phd defense twente

PhD Defence Konrad Klotzke | Structured Dependence Modelling: A Bayesian Framework for Data-Driven Validation of Psychometric Measurement Instruments

Structured Dependence Modelling: A Bayesian Framework for Data-Driven Validation of Psychometric Measurement Instruments

Konrad Klotzke is a PhD student in the department Cognition, Data and Education. Promotors are dr. S.M. van den Berg and prof.dr.ir. B.P. Veldkamp from the faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences.

    The proposed framework addresses the computational inefficiencies often encountered with current Bayesian matrix-based approaches in psychometric applications, particularly as the latent variable structures grow in complexity. In SDM this issue is tackled with a truncation function for the prior distribution of matrix parameters, dynamically enforcing boundaries to maintain the positive-definiteness of the structured matrix in the multidimensional parameter space. Gibbs-samplers and a gradient-based Hamilton Monte Carlo (HMC) algorithm are developed that scale to complex psychometric models and high-dimensional data. For inference-making with SDMs, objective Bayes factors and posterior credible intervals for matrix parameters are derived.

    In simulation studies, SDMs outperformed IRT- and SEM-based methods at testing the dimensionality of categorical response and response time data. The results were obtained with sample sizes that are common in data-driven validation studies for the psychometric properties of measurement instruments. Empirical examples demonstrate the applicability of the proposed framework to real-world, hierarchically nested response and process data from digital assessments. The thesis concludes with a reflection on the objectives of my PhD research, assessing the benefits and limitations of the proposed framework and suggesting potential future directions for its development and application.

More events

Opponent PhD defense

• Huijser, A. (Examiner)
• Photocatalytic Synthesis

Activity : Examination

• UT as employer

A PhD as a springboard for your career

After your master’s, follow a PhD programme at the University of Twente. PhD is a paid job in addition to post-master studies. After four years of in-depth research, you will receive your doctorate and you will be officially awarded the title of doctor (Dr.). The foundation for the rest of your career and recognition in both academia and in business.

Working as a PhD

Earn your recognised title.

Four years of interesting work. With an in-depth study within a specific research area as end product. This involves your dissertation and at the end a presentation and defence of your research. Curious about which PhD programmes are available to you?

Featured postions

Watch the videos of our phd candidates reframe phd.

• 1 min, 26 sec Compilation
• 1 min, 14 sec Stephen
• 1 min, 14 sec Verena
• 1 min, 28 sec Natália
• 1 min, 20 sec Matteo
• 1 min, 7 sec

Doing your PhD at UT

Will be the most influential time in your personal development to prepare you for your future career

What are the career prospects? A career outside of science is an option after you've earned your PhD

For example, you can think of policy functions in government and management and consultancy functions in the business world. Research has shown that 80% of PhD students aspire to a career in science following their PhD. However, only 20% of all PhD students are employed at the university, and another 10% end up in research-related positions outside the university. After their promotion, the remaining 70% will end up in positions in the business community or in government.

Why should you do a PhD? All the benefits at a glance

√ Great opportunities on the job market, both inside and outside academia! √ Highest academic degree, after your PhD you can use 'dr.' put before your name. √ Varied work, besides your research you spend time supporting education. For example, supervising master's and bachelor's students is part of your work. √ Good working conditions, travel allowance, the possibility to work from home, flexible hours, vacation days that you can organise yourself and a 13th month! √ Working in a multidisciplinary environment and entrepreneurship is stimulated. √ You build an international network, you discover the latest trends in your field. And learn about (your own) publications. √ Based on your individual expertise, you have a great deal of freedom in your work.

Reframe PhD From assumptions to insights

Verena lives in Germany and gained her Bachelor’s degree in Chinese and Computer Science. During her Master’s, she focussed on developing cyber security for electricity grids. She has always been captivated by the sciences, especially maths and physics - a passion that features prominently in her PhD.

What can you expect? Become an independent researcher

You can actually do a lot and have a lot of freedom. But after four years you have to present your research. Most of it is up to you to decide how you do that. You need motivation and self-discipline. A PhD is especially hard, because it is never finished. Each question you answer raises new questions. That's tempting to a curious scientist. You have to stick to the big picture and not make your research too big.

The foundation for a wonderful career

begins at the University of Twente

• Stephen Akinremi ‘In this PhD, we’re imaging deeper structures of the Dutch subsurface than ever before’
• Natália Marinho ‘We’re changing design and maintenance practices for aerospace composites’
• Maryam Dodangeh 'When a research idea really works, it feels like the whole universe is on my side'

Apply to the University of Twente today

Have you completed a Master’s? Then a PhD is the powerful springboard to a wonderful career. Selected students are offered a contract of up to four years to follow courses and complete research programmes. Such a PhD programme includes both teaching and other departmental tasks. Varied? Absolutely!

Stay informed.

After registration you will regularly receive our new vacancies.

You are signed up for the Job alert

dr.ir. P.C. Roos (Pieter)

As associate professor in Water Engineering & Management, I combine my passions of doing research and teaching in a fascinating discipline.

Employment 

• 2022-date: UT Teaching & Learning Fellow (0.2 fte, theme 'digitalisation')
• 2017-date: Associate professor
• 2018-2022: Location director UT/VU BSc-program Mechanical Engineering (0.5 fte)
• 2010-2017: Assistant professor
• 2006-2010: Assistant professor on personal STW-VENI grant
• 2004-2006: Postdoc in Prof. Hulscher’s VICI project
• 2000-2004: PhD candidate at University of Twente
• 1999-2000: Visiting scientist at University of Genova (Nuffic Talentenprogramma)
• 2020: Leergang Onderwijskundig Leiderschap, professional training for educational leaders, offered by Centre of Academic Teaching, Utrecht University (20/6/2019-12/11/2020)
• 2006: Certificate of Basic Teaching Competences (29/6/2006; now BKO, formerly known as DUIT)
• 2004: Ph.D. degree at University of Twente. See research below
• 1999: M.Sc. Applied Mathematics, University of Twente, cum laude  including practical training at ABB Research Center (Baden, Switzerland) and M.Sc. project on variational modelling of river cross-sections.

Earth and Planetary Sciences

• Investigation
• Morphodynamics
• Structural Basin

Organisations

• Water systems (ET-CEM-WS)

My research focuses on the complexities of coastal morphodynamics, related to bedform patterns (e.g., tidal sandbanks and sand waves) and barrier coasts. Of my particular interest is the link between autonomous dynamics and the response to human intervention, such as sand extraction. To understand these systems, I develop, apply and analyze mathematical models that describe the water motion, sediment transport and bed evolution.

Publications

Other contributions.

