Today, I was officially confirmed as a PhD candidature. A door was opened.
I was told that potential attendees are approximitely 12 people and the research dean does not attend. That made me a bit relaxed. There were an independent assesor (examiner), three supervisors, a professor, a PhD researcher, a senior PhD student, four PhD students, and four supportive people attended.
My seminar started on time. My speech was as terrible as usual but well-designed PPT slides helped me out (I was very confident with them). As supervisors mentioned, I posed in the middle of presentation then asked audience, "Are you confortable so far?". Everyone nodded. "Then, we shall move onto the next section". Some people had a big smile.
Although my speech was awful, people were very patient with my slow pace. Everytime I emphasised a particular term, I tried to have eye contact with people who are professionals in that area. They reacted nicely. They were all supportive.
Somehow, I could finished on time. The examiner game me feedback. Many issues have been raised. However, all of them were very benefitial rather than critical. Other people gave me many suggestions rather than questions or critiques. I was really appreciated with their comments. It seemed OK.
"Please wait outside". I was waiting for about 15 minutes. A door was opened.
"Now, we are glad to announce that you have officially been confirmed as a PhD candidature".
Yeah, me!! I made it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Congratulations! I know what a big thrill that must be for you!!! So did they ask about ontology and epistemology?? I sort of glossed over that in my confirmation document too and am worried they'll pick it up. I mean my study is all interpretative and completely qualitative so it's fine, but just explaining it sounds daunting.
Thanks! Yes, about ontology and epistemology is a very critical part. I did not include in my paper (Gee...). I mentioned in one line that "this research pursues a qualitative approach that elicit insights of [the topic]". Then I jumped into the method -- case study.
My supervisors advised me to prepare pieces of papers and pick up ONLY WHEN a question was raised. I prepared three: (1) ontology (only brief) and epistemology; (2) realiability and validity; and (3) data analysis method. In fact, I did not have to use any of them.
The strategy I got was "do not say anything until you are asked". Also, "do not answer any question unless you already have a clue".
My examinar was a case study expert. Most of his comments were about the research design. This was already predicted before the seminar. So, I graphically modelled my research design and included in my slides.
If you already know who is your examinar, find his/her profile and publishing. You can find what the person is like. If papers included an epistemology debate, he/she will definitely ask you about it. If it was about methodology, you should concentrate on it rather than spending your time on the epistemological debate. Good luck!
Dear Celeste,
My email is: gckirra@gmail.com
I will delete this a couple of days later. Hope you can find this info. Please send a test email if you want to talk about the confirmation. I will give my uni email.
Post a Comment