normal practice of public disclosure and circulation of the thesis.

Thesis written in french

L'université de Waterloo offre aux étudiants la possibilité de rédiger les thèses de doctorat et de maîtrise en français. Ceci n'est pas un droit de l'étudiant ou de l'étudiante. Mise à part la condition évidente de la compétence linguistique du candidat ou de la candidate par rapport au domaine étudié, il est nécessaire de satisfaire à d'autres exigences.

Lorsqu'un candidat ou une candidate demande à son département de rédiger sa thèse en français dans le cadre de ce règlement, il ou elle doit soumettre une déclaration d'appui de la part de son directeur ou sa directrice de thèse, des membres éventuels du comité de supervision et d'évaluation, ainsi que leur accord d'appartenir à ce comité.

Tous les membres du comité doivent posséder un niveau de compétence linguistique tel qu'il leur permettra d'évaluer avec pertinence, à la fois le contenu et la présentation du matériel examiné.

Thesis defence

The thesis defence is an oral examination of the student by the student's PhD Thesis Examining Committee, chaired by an impartial faculty member with ADDs status from outside the candidate's department. Any member of the university may attend.

The Chair is responsible for the proper conduct of the examination. Candidates first present their thesis orally with whatever aids are required to make an effective presentation. This presentation should be limited to no more than thirty minutes with the focus being on the main contributions and conclusions of the work.

The presentation is followed by questioning. The Chair will give priority to questions from members of the PhD Thesis Examining Committee and any member of the university who has submitted written questions in advance. The oral examination should be structured in such a way that a period is set aside at the end of the examination for questions from non-Committee members. If the Chair of the PhD Thesis Examining Committee is unsure of the appropriateness or relevance of a question, they should ask the members of the Committee whether any of them wishes to have the candidate answer the question, thus in effect making the question posed one which would be authorized by a member of the Committee.

The Chair, with agreement of the Examining Committee, will decide when to conclude the questioning. The candidate and audience will be asked to leave the room (either physically or remotely) and the Examining Committee will deliberate in a closed session. The Graduate Officer, Departmental Chair, Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies and Associate Vice-President, Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs may attend the closed session. Once a decision is made, the candidate is invited back into the room and informed by the Chair of the Committee’s decision. The Chair will provide a report to the Associate Vice-President, Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs on the conduct of the examination, any issues or problems that arose, and the decision of the Examining Committee.

The candidate, the supervisor(s), members of the examining committee, the Chair, and technical support staff (if applicable) are essential participants that must attend the defence (physically or remotely). Additional attendees may be permitted to attend with the caveat that the progress of the defence will not be interrupted if, in the case of remote defences, their connection fails. Some Faculties have limitations on the number of additional attendees for remote defences. Preapproval is required through the Office of the Associate Dean (Graduate Studies). If the defence is being held in person, additional attendees will also need to attend in person, and participation may be dependent on room capacity limits.

Recording of the thesis defence is not allowed, nor is the use of cell phones, cameras or any other recording devices unless used for the purposes of the examination presentation.

As a result of COVID-19, the University has provided the option for students to complete their thesis defence in a remote format. Based on the positive experience for many students, supervisors, and reviewers, we will continue with the option for students to participate in either an in-person or remote defence, or under a hybrid format. The decision on the format of the defence will be upon agreement between the supervisor and student.

Chairs should be prepared to support either an in-person or remote defence. It is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure the structure of the defence supports the integrity of the process and all can participate appropriately and equally either in-person or virtually.

Chairs will receive, regardless of format of delivery, the standard Chair package in electronic format from the Faculty Administrative Assistant that is coordinating the examination, one week prior to the defence. The Chair package will include the following: 1) Report of the Chair, 2) PhD Thesis Committee Composition, 3) PhD Thesis Examination Report, 4) External Examiner’s Report, 5) Committee Members’ Reports, 6) A guide to chairing a PhD thesis examination, 7) Instructions for the defence, including location of in person defence or process for remote defences.

Chairs will document the conduct of the examination on the "Report of the Chair" form. This form will be made available in Word format and/or in fillable .pdf so that defence Chairs can complete it electronically.

Chairs will document the decision of the examination on the "PhD Thesis Examination Report" and "Report of the Chair" forms. These forms will be made available in Word format and/or in fillable .pdf so that defence Chairs can complete them electronically.

Outcomes of the defence, regardless of format of delivery, will be communicated orally to the student by the Chair on behalf of the committee at the conclusion of the in-camera deliberations.

In situations where a student and their supervisor collaboratively decide to hold the defence in a remote format, Faculties will internally provide logistical guidelines on setting up remote defences. Please contact the Faculty Administrative Assistant to obtain Faculty-specific procedures.

As there are limitations to supporting hybrid defences, the expectation is that only one participant may participate remotely, with the balance of the committee in-person, unless there has been specific approval from the Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies. The Chair, student and supervisor must all be present in person for any hybrid defence arrangement. If any one of these individuals are not able to be physically present, the defence should be held in a remote format with everyone participating remotely.