Dissertation

• Roos, P.C. , Seabed Pattern Dynamics and Offshore Sand Extraction , Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, The Netherlands, ISBN 90-365-2067-3, 2004. [to receive a hardcopy, please send me an email]

Supervision of PhD students

• Ongoing: Martijn Siemerink (1/9/2023-date), Siyuan Wang (1/9/2023-date), Thi To Van Nguyen (1/9/2023-date), Wout Ploeg (1/3/2023-date), Laura Portos-Amill (1/9/2022-date), Wessel van der Sande (1/4/2019-date).
• Koen Reef (UT, co-promotor) . Dissertation: "Exploratory modelling of barrier coast dynamics" (defense: 3-3-2022.
• Johan Damveld (UT, co-promotor) . Dissertation: "The feedbacks among tidal sand waves, benthic organisms and sediment sorting processes"(defense: 30-10-2020)
• Geert Campmans (UT, co-promotor) . Dissertation: "Modeling storm effects on tidal sand waves" (defense: 31-08-2018).
• Wenlong Chen (UT, co-promotor) . Dissertation: “Idealised modelling of storm surges in large-scale coastal basin” (defense: 15-12-2015).
• Mohit Kumar (TU Delft, co-promotor) . Dissertation: "Three-dimensional model for estuarine turbidity maxima in tidally dominated estuaries. An idealized modelling approach" (defense: 30-11-2018)
• Leendert Dorst (UT, co-promotor) . Dissertation: “Estimating sea floor dynamics in the Southern North Sea to improve bathymetric survey planning” (defense: 4-9-2009).
• Co-supervision: Zhou Jieqiong (Zhejiang University, China), Mariana Pardal (Rio de Janeiro State University, Brazil), Dr.ir F.M. Sterlini (UT), Dr.ir H.H. van der Veen (UT).
• External committee member in Phd Defence of: Ronald L. Brouwer (TU Delft, 30-9-2013), Bing Yuan (Utrecht University, 13-7-2017), Rajapaksha Mudiyanselage Janaka Bamanuwala (UT, 16-4-2020), Roeland C. van de Vijsel (RUG, 19-3-2021)
• External examiner for Van Long Huynh (University of Nottingham, 4-12-2018), Gaetano Porcile (Università di Genova, 2019), Thomas Boelens (UGent, 4 June 2020)
• Co-organizer of NCK Days 2021, held online on 25-26 March 2021 by NIOZ and University of Twente
• Organizer of NCK-theme day on Offshore Activities and Seabed Evolution (OASE), Utrecht, 6 November 2018 (together with Bas Borsje)
• Organizer of workshop on impact of mega-scale sand extraction on the North Sea, Enschede, 27 April 2010 (dissemination of VENI-project)
• Keynote speaker at MARID VI, 1-3 April, 2019
• Invited speaker at NCK theme day on Wadden Sea, Leeuwarden, 17 May 2019
• Invited speaker at NCK-theme day on Wadden Sea on the sediment balance of the Wadden Sea, Leiden, 10 October 2014
• Keynote speaker at EGU2013, session OS2.1 (Ocean Sciences), Vienna, 8 April 2013
• 1 st prize for the best presentation at NCK days 2010
• Member of NCG-KNAW Netherlands Geodetic Committee, subcommittee ‘Marine Geodesy’ (since November 2009)
• Advisor for Rijkswaterstaat’s research agenda on sandy coast/shoreface (17-2-2022, 24-11-2022)
• Participation in Building with Nature, project HK2.1 “Ecodynamic design of a dredging area”, on the ecological landscaping of sand extraction sites (2008-2010).
• Jury member best PhD paper Twente Water Week (Twente Water Centre): 2014, 2015, 2016.
• Reviewer for the following scientific journals: Chinese Journal of Oceanology & Limnology; Coastal Engineering; Continental Shelf Research; Earth Surface Processes & Landforms; Environmental Modelling & Software; Estuarine Coastal & Shelf Science; Frontiers in Marine Science; Geomorphology; Geophysical Research Letters; Reviews of Geophysics; Journal of Applied Mathematics; Journal of Coastal Research; Journal of Fluid Mechanics; Journal of Geophysical Research; Journal of Sedimentary Research; Marine Geology; Nature Geosciences; Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics; Ocean Dynamics; Ocean Modelling; Ocean Science Discussions; Science of the Total Environment.

Research profiles

• research.utwente.nl profile
• Winner Central Educational Award University of Twente 2017
• 5x Teacher of the Year Civil Engineering (& Management): 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2023
• 12x Nominations for Teacher of the Year Civil Engineering & Management: 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2022, 2023

 BSc Courses

• Fluid Mechanics 1 (course code: 202000049) in Module 2; 2015-date
• Project Blue Nile (202000054) in Module 2; 2013-2015
• Tutor in Module 3; 2013-2016
• Supervision of BSc graduation projects

MSc Courses

• Mathematical Physics of Water Systems (19540090): 2005-date
• Long Waves & Tidal Morphodynamcs (201800024): 2023
• Marine Dynamics (195400800): 2003-2017
• Marine Systems (195400240): 2004, 2011
• Supervision of MSc graduation projects

Other teaching

• C2-score on TCP English Language Class Assessment (6/3/2014)
• Chair of Education Committee Civil Engineering (OLC-CiT, 2009-2013); staff member (2013-2018)
• Guest speaker at Universiteit van Nederland (2019): “Waarom spelen sommige wiskundigen graag in de zandbank?” (click here for video )
• at summer schools: NCK Texel (2011, 2019, 2022), Utrecht Tides (2018), ENSY Granada (2019), group supervisor in Motril (2007) and NCK Texel (2005)
• Nationale Wiskunde Dagen (14/4/2023): "De wiskunde van water en zand"
• MSc-course on biogeomorphology at TU Delft (2006, 2007)
• at international ECUA’2004 conference on underwater acoustics in Delft (2004)
• Teacher panel member of ConcepT Symposium: 2015, 2016, 2017, 2023.

Affiliated study programs

• Bachelor Civil Engineering
• Master Civil Engineering and Management

Courses academic year 2023/2024

Courses in the current academic year are added at the moment they are finalised in the Osiris system. Therefore it is possible that the list is not yet complete for the whole academic year.

• 191199152 - Internship
• 195419999 - CEM Master Thesis Water
• 195799152 - Internship
• 201800024 - Long Waves and Tidal Morphodynamics
• 201800116 - Preparation Master Thesis
• 201800120 - Capita Selecta CEM-WEM
• 201800122 - Capita Selecta CEM-CME
• 202000049 - Fluid Mechanics 1
• 202000090 - BSc Research Assignment
• 202000250 - Internship
• 202300233 - Mathematical Physics of Water Systems
• 202300353 - Internship (CSE/SET)

Courses academic year 2022/2023

• 201800027 - Mathematical Physics of Water Systems
• 201800115 - Preparation Master Thesis
• 201800117 - CS Water 2,5 EC
• 201800118 - CS Traffic 2,5 EC
• 201800119 - CS Construction 2,5 EC
• 201800121 - Capita Selecta CEM-TEM
• 2023-date: collaboration BAW/Nelen&Schuurmans/UT ; supervision of PhD student Martijn Siemerink
• 2023-date: EU-project SEDIMARE ; supervision of PhD students Siyuan Wang and Thi To Van Nguyen
• 2023-date: NWA-project ORELSE ; supervision of PhD student Wout Ploeg
• 2022-date: NWO-TTW-project MELODY; supervision of PhD student Laura Portos-Amill
• 2019-date: Perspectief Programme SALTISolutions ; supervision of PhD student Wessel van der Sande
• 2017-2022: supervision of PhD student Koen Reef in WADSnext! -project
• 2015-2020: supervision of PhD student Johan Damveld in NWO/ALW-project SANDBOX
• 2014-2020: project leader of STW project SMARTSEA (TKI Maritime call) and daily supervision of PhD student (and later postdoc) Geert Campmans
• 2011-2018: Co-supervision of PhD student Mohit Kumar (with Henk Schuttelaars, TUD)
• 2011-2015: SEACOS project in CSC Talent Training. Daily supervision of Ph.D. student Wenlong Chen
• 2006-2010: STW-VENI project on “Transient Dynamics in the Morphology of Coastal Seas”.
• 2004-2006: Post doc in VICI project Prof. Dr. S.J.M.H. Hulscher. Further activities: contact person of EUMARSAND on behalf of UT, collaboration with Christophe Brière, daily supervision of L.L. Dorst’s Ph.D project.
• 2000-2004: PhD project on the morphodynamics of large-scale offshore sand extraction, in relation to rhythmic seabed patterns such as tidal sandbanks. Promotors: Prof. Dr Suzanne Hulscher, and Prof. Dr Ir Huib de Vriend. Research partly within EU-project HUMOR .
• 1999-2000: one year stay at University of Genova, Italy, EU-funded within Nuffic Talentenprogramma . Research on the modelling of three-dimensional sand ripple patterns (Roos & Blondeaux, 2001).
• +31 53 489 5608 (work)
• +31618289548 (mobile)
• +31 53 489 3546 (if no answer)
• [email protected]
• research.utwente.nl
• Business card (vCard)

