PhD Defenses around the world: a defense in Bioinformatics in Belgium

Today, I have the pleasure of hosting Paola Masuzzo to discuss her PhD Defense at the Ghent University. Paola is currently a postdoctoral fellow at Ghent University and at the VIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology, both in Ghent, Belgium. After a Master degree in Biomedical Engineering, she started a PhD in bioinformatics, researching tools and algorithms to better understand cell migration. Paola is currently working on MULTIMOT, an exciting inter-disciplinary EU-H2020 project, and will soon try to define what the next step in her academic (or not) life will be.
In her free time, Paola enjoys Yoga, food, and travelling. She is an Open Science fan and an advocate for Open Access. You can follow her on Twitter.

A typical PhD in Belgium takes the form of a 4 year research, which is then concluded with a written dissertation. This dissertation, mostly referred to as a PhD thesis, takes the form of a book, and the candidate can choose either to re-write or re-elaborate the entire research conducted, or to simply compile the peer-reviewed articles they have published in the course of the PhD.

The number of published articles needed in order to proceed with a PhD defense can differ very much across faculties: the UGent Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, where I graduated, demands at least one published peer-reviewed article and, depending on some impact ranking, another manuscript submitted to a relevant journal. These criteria, however, do not seem to capture well enough the complexity and the dynamics of getting the title of Doctor, and I believe this is why these requirements change very often. The University might still be figuring out what's the best way to assess scientific output and evaluate a PhD candidate.

Another aspect to keep in mind when graduating at Ghent University is that there are two distinct certificates one can aim to obtain: the certificate of successful PhD (as in most universities), and the certificate of the Doctoral Training Programme. To obtain the latter, candidates are required to complete a minimum set of activities, which consists of three specialist courses, three transferable skills seminars, three conference contributions, one publication, annual progress reports and finally the doctoral defence. This is quite a bit of extra work, but it is meant to contribute to the personal and professional growth of the candidates. I have personally obtained both certificates, and this is actually the standard procedure across candidates in my research group.

So, what happens once you think you are ready for the final stage? You start writing your thesis. I started well before the submission deadline I had in mind, and yet, it was a hell of a job! Summing up all the efforts, discoveries and objectives of four years is not easy at all. Plus, you need to make sure a proper introduction to the research problem is given, and a deep discussion on future perspective and possibilities. All in all, a very tiring time! However, the most difficult part begins afterwards: paperwork! The amount of paperwork I needed to go through was unbelievable. One deadline after the other, and all with the fear of doing something wrong or forgetting some piece of information here and there! One of the most challenging tasks was the selection of jury members. At Ghent University, once the candidate is ready for the defense, an examination committee needs to be established, usually along the supervisor's suggestions. Once again, quite some strict criteria on the composition of this committee makes the process quite complicated! This committee receives your dissertation, and will (in most of the cases) suggest you to change a few things here and there to make the thesis (even) better.

So, suppose all went well, you did re-work on your thesis, you have your book ready: what's next? That's when the real fun begins: the closed defense! This is only Part I of the entire PhD defense process. You and your examination committee gather together in a room, without the presence of your supervisor(s) or any other person. Here, after a 5 min introduction to your thesis, the committee asks you all sorts of questions, in order to judge the quality of your research and your own quality, as a PhD candidate. I cannot say that I was not nervous when this time came for me. Moreover, the multidisciplinary nature of my thesis presented one more challenge: my committee was a mix of experts in very diverse disciplines, from cell biology over microscopy imaging to engineering. I was pretty much scared to death! But just after ten minutes, I actually started to have a lot of fun. I truly enjoyed the discussion, which was more than a 'Q&A' section: it was merely an interactive and profound conversation from peers to peer. All in all, an extremely satisfying way to officially enter the PhD world!

If part I goes well, part II of the PhD defense can take place: the public defense. This is where the show happens! You invite over your family, your friends, your colleagues, and your supervisors this time get to see you defending. You again present your work, but this time in a more detailed way (normally around 40-45 min), and then the committee asks you a whole bunch of questions, but this time with a broader view/scope. The general public can ask questions too! As a matter of fact, I did receive a question from the audience, specifically from my boyfriend!

When the questions are over, the committee leaves for a few moments, and if everything is OK, they then come back for the final proclamation. This is the nicest moment, the moment when you realized: yes, I did it! This is when your supervisor gets to put the Doc Universtity hat on your head. A memory I will certainly treasure for the rest of my life!

PhD Defenses around the world: A viva in linguistics at Cambridge

Today, I have invited Dr. Alison Edwards to discuss her experience at her viva. Alison is originally from Australia but has lived in Europe since 2005. She is now based in Amsterdam and is the author of English in the Netherlands: Functions, forms and attitudes. She has a PhD in Linguistics from the University of Cambridge, an MA in Applied Linguistics and undergraduate degrees in Journalism and German Studies. In addition to her linguistics research, Alison runs a translation and editing business and blogs at www.theroguelinguist.com. Follow her on twitter or facebook. 


The preparations for my viva were not entirely smooth.

In the UK the viva is a closed session, just you and your two examiners, an internal one (from your own department) and an external one (flown in from Germany, in my case). When my supervisor told me who my internal examiner was, my first thought was: how strange. She works on the history of French, whereas I work on contemporary English. Still, I went to the library and studied all her books.

But I’d got my wires crossed somehow – either my supervisor gave me the wrong name, or I just remembered it wrong – because the internal examiner turned out to be someone else entirely. I discovered this a few days before the viva. Luckily the point is to discuss your own work, not theirs.

The day itself was sweltering hot, which always comes as a surprise in England, and the viva was held in a tiny top-floor room with windows that didn’t open. My two examiners were behind a desk; I was perched on a seat in the middle of the room where I had to balance my piles of papers awkwardly on my lap.

But they put me at ease from the start – as at ease as you can be in a situation like that – by saying it’s good, it’s going to be fine, we’re just going to have a nice discussion.

The whole procedure lasted just under two hours. I have friends who were grilled for more than five, so I count myself lucky. Nothing extremely challenging came up, but then I was well prepared. I knew there were a few parts in the quantitative sections that might give rise to questions so I had practised answering those, and had brought typed notes with examples that I could walk them through.

Generally, I just tried to be friendly and speak calmly and thoughtfully. Like when answering questions during a talk, I think the worst move you can make is to be defensive.

At the end the internal examiner said: since summer is coming up and you won’t otherwise find out for months, we’ll be nice and tell you the verdict now. We’re recommending your thesis be accepted with no corrections.

It’s hard for me to describe how pleased I was! There are all sorts of possible outcomes, including accept with minor corrections, accept with major corrections, revise and resubmit, or ‘this is so awful we’ll not even permit you to resubmit’ (e.g. in cases of fraud). But accept with no corrections is very rare, so it remains one of the proudest achievements of my life.

Afterwards I dashed across the courtyard to the economics building where my then fiancé was a postdoc, bursting with the news. Then we went into college – we were both based at King’s during our time in Cambridge – where some friends were waiting.

It so happened that another friend was having her viva in virology the exact same day, so we all popped sparkling wine at Bodley’s Court, where the college backs onto the river Cam. It’s possible that I jumped into the river, to the surprise of the tourists punting by.

About five months later was the actual graduation ceremony, which is a very solemn affair with lots of gowns and pomp. My parents were there from Australia, with my husband and my new parents-in-law from the Netherlands – we got married just a few weeks before, so it was a very special time for me.
That night we went to Evensong in King’s chapel, by the famous choir. As always it was beautiful and atmospheric, and I’ll admit that I shed a few tears recalling my first visit to Cambridge, as a backpacker so many years before, when studying in such a place was a dream that seemed so out of reach it was laughable. Cambridge will always remain very close to my heart.

PhD Defenses around the world: a Defense in Medicine from France

Today, I have invited Veronique to share her experiences of her graduate school defenses. She is a medical doctor with two specialties, Oncology and Haematology. She was also trained in molecular biology and microbiology. She worked for 12 years in a public hospital, managing a day care Oncology unit. She is now a consultant in private practice, working mainly in haematological diseases and gynecologic oncology.


I defended two thesis, one MD, one PhD.

The MD was defended first. I studied on a new treatment given to 80 patients with a subset of a particular form of lymphoma. I had to write the history of this lymphoma, a review of regular treatments, then explain the study, then write a discussion. The thesis was around 80 pages. The jury was chosen within my former bosses at the hospital, most of them also teaching at University. Everything was written and organised over a span of six months.