Any member of the PhD Thesis Examining Committee, including the external examiner, participating by remote connection must make allowances for the possibility of a failed connection. In addition to the required report submitted by the external examiner, it is recommended that members planning to participate remotely submit a written report to the Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies at least one week before the examination clearly identifying one of the categories pertaining to acceptability of the written thesis document.

In the event that remote connection is lost, the Chair will determine whether or not the duration of the disruption has had a material impact on the committee member's ability to assess the candidate's defence. If there has not been a material impact, and the connection has been reestablished, then the examiner may cast their vote as if the loss of communication had not occurred. If there has been a material impact, and there was a report submitted in advance, the report will be read by the Chair and the vote indicated in the report will be counted. When there is no such report, the vote may be nullified. The Chair’s report must note the lost connection, including the timing and whether or not the vote was included in the decision. Normally the defence can proceed as long as the supervisor, external examiner and two other committee members are present and subject to the agreement of the candidate and supervisor. The decision as to when to postpone the defence, if the technology fails, will be up to the Chair of the defence.

It is expected that all members of the PhD Examining Committee attend the defence (physically or remotely). If a committee member is unable to attend a defence being held in person, that member may be given the option to participate remotely. The alternative option may be to move the entire defence to a remote format. It is desirable to secure a new committee member if they are unable to participate in any format.

In the case of an unanticipated, last-minute emergency absence of a committee member, the defence can proceed subject to the agreement of the candidate and the supervisor(s) as long as the following committee members are available (in person or virtually) to present their votes:

Two other members of the committee

Any exceptions to this regulation must be approved by the Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies.

The decision of the PhD Thesis Examining Committee is based both on the thesis and on the candidate's ability to defend it.

The decision of the Examining Committee is made by majority vote. Should the external examiner’s vote differ from that of the majority, or if there is a tie vote, the decision shall be deferred and referred to the Associate Vice-President, Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs. The Associate Vice-President will consult with the Faculty Associate Deans, Graduate Studies and will make the final determination

The following decisions are open to the PhD Thesis Examining Committee:

A. Accepted The thesis and the oral defence have been completed to the satisfaction of the examining committee. The thesis may require typographical and/or minor editorial corrections to be made to the satisfaction of the supervisor and submitted and approved in UWSpace within one month of the date of the defence. If more time is required to make these corrections, the Committee should consider whether a Category B decision is merited. If the thesis is not submitted within this timeline, the student will be withdrawn from the program.

B. Accepted Conditionally The oral defence has been completed to the satisfaction of the examining committee. The thesis is acceptable but requires content changes which are minor enough that reexamination is not required. The PhD Thesis Examining Committee's report must include a brief outline of the nature of the changes required and must indicate the time by which the changes are to be completed. Changes must be completed to the Committee's satisfaction and submitted and approved in UWSpace within four months of the date of the defence or the student will be withdrawn from the program. At least two members of the Committee must confirm that required changes have been made.

Any extension to the time limits for A or B must be requested in writing and approved by the Graduate Officer and Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies.

C. Reexamination Reexamination is required in either of the following situations:

The oral defence is not to the satisfaction of the Examining Committee.The PhD thesis examination requires that the candidate demonstrates their mastery and expertise and engages meaningfully in scholarly discourse in their chosen area.If the candidate fails to satisfy these requirements, the Examining Committee may require reexamination.The PhD Thesis Examining Committee’s report must contain a recommended set of activities that aims to improve the candidate’s abilities to present their research and respond to inquiries related to their studies.
The written thesis requires modifications of a substantial nature, the need for which makes the acceptability of the thesis questionable. The PhD Thesis Examining Committee's report must contain an outline of the modifications expected and indicate the time by which the changes are to be completed. In this case, the revised thesis must be resubmitted to the Faculty Graduate Office for reexamination.

Reexamination must occur within one year of the date of the first defence. Normally, reexamination will follow the same procedures as for the initial submission except that the display period may be reduced or eliminated at the discretion of the Associate Dean. Normally, the same PhD Thesis Examining Committee will serve, with the exception that in some circumstances, a new External Examiner can be found. A decision to reexamine is open only once for each candidate.

D. Failed If after reexamination the candidate does not achieve Category A or B, then the student will be withdrawn from the program. The PhD Thesis Examining Committee shall report the reasons for rejection to the Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies, who will confirm the decision in writing to the student within one week of the date of the examination, as well as the requirement to withdraw.

Deferral of Decision

If the PhD Thesis Examining Committee is not prepared to reach a decision concerning the thesis at the time of the thesis defence, it is the responsibility of the Chair to determine what additional information is required by the Committee to reach a decision, to arrange to obtain this information for the Committee, and to call another meeting of the Committee as soon as the required information is available. It is also the responsibility of the Chair to inform the candidate that the decision is pending. Candidates are not normally present at this second meeting of the Committee.