University of Twente

Horst Complex (building no. 20), room W215 De Horst 2 7522 LW Enschede Netherlands

Navigate to location

Horst - Ring (building no. 21) De Horst 2 7522 LW Enschede Netherlands

Horst Complex W215 P.O. Box 217 7500 AE Enschede Netherlands

Interuniversity Centre for Educational Sciences

PhD Defence Irena Y. Maureen

 Posted on December 17, 2020 by [email protected]

  Leave a Comment

On Friday, 15 January 2021, at 12:30 hours exactly, Irena Y. Maureen (University of Twente) will defend her thesis “Story time in early childhood education: designing storytelling activities to enhance (digital) literacy development.”

Due to the COVID-19 crisis measures the PhD defense of Irena Maureen will take place online. 

The PhD defence can be followed by a  live stream .

More information on the research project can be found on the website of the University of Twente .

 Category: News , PhD Defence

Interuniversitair Centrum voor Onderwijswetenschappen | Interuniversity Centre for Educational Sciences |

#vacature Onderzoeker/docent NOLAI toepassingen van AI in onderwijs Radboud Universiteit -

#vacature PhD Tijd voor Toekomst

FYI: https://www.ou.nl/en/-/mini-symposium-zelfregulerend-leren-in-het-hoger-onderwijs

# vacature: Postdoc!Bevordering onderzoekscultuur in het voortgezet onderwijs | Technische Universiteit Eindhoven via @TU/e

Wij zoeken een promovendus voor een nieuw project naar het verbeteren van de effectiviteit van huiswerk in het basisonderwijs. Delen wordt gewaardeerd! Voor details, zie: @ICO_Education @owk_uu

• Who are we?
• Registration Forms
• Management structure

News categories

Search this site.

Copyright © 2024 · All Rights Reserved · ICO

Theme: Natural Lite by Organic Themes · RSS Feed

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

PhD Defence Process: A Comprehensive Guide

Embarking on the journey toward a PhD is an intellectual odyssey marked by tireless research, countless hours of contemplation, and a fervent commitment to contributing to the body of knowledge in one’s field. As the culmination of this formidable journey, the PhD defence stands as the final frontier, the proverbial bridge between student and scholar.

In this comprehensive guide, we unravel the intricacies of the PhD defence—a momentous occasion that is both a celebration of scholarly achievement and a rigorous evaluation of academic prowess. Join us as we explore the nuances of the defence process, addressing questions about its duration, contemplating the possibility of failure, and delving into the subtle distinctions of language that surround it.

Beyond the formalities, we aim to shed light on the significance of this rite of passage, dispelling misconceptions about its nature. Moreover, we’ll consider the impact of one’s attire on this critical day and share personal experiences and practical tips from those who have successfully navigated the defence journey.

Whether you are on the precipice of your own defence or are simply curious about the process, this guide seeks to demystify the PhD defence, providing a roadmap for success and a nuanced understanding of the pivotal event that marks the transition from student to scholar.

Introduction

A. definition and purpose:, b. overview of the oral examination:, a. general duration of a typical defense, b. factors influencing the duration:, c. preparation and flexibility:, a. preparation and thorough understanding of the research:, b. handling questions effectively:, c. confidence and composure during the presentation:, d. posture of continuous improvement:, a. exploring the possibility of failure:, b. common reasons for failure:, c. steps to mitigate the risk of failure:, d. post-failure resilience:, a. addressing the language variation:, b. conforming to regional preferences:, c. consistency in usage:, d. flexibility and adaptability:, e. navigating language in a globalized academic landscape:, a. debunking myths around the formality of the defense:, b. significance in validating research contributions:, c. post-defense impact:, a. appropriate attire for different settings:, b. professionalism and the impact of appearance:, c. practical tips for dressing success:, b. practical tips for a successful defense:, c. post-defense reflections:, career options after phd.

Embarking on the doctoral journey is a formidable undertaking, where aspiring scholars immerse themselves in the pursuit of knowledge, contributing new insights to their respective fields. At the pinnacle of this academic odyssey lies the PhD defence—a culmination that transcends the boundaries of a mere formality, symbolizing the transformation from a student of a discipline to a recognized contributor to the academic tapestry.

The PhD defence, also known as the viva voce or oral examination, is a pivotal moment in the life of a doctoral candidate.

PhD defence is not merely a ritualistic ceremony; rather, it serves as a platform for scholars to present, defend, and elucidate the findings and implications of their research. The defence is the crucible where ideas are tested, hypotheses scrutinized, and the depth of scholarly understanding is laid bare.

The importance of the PhD defence reverberates throughout the academic landscape. It is not just a capstone event; it is the juncture where academic rigour meets real-world application. The defence is the litmus test of a researcher’s ability to articulate, defend, and contextualize their work—an evaluation that extends beyond the pages of a dissertation.

Beyond its evaluative nature, the defence serves as a rite of passage, validating the years of dedication, perseverance, and intellectual rigour invested in the research endeavour. Success in the defence is a testament to the candidate’s mastery of their subject matter and the originality and impact of their contributions to the academic community.

Furthermore, a successful defence paves the way for future contributions, positioning the scholar as a recognized authority in their field. The defence is not just an endpoint; it is a launchpad, propelling researchers into the next phase of their academic journey as they continue to shape and redefine the boundaries of knowledge.

In essence, the PhD defence is more than a ceremonial checkpoint—it is a transformative experience that validates the intellectual journey, underscores the significance of scholarly contributions, and sets the stage for a continued legacy of academic excellence. As we navigate the intricacies of this process, we invite you to explore the multifaceted dimensions that make the PhD defence an indispensable chapter in the narrative of academic achievement.

What is a PhD Defence?

At its core, a PhD defence is a rigorous and comprehensive examination that marks the culmination of a doctoral candidate’s research journey. It is an essential component of the doctoral process in which the candidate is required to defend their dissertation before a committee of experts in the field. The defence serves multiple purposes, acting as both a showcase of the candidate’s work and an evaluative measure of their understanding, critical thinking, and contributions to the academic domain.

The primary goals of a PhD defence include:

• Presentation of Research: The candidate presents the key findings, methodology, and significance of their research.
• Demonstration of Mastery: The defence assesses the candidate’s depth of understanding, mastery of the subject matter, and ability to engage in scholarly discourse.
• Critical Examination: Committee members rigorously question the candidate, challenging assumptions, testing methodologies, and probing the boundaries of the research.
• Validation of Originality: The defence validates the originality and contribution of the candidate’s work to the existing body of knowledge.