The defense was held at the University. It was very formal. The jury and I wore black long dresses with white collars. I invited my family and friends. I had to stand in front of the jury, read the introduction and the conclusion of my thesis. Then I sat down and listened to every member of the jury commenting and complimenting. There were no critics – they wouldn't let you defend if they thought it wasn't good enough.

Then the jury went away for like 15 minuts and came back with their decision. They gave me my MD, with honors, and proposed my thesis for a uni award. I then had to read the oath of Hippocrates. Then there were congratulations all around, the jury went away, and we went to eat and drink. The entire ceremony lasted around one hour and a half.

The PhD defense was very different. I had been working on it for three years. Two years were devoted to lab work, then I spent one year writing it while back into clinical practice. It had to feature at least three papers accepted in peer-reviewed journals. I sent chapters to my director for her to read all along. The thesis was around 300 pages, containing published and unpublished work.

The jury was chosen by me and my director, including researchers from my lab and uni, but also foreign researchers I worked with on papers (one Dutch, one Italian), and a national referent on my specialty (cytogenetics in leukemia).

The defense was held in my lab. No formal wear and no family nor friends, but all the people from the lab. I had to present my work in a Powerpoint (about 30 minutes). Then there was a lengthy discussion between the members of the jury, including critics. They went away for a while (around 20 minutes) then came back saying that my work had be accepted with honors. At the end, we all went to drink after a round of applause.

PhD Talk for AcademicTransfer: How to prepare for your PhD defense

This post is part of the series PhD Talk for AcademicTransfer: posts written for the Dutch academic career network AcademicTransfer, your go-to resource for all research positions in the Netherlands.

These posts are sponsored by AcademicTransfer, and tailored to those of you interested in pursuing a research position in the Netherlands.

If these posts raise your interest in working as a researcher in the Netherlands, even better - and feel free to fire away any questions you might have on this topic!

Let's talk today about the very end of the PhD journey: your defense (or viva, if you are in the UK). Depending on the university or country you are in, your PhD defense can be the very last step in a long process, on the day when you receive your diploma (as in the Netherlands), or it can be a step prior to the final submission of your dissertation (as in the USA). If you are interested in the procedures and experiences of former PhD candidates in different countries and different disciplines, be sure to check out the "defenses around the world" series on PhD Talk.

To prepare for the actual PhD defense, some argue that you don't need to do anything at all. In the end, you did your research over the past few years, and nobody knows your work as well as you do. However, going into your defense without any preparation at all is not something I recommend. If you were organized during your PhD, and starting writing your first chapters early on in your journey, you may need to revise some elements again, and reread some key publications. Moreover, your defense will depend on your committee, so preparing for your defense by keeping your committee in mind is essential. Finally, preparing for your defense will help you prepare mentally for the challenges of the day itself, and will give you some piece of mind.

As I blogged my way through my PhD, I wrote extensively about my journey to my defense, from the point where I was pottering around in the laboratory to the actual day of defense and graduation. You can read all about the steps between my draft thesis and the joyful day in "On the road to the defense" part I, part II, and my experience about the defense itself. Besides the experiences of myself and fellow PhD students, I've learned a great deal about defenses by hosting the "Defenses around the world" series on PhD Talk - a massive thank you to all guest authors who so openly have shared their experiences.

Shortly after defending my thesis, I wrote about my 10 best tips for the PhD defense, as well as how to prepare for your defense. I spent a lot of time preparing for my defense - and in hindsight perhaps not all of these activities were equally necessary. At that time, they were important for me, because spending a lot of time on preparing, and thinking about everything that could happen, helped me feel a bit more secure for the defense. If you feel like you need to prepare deeply to calm your nerves, by all accounts, do so. But if you feel confident about going into the defense, there are just a limited number of things you need to do to prepare for your defense. You can find my top picks for preparing for the defense in the following list:

1. Go to conferences
Presenting your work at academic conferences is a crucial part of your PhD journey. If you've presented your work a few times for an international audience, and answered questions, you are better prepared than when you've never had the chance to travel and present your work. Every time you present your work, you will a bit more confident about your work. Every time your present your work, you will have practiced and sharpened your presentation and presentation skills a bit more. For these reasons, use your PhD time to present at as many conferences, workshops, and industry events as possible. All this practice in the years prior to your defense will make you better prepared for the big day.

2. Know your committee and their work
The questions you can expect during your defense will depend on your committee. As you prepare for your defense, don't make the mistake of navel-gazing at your own dissertation. Instead, try to take a step back and evaluate your work through the eyes of your committee member. Check out the most recent publications of your committee members to be fully up-to-date with their work (you don't want to make the mistake of being completely oblivious when a committee member hints at the fact that he/she worked on something interesting for your research very recently). Don't assume that you read everything while preparing your dissertation - check out the latest and in press publications. If you've had a chance to meet with your committee members during your PhD and while preparing for the defense, revise your meeting notes, and identify their main points of criticism on your work. While some committee members will tell you their exam questions in advance, other members won't give you an idea, and will leave you guessing. Try to come up with at least five possible questions per committee member, and prepare additional material to answer these questions as needed.

3. Revise the crucial papers
Brush up on your knowledge of the literature. Besides checking the most recent work of your committee members, make sure that you do a brief search on recent publications in your field, so that your literature review and your knowledge of the literature are fully up-to-date. Don't stop following the literature on the day when you finish your literature review chapter! Besides working on your general knowledge of the literature, identify the papers that were most important for your work. Prior to your defense, make sure you read these papers again to refresh your memory, and to address possible questions about the foundations of your work.

4. Prepare for broader questions
When preparing for your defense, don't expect any open doors. Instead, you should prepare for questions that are either at the periphery of your work, and much closer to the work of your committee members, or for questions that test the assumptions and basics of your work. Make sure you have a solid foundation to answer such questions. Besides these questions that sit right outside of what was the main focus of your work, there are also the questions that focus on the broader scope of your work, other fields of application, and future work. Such more general questions can be asked at any PhD defense, and you can find a list of possible questions here, here, and, here. Make sure you practice preparing answers to these questions, and bring additional material for the defense where needed.

5. Know the room and the tools you can use
Get your logistics for the day of your defense all sorted out long in advance. You don't want to be running around campus, borrowing a laptop last-minute, or arranging coffee for your committee members. Ask for advice from a post-doc who recently defended to see if you thought everything through. Make sure you understand all the procedures, and when in doubt, ask and double-check with the office responsible for the defense. Know where you will present, and which tools are available in the room. Will you be using a microphone? Will you be able to project visual material and use audio in the room? Are there other tools available? In Delft, the rooms standard have a digital overhead projector, which you can use to show parts of your dissertation, sketches, and other material. Depending on the tools you have available, make sure you bring the right material to your defense.

6. Be your best self
Don't get too stressed about the defense itself. If you get stressed, you'll have a harder time thinking clearly and replying the questions in a way that is satisfactory for the committee. I started my defense really nervous, and I can barely remember how replying the first questions went. Once I got calmer, everything went much better. Besides your stress levels on the day itself, make sure that you are rested prior to the defense. Get enough sleep in the weeks before the defense, and eat healthy food. Consider yourself as an athlete preparing for a big effort: make sure you are in your best condition to give it your all on the day of the defense.

7. Plan your party
Your defense is a day when your friends and family gather to celebrate your success. Don't forget how important and valuable this day is for all of you in your stress for preparing for the actual defense. Unless for weddings and perhaps special birthdays, there are not that many occasions where you can have that many of your loved ones together, to celebrate you and your success. Your family may even be traveling internationally to attend this special event. A special event it is, so make sure you make it a special day for everyone attending. Arrange a reception and a nice dinner, for example, or any other form of celebration as you see it fit.

PhD Defenses around the world: a defense in Spain

Today, I have the pleasure of inviting Dr. Lola Fariñas to talk about her defense in Spain. Lola is currently a Spanish postdoc fellow at Harvard University. Her background is Telecommunication Engineering however, she got her MSc degree in Biomedical Engineering at Technical University of Madrid (UPM). After that, she joined T.E.G. Avarez-Arenas group on Ultrasounds and Material Science at Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) where the research to get her PhD was carried out focused on the characterization of multilayered vegetal tissues using air-coupled ultrasounds. Lola is currently figuring out next steps to follow in her postdoc stage.

In her free time, she enjoys travelling, doing sports as running or cycling and watching movies and tv-series. She would like to become a blogger also in English soon and you may find her easily on Twitter.