A request for reexamination of a graduate thesis is a type of academic grievance, as per Policy 70. A student who wishes to request a reexamination of their thesis should contact the Associate Vice-President, Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs, who will form a committee of Associate Deans, Graduate. This committee will determine the appropriate course of action, which may involve a reexamination of the thesis or the denial of the student's request.

Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA)

Needles Hall, second floor, room 2201

Graduate Studies Academic Calendar

Website feedback

Contact Waterloo
Maps & Directions
Accessibility

The University of Waterloo acknowledges that much of our work takes place on the traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee peoples. Our main campus is situated on the Haldimand Tract, the land granted to the Six Nations that includes six miles on each side of the Grand River. Our active work toward reconciliation takes place across our campuses through research, learning, teaching, and community building, and is co-ordinated within the Office of Indigenous Relations .

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

BuckeyeLink
Find People
Search Ohio State

Dissertations and Theses

The dissertation is the hallmark of the research expertise demonstrated by a doctoral student. It is a scholarly contribution to knowledge in the student’s area of specialization. By researching and writing a dissertation, the student is expected to demonstrate a high level of knowledge and the capability to function as an independent scholar.

A thesis is a hallmark of some master’s programs. It is a piece of original research, generally less comprehensive than a dissertation, and is meant to show the student’s knowledge of an area of specialization.

Document Preparation

PhD and master’s students are responsible for meeting all requirements for preparing theses and dissertations. They are expected to confer with their advisors about disciplinary and program expectations and to follow Graduate School procedure requirements.

The Graduate School’s format review is in place to help the document submission process go smoothly for the student. Format reviews for PhD dissertations and master’s theses can be done remotely or in-person. The format review is required at or before the two-week notice of the final defense.

Access and Distribution

Ohio State has agreements with two organizations— OhioLINK and ProQuest/UMI Dissertation Publishing —that store and provide access to Ohio State theses and dissertations.

Examinations

Graduate degree examinations are a major milestone in all graduate students’ pursuit of their graduate degree. Much hinges on the successful completion of these examinations, including the ability to continue in a graduate program.

The rules and processes set by the Graduate School ensure the integrity of these examinations for graduate students, the graduate faculty, and for Ohio State.

Final Semester

During your final semester as a graduate student there are many activities that lead up to commencement and receiving your degree. Complete the final semester checklist and learn more about commencement activities.

Graduation Calendar

Select your expected graduation term below to see specific dates concerning when to apply for graduation, complete your examinations and reports, submit approved thesis and dissertation, commencement, and the end-of semester deadline.

Applications to Graduate Due 1 : January 26, 2024

Examinations and Reports completed by 2 : April 12, 2024

Approved thesis and dissertation submitted and accepted by 3 : April 19, 2024

Commencement 4 : May 5, 2024

End of Semester Deadline 5 : May 6, 2024

Applications to Graduate Due 1 : May 24, 2024

Examinations and Reports completed by 2 : July 12, 2024

Approved thesis and dissertation submitted and accepted by 3 : July 19, 2024

Commencement 4 : August 4, 2024

End of Semester Deadline 5 : August 19, 2024

Applications to Graduate Due 1 : September 6, 2024

Examinations and Reports completed by 2 : November 22, 2024

Approved thesis and dissertation submitted and accepted by 3 : November 27, 2024

Commencement 4 : December 15, 2024

End of Semester Deadline 5 : January 3, 2025

Applications to Graduate Due 1 : January 24, 2025

Examinations and Reports completed by 2 : April 11, 2025

Approved thesis and dissertation submitted and accepted by 3 : April 18, 2025

Commencement 4 : May 4, 2025

End of Semester Deadline 5 : May 5, 2025

1 Applications to graduate include current semester or End-of-Semester deadline. Applications must be received by close of business.

2 Format reviews may occur electronically or in person at the Graduate School during announced business hours. Both options require submitting a digital version of the dissertation or DMA document draft in a PDF format to [email protected] .

3 Approved documents must be submitted via OhioLINK and accepted by the Graduate School by the close of business before the Report on Final Document will be processed.

4 Students not attending commencement must complete the commencement section on the Application to Graduate to indicate how their diploma should be disbursed.

5 A degree applicant who does not meet published graduation deadlines but who does complete all degree requirements by the last business day prior to the first day of classes for the following semester or summer term will graduate the following semester or summer term without registering or paying fees

Still Have Questions?