The PhD defence often takes the form of an oral examination, commonly referred to as the viva voce. This oral component adds a dynamic and interactive dimension to the evaluation process. Key elements of the oral examination include:

• Presentation: The candidate typically begins with a formal presentation, summarizing the dissertation’s main components, methodology, and findings. This presentation is an opportunity to showcase the significance and novelty of the research.
• Questioning and Discussion: Following the presentation, the candidate engages in a thorough questioning session with the examination committee. Committee members explore various aspects of the research, challenging the candidates to articulate their rationale, defend their conclusions, and respond to critiques.
• Defence of Methodology: The candidate is often required to defend the chosen research methodology, demonstrating its appropriateness, rigour, and contribution to the field.
• Evaluation of Contributions: Committee members assess the originality and impact of the candidate’s contributions to the academic discipline, seeking to understand how the research advances existing knowledge.

The oral examination is not a mere formality; it is a dynamic exchange that tests the candidate’s intellectual acumen, research skills, and capacity to contribute meaningfully to the scholarly community.

In essence, the PhD defence is a comprehensive and interactive evaluation that encapsulates the essence of a candidate’s research journey, demanding a synthesis of knowledge, clarity of expression, and the ability to navigate the complexities of academic inquiry. As we delve into the specifics of the defence process, we will unravel the layers of preparation and skill required to navigate this transformative academic milestone.

How Long is a PhD Defence?

The duration of a PhD defence can vary widely, but it typically ranges from two to three hours. This time frame encompasses the candidate’s presentation of their research, questioning and discussions with the examination committee, and any additional deliberations or decisions by the committee. However, it’s essential to note that this is a general guideline, and actual defence durations may vary based on numerous factors.

• Sciences and Engineering: Defenses in these fields might lean towards the shorter end of the spectrum, often around two hours. The focus is often on the methodology, results, and technical aspects.
• Humanities and Social Sciences: Given the theoretical and interpretive nature of research in these fields, defences might extend closer to three hours or more. Discussions may delve into philosophical underpinnings and nuanced interpretations.
• Simple vs. Complex Studies: The complexity of the research itself plays a role. Elaborate experiments, extensive datasets, or intricate theoretical frameworks may necessitate a more extended defence.
• Number of Committee Members: A larger committee or one with diverse expertise may lead to more extensive discussions and varied perspectives, potentially elongating the defence.
• Committee Engagement: The level of engagement and probing by committee members can influence the overall duration. In-depth discussions or debates may extend the defence time.
• Cultural Norms: In some countries, the oral defence might be more ceremonial, with less emphasis on intense questioning. In others, a rigorous and extended defence might be the norm.
• Evaluation Practices: Different academic systems have varying evaluation criteria, which can impact the duration of the defence.
• Institutional Guidelines: Some institutions may have specific guidelines on defence durations, influencing the overall time allotted for the process.

Candidates should be well-prepared for a defence of any duration. Adequate preparation not only involves a concise presentation of the research but also anticipates potential questions and engages in thoughtful discussions. Additionally, candidates should be flexible and responsive to the dynamics of the defense, adapting to the pace set by the committee.

Success Factors in a PhD Defence

• Successful defence begins with a deep and comprehensive understanding of the research. Candidates should be well-versed in every aspect of their study, from the theoretical framework to the methodology and findings.
• Thorough preparation involves anticipating potential questions from the examination committee. Candidates should consider the strengths and limitations of their research and be ready to address queries related to methodology, data analysis, and theoretical underpinnings.
• Conducting mock defences with peers or mentors can be invaluable. It helps refine the presentation, exposes potential areas of weakness, and provides an opportunity to practice responding to challenging questions.
• Actively listen to questions without interruption. Understanding the nuances of each question is crucial for providing precise and relevant responses.
• Responses should be clear, concise, and directly address the question. Avoid unnecessary jargon, and strive to convey complex concepts in a manner that is accessible to the entire committee.
• It’s acceptable not to have all the answers. If faced with a question that stumps you, acknowledge it honestly. Expressing a willingness to explore the topic further demonstrates intellectual humility.
• Use questions as opportunities to reinforce key messages from the research. Skillfully link responses back to the core contributions of the study, emphasizing its significance.
• Rehearse the presentation multiple times to build familiarity with the material. This enhances confidence, reduces nervousness, and ensures a smooth and engaging delivery.
• Maintain confident and open body language. Stand tall, make eye contact, and use gestures judiciously. A composed demeanour contributes to a positive impression.
• Acknowledge and manage nervousness. It’s natural to feel some anxiety, but channelling that energy into enthusiasm for presenting your research can turn nervousness into a positive force.
• Engage with the committee through a dynamic and interactive presentation. Invite questions during the presentation to create a more conversational atmosphere.
• Utilize visual aids effectively. Slides or other visual elements should complement the spoken presentation, reinforcing key points without overwhelming the audience.
• View the defence not only as an evaluation but also as an opportunity for continuous improvement. Feedback received during the defence can inform future research endeavours and scholarly pursuits.

In essence, success in a PhD defence hinges on meticulous preparation, adept handling of questions, and projecting confidence and composure during the presentation. A well-prepared and resilient candidate is better positioned to navigate the challenges of the defence, transforming it from a moment of evaluation into an affirmation of scholarly achievement.

Failure in PhD Defence

• While the prospect of failing a PhD defence is relatively rare, it’s essential for candidates to acknowledge that the possibility exists. Understanding this reality can motivate diligent preparation and a proactive approach to mitigate potential risks.
• Failure, if it occurs, should be seen as a learning opportunity rather than a definitive endpoint. It may highlight areas for improvement and offer insights into refining the research and presentation.
• Lack of thorough preparation, including a weak grasp of the research content, inadequate rehearsal, and failure to anticipate potential questions, can contribute to failure.
• Inability to effectively defend the chosen research methodology, including justifying its appropriateness and demonstrating its rigour, can be a critical factor.
• Failing to clearly articulate the original contributions of the research and its significance to the field may lead to a negative assessment.
• Responding defensively to questions, exhibiting a lack of openness to critique, or being unwilling to acknowledge limitations can impact the overall impression.
• Inability to address committee concerns or incorporate constructive feedback received during the defense may contribute to a negative outcome.
• Comprehensive preparation is the cornerstone of success. Candidates should dedicate ample time to understanding every facet of their research, conducting mock defences, and seeking feedback.
• Identify potential weaknesses in the research and address them proactively. Being aware of limitations and articulating plans for addressing them in future work demonstrates foresight.
• Engage with mentors, peers, or advisors before the defence. Solicit constructive feedback on both the content and delivery of the presentation to refine and strengthen the defence.
• Develop strategies to manage stress and nervousness. Techniques such as mindfulness, deep breathing, or visualization can be effective in maintaining composure during the defence.
• Conduct a pre-defense review of all materials, ensuring that the presentation aligns with the dissertation and that visual aids are clear and supportive.
• Approach the defence with an open and reflective attitude. Embrace critique as an opportunity for improvement rather than as a personal affront.
• Clarify expectations with the examination committee beforehand. Understanding the committee’s focus areas and preferences can guide preparation efforts.
• In the event of failure, candidates should approach the situation with resilience. Seek feedback from the committee, understand the reasons for the outcome, and use the experience as a springboard for improvement.

In summary, while the prospect of failing a PhD defence is uncommon, acknowledging its possibility and taking proactive steps to mitigate risks are crucial elements of a well-rounded defence strategy. By addressing common failure factors through thorough preparation, openness to critique, and a resilient attitude, candidates can increase their chances of a successful defence outcome.

PhD Defense or Defence?