There are two ways to get a PhD in Spain: the traditional way of writing a complete dissertation in a book, or, the non-traditional way. The non-traditional my way requires compiling peer-reviewed articles that you have published. No particular number is required; this is simply your university's business. Of course, you must reference whichever your contribution was in every paper. Also, one must attend international conferences. Another thing to take into account is that in Spain, you always have the chance to write and present your thesis in Spanish. However, many of us decide to do it in both Spanish and English in order to receive a special International mention.

Once your supervisor considers that your thesis dissertation is ready, the real challenge to reach the viva begins: Paperwork!. In my particular case, I gave myself a deadline to get the PhD. I declined the opportunity to delay getting my thesis until my grant ended, because I had a postdoc short stay at Harvard University (USA) - and I didn't want to interrupt my future work there and travel back to Spain simply to defend it.

All the research during my thesis was carried out in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), which is a public research agency and not a university. Of course, one must be enrolled in a university to get a PhD even when you don't do any research in there, so I enrolled. To give you a brief idea of how complicated it is to get your PhD in Spain, laws regarding PhD schedules and requirements changed twice during my 4-years-PhD-work -- and not in a clear way. That means that in order to get all the paperwork done to schedule a viva date, meet all deadlines and organise the committee members, I had to complete a nonsense course for one month, I had to talk to many administrative personnel, who thought that I couldn't make it on time, and I also had to pay more money to my university. After all this, (in addition to some personal weight loss, worrying, and presumably years of lifetime lost) I finally set a date for my viva. Setting a date wasn't the end of this path - not by a long shot.

I've never thought before about how hard it is to sum up your work: Pick what you think is most interesting and discard some other elements that were difficult to obtain as well. One of my primary concerns was trying to make everything fit logically together, even when this meant discarding some papers only because they were difficult to include in the thematic thread of the whole presentation. Additionally, I had many doubts about preparing my speech. For example, is it necessary to include a long introduction in order to make sure that everyone understood the background of my research or, on the contrary, should I provide a shorter introduction in order to focus more time on my actual work? I chose the second approach, but even today, I've seen much controversy regarding this particular point.

Moreover, the multidisciplinary nature of my thesis presented myriad challenges. The committee was a mix between experts in engineering/applied Physics and also experts in Biology/ecophysiology. I was terrified! Everyone always says that you are the one who knows the most about your research when you show up in your defense room, but my naturally worried self found this hard to believe. Since my background is in engineering, I was afraid of deep questions in Physics or Biology. I would have hated to have messed up all of the valuable work I completed during my studies under the supervision of my PI, simply because of insecurity or nervousness. What if the emotion of the day caused me to make basic mistakes?

So, the defence day arrived and there I stood, in a room in front of almost all the committee. Only one evaluator missing: the president! Yeah, when I thought everything was almost done, I needed a president in the committee. This resulted in a last-minute scramble simply to meet arbitrary requirements. Moreover, it was a hot day by the end of July in Madrid, nobody thought about delaying as an actual option. Finally, the public defence began. It began by the time I planned that should be over when I woke up that morning. Because when I woke up that morning while I was hardly trying to eat some cereals, I wanted to run away (hopefully, this won't happen to me in a potential future wedding - fingers crossed -) I calmed down by thinking: Okay Lola, this will all be over in a mere 6 hours.

Apparently, I was totally wrong. I started the presentation very nervous. However, I felt better little by little as I was speaking and presenting my slides. As I was wrapping up, the missing president appeared! He was there for the whole Q&A, which I found really long. Also, - for some reason I still don't understand, one of the members in the committee delivered a lengthy diatribe explaining to the public why, in his opinion, making a thesis by compiling peer-reviewed articles wasn't a good option (as if some of us had the choice to decide over that). All the difficult questions that I had expected and prepared for didn't appear at all. More, I tried to add value to the questions by adding information that was missing or misunderstood. At this point, I realised that this multidisciplinary thing I was afraid of was also an issue for the committee to develop challenging questions about my research material. Truly, by the end of the Q&A time, I was so emotionally exhausted that my answers turned shorter.

Over six months have passed since defending my thesis and I'm now on my way to enter the club of those who tell you, beloved current Ph.D. student, that the hardest work is the one you do during your thesis and the viva part is just a formality. I told all of these anecdotes because I guess my case is quite particular and extreme so hopefully, it might help to make you feel better and more confident through this process.

Finally, I realised that even when my thesis defence seemed like the end of a long journey, it was actually only the starting point of a brand new one! Now the challenge lies in deciding what I should do next, where to go, and how to make it happen. So, even though I absolutely know how hard preparing for your thesis and becoming a PhD can be, don'92t forget to enjoy the journey!

PhD Defenses around the world: a defense in Modern History and Literature from the USA

Today, I have the pleasure of hosting Dr. Brian Regal in the "PhD Defenses around the world" series. Dr. Regal teaches the history of science, technology, and medicine at Kean University in New Jersey. He is the author of a number of books and articles on the odder side of science.

“How do you think William James would have reacted to the evolutionary work of Henry Fairfield Osborn?” This was the question the Americanist, Professor Charles Wetzel asked me at the end of my doctoral dissertation defense at Drew University in June of 2001. It was not just the last question of the defense, it was the last question I expected to be asked.

I largely walked through my PhD in Modern History and Literature (with a specialty in the history of science) like a wide eyed innocent. This despite the fact that I was turning forty, had been around the world several times, and had stared down the commies on the Iron Curtain before I began (I did not go to college until I was thirty). I was the first in my family to do such a thing. I had no history to look to. When they said something had to be done by a certain time I just did it. When they told me I had to take certain classes I took them. I had wanted to become an historian ever since I sat on the rug of the living room floor on Saturday mornings dreaming of being Jonny Quest. I was ready to do whatever it took to achieve that goal. When they said it was time to do my defense I just showed up ready to go.

In my dissertation I examined the human evolutionary theory of Henry Fairfield Osborn, the controversial, long time head of the American Museum of Natural History, and its impact upon early twentieth century American thought. I had three on campus readers: David Kohn, the noted Darwin scholar as my primary, the afore mentioned Charles Wetzel, and the American religion scholar Donald Dayton. My fourth was the legendary historian of biology Garland Allan (on a phone link).

We all met in Mead Hall, Drew’s beautiful, nineteenth century showcase building. The defense was held in an antique filled side room upon whose walls hung a large portrait. The subject had a graying bristle haircut, mustache, and general air of seriousness that inspired the students to call it the ‘Stalin Room.’ I dressed special for the encounter. I wore a high collar dress shirt with a vest, and polished my shoes: my very own ‘professor’ style I still wear to this day.

If I were to give younger scholars advice on all this it would be, do the work. Let nothing get in the way of doing the work. If you focus on the research and the writing, then it doesn’t matter what happens at the defense, you’ll be ready. Do not prepare for the defense, simply write your dissertation. Accept that after all this research you know the answers. Dissertation defenses are like graduation speeches, you have to get it right, but they are forgotten five seconds after they are finished.

I sat across from my board of readers, a large, heavy, polished oak nineteenth century table between us. They started right in. I tried to be concise. I only stumbled once or twice, but recovered and clarified my position. They asked questions and follow-up questions. It went that way for the better part of two hours. We were allowed to invite spectators, but I wasn’t having any of that. I preferred my failure to be apocryphal rather than eyewitness. I answered as well as I could without looking like I was trying too hard. It all seemed to be going well. I started to get relaxed. I could see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Then Wetzel sucker punched me with William James.

I have no recollection of what my answer was: Though I do remember saying “Ugh” in a painfully drawn out way. Apparently whatever I said was acceptable because Dr. Wetzel smiled, leaned back in his chair, and folded his fingers behind his head the way he always did in class when he was happy with something you said. There was a brief pause, and it was over. There were smiles all around, lots of backslapping, and “well done Doctor!” talk. After a minute or two of official form signing and saying goodbye to Garland Allan, we all headed off to a local restaurant for a congratulatory lunch. I had made it. I could now call myself doctor. I wanted to call Lisa, and then my parents. The air seemed just a bit sweeter and cleaner.
As the school was paying, I had the lobster ravioli.

PhD Defenses around the world: Tinkering at a defense in Delft

Today, I am sharing with you a translation that I made of a post by Rolf Hut. Rolf is a scientist at Delft University of Technology. He solves his problems using a MacGyver attitude, builds measurement devices using scavanged parts from consumer-electronics, connects existing online data sources to answer relevant scientific questions and encourages his students to learn by discovering, building and doing. He is a public speaker on science and technology. He writes a monthly column in the Dutch national newspaper "De Volkskrant". He hosts workshops for audiences ranging from festival-goers to primary school kids. His workshops show, hands-on, that technology is fun and that technology is for everyone, not only for beta-nerds. He calls himself, most of all, endlessly curious.