Dissertations & Theses 614-292-6031 [email protected]

Doctoral Exams, Master's Examination, Graduation Requirements 614-292-6031 [email protected]

University News
Academic Departments A-Z
Map & Directions
Careers at HKUST
Faculty Profiles
About HKUST
HKUST Fok Ying Tung Graduate School
Administration
PG Facts and Figures
Publications
Postgrad Channel

About FYTGS

Program Types
Areas of Studies
PG Prospectus and Booklets
Continuing and Professional Education
Programs and Courses
HKUST College of LifeLong Learning
Useful Links
How to Apply
Admission Requirements
Admission Timeline
Documents Required
Scholarships & Fees
Online Application
Accepting an Offer
Submitting Official Documents
Applying for Student Visa
Handy Resources for Preparing Your Studies
Moving to Hong Kong (for Non-Local Students)
PG Visiting Internship Students (Research Only)
Visiting PG Students (Coursework Only)
PG Exchange Students
Associate Postgraduate Students
Preparing your Short-Term Study @HKUST

Aims and Objectives of Research Postgraduate Education
Strategic Framework for Taught Postgraduate Education
Programs & Courses
Academic Standards
Code of Practice for RPg Thesis Supervision
Academic Requirements for RPg Students

Handbook for Research Postgraduate Studies

Handbook for Taught Postgraduate Studies
Scholarships for Admission
Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme
Targeted Taught Postgraduate Programmes Fellowships Scheme
Other Funding & Scholarships

Scholarship

Guidelines & Forms
Online Systems
Program/Course Guidelines and Proposals
Introduction
Meeting Schedules
Meeting Documents
Circulation
Annual Reports
Annual Reporting of Self-financing Programs
Working Schedule
Student Surveys and Statistics
Training Series for HKUST(GZ)
PG Outreach and Admissions
Quick Access
Download Prospectus
University Governance
Student Conduct and Academic Integrity
Policies and Practices Governing Research Activities
Scholarships, Awards and Financial Assistance
Registration in Programs
Study Commitment
Curriculum Requirements (with guidelines on thesis research)
Course Registration
Course Substitution and Credit Transfer
Course Grading
Progression and Academic Standing
Appeals and Grievance Channels
Glossary of Terms

Guidelines on PhD Thesis Examination Committees

A. appointment.

Upon the recommendations of the Department and the School, the HKUST Fok Ying Tung Graduate School (FYTGS) shall appoint a PhD Thesis Examination Committee (TEC) to examine the candidate who has expressed the intention of defending his/her thesis.

B. Composition

A Chairperson from outside the student’s major Department;
The thesis supervisor(s);
Two faculty members, in addition to the thesis supervisor(s), from the student’s major Department;
One faculty member, other than the thesis supervisor(s), from outside the student's Department; and
One examiner external to the University who has expertise in the field being examined and holds the rank of Associate Professor or above. Any deviations from the requirements above such as an external examiner from the industry should be reviewed by the PG Committee and approved by the Department Head.
The Chairperson from outside the student’s Department is selected by the School from a pool of faculty holding the rank of Associate Professor or above. He/she should have had experience in the conduct of PhD thesis examinations.
A person who has engaged in close research collaboration with the thesis supervisor(s) or the student within five years prior to the thesis examination, including advisor/advisee relationship in research studies, and joint work in research projects or co-authored publications, should not serve as an external examiner.
A person who has been on the teaching staff of HKUST, even in a visiting or adjunct faculty capacity, within the past three years, or who will join the University service before the assessment is completed, is not eligible for appointment as an external examiner.
Other than the thesis supervisor(s), at least two other examiners (including the external examiner) must hold the rank of Associate Professor or above. If a thesis supervisor holds the rank of Professor, at least one other examiner must hold the rank of Professor and be present at the thesis examination, and one other examiner must hold the rank of Associate Professor or above.
If the composition of the proposed membership of a PhD TEC varies from the above requirements, approval of FYTGS must be sought in advance.
Voting. There are at least five voting examiners on a PhD TEC, four internal and one external to the University. The Chairperson presides over the examination, but is not one of the voting members.
The default attendance mode is in-person. Should the Chairperson or any internal TEC members be unable to attend in person under special circumstances and have to attend remotely, the thesis examination may be conducted in a hybrid mode. To ensure academic integrity and quality assurance, the candidate and at least two additional participants (either Chairperson or TEC member) should participate in person.
The external examiner can attend the examination either in person or remotely via online platforms such as Zoom.
The Chairperson is expected to have skimmed through the thesis to have a rough understanding of the structure and organization of the thesis.
The examination is conducted in accordance with the regulations and requirements of the University, and in a fair and unprejudiced manner.
The questions addressed to the candidate are fair and clearly expressed.
The examiners are all given sufficient opportunity to ask questions and the candidate is given sufficient opportunity to respond to the questions.
There is sufficient opportunity of questions from the floor addressed to the candidate.
The recommendations of individual examiners are carefully considered, such that an overall recommendation may be arrived at in a fair and unprejudiced manner.
The final recommendation of the TEC reflects the majority view of the examiners.
The final recommendation of the TEC conforms to the regulations of the University that govern thesis examinations.
There is no sign of the candidate 15 minutes after the scheduled time of commencement of the thesis examination; or
There is no show of an examiner 15 minutes after the scheduled time of commencement of the thesis examination.
Report on Thesis Examination Result. Toward the end of the thesis examination, the Chairperson is required to (i) collect Part 2 of the “ Report on Thesis Examination Result for Research Postgraduate Degrees ” from all the examiners, and (ii) complete Part 3 and Part 4.1 of the report, with the assistance of the examiners. The complete set of documents should be forwarded to the Department Head/Program Director or the thesis supervisor(s) as appropriate. For details, please refer to Section C of “ Guidelines on Conducting MPhil and PhD Thesis Examinations ".
Chairperson’s Report on Thesis Examination. The Chairperson is also required to submit an online “ Chairperson’s Report on Thesis Examination ” to FYTGS within one week from the date of the thesis examination, reporting any irregularities observed during the conduct of the thesis examination.
Examiners must thoroughly read the thesis prior to the examination, and must critically assess the quality of the research, the originality of the thesis and its impact on the field of study. Examiners shall review the iThenticate report, consider whether the submitted thesis achieves an acceptable Similarity Index (SI) and recommend for amendments to the thesis as needed.
Examiners should prepare questions and discussion materials, to be asked of the candidate in the thesis examination.
The candidate has clearly demonstrated the ability and skills to conduct a major intellectual study, and arrive independently at a successful conclusion.
The thesis represents the candidate’s own significant and original contribution to the discipline that is publishable in major international journals.
The candidate, both verbally and in writing, is able to present the thesis clearly, systematically, and coherently.
The candidate has convincingly and lucidly defended the thesis.
To arrive at a final assessment of the quality of the thesis and the performance of the candidate, the examiners, in open consultation with the Chairperson, must jointly arrive at a recommendation which reflects the majority view. The examiners then adopt the majority decision.
Both internal and external examiners must each submit Part 2 of the “ Report on Thesis Examination Result for Research Postgraduate Degrees ” to the Chairperson at the end of the thesis examination.
The examiners should assist the Chairperson to prepare the “ Report on Thesis Examination Result for Research Postgraduate Degrees ” recommending the outcome of their assessment of the thesis examination.
The external examiner has all the duties and responsibilities of the other local examiners.