• The choice between “defense” and “defence” is primarily a matter of British English versus American English spelling conventions. “Defense” is the preferred spelling in American English, while “defence” is the British English spelling.
• In the global academic community, both spellings are generally understood and accepted. However, the choice of spelling may be influenced by the academic institution’s language conventions or the preferences of individual scholars.
• Academic institutions may have specific guidelines regarding language conventions, and candidates are often expected to adhere to the institution’s preferred spelling.
• Candidates may also consider the preferences of their advisors or committee members. If there is a consistent spelling convention used within the academic department, it is advisable to align with those preferences.
• Consideration should be given to the spelling conventions of scholarly journals in the candidate’s field. If intending to publish research stemming from the dissertation, aligning with the conventions of target journals is prudent.
• If the defense presentation or dissertation will be shared with an international audience, using a more universally recognized spelling (such as “defense”) may be preferred to ensure clarity and accessibility.
• Regardless of the chosen spelling, it’s crucial to maintain consistency throughout the document. Mixing spellings can distract from the content and may be perceived as an oversight.
• In oral presentations and written correspondence related to the defence, including emails, it’s advisable to maintain consistency with the chosen spelling to present a professional and polished image.
• Recognizing that language conventions can vary, candidates should approach the choice of spelling with flexibility. Being adaptable to the preferences of the academic context and demonstrating an awareness of regional variations reflects a nuanced understanding of language usage.
• With the increasing globalization of academia, an awareness of language variations becomes essential. Scholars often collaborate across borders, and an inclusive approach to language conventions contributes to effective communication and collaboration.

In summary, the choice between “PhD defense” and “PhD defence” boils down to regional language conventions and institutional preferences. Maintaining consistency, being mindful of the target audience, and adapting to the expectations of the academic community contribute to a polished and professional presentation, whether in written documents or oral defences.

Is PhD Defense a Formality?

• While the PhD defence is a structured and ritualistic event, it is far from being a mere formality. It is a critical and substantive part of the doctoral journey, designed to rigorously evaluate the candidate’s research contributions, understanding of the field, and ability to engage in scholarly discourse.
• The defence is not a checkbox to be marked but rather a dynamic process where the candidate’s research is evaluated for its scholarly merit. The committee scrutinizes the originality, significance, and methodology of the research, aiming to ensure it meets the standards of advanced academic work.
• Far from a passive or purely ceremonial event, the defence involves active engagement between the candidate and the examination committee. Questions, discussions, and debates are integral components that enrich the scholarly exchange during the defence.
• The defence serves as a platform for the candidate to demonstrate the originality of their research. Committee members assess the novelty of the contributions, ensuring that the work adds value to the existing body of knowledge.
• Beyond the content, the defence evaluates the methodological rigour of the research. Committee members assess whether the chosen methodology is appropriate, well-executed, and contributes to the validity of the findings.
• Successful completion of the defence affirms the candidate’s ability to contribute meaningfully to the academic discourse in their field. It is an endorsement of the candidate’s position as a knowledgeable and respected scholar.
• The defence process acts as a quality assurance mechanism in academia. It ensures that individuals awarded a doctoral degree have undergone a thorough and rigorous evaluation, upholding the standards of excellence in research and scholarly inquiry.
• Institutions have specific criteria and standards for awarding a PhD. The defence process aligns with these institutional and academic standards, providing a consistent and transparent mechanism for evaluating candidates.
• Successful completion of the defence is a pivotal moment that marks the transition from a doctoral candidate to a recognized scholar. It opens doors to further contributions, collaborations, and opportunities within the academic community.
• Research presented during the defence often forms the basis for future publications. The validation received in the defence enhances the credibility of the research, facilitating its dissemination and impact within the academic community.
• Beyond the academic realm, a successfully defended PhD is a key credential for professional advancement. It enhances one’s standing in the broader professional landscape, opening doors to research positions, teaching opportunities, and leadership roles.

In essence, the PhD defence is a rigorous and meaningful process that goes beyond formalities, playing a crucial role in affirming the academic merit of a candidate’s research and marking the culmination of their journey toward scholarly recognition.

Dressing for Success: PhD Defense Outfit

• For Men: A well-fitted suit in neutral colours (black, navy, grey), a collared dress shirt, a tie, and formal dress shoes.
• For Women: A tailored suit, a blouse or button-down shirt, and closed-toe dress shoes.
• Dress codes can vary based on cultural expectations. It’s advisable to be aware of any cultural nuances within the academic institution and to adapt attire accordingly.
• With the rise of virtual defenses, considerations for attire remain relevant. Even in online settings, dressing professionally contributes to a polished and serious demeanor. Virtual attire can mirror what one would wear in-person, focusing on the upper body visible on camera.
• The attire chosen for a PhD defense contributes to the first impression that a candidate makes on the examination committee. A professional and polished appearance sets a positive tone for the defense.
• Dressing appropriately reflects respect for the gravity of the occasion. It acknowledges the significance of the defense as a formal evaluation of one’s scholarly contributions.
• Wearing professional attire can contribute to a boost in confidence. When individuals feel well-dressed and put-together, it can positively impact their mindset and overall presentation.
• The PhD defense is a serious academic event, and dressing professionally fosters an atmosphere of seriousness and commitment to the scholarly process. It aligns with the respect one accords to academic traditions.
• Institutional norms may influence dress expectations. Some academic institutions may have specific guidelines regarding attire for formal events, and candidates should be aware of and adhere to these norms.
• While adhering to the formality expected in academic settings, individuals can also express their personal style within the bounds of professionalism. It’s about finding a balance between institutional expectations and personal comfort.
• Select and prepare the outfit well in advance to avoid last-minute stress. Ensure that the attire is clean, well-ironed, and in good condition.
• Accessories such as ties, scarves, or jewelry should complement the outfit. However, it’s advisable to keep accessories subtle to maintain a professional appearance.
• While dressing professionally, prioritize comfort. PhD defenses can be mentally demanding, and comfortable attire can contribute to a more confident and composed demeanor.
• Pay attention to grooming, including personal hygiene and haircare. A well-groomed appearance contributes to an overall polished look.
• Start preparation well in advance of the defense date. Know your research inside out, anticipate potential questions, and be ready to discuss the nuances of your methodology, findings, and contributions.
• Conduct mock defenses with peers, mentors, or colleagues. Mock defenses provide an opportunity to receive constructive feedback, practice responses to potential questions, and refine your presentation.
• Strike a balance between confidence and humility. Confidence in presenting your research is essential, but being open to acknowledging limitations and areas for improvement demonstrates intellectual honesty.
• Actively engage with the examination committee during the defense. Listen carefully to questions, respond thoughtfully, and view the defense as a scholarly exchange rather than a mere formality.
• Understand the expertise and backgrounds of the committee members. Tailor your presentation and responses to align with the interests and expectations of your specific audience.
• Practice time management during your presentation. Ensure that you allocate sufficient time to cover key aspects of your research, leaving ample time for questions and discussions.
• It’s normal to feel nervous, but practicing mindfulness and staying calm under pressure is crucial. Take deep breaths, maintain eye contact, and focus on delivering a clear and composed presentation.
• Have a plan for post-defense activities. Whether it’s revisions to the dissertation, publications, or future research endeavors, having a roadmap for what comes next demonstrates foresight and commitment to ongoing scholarly contributions.
• After successfully defending, individuals often emphasize the importance of taking time to reflect on the entire doctoral journey. Acknowledge personal and academic growth, celebrate achievements, and use the experience to inform future scholarly pursuits.

In summary, learning from the experiences of others who have successfully defended offers a wealth of practical wisdom. These insights, combined with thoughtful preparation and a proactive approach, contribute to a successful and fulfilling defense experience.