You can read the original post in Dutch here.

My mom looks at a LEGO-sumo-wrestling robot with frustration, asking out loud: "And why is he now turning in the wrong direction?" Meanwhile, my friends are strengthening a miniature version of a dyke with hairspray, and my colleagues are admiring plasma sparks from a grape in a microwave.

The best moments of the day of my PhD defense were not your regular "hora est" or the commencement ceremony. I must say: I enjoyed defending my thesis, the speech of Prof. van Giesen*, the many congratulations and gifts and great party. But the icing on the cake were the workshops for friends and family.

graduation speech

After my defense and reception, Olivier Hoes, Felienne Hermans and John Cohn gave an entire afternoon of workshops to give my friends and family and idea of the fun parts of my work. In the water lab, Olivier instructed two groups to build a small dike, strengthened with hairspray or gel. Then, he let water flow over the dike, and the dike that remained standing longest was the winner. Fun competition, but also an important observation: breaches start at the polder side of the dike! Felienne arranged a few LEGO-mindstorm robots through the firstlegoleague. She invited all to improve a sumo-robot. Interesting to see that some immediately turned to the software, whereas others to the hardware. John Cohn gave a "Do Try This At Home" presentation in which you showed that you can put steel-wool in the microwave, can make a catapult with pvc, hairspray and a grill-lighter, or a "Harry Potter flame" with boric acid and white spirit.

strengthening a dike with hairspray

In all acknowledgments of dissertations I read that friends and family are essential to finishing the PhD. Therefore, I would like to ask every PhD candidate to give back to their friends and family on the day of their defense, and organize an activity for them, to show them what you worked on for the last 4 years, to show them how fun science is. But above all: to give your friends and family a great day.

dike collapse

PS: My workshops took place in lecture rooms and labs that were vacant at the time. Olivier, Felienne and John participated at no charge because they enjoy showing people more about their work. Except for some groceries, organizing these workshops cost me mostly time and barely no money. The cost for university is at most an opportunity cost, because colleagues participated while they could have been doing "real"** work.

PPS: In encouraging these activities, in my opinion, universities can play an important role on the institutional level. Not by making it part of the policy, not by developing a form for the request for approval to give a workshop - but by sending an email to all employees that says: "these kind of workshops are fun and good for the image of the university. If it fits within your tasks, go and give a hand. "Real"** work has the priority, but if it suits you, we think it is OK if you participate in these workshops." In other words: universities can help by creating a culture in which these initiatives are encouraged, not punished.

PPPS John Cohn wrote a short blog post about this topic too.

*nice hat!
** research and teaching

electrocution of a dill pickle

PhD Defenses around the world: a defense in Japan

Today, I am hosting the narrative of Ayumi Koso in the "Defenses around the world" series. Ayumi is a press officer at the Division for Strategic Public Relations, University of Tokyo and is an editor of UTokyo Research a bilingual English-Japanese website that showcases the University’s diverse research. She received her PhD in neurolinguistics in Japan. Ayumi has experience practicing science communication at Japanese research institutions and funding agencies. She researches media release models that maximize the effect of university research communication in Japan.


My viva experience was in Japan. Before moving on to science communication, I completed my graduate studies at the Tokyo Metropolitan University in neurolinguistics, a field that investigates how our brains are wired to learn and process language.

There are two main ways to earn a PhD in Japan; one is to complete a 3-year graduate course earning credits and completing a thesis (“katei hakase” or degree PhD), and the other is to prove that you have the qualifications to receive a PhD by handing in a thesis and having it evaluated (“ronbun hakase” or thesis PhD). The first route is more common and taken by most doctoral students in universities, while the second route is designed for researchers who have a full time job at companies and public research institutions. While the second route does not require any credits, the thesis requirements are extremely stringent.

Like the majority of people, I took the common route and did a 3-year graduate course. At my university, in order to reach the viva, there were certain requirements I had to fulfill.

First, I had to earn certain number of credits by taking courses offered in our department. Then I had to deliver a proposal that contained the first few chapters and a detailed outline of  my thesis, and progress of my research. There was a committee to evaluate my proposal and by the time I passed the review, I was approaching the third year of my studies.

Because I was on a  Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) fellowship for the three years at graduate school, I had to think of an alternative way to sustain myself after my fellowship. I hadn’t quite finished my thesis yet, but luckily I was offered a science communication position at a research institution starting in April (the academic year in Japan starts in April!), so I decided to leave school in March, which was exactly the end of my third year. By then, I had a draft of my thesis, which was almost ready to be handed in for my viva.

For the next couple of months I worked full-time Mondays to Fridays, polished my draft, handed it in and created slides for my viva on the weekends. Looking back it was quite a tough time getting used to a new job, switching back and forth between science communication and research.

Then came my viva day. It was on a hot sticky Saturday in August, just in the middle of the summer holidays here in Japan called “obon”.

For my viva, there were three reviewers; my supervisor, another professor from my department and an external reviewer who was an expert in neuroscience. The viva was open for anyone to attend, so my lab members and classmates also came.

In my university, the viva has three parts: presentation, Q&A and review. I had 40 minutes to talk through my thesis, highlighting the main findings and conclusions. Then I took questions from both the floor and my reviewers for another 40 minutes. After the Q&A, I received feedback about my research from the reviewers about how it could be improved and the overall impression they had. The viva was about 90 minutes in total. Incidentally, while I wrote my thesis in English, my viva was conducted in Japanese.

The results of my viva and the evaluation of my thesis were reported to my department’s faculty committee for final approval. It was in September that I received official confirmation from my supervisor that I had passed.

Finally, I had to deposit six hardcover copies of my thesis, one of which was for the Japanese National Diet Library, before the degree could be awarded.

Normally, if you finish your viva in time for the awarding ceremonies in March, the president awards you the degree in front of the class and you can celebrate with your classmates.

In my case, by the time everything was done it was around September in the middle of the academic year so the award ceremony (if you can call it that) was quite simple and informal. I took a day off of work to visit my university wearing a nice two piece suit. I was called into the dean’s office and he awarded me the degree and congratulated me for my efforts. In the evening my supervisor and lab members organized a dinner for me where they congratulated me on receiving my PhD!

While I missed the formal ceremonies and celebrations, I was glad that I had made it to the end.

PhD Defenses around the World: a Viva in New Zealand

Felicity Bright is a rehabilitation researcher and lecturer at AUT University in Auckland, New Zealand. Her professional background is in speech-language therapy. She recently defended her PhD, entitled “Reconceptualising engagement: A relational practice with people experiencing communication disability after stroke”. Felicity is currently working to disseminate findings. She is exploring how best to work with rehabilitation practitioners to implement the knowledge gained through her PhD, and is working on several projects to extend her doctoral research.

In New Zealand, it is common to do a viva as part of the PhD examination process. It is compulsory at most universities. At AUT University, the viva is attended by the convenor (a senior academic member of the university staff who oversees the process and ensures it follows regulations and is fair to the student), the three examiners, the student and their supervisor/s. The examiners may attend in person or via videoconference. The supervisors are there to support the student and may not participate in the viva.

My viva was scheduled in late March, four months after I submitted my PhD for examination. One week prior to the viva, my primary supervisor and I met the convenor to discuss the viva. At this time, I found out who my examiners were and received their reports. I had had several conversations with my supervisors and suggested names; the three examiners were all people we had discussed over the course of my study. The reports were de-identified, though it was possible to guess who wrote which report (and my guesses were correct!). I took a few days to read and digest the results. I discussed them with colleagues, and did several mock vivas with my supervisors.

However, five days prior to my viva, I broke my foot. I spent two nights in hospital and had surgery. While I was initially convinced I could do the viva as planned, it didn’t take long for me to realise that wasn’t going to be possible. I couldn’t sit for more than 20 minutes, let alone have a robust scholarly discussion about my research! The university postgraduate office was able to reschedule the viva for two weeks’ time. This extra time gave me some breathing space. After my mock vivas, I’d been highly anxious. That anxiety dissipated and I went into the viva feeling cautiously confident: confident in my knowledge and my contributions to knowledge, and confident in my ability to answer questions, even the tricky ones!