Doctoral Candidate Presents Dissertation Findings at National Conference

Karmen Yu’s research addresses the question: How do undergraduate Calculus I students experience and navigate their learning of calculus in the parallel spaces of coursework and inquiry-oriented complementary instruction?

Posted in: Research Presentations

Karmen with her mentor Dr. Steven Greenstein after presenting at the 2024 RUME conference

Doctoral candidate Karmen Yu recently presented findings from her dissertation study at the annual Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education conference in Omaha, NE. Karmen’s talk, entitled Case Studies of Undergraduate Students’ Agentive Participation in the Parallel Spaces of Calculus I Coursework and Peer-Led, Inquiry-Oriented, Complementary Instruction. She shared findings from one case study that included characterizations of the different forms of agentive participation afforded to students in each of the two spaces, as well as their complementary nature relative to learning calculus with understanding. It was a fantastic presentation. Karmen’s advisor, Dr. Steven Greenstein, was a contributor to the presentation and was there to support her. Great work, Karmen!

Department of Geography

News & Events
News & Kudos Archives
2024 Archives
Thesis Defence - Congratulations to Bright Addae
Temporary Instructors
Associate Members
Adjunct Faculty
Retired/Emeriti
Graduate Students
Visitors & Post Docs
Equity, Diversity & Inclusion Principles
Black Lives Matter Statement
Anti-Harassment Commitments
Bullying & Harassment Support
Vision & Mission
Strategic Plan
Departmental Committees
Assistant Professor of Climate Science - Climate Change and Extreme Events
TA Postings
Sessionals Postings
Impact of Giving
Maps and Directions
Research Themes
Community Engagement
Facilities & Equipment
2015 to Present
2010 to 2014
2000 to 2009
Physical Geography Streams
Certificates
Career Pathways
Professional Accreditation
Co-op Education
Transfer Students
Tuition & Fees
Masters Programs
Doctoral Program
How To Apply
Graduate Research Opportunities
Funding & Finances
Degree Programs
Accelerated Master's Option
Geography Breadth Exemptions
Plan Your Degree
Exchange & Study Abroad
Undergraduate Research
Geography Student Union
100 Level Courses
200 Level Courses
300 Level Courses
400 Level Courses
Seattle 2020
Victoria 2019
Program Progression
Funding and Finances
Geography Graduate Association
SFU Geography Distinguished Speaker
Scientists dig deep and find a way to accurately predict snowmelt after droughts
Cracking the Case of Missing Snowmelt After Drought
2023 Esri Canada GIS Scholarship for SFU
Thesis Defence - Congratulations to Daniel Murphy
Thesis Defence - Congratulations to Kyle Kusack
Thesis Defence - Congratulations to Matthew Taylor
Anke Baker Wins Staff Achievement Award
Spring 2023 Virtual Geospeaker Event with Ginger Gosnell-Myers
CAG Paper Presentation Award - Congratulations to Alysha van Duynhoven!
Informing & Engaging Urban Youth on Public Hearings: GEOG 363 Final Showcase
Research Talk: Modeling Urban Wetland Complexities
Highlight Paper: Quantifying land carbon cycle feedbacks under negative CO2 emissions
Bright Addae winner of the 2023 SFU ECCE GIS Scholarship Award
Thesis Defence - Congratulations to Jonny Cripps
Thesis Defence - Congratulations to Diandra Oliver
2023 Geospeaker Presentation with Dr. Pauline McGuirk
Congratulations to Our Graduates - October 2023
Evaluating the impact of educational goals at SFU
The Belongings of Precariously Housed People - A Report
Thesis Defence - Congratulations to Takuma Mihara
Thesis Defence - Congratulations to Adrienne Arbor
Thesis Defence - Congratulations to Claire Shapton
2023 Distinguished Speaker Presentation with Dr. Deb Cowen
Cheers to Paul Degrace and his well-earned retirement!
Professor Nicholas Blomley Honored with the Community-Engaged Research Achievement Award
Graduate Students Claire Shapton and Marina Chavez Honored with the Community-Engaged Graduate Scholar Award
Applications now open: 2024 ESRI Canada GIS Scholarship for SFU
Associate Professor Rosemary Collard achieves 13th place on SFU Altmetric List
The PEAK feature: GSU hosts inaugural RANGE conference
Gabrielle Wong wins First Prize in 2023 Student Learning Commons Writing Contest
Gabrielle Wong receives Warren Gill Memorial Award
Professor Nick Blomley receives Warren Gill Memorial Award for Community Impact
Geography Student Union recipient of the FENV 2024 Changemaker Awards
Senior Lecturer Tara Holland reveals the secret sauce of great teaching
Senior Lecturer Tara Holland Receives SFU 2023 Excellence in Teaching Award
Hallway Screens Slides
Alumni Profiles
July 2022 Newsletter

The Department of Geography would like to recognize Bright Addae for the successful defence of his PhD thesis.

Congratulations Bright – well done!

Details of the Defence

Title: "Towards Development of Spherical Geographic Automata Modelling Approaches for Global Land-Use/Land-Cover Change"

Examining Committee: External Examiner Dr. Eric Vas (Toronto Metropolitan University), Internal Examiner Dr. Bing Lu, Committee Member Dr. Kirsten Zickfeld, Committee Member Dr. Peter Hall (Urban Studies), Chair Dr. Eugene McCann.

Skip to content
Skip to this site's menu
Skip to search

Welcome to Brock University

Information for.

Future students
Current students
International
Professional and Continuing Studies
Community partners
Alumni and donors
Faculties & Departments
Graduate Studies
Teaching & Learning
Academic Integrity
Research @ Brock
Institutes and Centres
Research services
Brock innovation
Transdisciplinarity at Brock
Funding opportunities
About Brock
Visitor information
Careers @ Brock
A–Z directory

Want to go to Brock but not sure where to start? We can help.

How to apply
Undergraduate students
Graduate students
Teacher education
Continuing education

Our programs

Undergraduate programs
Graduate programs
Spring / Summer courses
Online Learning
Take a virtual tour
Book a campus tour
Living at Brock
Smart Start

More information

Admissions @ Brock
Important dates
Financial aid
Request information

Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs

In this section.

Meet the Dean
Meet our graduate students
Graduate Ambassadors
International agreements, sponsorships, and scholarships
English Language Proficiency
Study permits and work permits
International Student Ambassador Award Program
Frequently asked questions
Living in Niagara
Students with disabilities
Understanding your offer of admission
Why Brock Graduate Studies
New Students
Course-Based Students
Research-Based Students
International Students
Important Dates and Forms
Registration
Who to Contact
Graduate Students’ Association
FGSPA Awards
Funding information
Graduate Funding FAQs
Graduate studies bursary funds
Internal scholarships and awards
Research Awards and Scholarship Opportunities
VPR Travel Award
Academic Writing Supports
Graduate Studies Courses
GRADvantage
MNK Research Conference
Three Minute Thesis (3MT)
Events Calendar

PhD Defence – Abneet Atwal – Tuesday, April 16

Tuesday, April 09, 2024 | By lcarrick

Abneet Atwal, a PhD in Child and Youth Studies candidate, will defend the thesis “Moving through the system: The ruling relations of migration, mobility, and childhood disability” on Tuesday, April 16th from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The defence will take place in RFP 214/215.