You have plenty of career options after completing a PhD. For more details, visit my blog posts:

7 Essential Steps for Building a Robust Research Portfolio

Exciting Career Opportunities for PhD Researchers and Research Scholars

Freelance Writing or Editing Opportunities for Researchers A Comprehensive Guide

Research Consultancy: An Alternate Career for Researchers

The Insider’s Guide to Becoming a Patent Agent: Opportunities, Requirements, and Challenges

The journey from a curious researcher to a recognized scholar culminates in the PhD defence—an intellectual odyssey marked by dedication, resilience, and a relentless pursuit of knowledge. As we navigate the intricacies of this pivotal event, it becomes evident that the PhD defence is far more than a ceremonial rite; it is a substantive evaluation that validates the contributions of a researcher to the academic landscape.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Recent Posts

• 05 Quick Review, High Impact, Best Research Journals for Submissions for July 2024
• Top Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Research Paper
• Average Stipend for Research/Academic Internships
• These Institutes Offer Remote Research/Academic Internships
• How to Include Your Journal in the UGC-CARE List? A Guide for Publishers
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

PhD defence: Learning to innovate

We are happy to announce that on Monday 8 November 2021, at 11 am, at the Aula of Wageningen University & Research, Robert Ovbiagbonhia will defend his PhD thesis, entitled ‘Learning to innovate: how to foster innovation competence in students of Built Environment at universities of applied science’. Robert was supervised by Perry den Brok (promotor) and Bas Köllöffel (Twente University, copromotor).

During the past years, Robert was an external PhD student at ELS, conducting his research while also acting as teacher at the Hanze Hogeschool Groningen. Robert investigated to what degree students’ innovation competence was visible in current education of Built Environments programs, and designed and evaluated an intervention to stimulate students’ innovation competence. Before the defence, Robert will give a layman’s speech. The defence ceremony will be broadcasted via WUR-tv as well (the link will be provided on our website in a later stage).

Registration

Those interested in being present live are asked to contact Robert directly or fill in the registration form . All others are welcome to follow the defense online via this link .

MEMP PhD Thesis Defense (2:00pm): Yong-Chul Yoon

Back to Events List

Ether Dome—MGH Bullfinch Building—55 Fruit St, 4th Floor, Boston, MA and Zoom (See below for full information)

Towards depth-resolved multi-cubic centimeter field of view endoscopic camera for intraoperative nerve identification

One out of every five peripheral nerve injuries in the United States has an iatrogenic origin.  These injuries can cause chronic neuropathies, paresthesia, and varying functional losses. To reduce the risk of nerve injury, surgeons meticulously identify and track nerves within the surgical field using white-light magnification. However, small (sub-millimeter diameter) and buried nerves are often difficult to identify with this approach. This has motivated a long-standing effort to develop improved nerve visualization technologies that are deployable in both open and minimally invasive surgical workflows. Fluorescence imaging is the most commonly explored strategy, and multiple exogenous fluorophores that bind to nerve-specific targets have been developed. However, fluorescence imaging has several limitations, including a disrupted workflow (due to the need for specialized lighting) and a significant regulatory burden. For these reasons, fluorescence-based nerve visualization has not yet been clinically adopted.

Polarization-based optical coherence tomography (OCT) approaches to nerve visualization would inherently mitigate each of these translational challenges. First, OCT imaging is not affected by room light and thus can be used simultaneously with surgical lighting. Second, OCT is label-free and avoids regulatory pathways associated with new drug development. However, because OCT offers high-resolution, three-dimensional imaging,. a surgical OCT system supporting video-rate acquisition of cubic centimeter fields would require signal capture bandwidths that are several orders of magnitude higher than what is available today. It is unlikely that this gap can be addressed through incremental advances in existing OCT platforms. 

In this thesis, we present a radically different OCT platform designed to aggressively reduce signal capture bandwidths while also simplifying the optical and electronic subsystem designs. The proposed approach is contour-looping (CL-) OCT (pronounced cloaked). It retains the depth-sectioning capability upon which OCT is based but discards the requirement of comprehensive three-dimensional imaging that results in impractical signal capture bandwidths. As such, CL-OCT defines a strategy for low-bandwidth depth-sectioned imaging that may be sufficient for specific imaging tasks such as nerve identification. Importantly, the CL-OCT platform is compatible with a camera-based (i.e., scan-free) deployment that is advantageous for endoscopic deployments. In a second component of this thesis, we provide extensive theoretical and experimental studies on how optical amplifiers can be used in OCT to address sensitivity challenges of high-speed surgical OCT platforms like CL-OCT. Together, these lines of research define a new approach to meeting the need for OCT-based solutions for intraoperative nerve identification. This technology, if successfully translated, may lead to a lower incidence of iatrogenic nerve injury.

Thesis Supervisor: Benjamin J. Vakoc, PhD Associate Professor of Health Science and Technology, and Dermatology, HMS, MGH

Thesis Committee Chair: Elfar Adalsteinsson, PhD Eaton-Peabody Professor, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and Institute for Medical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT

Thesis Reader: Aaron Aguirre, MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Medicine, HMS, MGH ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zoom invitation – 

Yong-Chul Yoon is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: Yong-Chul Yoon MEMP PhD Thesis Defense Time: Thursday, July 25, 2024, 2:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Your participation is important to us: please notify  hst [at] mit.edu (hst[at]mit[dot]edu) , at least 3 business days in advance, if you require accommodations in order to access this event.

Join Zoom Meeting https://mit.zoom.us/j/99910725780

Password: cloaked

One tap mobile

+16465588656,,99910725780# US (New York) +16699006833,,99910725780# US (San Jose)

Meeting ID: 999 1072 5780

US: +1 646 558 8656 or +1 669 900 6833

International Numbers: https://mit.zoom.us/u/abnm2rgK2T

Join by SIP 99910725780 [at] zoomcrc.com

Join by Skype for Business https://mit.zoom.us/skype/99910725780

Swath and Dive: A pattern for PhD defense presentations

In recent times I’m having the fortune of seeing several of my own doctoral students approach the end of the doctoral journey (yes, it does end!). As they submit the dissertation and prepare for their defense, there is one piece of advice I find myself giving again and again, about how to tackle the impossible task of presenting multiple years of research work in less than one hour. In this post, I describe a “presentation design pattern” for thesis defenses, which builds upon classic conceptualization exercises advocated in the blog. I also illustrate it with an example from my own thesis defense presentation, more than ten years ago (gasp!).

I still vividly remember when I had to prepare my defense presentation, how I tried to shoehorn tons of concepts into an impossibly small number of slides… which still were too many for the 45-minute talk I was supposed to give at the defense. After several rehearsals (with an audience!) and lots of feedback from my colleagues and advisors, I finally stumbled upon a solution. Later on, I have found that a similar structure was also helpful to other doctoral students preparing their defenses.

The rest of the post takes the form of a presentation design pattern , i.e., a description of “a problem that occurs over and over again in our environment, and […] the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice." 1 (a concept originally proposed in architecture, and later used in software engineering, pedagogy and many other fields). I have called this pattern Swath and Dive (for reasons that will become obvious in a minute).

The context: when is this pattern applicable?

When you have to prepare an oral presentation for a doctoral dissertation defense. This pattern is especially helpful if the research is a bit complicated (e.g., composed of multiple contributions , multiple studies, or using multiple research methods) and it is not obvious what contents to include/exclude from the presentation.

What is the problem? What forces are at play?