On the day of the viva, my supervisor and I arrived at the University Postgraduate Centre, where all vivas are held. The staff were welcoming and showed me into a waiting room which they’d set up for me, with extra chairs and pillows. I had a last minute change of convenor, so met her briefly before it started. While I waited, the postgrad staff were getting the videoconference organised. One examiner was in the country on holiday and was able to attend in person; the other two were on video. I was called in fairly quickly and re-introduced to everyone. I’d met all of my examiners at different times – aphasia rehabilitation research is a rather small world!
My convenor explained there would be four core themes they would focus the questions around, and I was invited to start the viva by providing an overview of my research. I spent about five minutes discussing the research, starting with the experiences which prompted my research, through to detailing the novel contributions my research made. I then spent the next hour or so responding to their questions. When the examiners submitted their reports, they provided a list of questions. These were not given to me, but the likely areas were evident in their written reports. The viva was did not take a transactional question-answer format. Instead, it was a discussion which occurred in response to questions about the research methodology, process and findings. The examiners also queried how the findings connected to other research in the field, and discussed areas for future research.
After an hour when the examiners had asked their questions, my supervisor and I left the room while they deliberated. When I was called back in, I was advised of the outcome. I passed with no amendments, bar correcting spelling errors. After this, the convenor left. After a brief chat with the examiners on videoconference, they signed off, but my supervisor and I kept chatting with on-site examiner for a while longer. This was a nice relaxed way to finish.

My viva was an enjoyable process. The time passed so quickly. While I’d been a little nervous before arriving, as soon as I went into the examination room, I felt at ease. As I’ve heard others say, the viva is the only time you have the opportunity to discuss your research with three topic/methodology experts who have read your work and are interested in it. My examiners asked some challenging questions (tip: always have a sip of water before answering the question – it gives you some time to think). They were all interested and encouraging and made thoughtful suggestions for how I could extend my research further. My supervisor made notes throughout the viva, which meant the key questions and areas for further consideration are captured for me to reflect on further. The viva was a very positive experience, and I’m very pleased I had the opportunity to discuss and defend my work.

After the viva, there was champagne. My colleagues came, as did my second supervisor, and I was able to start to relax, before heading home to the onslaught of small children and the routine of everyday life. Later that week, I went through the thesis, fixed the spelling errors, had a last minute issue with Endnote (thank goodness for the patient university librarian), then submitted it to our online repository, printed copies for the university, myself and my supervisors, and wrote the synopsis for graduation in July.

PhD Defenses around the world: a PhD viva from Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland

Today, I am hosting the experience of Erin Dyer Saxon in the "Defenses around the world" series. Erin is an Assistant Professor and Director of the Center for Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution at Endicott College, Beverly, MA (USA). She read for her PhD at Trinity College Dublin (Ireland), and sat her viva in December 2011. Erin’s doctoral research was comparative research on mediation practices in the US and Palestine, including field research in Bethlehem, West Bank. In particular, Erin’s research interests focus on transformative mediation, Palestinian sulha, culture and conflict resolution, nonviolence, and the nature of dispute resolution processes in conflict areas.

I had the good fortune of having a genuinely strong and positive relationship with my doctoral supervisor. I had already developed a research proposal and timetable when I applied for the degree, and my supervisor used this template to guide me through the stages of developing my work. I started writing on day one, and my supervisor began providing feedback shortly thereafter. As the time wore on that part of the process was never daunting, and I learned early on that the PhD is not just solitary work; a PhD is a conversation that starts long before the viva.

Before the defense
After the first year of the degree, I had an internal defense with two examiners from our department (the Irish School of Ecumenics). The purpose of this “transfer viva” is to consider the proposal for the research degree and to examine a small body of work. In my case, I had developed my research proposal following an intense literature review, and submitted a chapter that I had prepared for the examiners. The examiners ask about the literature review, the methodology for the field research, and the goals for the thesis. When successfully completed, the student transfers from being student on the M.Litt (research Masters) register, to formally being a PhD candidate.

Planning the viva
Before submitting the thesis in draft form to the Graduate Studies Office, I was able to give my opinions for the make up of the committee and prospective dates. My supervisor submitted the requests for the internal and external examiners, and I was fortunate that after submitting on October 1, my viva was scheduled for the morning of December 20. I combed through my thesis to find any typographical errors and major points that I wanted to make, so that on December 20, I had a color-coded master document to work from.

The day of the viva

My defense was very intimate and, thankfully, a closed affair. It was not open to the public, faculty, other candidates, etc. My committee was made up of my internal examiner familiar with Palestinian culture and a specialist on ecumenics, peacebuilding, and religion, and my external examiner who was a specialist on international conflict resolution. Another internal faculty member chaired the viva but was not part of the assessment. My supervisor was present for moral support but did not provide any commentary.

The viva itself
My examiners had met before we arrived to discuss their questions and expected results based on the print copy. When I entered the room, the chair provided an overview of the meeting and what to expect. My supervisor and I had already been through this a week before my viva in a “mock viva” so I felt calm and prepared for this moment. I was asked to provide a summary of my thesis. After this stage, the examiners asked me a range of questions on my thesis and my findings. Despite having a thesis with color-coded post-its to guide me, I did not need to refer to the document once. The questions the examiners asked had little to do with an argument on a random page and everything to do with the new knowledge I had to share. The viva was, truly, an enjoyable and gratifying experience where I could converse with highly respected scholars on my research and its implications. Whatever stress I had going into the viva, I was propelled through it by a deep sense of community and inquiry.

Accepted as it stands
When the examiners questions were finished, my supervisor and I were asked to leave the room so that the examiners could confer with one another. We hadn’t even made our cups of tea before we were called back in! My examiners congratulated me: "We are pleased to recommend that your thesis is accepted as it stands." This meant that I did not need to make any amendments to my thesis to submit it as a final bound copy to the Graduate Studies Office – the examiners were satisfied with the product that I defended that day. This result took me by surprise – but my supervisor had clearly anticipated it! The committee, my supervisor, and I enjoyed freshly corked champagne before heading to a celebratory lunch. Here, I was called Dr. Erin Dyer for the first time and no longer considered a student, but a colleague.

PhD Defenses around the world: a defense in political science from Penn State

Today, I am hosting Daniel J. Mallinson to share the experience of his PhD defense for the "PhD defenses around the world" series. Dan grew up in Lancaster, Pennsylvania (though he is not Amish). As an undergraduate he studied political science at Elizabethtown College. He worked at the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and then the Inspector General’s Office at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services while doing his masters at Villanova University. He returned to graduate school full time at Penn State, earning his Ph.D. in political science in 2015, and now works as an Assistant Professor of Public Administration and Political Science at Stockton University in southern New Jersey.

December 3, 2014 – D-Day is two months away. No, not defense day, but my first child’s due date. It was also time to finish up my dissertation and defend. Having accepted a job offer the month before, my wife (a postdoc in Kinesiology) and I decided that a pre-baby defense would better allow me to help in the transition to parenthood. No problem, I would gather the committee in mid-January and wrap things up before the February 3rd due date. Multiple rounds of Doodle Polls later, it became apparent that there was not one day in January that all of my committee members were physically in State College. Furthermore, those that were traveling were not able to teleconference in for the defense. So, January was out. My wife and I discussed the situation and decided to set the defense date for February 4, the day after our baby was due. We also set a back-up date of February 25 so that I could still hit the early deadline for a May graduation.

Gratefully, wrapping up the dissertation was not a large source of stress. I had received helpful feedback throughout the process, and my committee generally seemed pleased. That said, there had been significant discord over one particular chapter that I still decided to keep in the final project. So, there was much uncertainty regarding that particular part of the dissertation. As time ticked away and the due date neared, we were also uncertain as to whether our baby would wait long enough for me to defend. We had few signs of early labor, but the baby was positioned to come quickly when the time came. During the months of December and January, we largely went about our days, but both the defense date and due date hung over my head as I tried to prepare. Defending a dissertation is an important life event, but it seemed small in the scope of also preparing to welcome new life into the world. Especially our first child. The days passed and baby Mallinson seemed increasingly determined to let me finish.

Of course, you hear that first babies often come late, but there are plenty that come early. I was fortunate that ours did, in fact, arrive late. The due date came and passed with no signs of our baby wanting to go anywhere. So I prepared for and carried through with the defense. Our department has an unusual process for defenses. They are technically public, but are not advertised and the candidate almost always meets with just the committee. During the defense, we had a very pleasant and constructive dialogue about the project, holes in my logic, and potential avenues for future work. As far as defenses are concerned, it was a great experience. While gathering for dinner and drinks that night with friends and my very pregnant wife, the whole thing felt surreal. In a yet un-recognized blessing, my committee asked for few revisions, allowing me to file the final paperwork and the dissertation the Friday of my defense week, which was only 2 days after my defense.

