PhD Thesis Proposal Defense: Common Questions and Feedback
This past two weeks I attended a number of proposal defense of PhD students at my University. In this post, I discuss the general format of a proposal defense as well as discuss the most common questions asked and feedback given to the students by the external examiners.
Structure of a PhD proposal defense
Outcomes of a phd proposal defense, common questions and feedback for chapter 1 of the proposal, common questions and feedback for chapter 2 of the proposal, common questions and feedback for chapter 3 of the proposal, general feedback, final thoughts, related posts.
A proposal defense has: the student defending his proposal, two external examiners, the student’s supervisors, the audience, and the chair of the defense. The defense is structured as follows:
- The chair opens the session by welcoming and acknowledging the student, his supervisors and the external examiners.
- The chair also outlines how the defense will be undertaken including any rules that should be adhered to.
- The chair then welcomes the PhD student to introduce himself and make a presentation (usually 15 minutes).
- After the presentation by the student, the chair opens the floor to the external examiners to give their comments, ask questions and give feedback to the student on how to improve the proposal.
- The student is then required to respond to the questions asked and comments given.
- The chair then makes his remarks.
- Afterwards, the PhD student, his supervisors and the audience are requested to leave the room to allow the chair and the examiners to make their determination. The student and his supervisors are then called back in and the determination is spelt out to them.
There are about 4 possible outcomes after the student presents and defends his proposal:
- The proposal passes with minor or no corrections.
- The proposal passes with major corrections.
- The student retakes the proposal by re-writing it (may include change of topic) and defending it again.
- The proposal is rejected.
Rarely will a student be asked to re-take or will a proposal be rejected especially if it has been adequately supervised. This is because before the proposal is submitted for oral defense, it must be reviewed and signed by the supervisors.
Below is a list of the common questions and feedback for chapter 1:
- What is your working definition of [concepts]?
- Which sector do you want to focus on?
- From a [country/region] perspective, please explain what is the problem?
- How do you intend to solve the problem you have identified?
- What will your proposed solution comprise of?
- Who are the recipients of your proposed solution?
- What is the primary outcome of the research?
- Your objectives use [concept] while your problem statement talks of [a different concept]. What’s the difference between the two [concepts]?
- In the research objectives, there is an interchange and insertion of different words. Be careful about the concepts you use. There needs to be consistency in the concepts used throughout the proposal.
- What is the knowledge gap? That is, what is known and what is unknown that your study will attempt to address?
- How do you relate [different variables included in the topic]? Is one a precedent of the other?
- Are you investigating or examining? The topic says investigating while the objectives talk of examining.
- The presentation does not discuss [sector of focus], the opportunities that exist, and the challenges it faces. This would give the student a good basis for undertaking the research.
- There is no continuity in the objectives.
- There is no discussion of the study’s contribution to knowledge and practice, which is very important for PhD-level study.
- The background has many concepts that throw off readers on what the focus of the study is.
- The problem statement is not focused.
- What is the placement of the study regionally?
- The objectives are too long and broad; they should be specific.
- What is the underlying hypothesis of your study?
- One of the research questions is biased. The researcher should take a neutral stand.
Below is a list of the common questions and feedback for chapter 2:
- Which theories have inspired your work and who are the proponents of those theories?
- For each theory discussed in your proposal, briefly state what it says and how it informs your study.
- How are the theories related to your study?
- Why did you select those theories and not [other theories]?
- There are no empirical studies reviewed in your proposal.
- Your work must converge with other peoples’ work to be able to show the gap that your study is trying to fill.
- How did the choice of theories help you come up with your study’s concepts and variables?
- How will you measure the variables [in the topic]?
- You have just touched the surface of the empirical review, which should be a substantial section of your literature review.
- It is not clear what the research gap is from the literature review.
- After the empirical review, that’s when you now discuss the conceptual framework.
- The conceptual framework should clearly show the dependent and independent variables and their relationships.
Below is a list of the common questions and feedback for chapter 3:
- Kindly explain what your research philosophy is.
- What will your [quantitative] model comprise of?
- How are you going to verify and validate your [quantitative] model?
- Why is the sampling formula appropriate to your sector and study? Justify the sampling formula used in the proposal.
- Justify the choice of the sampling technique [e.g. purposive sampling].
- Justify your choice of data collection and data analysis methods.
- Are you going to use an inductive approach or a deductive approach to your study?
- There needs to be consistency between your objectives and research philosophy.
- If you have a number of population categories, you need to clearly articulate the sampling techniques for each category.
- The data analysis methods should be clearly articulated.
- The ethical considerations of your study should be adequately discussed.
- The data collection instruments should be part of the proposal defense.
- Your choice of research design and methods should be justified.
- What is your unit of analysis?
- Who are your study’s population?