The main problem this pattern tries to solve is the seeming impossibility of showing 3+ years of research work in less than one hour. While time restrictions and structure for the defense are different in different countries, typically 25-60 minutes are allocated for the presentation. This limited time is a key force at play, but there are others as well:

• The sheer volume of a thesis dissertation’s contents (typically, a 100-500 pages document), which itself is a condensation of years of hard research work.
• Defending PhD students need to prove to the jury that they are now competent, independent researchers (i.e., they master the literature of their topic, are able to apply a research methodology and think critically about the results ).
• The varying levels of expertise and familiarity of the jury members with the concrete thesis topic.
• The varying levels of knowledge that jury members have of the dissertation materials (i.e., did they read the dissertation document in full? with what level of attention?). While all members are supposed to have read the document, in practice there is a lot of heterogeneity in compliance.

The typical end product of these forces is what I call the “skimming” approach to the defense presentation (see picture below): The presentation provides only a very high level overview of the main elements of the dissertation document (sort of like a table of contents). More often than not, too much time is spent in the introductory and related literature parts of the presentation (which are somehow “safe”, less likely to be criticized – another instance of avoidance at work in the PhD ), and time runs out when the student is getting to the really interesting part for the jury (the student’s own work). This approach of course has the critical flaw of not showcasing enough of the student’s own abilities and research outcomes.

Skimming: A typical approach to selecting thesis defense content

How to avoid “skimming” your dissertation? Enter Swath and Dive .

The solution: Swath and Dive

What I propose in this pattern is to structure the presentation in a different way, a way that tries to balance the need for an overview of the dissertation and (at least some of) the richness of the investigation and the hard work the student has put behind it. The proposed structure goes like this:

A swath is “a long broad strip or belt” of grass, often left by a scythe or a lawnmower. In the context of a dissertation defense presentation, this is where the student gives the overview of the main elements of the thesis: key related scientific literature , main research questions , contributions to knowledge the dissertation makes, etc. Long-time readers of the blog will recognize these key elements as the components of the CQOCE diagram , one of the key reflection exercises in the “Happy PhD Toolkit” to (iteratively) understand and discuss with supervisors the overall view of the thesis. Aside from those key elements, probably some notes about the research methodology followed (which are not part of the canonical CQOCE diagram exercise) will also be needed.

In a sense, the Swath is not so different from the typical “skimming” mentioned above. There are several crucial differences, however: 1) when developing the Swath , we need to keep in mind that this is only a part (say, 50%) of the presentation time/length/slides; 2) the Swath should give equal importance to all its key elements (e.g., avoiding too much time on the literature context of the thesis, and making the necessary time for the student’s own research questions, contributions and studies); and 3) the Swath does not need to follow the chapter structure of the dissertation manuscript, rather focusing on the aforementioned key elements (although scattering pointers to the relevant chapters will help orient the jury members who read the dissertation).

Then, within this high-level Swath describing the dissertation, when we mention a particular contribution or study, it is time to do…

This part of the presentation is where the student selects one study or finding of the thesis and zooms in to describe the nitty-gritty details of the evidence the student gathered and analyzed (if it is empirical research), how that was done, and what findings came out of such analysis. The goal here is to help the audience trace at least one of those high-level, abstract elements, all the way down to (some) particular pieces of the raw data, the evidence used to form them.

How to select which part to Dive into? That is a bit up to the student and the particular dissertation. The student can select the main contribution of the dissertation, the most surprising finding, the largest or most impressive study within the work, or the coolest, most novel, or most difficult research method that was used during the dissertation process (e.g., to showcase how skillfully and systematically it was used). The student should give all the steps of the logic leading from low-level evidence to high-level elements – or as much as possible within the time constraints of the presentation (say, 30% of the total length/time/slides).

An essential coda: Limitations and Future Work

Although this didn’t make it to the title of the pattern, I believe it is crucially important to keep in mind another element in any good defense presentation: the limitations of the student’s research work, and the new avenues for research that the dissertation opens. These two areas are often neglected in crafting the defense presentation, maybe with a single slide just copy-pasting a few ideas from the dissertation manuscript (which were themselves hastily written when the student was exhausted and rushing to finish the whole thing). Yet, if the student convinced the jury of her basic research competence and knowledge during the Swath and Dive part, a big part of the jury questions and discussion will focus on these apparently trivial sections.

When doing the limitations, the student should gloss over the obvious (e.g., sample could have been bigger, there are questions about the generalizability of results) and think a bit deeper about alternative explanations that cannot be entirely ruled out, debatable aspects of the methodology followed… squeeze your brain (and ask your supervisors/colleagues) to brainstorm as many ideas as possible, and select the most juicy ones. For future work, also go beyond the obvious and think big : if someone gave you one million dollars (or 10 million!), what cool new studies could continue the path you opened? what new methods could be applied? what experts would you bring from other disciplines to understand the phenomenon from a different perspective? what other phenomena could be studied in the same way as you did this one? Try to close the presentation with a vision of the brighter future that this research might unleash upon the world.

Swath and Dive: a different way of structuring your defense presentation

To understand how this pattern could look like, I can point you to my own thesis defense presentation, which is still available online . This is not because the presentation is perfect in any way, or even a good example (viewing it today I find it overcomplicated, and people complained of motion sickness due to its fast pace and Prezi’s presentation metaphor of moving along an infinite canvas)… but at least it will give you a concrete idea of what I described in abstract terms above.

If you play the presentation , you will notice that the first few slides (frames 1-6) just lay out the main construct the dissertation focuses on (“orchestration”), the structure of the presentation and its mapping to dissertation chapters. Then, the bulk of the presentation (frames 7-117) goes over the main elements of the dissertation according to the CQOCE diagram , i.e., the Swath part of the pattern. Within this high-level view of the dissertation, I inserted a short detour on the research methodology followed (frames 25-28) and, more importantly, several Dives into specific findings and the evidence behind them (frames 43-48, 66-72, and 99-112). Then, frames 118-136 provide the conclusive coda that includes the future work (but not the limitations, which were peppered through the Swath part of the presentation – a dubious choice, if you ask me today).

Variations and related patterns

As you can see from the example above, one does not need to follow the canonical version of Swath and Dive (mine is rather Swath and Three Dives ). Yet, paraphrasing Alexander, that is the point of the pattern: to have the core of the idea, which you can use to produce a million different solutions, tailored to your particular context and subject matter.

It is also important to realize that this structuring pattern for thesis defense presentations does not invalidate (rather, complements) other advice on preparing scientific presentations 2 , 3 , 4 and thesis defenses more specifically 5 . It is all very sound advice! For instance, once you have the structure of your Swath and Dive defense presentation, you could use the NABC technique to ensure that the Need, Approach, Benefits and Competition of each of your knowledge contributions are adequately emphasized. And you can rehearse intensively, and with an audience able to come up with nasty questions. And so on…

May you defend your thesis broadly and deeply!

Do you know other defense presentation structures that work really well in your discipline? Have you used Swath and Dive in your own defense successfully? Let us know (and share your examples) in the comments area below! (or leave a voice message)

Header image by DALL-E

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction (Vol. 2). Oxford University Press. ↩︎

Carter, M. (2013). Designing science presentations: A visual guide to figures, papers, slides, posters, and more (First edition). Elsevier/Academic Press. ↩︎

Anholt, R. R. H. (2009). Dazzle ’Em with Style: The Art of Oral Scientific Presentation (2nd ed). Elsevier, Ebsco Publishing [distributor]. ↩︎

Alley, M. (2013). The craft of scientific presentations: Critical steps to succeed and critical errors to avoid (Second edition). Springer. ↩︎

Davis, M., Davis, K. J., & Dunagan, M. M. (2012). Scientific papers and presentations (Third edition). Elsevier/Academic Press. ↩︎

• Dissertation
• Communication

Luis P. Prieto

Luis P. is a Ramón y Cajal research fellow at the University of Valladolid (Spain), investigating learning technologies, especially learning analytics. He is also an avid learner about doctoral education and supervision, and he's the main author at the A Happy PhD blog.

