Find out who the examiners are. Read what theyıve written on realist
approaches (and if nothing, what approaches DO they write about?). When
asked a question about realist theory/method, return with a question do
you want me to explain it as if I were talking to someone who is naïve to
the realist philosophy, or should I assume you know about the
philosophical underpinnings and explain what I think are the key points of
this?ı.
If the examiners are realist-savvy, you probably only need to come up with
the key buzz phrases. If theyıre ignorant or cynical, it will be harder.
Ask your supervisors.
More generally, if they throw you a goggly, ask them to explain what
theyıre looking for before you launch into an explanation.
GOOD LUCK. Remember if you blow it, the worst thing that usually happens
is you have to re-write a section of a chapter. The world wonıt end.
Trish
On 30/06/2015 20:45, "Hardwick, Rebecca" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>Hi Amelia,
>
>I have yet to defend my PhD, being only in my first year, however, I have
>done a lot of defending of realist approaches in my short academic
>career, and the best defence is to really really know the 'founding
>mothers and fathers' of the methodology, and be able to use what they
>wrote and said to back up what you've done and how you've done it and
>why. If you've not read it already, the first few chapters of The
>Science of Evaluation are perfect, so just go and read some of the books
>discussed therein.
>
>Others, I'm sure, will be along to offer further advice, but I guess the
>only other things I'd add is that often people misunderstand realist
>approaches (e.g. thinking they purely are qualitative methods, not
>getting the whole CMO/programme theory thing), so you may find it helpful
>to rehearse answers which don't point out the (potential) ignorance of
>your examiners, but which build on what they say, and incorporate it -
>thinking along the lines of 'yes.. that's true, and also...' kind of
>answers.... And to check out some of the discussions earlier on the
>RAMESES board about rejection from journals of realist studies... v
>helpful to get a handle on the kinds of objections they raise, both for
>your submission, and the viva.
>
>Good luck!
>
>Rebecca
>
>
>Rebecca Hardwick
>Associate Research Fellow
>
>01392 727408
>email [log in to unmask]
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amelia Usher
>Sent: 30 June 2015 16:56
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Tips for phd defence
>
>Dear colleagues,
>
>I am a doctoral candidate in the psychology department at Ryerson
>University in Toronto, Canada and will shortly be defending my
>dissertation which included a realist review component. I am wondering if
>there are any other recent graduates out there who would be willing to
>share their experience of defending realist approaches to synthesis or
>evaluation? I would love to know what sorts of questions to anticipate!
>Particularly given that my committee members (other than my advisor) do
>not have an in-depth familiarity with realist approaches. I have also
>recently received a rejection from a journal regarding a realist review
>manuscript submission because "lack of empirical data precluded its
>acceptance" (!!) so I anticipate this may come up during the defence as
>well.
>
>Thank you in advance for sharing any tips or suggestions!
>
>Warm regards,
>Amelia Usher
>
>PhD Candidate, Psychological Science
>Department of Psychology
>Ryerson University
>350 Victoria Street
>Toronto, Ontario, Canada
>M5B 2K3
>[log in to unmask]
|