- Will you have different questionnaires for different respondents?
- The data collection tools should have adequate background information questions to enable comparisons across different socio-economic and demographic groups.
- Why are you lagging a variable? Justify the need to lag the variable.
- Justify the choice of the model [e.g. Structural Equation Model].
- Which specific multivariate analysis will you use?
- Which tests are you going to conduct for the model and why? [e.g. normality, multicollinearity tests etc]
- The variables of your study should be defined.
In addition to the chapter-specific questions and feedback given, the students also received feedback on:
- The formatting of their proposals, including the font styles and size allowed, the numbering of the documents,
- The inclusion of front pages such as cover page, declaration, abstract, table of contents,
- The inclusion of back pages such as reference list and appendices which should include letter of introduction, consent letter for study respondents, data collection instruments, and work plan (Gantt chart) for the study.
- The style of referencing recommended by the School e.g. APA, which should be consistent throughout the proposal. The proposal defense should also include some of the citations so as to give it an authoritative feel.
From my observations during the four proposal defenses I attended, a proposal defense is an opportunity for the PhD student to defend his work and to convince the interviewing panel that the student knows what he is doing and what is required of him moving forward. Most of the panellists will do their best to make the student feel comfortable rather than intimidate him so PhD students should not panic when preparing to defend their proposals.
Of importance is adequate preparation before the defense and making sure that the proposal and presentation follow the guidelines provided by the School. Lastly, PhD students should keep in mind that the aim of the proposal defense is to help improve upon the student’s proposal and ensure that the research will meet the scientific rigour and standards of a PhD-level work.
How To Write Chapter 1 Of A PhD Thesis Proposal (A Practical Guide)
How To Write Chapter 2 Of A PhD Thesis Proposal (A Beginner’s Guide)
How To Write Chapter 3 Of A PhD Thesis Proposal (A Detailed Guide)
How To Format A PhD Thesis In Microsoft Word (An Illustrative Guide)
Comprehensive Guidelines for Writing a PhD Thesis Proposal (+ free checklist for PhD Students)
Grace Njeri-Otieno
Grace Njeri-Otieno is a Kenyan, a wife, a mom, and currently a PhD student, among many other balls she juggles. She holds a Bachelors' and Masters' degrees in Economics and has more than 7 years' experience with an INGO. She was inspired to start this site so as to share the lessons learned throughout her PhD journey with other PhD students. Her vision for this site is "to become a go-to resource center for PhD students in all their spheres of learning."
Recent Content
SPSS Tutorial #8: Preliminary Analysis using Graphs in SPSS
In addition to using descriptive statistics for preliminary analysis, one can also use graphs. Unlike the statistics, graphs offer a visual way of exploring the data further. This post illustrates...
SPSS Tutorial #7: Preliminary Analysis using Descriptive Statistics in SPSS
After checking for and correcting errors in your dataset, the next important step before running your analysis is to conduct preliminary analysis to explore the nature of your data. One can conduct...
University of Washington Information School
Doctorate in information science.
- Advising & Support
- Capstone Projects
- Upcoming Info Sessions
- Videos: Alumni at Work
- Request more information
Proposal Defense Policy & Procedure
The proposal and its purpose.
The Information School encourages and supports the wide range of dissertation topics and methodologies generated from the study of information science. The dissertation proposal represents a formal understanding between the Supervisory Committee and the doctoral Candidate. This agreement outlines the work to be done and the intellectual rigor the Committee expects from the Candidate. The proposal functions as a map guiding the Candidate towards the effective completion of the dissertation project.
The dissertation proposal should substantially advance the doctoral candidate toward completion of the dissertation. It may take the form of the preliminary chapters of the dissertation.
The Elements
The doctoral Candidate works closely with the Chair of the Supervisory Committee and other voting members of the Supervisory Committee in determining the composition of the dissertation proposal and in writing the proposal.
The proposal should contain detail sufficient to describe the significance, background and rationale for the dissertation and the work the Candidate will perform for the dissertation.
The following list of elements is typical for a dissertation proposal in the information field. However, the School recognizes that this list may not fit all dissertation proposals and thus should be considered as illustrative only.
- Statement of the Problem – includes the background, context in the information field and in the broader scheme of academic pursuits, key questions, significance of the problem, and description of chosen methodology.
- Grounding and Rationale – provides a discussion of need in the area of study which may include a comprehensive review of theoretical, conceptual, technological or methodological precedents which directly relate to the dissertation topic. This section may also include a detailed analysis of the precedents that justify the need for the research, or review the literature that relates to the research.
- Research Plan – details the methods that will be used or the processes that will be followed during the course of investigation. This section describes how the questions posed by the dissertation will be addressed.