The examination committee members are Elizabeth Vlossak, Chair; Donato Tarulli and Kathryn Underwood (Toronto Metropolitan University), Supervisors; Jay Dolmage, External Examiner (University of Waterloo); Sandra Della Porta, Internal Examiner; and Chelsea Jones and Dan Cui, Advisory Committee.

Current Students

Faculty news.

Brock research aims to improve wine production with local yeast strain April 9, 2024
Thesis defences — April 8 to April 12 April 5, 2024
Sustainability students recognized for research on marine conservation, citizen science April 4, 2024

Doctoral Thesis Defences

PhD Defence – Holly Lockhart – Thursday, April 18
PhD Defence – Abneet Atwal – Tuesday, April 16
PhD Defence – Elvira Prusaczyk – Friday, Aug. 25

Connect with us

Helpful links.

Emergency contacts
Mental Health and Wellness
Financial information
Contact Brock University
Media relations
Website feedback

Every gift makes a difference.

Non-discrimination Policy University policies Privacy Accessibility

Niagara Region 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1 Canada +1 905-688-5550

We acknowledge the land on which Brock University was built is the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabe peoples, many of whom continue to live and work here today. This territory is covered by the Upper Canada Treaties and is within the land protected by the Dish with One Spoon Wampum agreement. Today this gathering place is home to many First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples and acknowledging reminds us that our great standard of living is directly related to the resources and friendship of Indigenous people.

We use cookies to improve your overall web experience. By using our website you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy I agree

IMAGES

(PDF) PhD thesis
Thesis Proposal : EECS Communication Lab
Thesis examination report sample
Phd thesis sample by PhD Thesis Online
(PDF) Phd Thesis
Doctoral examiners’ narratives of learning to examine in the PhD viva

VIDEO

Writing That PhD Thesis
Paraphrasing of Research Paper, Thesis, Publication in 699 Rs only
[QSAR with python: w2-2] examine dataset
Thesis Presentation
PhD Thesis Defense. Viktor Mamontov
How to write Literature Review for PH.D. Thesis and Research Papers