Google Scholar profile

ENHANCED BY  

Phd defense: ao wang.

Ao Wang, Pharmaceutical Sciences graduate student ( Jiang Lab ), will be defending her PhD research thesis:

Uncovering the multifunctional roles of O-GlcNAcase

O-Linked β-N-acetylglucosamine (O-GlcNAcylation) is a dynamic post-translational modification that regulates numerous proteins critical for cellular functions. O-GlcNAcase (OGA), the sole enzyme responsible for removing O-GlcNAc modifications, regulates over thousands of protein substrates in cells without a consensus motif for substrate recognition. OGA undergoes cleavage by caspase-3 during apoptosis, leaving two fragments at D413 residue. Remarkably, OGA can be also O-GlcNAcylated at S405 residue in close proximity to this cleavage site. In this defense, we demonstrated that cleaved OGA exhibits a distinct substrate preference in vitro though the cleaved fragments remain associated and catalytically active towards 4MU-GlcNAc. Besides, O-GlcNAcylation of OGA at S405 impedes its cleavage by caspase-3, which can inhibit the cell death in apoptosis by modulating the activities of caspases involved in both extrinsic and intrinsic apoptosis pathways. Our research reveals a novel regulatory mechanism whereby O-GlcNAcylation safeguards OGA from caspase-3 cleavage, intricately tuning apoptosis dynamics. Furthermore, OGA has a broad impact in many diseases including cancer. However, its role in cell malignancy remains largely unknown. Herein, we identified a cancer-derived point mutation at OGA stalk domain dysregulated the protein-protein interaction and substrate deglycosylation of a specific set of protein substrates. Interestingly, we found that the cancer-derived OGA mutant aberrantly deglycosylated PDZ and LIM domain protein 7 (PDLIM7) leading to the downregulated cancer suppressor p53 and further promoted cancer cell malignancy. Moreover, deglycosylated PDLIM7 significantly enhanced the actin-rich membrane protrusions on the cell surface, augmenting the cancer cell motility and aggressiveness. Taken together, these findings provide new insights into the regulation and impact of O-GlcNAcylation, broadening the comprehension of its role in cellular function and disease progression/p>

2121 Rennebohm Hall

This event is brought to you by: Pharmaceutical Sciences Division

PhD Defense: Andrew Zhu

Phd defense: siddharth uppal.

School of Electrical and Computer Engineering

College of engineering, ph.d. dissertation defense - mohannad alkhraijah.

Title :  Cybersecurity-Aware Distributed Optimization for Optimal Power Flow

Dr. Daniel Molzahn, ECE, Chair, Advisor

Dr. Sakis Meliopoulos, ECE

Dr. Mathieu Dahan, ISyE

Dr. Justin Romberg, ECE

Dr. Johanna Mathieu, UM

TwistedSifter

The best of the visual web, sifted, sorted and summarized.

• ARCHITECTURE
• NATURE/SPACE
• SHIRK REPORT
• INFORMATIVE

Woman Sends Husband An Invite For Her Public PHD Defense, But After He Refused To Check His Email Multiple Times She Goes Without Him

by Ryan McCarthy

In a relationship, there are a couple of big dates you never want to forget: your anniversary, your partner’s birthday, etc..

But being a good partner isn’t just about remembering the important dates, its about listening to your significant other and taking an active interest in their life and accomplishments.

So when this user’s husband refused to check his email where she had sent him the details of her PHD defense, he was upset when the defense came and went without her telling him.

Should she have reminded her husband of such a big moment in her career, or should he have cared enough to check his email? Decide for yourself!

AITA for not reminding my husband about a huge event in my life? I’m currently a PhD student and also work. Hence, I’m busy. I made some changes to my project right before my confirmation seminar. I’m only mentioning this because my husband was well aware of my increased workload and pending deadline. I told him confirmation was rapidly approaching and he asked if he could come to the presentation. I told him I wasn’t sure but would ask.

So when her school sent the details of her PHD presentation, she forward it to her husband…

Then the university sent out my presentation details email with a zoom link. I forwarded it straight to him. A few days go by and I realised he hadn’t mentioned it. I asked if he read the email and he said no. I asked him to read it. A few more days go by, I asked him again to please read it. At this stage I realized that not only had he not read the email but he hadn’t bothered to enquire about the presentation.

But OP said that the saddest part of the whole situation was that this wasn’t abnormal for her husband…

Unfortunately this is fairly normal for him. He doesn’t often enquire about much about me, ask me many questions about my day etc and I admit I’m tired of being ignored. I could have ‘reminded’ him the day of the presentation but to be honest I didn’t want to. I wanted him to care enough to either ask or read the email.  This is where I might be the jerk.

Tired of having to beg her husband to take an interest in her life, she let the presentation come and go without telling her husband.

Presentation day comes and I present and pass. He has no idea and still doesn’t ask. After a couple of days I decided to finally mention it to him. He things I’m a jerk for not reminding him. I think he’s the jerk for not caring enough to ask. AITA?

Absolutely not, especially when she did remind him by asking him to read the email he had sent you!

If my boyfriend told me there was an important message I had missed, then I would stop everything and check it!

Reddit felt for OP, and this fellow PHD graduate said it sounded like the couple was overdue for some counseling.

This user bluntly told OP that it sounded like her husband simply didn’t care enough to take an interest.

Another person said that considering all of the time and effort that went into a PHD, this was a pretty serious offense on the husband’s part.

Finally, many people said that this type of story was all too common on the internet…

You gotta show up, fam!

If you liked that post, check out this post about a woman who tracked down a contractor who tried to vanish without a trace.

Categories: STORIES Tags: · aita , fight , girlfriend , phd , picture , reddit , thesis , top

Sign up to get our BEST stories of the week straight to your inbox.

• PRIVACY POLICY
• Write For Us
• AFFILIATE DISCLOSURE

Condo Residents Complained About Tenant Bringing Their Electric Scooter Inside Their Apartment, So They Took Up Even More Room In The Already Crowded Bike Lockup

Is It Really OK To Feed Your Dog Raw Meat?

New Business Owners Wanted Everything That Happened Documented, So An Employee Did What They Were Told And Overloaded Them With Tons Of Information

Condo Owner Got Upset When Paving Was Being Done And Called the Fire Department, But The Fire Inspector Ended Up Noticing That A Lot More Violations That Screwed Everybody

Air Force Cadet Was Ordered To Print Off Huge Amounts Of Reports For A Bossy Analyst, So They Followed Orders And Made Their Career Miserable As A Result

Entitled Neighbor Uses Family’s Amenities For Free For Years, But When She Complains They Make Renovations So She Loses All Of Her Access

County Water Supply Bisected His Grandfather’s Property, So When They Told Him He Couldn’t Build A Bridge, Grandpa Found The Answer In Their Own Maps

His New Neighbor Welcomed Him With Threats Of A Lawsuit Over Property Lines, So He Used The Dirt From His Pond To Form A New Boundary

‘One day that child will no longer need you.’ – Mom Wonders Why Parents Won’t Drop Their Children Off At School And Says It’s Vital To Parenting

Copyright © 2024 · All Rights Reserved · TwistedSifter

Powered by WordPress VIP · RSS Feed · Log in

CONGRATULATIONS TO DHINAKARAN MAHESWARAN CHINAPPEN ON HIS SUCCESSFUL PHD DISSERTATION DEFENSE!

“Measuring, Modeling and Manipulating the Electrographic Markers of Disease in Epilepsy”

View all posts