The Defense
The Candidate, assisted by the Chair as necessary, schedules a date, a time, and a room for the defense. The Candidate submits details regarding the proposal defense, including date, time and location of the defense, members of the Supervisory Committee, proposal defense title, as well as an abstract, to the iSchool web calendar, the Chair of the Ph.D. Program, and Student Services Office.
At least two weeks before the scheduled proposal defense date, the final written proposal must be submitted to all members of the Supervisory Committee. At this time or earlier, the voting members of the Committee, in consultation with the Candidate, determine the length and outline the structure of the defense.
The defense is a scheduled and announced public event. Any person may attend. However, the deliberations of the Supervisory Committee are private.
The Process
Students presents their dissertation proposal orally, with visual accompaniment as desired by the candidate, to the supervisory committee and the public.
The dissertation proposal defense proceeds as outlined below.
Prior to the start of the examination :
- The Candidate must be physically present at the exam.
- The Chair (or at least one Co-Chair), the GSR, and one general committee member must be physically present at the exam.
- If the Chair is not physically present, then the exam must be rescheduled.
- If the GSR is not physically present at the time of the exam, a substitute GSR may be secured subject to Graduate School rules. If no GSR can be found, then the exam must be rescheduled.
- If a general member is not physically present then, the exam should be adjourned and rescheduled to a later time/date.
- A majority of the Supervisory Committee must be physically present at the exam. E.g. a Supervisory Committee with the minimum 4 required members (Chair, GSR, and 2 general members) must have the Chair, the GSR, and at least one general member physically present at the exam. A Supervisory Committee with 5 members (Chair, GSR, and 3 general members) must have the Chair, the GSR, and at least one general member physically present at the exam.
Once the Exam Starts"
- The Supervisory Committee may meet initially in private, with or without the Candidate present.
- The Chair announces when the Candidate and the public may join the Committee for the defense.
- The Candidate presents the key elements of the dissertation proposal.
- The Supervisory Committee and/or the public questions the Candidate.
- The public may question the Candidate as time permits.
- Finally, the Supervisory Committee reconvenes in private for deliberations. The voting members vote for one of the following:
- a. Accept —a PDF version of the proposal will be submitted to Student Services. The proposal will be available to the public for reading.
- b. Accept with minor revisions —the Committee requests minor revisions, which are approved by a process that is established by the Chair. A PDF version of the proposal will be submitted to Student Services. The proposal will be available to the public for reading.
- c. Accept with revisions —revisions require approval by the Chair and selected members or the supervisory Committee. See Process** below.
- d. Reject —the Supervisory Committee may recommend either 1) that a second defense is permitted after a period of additional preparation, or 2) that the student is dropped from the Ph.D. program in Information Science at the University of Washington.
A simple majority vote is required. In the event that a simple majority vote does not occur, the deliberations of the Supervisory Committee are continued and a decision is made within ten days of the proposal defense date.
If after ten days the Supervisory Committee cannot make a decision, then the candidate may reconstitute the Committee, and schedule a new defense.
*Process for 'Accept with Revisions'
The revision process proceeds as follows:
- The committee informs the candidate verbally of the revisions required and the date by which revisions are to be completed.
- The chair, in consultation with the committee prepares a written description of the required revisions. A copy of the letter is provided to Student Services to place in the student's permanent academic file.
- The chair and the candidate determine the date by which the revisions must be completed, normally within 3 months.
- The chair distributes the written description to the candidate and the committee.
- Two weeks after the revisions are submitted by the candidate, the committee informs the candidate whether the revisions are accepted or rejected.
- If accepted, a paper copy and PDF version of the proposal are submitted to Student Services; at least one copy is available to the public for reading.
- If rejected, the committee recommends, as outlined above, to either permit a second defense or to drop the student from the program.
- If the revisions are not completed successfully within the specified time period, the chair may extend the time for revision to up to one year from the date of the proposal defense. After one year, the chair may petition the Ph.D. committee for an extension.
- If the revisions are not completed successfully in the time frame designated, and if the supervisory committee and the Ph.D. committee concur, the proposal is rejected and the student is dropped from the Ph.D. program in Information Science at UW.
Full Results
Customize your experience.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The proposal defense is a public event. However, the deliberations of the supervisory committee are private. The supervisory committee records an official decision using the dissertation proposal defense form. Once the proposal has been defended and accepted, the candidate is cleared to finish writing the dissertation.
Milestone 2: Proposal Defense and Summary i. The proposal defense is to be completed after the passing of the Ph.D. Qualifying Exam. ii. The proposal defense is comprised of 3 parts: a written proposal, a public oral presentation and a closed oral defense of the proposal. iii. The student is required to submit a written research proposal and ...
Ph.D. Academics Proposal Defense Proposal Defense Policy The Proposal and its Purpose The Information School encourages and supports the wide range of dissertation topics and methodologies generated from the study of information science.