That same day, February 6th, we had a difficult OB-GYN appointment. My wife was committed to giving birth naturally, but it turns out that baby Mallinson was very content staying put. Perhaps we had willed too strongly to let me finish my defense and dissertation. So, an induction was scheduled. Little did we know in December that not only would our little one not come early, but we might have to push the process along. As my wife left her last day of work before six weeks of maternity leave, which happened to be the same day that I filed my final dissertation with the Graduate School, we were again uncertain as to how the next few days would progress. We were anxious about an induction and had an army of people praying that our little one would come in its own time. The following day, my wife went into labor, and on Sunday morning February 8, four days after my defense, our little Peter was born after an intense, but relatively short, natural labor.

Many graduate students, such as my wife, remember the chaos and stress leading up to defense day, with cramming in final analyses and revisions. I, on the other hand, was fortunate that this was not my experience, but my defense was stressful in other, unique ways. When I think back to those days, I will remember all of the uncertainty surrounding the birth of our little boy. The wonder of his birth certainly overshadowed the fact that I had reached a culminating point in my educational journey. And therein lies the greatest lesson of this experience. Defending my dissertation was a culminating experience, but the birth of my son was deeply meaningful in a way that the Ph.D. was not. The Ph.D. was really a milestone in the longer arc of an academic career, whereas my son has changed my life forever. His birth and my defense experience also taught me about grace, humility, and faith. Grace for myself and for others, even when things were not going the way I thought they should. Humility in the juxtaposition of my achievement and new life. Faith in God’s provision.

PhD Defenses around the world: a defense in Finland

Today, I am inviting Alexandra Mikhailova to discuss her PhD defense in the "Defenses around the world" series. Alex is turning 28 in less than two weeks, and is originally from Moscow, Russia. Her family relocated to Finland when she was 11, and she has lived in Tampere ever since. She got her MSc degree there as well, at the University of Tampere. She studied biomedical science and was especially interested in regenerative medicine, so she started working with pluripotent stem cells as an undergraduate student and continued in the same research group for her PhD. Right now, she is recovering from the defense and figuring out what to do next. Her plans are not set in stone yet though, so she can't say anything for sure, but she will hopefully continue in the field of biomedicine and would like to engage more in scientific communication. In her free time she keeps herself busy by long-distance running and baking.

I recently successfully defended my PhD in biomedical science at University of Tampere, Finland. The topic of my dissertation was “Tissue engineering for ocular surface reconstruction”. In a nutshell, the main aim of my study was to investigate differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells towards corneal epithelium.

First off, some background about writing a doctoral dissertation in Finland. In the field of life science and other “hard sciences”, doctoral dissertations are almost exclusively based on scientific publications. Typically three or four publications are needed for a PhD (this varies among universities), and the PhD student should have had a significant contribution to all of them. The actual PhD thesis should tie the publications together by introducing the general background of the study, summing up the results and discussing the main outcomes and limitations of the research. Once it is written and approved by the institute, two external reviewers evaluate the thesis and give feedback to the student to improve its quality. At this point, the reviewers can also reject the thesis if they feel it is not strong enough for a public defense. If that is the case, the PhD student has to make corrections to the thesis and go through the review process again. Once both external reviewers approve the thesis, the PhD student gets a permission to defend the dissertation.

The PhD defense is public from start to finish, and usually friends and family are invited in addition to colleagues and collaborators. There are also many formalities involved, most of which are somewhat old-fashioned. The dress code is strict and there are set phrases that have to be said at the beginning and at the end. The disputant, opponent and custos (a professor at the institute and preferably but not necessarily the supervisor) enter the auditorium at exactly 12:15, and the audience stands while they walk to the front of the room. The custos begins the defense by briefly introducing the disputant and opponent.

Then the disputant gives an introductory lecture (officially called Lectio praecursoria), for the public to get a general overview of the study background and aims. This tends to be the part where most disputants are noticeably nervous – my legs were feeling a little shaky for the entire 15 minutes of talking. Then the opponent gives a few general remarks which he/she thinks may be relevant. Usually this part is very short, maybe 5 minutes. However, at my defense, the opponent gave a fairly long presentation, to make sure the audience understood the aims of my study. After that, the actual discussion of the doctoral dissertation begins, and it takes 1-2 hours.

I’ve been to several PhD defenses before my own, and this part is very different every time, so you never really know what to expect. Some opponents ask very specific questions, while others choose to be broader. My opponent basically asked me to explain each of my three publications, and asked various questions related to them all throughout. Overall, I think I answered fairly well, although of course some questions were more difficult than others. It is somewhat common for the opponents to ask what are the main strengths and weaknesses of the PhD study, so I think it’s good to prepare an answer just in case. My opponent didn’t ask anything like that (although I had an answer ready!), but he did ask how I would choose to proceed in the project if money wasn’t an issue. Also a vague question, but I personally prefer those to the more technical ones, because it gives more room for discussion.

Finally, once the opponent is finished with the questions, he/she stands up to give a brief statement about the overall quality of the dissertation and defense. The disputant then thanks the opponent for the discussion and asks the audience if anyone has additional questions or comments. This is more of a formality, as it is very rare that someone from the audience asks anything.

The custos then announces that the defense is finished, and everyone is free to leave the auditorium after the disputant and opponent exit. Coffee and cake is served immediately after, and there is usually a party later in the evening in honor of the opponent. If they want to, PhD recipients in Finland can get a doctoral hat (looks somewhat like a top hat) and a doctoral sword for future academic occasions. But that’s basically all there is to it - several years of work and then one day it's over and new challenges await!

PhD Defenses around the world: a Defense in Belgium

Today, Damien Debecker talks about his PhD defense in Belgium in the "Defenses around the world" series. Damien is a bioengineer by training and received his PhD in the field of heterogeneous catalysis. He is now an Associate Professor at the University of Louvain, in Belgium, teaching physical chemistry and separation processes. In his research he focuses on the preparation and study of new heterogeneous catalysts and biocatalysts to design chemical processes in a greener way. He is also an occasional blogger, and quite active on twitter.

Recently, he launched a science blogging hub called "External Diffusion", convinced by the idea that scientists have a strong desire to talk about their findings, not only via scientific publications but also through engaging online contents. You can connect with them on social media or visit the blog.

I defended my PhD in May 2010, at the UCL in Belgium. My contract was running until the 30th of September. However, I wanted to apply for a specific post doc fellowship and I had to be a doctor by June. When you have such a strict deadline (normally it’s the end of the contract but it can be something else) you have to start counting backwards. Indeed, in Belgium we have a two-step PhD defense. Basically there are two events: a private defense and a public defense. This is rather specific. Let me explain!

Approximately one month ahead of the private defense the manuscript must be sent to all jury members. The private defense is actually the most important step in the process. It is not public – as you may have guessed from the name. Everybody’s meeting: the candidate, the promoter, the jury member along with a president of the jury (who is usually an experienced professor from the faculty or Institute). So, I had to make a short presentation of something like 20 minutes just to get the session started. Then, the jury is asking questions. They take the time to go chapter by chapter into all the details they like or dislike. Believe me; they sometimes like to go into the details. Usually the promoter remains silent, but he may also jump into the discussion from time to time to give his opinion. My promoter was even kinder: he was taking note of all the remarks so that I could concentrate on just answering the questions I was asked and then get the complete list at the end. The session is supposed to last 3 hours max but it regularly goes over time. It did in my case. We even had to order sandwiches for lunch! This doesn’t necessarily mean that the jury was not happy with the work. Simply they had a lot of things to say and some of the points were actually debated among me and the jury and also among different jury members.

Ultimately, the jury has to decide among three decisions:

1. “there are big flaws and the candidate is not ready: we have to meet again in a few months and start over!”, 
2. “the thesis is acceptable but some major modifications have to be made in the manuscript or some additional experiments are needed; we ask the candidate to send again a draft of thesis in e.g. 3 months, and after a distance check we will notify if a public defense date can be fixed”,
3. “the thesis can be defended publicly; we only ask for minor corrections which can be made by the candidate directly and checked only by the promoter”.

I felt relieved when the third option was chosen by my jury. I basically didn’t really have the choice if I wanted to make it on time for my post doc fellowship. Once the authorization of organizing the public defense is granted, the candidate knows that the PhD will be granted. Yet the party is not over! So I sat back at my desk to make the last (small but numerous) corrections, I sent the final text to printing, I prepared a long presentation, and I invited all my family and friends to the public defense.