COMMENTS

What examiners do: what thesis students should know
A thesis examiner is an academic who reads the ﬁn-ished thesis, and gives a report recommending a result. The aim of our review is to clarify what thesis examiners do as they examine a written thesis submitted for a research higher degree. In some countries, such as Australia, a thesis examination typically consists of two or three examiners ...
A Guide to Examining a PhD Thesis
Preparation: Ensure you have enough time to read and examine the thesis. A PhD thesis can be a lengthy document, and rushing through it can lead to missing crucial details. Understand the Topic ...
Thesis & Dissertation : Graduate School
Scheduling and Taking Your Final Exam. Once you have submitted your draft thesis/dissertation to your committee you are ready to defend. This involves scheduling and taking your final exam ("B" exam), an oral exam/dissertation defense for Ph.D. candidates, or ("M" exam), an oral exam/thesis defense for Master's candidates.
Helping doctoral students understand PhD thesis examination
The examination of a PhD thesis marks an important stage in the PhD student journey. Here, the student's research, thinking and writing are assessed by experts in their field. ... That is, to critically examine aspects of Table 1 for relevancy and applicability to institutional examination criteria and learning outcomes.
Helping doctoral students understand PhD thesis examination
PhD theses found that examiners favoured a PhD thesis that demonstrated engagement with theory. This engagement is demonstrated through the use of up-to-date sources and evidence of under-standing pertinent theoretical criticisms. Examiners also expected students to demonstrate theoreti-cal grasp, as evidenced by depth, breadth and critique ...
PhD Thesis Guide
Thesis Proposal and Proposal Presentation. Thesis Defense and Final Thesis Document. Links to All Forms in This Guide. This PhD Thesis Guide will guide you step-by-step through the thesis process, from your initial letter of intent to submission of the final document. All associated forms are conveniently consolidated in the section at the end.
A Guide to Writing a PhD Thesis
A PhD thesis is a work of original research all students are requiured to submit in order to succesfully complete their PhD. The thesis details the research that you carried out during the course of your doctoral degree and highlights the outcomes and conclusions reached. The PhD thesis is the most important part of a doctoral research degree ...
Examination of Doctoral Theses: Research About the Process ...
Indeed, a study of examiners' reports about 74 PhD theses from many countries found that the differences between Australian and other examiners were "minor" (Mullins and Kiley 2002, p. 371; ... and the actual time taken to examine a doctoral thesis was equivalent to about 3 or 4 days full time over a period of weeks - remarkably the ...
A Guide for Internal and External PhD Examiners
When considering whether to accept an invitation to examine a British PhD you need to be clear about what it entails. Examining a PhD takes roughly five days although, in the case of re-examination of the thesis and possibly a second viva, the process can take several days more. The job of examining a PhD involves several elements.
Know How to Structure Your PhD Thesis
The bottom line is that how to structure a PhD thesis often depends on your university and department guidelines. But, let's take a look at a general PhD thesis format. We'll look at the main sections, and how to connect them to each other. We'll also examine different hints and tips for each of the sections.
Student Guide: The Ph.D. Comprehensive Examination
Use the flash drive to save your work and give to the proctor at the end of the exam. The examination consists of two parts. Part 1 - questions will be on your MAJOR concentration. Part 2 - questions will be on your MINOR concentration. On both days you must answer TWO out of five questions. The questions are written broadly, but your essays ...
What examiners do: what thesis students should know
2. Examiners expect a thesis to pass. Examiners begin reading with curiosity and enthusiasm, expecting a thesis to be good and 'hoping to find their task rewarding and enjoyable' (Johnston Citation 1997, 341).They know years of effort has gone into a thesis, and it has been judged worthy by supervisors (or at least passable); so, they anticipate it will pass, and even want it to pass ...
PhD Viva Voces