The public defense - as you may guess from the name - is public. Usually family and friends come over and obviously all colleagues from the laboratory too. The jury is dressed in gown and hat. The final book has to be printed and available to all. The candidate makes a presentation of 45 minutes. Then the jury members will ask questions again each for 10 to 15 minutes. Usually the questions asked at that point are more general, more open, or pointing towards the prospects of the work. Fair enough! All tiny scientific and technical details had been discussed one month earlier. Nevertheless the session typically lasts two hours and – believe me – it usually gets boring for the layman!

At the end of my presentation I wanted to finish by a slide saying thank you. But I also had prepared three slides to thank my family, friends and promoter. Taken by my enthusiasm I just went along with my presentation forgetting about the questions. So basically I was already thanking everybody for their support during my PhD, even though I was still supposed to answer questions for about one hour! I realized it too late. Luckily the president of the jury made a humorous transition towards the questions. After one hour of discussion, the jury left the room to deliberate and came back 15 minutes later holding a diploma. Well I could see it and touch it for a few seconds only, just enough to sign it. Then it went back with the secretary of the jury to follow the process of getting the Rector's signature (I received it back only a few months later). My promoter made a short speech. And then I invited everybody for a drink and some snacks. In the evening my colleagues and close family were invited at the restaurant. And the evening was completed by a “decent party”!

Today, I am myself a PI. I have been a jury for several PhD now. And my first PhD student just defended her thesis last month! (Applause!) I have to say here that the specificity of the two-step PhD defense in Belgium is something I really like. During the private defense everything can be said. As a jury member you can freely point at things that are wrong or demand modifications. As a candidate you truly have an interaction, for three hours at least, with true experts in the field. In this way, you have the chance to confront your work with the expertise of others, not only your promoter. And to improve your final manuscript, the one you will be so proud of. If you like you can compare this with the reviewing process in publishing. Imagine you could discuss live with the reviewers instead of getting just cold reviewing report in your mailbox. Very valuable!

What do you think? Please comment!

PhD Defenses around the world: a Viva in the United Kingdom

Today, I have invited Kath Atkinson to discuss her viva in a guest post. Kath recently completed a Doctor of Social Sciences (DSocSci) at the University of Leicester in the UK. Her research area is the employment and workplace learning of older workers. At present, she ism working on disseminating the findings from her thesis research. She also intends to continue researching the ageing workforce.

My area is social sciences. I studied at a UK university (University of Leicester) but with a few differences to many doctoral students. I had a full time job outside academia and was studying part time. I was also a distance learning student and therefore not required to regularly visit the university. Work was done at home on my own. References were sourced and read online and supervision was also conducted mostly online.

Publication of papers and attending conferences were not a compulsory part of the degree. If they occur it is usually after completion. This is probably due to the majority of candidates studying part time and not having sufficient time to publish/present as well as complete their thesis.
Despite these differences, the viva is definitely a major element of the degree.

Prior to the viva I submitted a completed version of the thesis, formally printed and soft bound, for each examiner to read. The examiners were not randomly 'imposed' on me. As I neared completion, my supervisor and I discussed who would be appropriate. She then approached them and a date was formally set that suited us all.

The viva took the form of an interview behind closed doors. One interviewer was 'internal' (from my department) and the other one was 'external' (from another UK university). Each was an expert in one of the main aspects of my research and both appeared in my bibliography. I knew the 'internal' by sight but had not met the 'external' one before.

My supervisor, who was not present in the viva itself, had kindly made herself available so I had someone to talk to before and after. Her office was used as an informal waiting and recovery room!

The viva was very formal with the examiners one side of a large table and me the other. Some water and glasses sat between us. They kindly poured me a glass before we started! Like a job interview the questions began at an easy level (what made you decide on this area of research?) and quickly warmed up to more probing questions such as my reasons for not using a particular analytical method or why I had decided to include a certain piece of evidence in my argument and how much did it contribute. There were also questions about specific parts of the text, so we all had to refer to our respective copies. From the questioning it was clear both examiners had read the thesis. However, I realised some information in the appendices had been overlooked as I was questioned as if I had not considered it. This proved I should really have placed it in the body of the thesis! Throughout, the questions were clear, very probing and relentless.

I felt a strange enjoyment at being challenged and making my brain bounce around all the information in my head and draw it together to create a response. 'Exhilaration' is probably too strong a word but it certainly made me feel 'alive'.

There is no set time limit for a viva but after about 1 hour and 45 minutes it was brought to a close. I was asked to leave the room. I returned to my supervisor's office until the internal examiner came to collect me a few minutes later. We returned to the examination room.

Once back inside with the door closed and everyone seated again, the outcome (amendments) was revealed. The areas requiring amendment were verbally explained plus the time I would be given to complete them all. The points had been covered in our earlier discussions so nothing was a great surprise. A few days later I received a formal record of the amendments plus an assessment of how I had performed in the viva.

I duly attended to the amendments and emailed a new version to the internal examiner as required, along with a note explaining what I had done to address each point and where to find the relevant sections. The next day he emailed to informally let me know all was fine and I would be officially recommended for the degree. Again, formal notification followed.

Before the degree could be awarded a hard bound copy of the (now improved) thesis had to be deposited in the university library and also a soft copy for their archives.

The actual degree ceremony was rather formal. It required us to file past the university chancellor. He shook our hand and congratulated us. Academics wore their respective academic gowns and hood whilst graduands wore the academic dress of the degree just obtained. Dignitaries from the local area attended in official dress. These can sometimes be based on what was worn several hundred years ago. It certainly made for a spectacular display of ceremonial garments and a memorable conclusion to the degree!

PhD Defenses around the world: a viva at Imperial College

Today, Syed Anas Imtiaz from Imperial College talks about his viva at Imperial College for the "Defenses around the world" series. Anas is a post-doctoral researcher in the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Imperial College London where he completed his PhD in November 2015. Earlier, he did MSc in Integrated Circuit Design at the same university. His primary research interests include biomedical signal processing, intelligent algorithms development and design of wearable EEG systems for long-term monitoring and automatic diagnosis of several neurological conditions.

I finished the final version of my PhD thesis in the first week of September. It was a huge relief and I felt like my PhD is complete. A week later, I submitted the PDF to be printed and dispatched to the examiners. I was also quite confident around this time of having no difficulties in the viva. This aura lasted until I received an e-mail on 7th October 2015 notifying that my viva is exactly a month away. This is when I went blank. All that confidence was gone. I started panicking. After a couple of hours, I steadied myself and sat down to make a plan on what to do in this one month prior to the viva. This included reading the thesis again in fine detail while making notes and writing down questions that the examiners may have.

For those unaware, the viva voce exam in the UK generally takes place behind closed doors. Apart from the candidate being examined, there are two or three more people in the interrogation room. This includes an external examiner, an internal examiner (from host institution) and, optionally, the candidate’s supervisor.

On the exam day I bumped into my supervisor just outside our department building and instantly told her how nervous I was. Her reply was: “You will be fine. It’s going to be a walk in the park for you.”

Fifteen minutes before the clock struck 10.00, I gathered my stuff and made a move towards the examination room. I took the well-annotated copy of my thesis, a small notepad, a pen and a list of corrections that I wanted to make in order to rectify some minor errors I noticed while re-reading the thesis.

At 10.03, the two examiners arrived with my supervisor and took their seats after a quick handshake. The external examiner sat right across me, my supervisor next to him on the left side while the internal examiner was slightly towards my right side. I saw that the copies of my thesis that the examiners brought had a lot of post it notes. This meant only one thing: lots of questions!

The internal examiner briefly explained the rules of the game and then external examiner kicked off the formal proceedings with the standard question asking me to summarise my research. I had prepared for this one so started off confidently. However, around the midpoint of my tirade I was cut off abruptly and the external examiner asked a couple of questions for further clarification. Both examiners then opened the first page of my thesis and began a monumental session of page-by-page discussion of my work.

My thesis was over 250 pages with lots of text crammed, which meant there was a lot of stuff to be covered. There were quite a few questions in the first two chapters which included the introduction and literature review. I think we spent more than 90 minutes discussing these two chapters. The questions were coming rapidly and I found myself on the defensive. I started getting increasingly nervous as the examiners criticised certain sections of the thesis which I was initially quite confident about. In fact, I was so defensive and nervous by that point that I couldn’t even understand a comment jokingly made by the examiner and starting defending it. As an example, the first citation in my thesis was referring to a book authored by the external examiner however its formatting was incorrect. He asked me to turn to that page in the thesis and pointed it out in a very candid manner and smiled thereafter. I, on the other hand, started explaining how this was a LaTeX issue and not my fault. At that point I realised I wasn’t handling the viva correctly. I was defending everything and was getting too sensitive about small issues. I used a little pause in questions to open the sealed water bottle next to me and slowly filled a glass. During this small water break I composed myself and decided that I will only defend the key sections of the thesis and agree to make amendments in sections which were not. I felt much more comfortable talking about my work in the next 100 minutes mainly because this was a purely technical discussion.

After about 200 minutes in total, all of us breathed a sigh of relief as we reached the end of my thesis. All this time I avoided eye contact with my supervisor for the fear of getting any negative feedback. I was asked to leave the room while the examiners deliberated my fate. I left quickly and sat outside the room. I felt mentally exhausted but I knew I had done well. I was quite certain that I’d pass with minor corrections since the examiners did not raise any major concern regarding my methodology or the results.

Fifteen minutes later, I was invited back to the room where everyone was now smiling. I was promptly congratulated and was told that I had passed with minor corrections. There was a discussion for about 10 minutes where I was given some very useful feedback and then later a list of amendments that I was required to do within three months which would be audited by the internal examiner. It took me about a ten days to do these following which I had a meeting with my internal examiner in which they were approved.

In the end, I found the whole experience of viva to be rather stressful. The main reason for this is that I was nervous and unable to relax. It certainly wasn’t a walk in the park as my supervisor had earlier suggested. I think it was more like a walk in a muddy field with lots of falls before reaching the end.

PhD Defenses around the world: a defense in Sweden

Today, in the series of "Defenses around the world", I am hosting the story of a scientist who prefers to remain anonymous. Veronika Cheplygina, whom you might remember from the "How I Work" interview, interviewed her friend for this occasion. He/She received his/her PhD at a science faculty at Lund University in Sweden.

What needs to happen prior to the defense?
Before you submit your thesis to the university, you need to have a committee for your defense. The committee consists of an opponent and other members. The supervisor invites these, but the committee has to be approved by a university board.
The official regulations can be found here.

What is the defense day like?
The defense takes place in a regular lecture room at the university. There are no formal requirements for what the defendant and committee need to wear, although most opt for a suit.

The traditional way is that the opponent presents your thesis and asks critical questions about it, although some universities are now moving to the more common setup of the defendant presenting the thesis.

There are also questions from the committee members and from the public – it is a law that anybody should be able to ask questions. The questions are not only limited to the thesis, general questions about the field you are defending in are also allowed.

Perhaps the most striking feature is that there is no time limit for the defense, and the time varies a lot. My defense lasted about 4 hours, a friend’s about 2.5 hours.

What happens next?
The committee deliberates after the defense. The time is also not fixed, but is usually around half an hour. Afterwards, you hear a decision: pass or fail, there are no grades involved. It is rare to fail at a defense – if this happens, it is before the defense, because the thesis is not approved.
After the decision, the dissertation is considered final as it is. This is different from Denmark or Norway, where you get notes which you still need to revise.
In the evening, you might go to dinner with your committee, but there are no set rules for this.

When do you get your diploma?
You get an official diploma after three months or so. The ceremonial promotion happens on a different day, which is held once a year at the end of May. This day is not only for those getting their PhD, but also when professors are inaugurated. For the big universities, this ceremony is held in a cathedral and lasts roughly 4 hours.

At the ceremony, graduates wear evening wear (tailcoat or black dress with sleeves). Here they get their official diploma in Latin, accompanied by a golden ring inscribed with the date of the defense and the faculty you belong to, and either a tall hat with the emblem of the faculty (in science) or sometimes a laurel wreath (in humanities). The ring indicates that you are married to science. Then you are declared doctor, also in Latin.
Outside the cathedral, there are cannons which fire after the graduates of each faculty have been promoted, as well as for special cases such as jubilee doctors (those who have been a doctor for 50 years).

Some impressions of the ceremony:





And some photographs can be found here.

There is also an official dinner afterwards.

PhD Defenses around the world: a defense in California

Today, Richard Newton talks about his experiences during his PhD defense. Richard is Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania (USA). He took his PhD in Religion from Claremont Graduate University in 2009. His research focuses on the anthropology of scriptures: sacred and profane, ancient and modern, written and not written. He curates the web magazine "Sowing the Seed: Fruitful Conversations on Religion, Culture, and Teaching" and hosts the companion podcast, Broadcast Seeding. You can find him on Twitter @seedpods and at sowingtheseed.org.

My doctoral advisor was of the old school. He came from a tradition in which the PhD was not a degree earned but taken. To reach the defense stage was to reveal yourself as expert and colleague. Somewhere along the line, I was told that I would not be able to move into the defense stage until the committee was confident that I would pass. For my part, getting there wasn't just about mastering content. It was about learning as much as I could about what the defense entailed. That way I could focus on having the best showing possible.

The Structure
My defense was an intimate affair. I had a committee of three, including a chair who was responsible for facilitating the examination. With a few exceptions, my university insisted on open defenses, meaning anyone from the community was welcome to observe. I invited family, friends, and colleagues to be there for moral support. After a brief introduction by my chair, the gallery and I were asked to leave the room while the committee conferred on the matters they wanted to discuss. It also gave me one more moment to get encouragement from my guests.

Upon our return, the committee asked me to provide a prepared ten-minute overview of my project. This was intended to bring everyone up to speed on my research. I detailed the topic, research question, thesis, and its contribution to scholarship. The exercise would be my last chance to frame the conversation that was to ensue. This proved helpful as my committee referred to my overview as much as they did the tome before them.

The chair proceeded to describe the defense format. The second and third readers had ten to fifteen minutes each to engage me on my work. These questions focused on the nuances of my sub-arguments and cited research. My chair reserved the privilege of a fifteen to twenty minute discussion of my project's implications and place in the field.

The gallery and I were again asked to leave the room to allow the committee to discuss the defense. Afterward I was called back in and congratulated on my success. I was informed that no revisions were necessary (save for another go at proofreading) but was encouraged to incorporate any final insights that resulted from my now-colleagues. My advisor and I celebrated the occasion at a local pub.

The Experience
I went into the defense thinking that the event would be painstakingly slow. To my surprise, it turned out to be the fastest hour of my life. Somewhere in the midst of the questions, I found myself in a flow state where I was hyperaware of the event as it transpired.

The questions came at me as if at half-speed. By this point, I had asked myself variations of nearly every question. There were a couple that caught me off guard, yet none merited the description of surprise. These had more to do with perspectives that only a reader could have on one's own work.

The idea of "taking" the PhD no longer sounded like a strange euphemism. Rather, it was license to own my work. I was, after all, the author. I was finally free to shake that impostor syndrome and be confident.

The Lessons I Learned
I am convinced that self-knowledge is as important in the doctoral process as expertise. For me to be my best self at the defense, I knew I had to account for every possibility. I spent a lot of time at other people's defenses, visualizing how I would handle any challenges that arose. Here are some things that I learned along the way.

Take Notes, Take Your Time, Take Water.
The defense is daunting enough as it is, but a lot of doctoral candidates burden themselves with unfruitful asceticism. Have a legal pad to jot down questions and possible responses. Pause to take a moment to collect your thoughts. Have a glass of water to help you stay hydrated. These little things went a long way in keeping me relaxed.

Questions of clarification are your friend.
Truth be told, this lesson didn't sink in until well after my own defense. I feigned an answer to a question that I did not fully comprehend. I could have saved a lot of energy by asking for clarification or attempting to restate the question in my own words. Instead I had to stumble my way back to the original inquiry. I have no doubt that I would have appeared more confident had I allowed myself to admit that I didn't understand what I was being asked.

The best defendants pivoted all questions and answers back to the dissertation.
Many PhD candidates treat their defenses as an opportunity to show how much they have read. More often than not, this actually perturbs committees because it moves the conversation away from the candidate's work.
Before the defense, I wrote a note to myself saying that my dissertation is the primary source - stick to it. It was a little reminder that, more than anything, the committee members were trying to determine the extent to which my conclusions would hold true. I didn't need to show them anything other than that.

In my experience, the defense was the victory lap to a race already won. The hard part was starting and finishing the dissertation. Once I realized that, there was little else to do but to show how far I had come.