A PhD viva involves defending your thesis in an oral examination with at least two examiners. ... Based on an analysis of 26,076 PhD students who took their viva exam between 2006 and 2017, the PhD viva pass rate in the UK is 96%; of those who passed, about 80% were required to make minor amendments to their thesis. The reason for this high ...
Impressing the Examiners: How to Prepare for Your PhD Viva
On the day of the viva, arrive early with plenty of time to spare. You may consider spending the night nearby if you live far away. Make sure you know where to go, and are properly fed and hydrated. You may wish to bring water with you to the viva itself. Re-read your notes and try to focus on relaxing.
Defending Your Thesis or Dissertation : Graduate School
Exams Required for Ph.D. Degree Defense. The B exam is an oral defense of your thesis or dissertation. This exam can be taken after completing all degree requirements, but not earlier than one month before completing the minimum number of enrolled semesters. At least two semesters of successful registration must be completed between the passing ...
PhD Thesis and Final Examination
PhD students must follow the steps below for their final examination and to submit their thesis. The final examination is given after the thesis and all other requirements have been completed. ... Step 4: Deliver a copy of your thesis to all committee members at least two weeks before the exam. Preparing your thesis: Before beginning to write ...
PhD thesis examination regulations
Table of contents Phd thesis examination Prior to defence PhD thesis examining committee Display period Guidelines for thesis examination and public disclosure Theses written in french Thesis defence Procedural guidelines Format ... The exam also presents an opportunity for the candidate's work to be subject to scholarly criticism by members of ...
As a PhD Examiner … My Top 25 Tips for PhD students
A PhD thesis should be a scientific document which abides to certain standards for the articulation of ideas. It is always sloppy to see a candidate writing 9*6³, where the "*" is a sloppy ...
Dissertations and Theses
The Graduate School's format review is in place to help the document submission process go smoothly for the student. Format reviews for PhD dissertations and master's theses can be done remotely or in-person. The format review is required at or before the two-week notice of the final defense. Dissertation and Thesis Submission.
Guidelines on PhD Thesis Examination Committees
Report on Thesis Examination Result. Toward the end of the thesis examination, the Chairperson is required to (i) collect Part 2 of the "Report on Thesis Examination Result for Research Postgraduate Degrees" from all the examiners, and (ii) complete Part 3 and Part 4.1 of the report, with the assistance of the examiners.The complete set of documents should be forwarded to the Department ...
PDF PhD STUDENTS' EXAMINATION GUIDE
examination process of a PhD thesis. e) Once approved by the Chair of the DDB, the DDB Office formally invites the examiners to examine a PhD thesis. f) Once the examiners have accepted the invitation, the DDB Office sends the thesis to each examiner. g) Examiners are required to submit a report and recommendation on the PhD thesis and have the ...
Doctoral Candidate Presents Dissertation Findings At National
Posted in: Research Presentations Dr. Steven Greenstein (left) and Karmen Yu (right) Doctoral candidate Karmen Yu recently presented findings from her dissertation study at the annual Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education conference in Omaha, NE. Karmen's talk, entitled Case Studies of Undergraduate Students' Agentive Participation in the Parallel Spaces of Calculus I Coursework ...
Thesis Defence
April 05, 2024. The Department of Geography would like to recognize Bright Addae for the successful defence of his PhD thesis. Congratulations Bright - well done! Details of the Defence. Title: "Towards Development of Spherical Geographic Automata Modelling Approaches for Global Land-Use/Land-Cover Change".
PhD Defence
Holly Lockhart, a PhD in Psychology, will defend the thesis "Properties of a flexible visual short-term memory resource" on Thursday, April 18th from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The defence will take place in Sankey Chambers. The examination committee members are Brian Roy, Chair; Stephen Emrich ...
PhD Defence
Abneet Atwal, a PhD in Child and Youth Studies candidate, will defend the thesis "Moving through the system: The ruling relations of migration, mobility, and childhood disability" on Tuesday, April 16th from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The defence will take place in RFP 214/215. The examination committee members are Elizabeth Vlossak, Chair ...