 |
 |
Dear Amelia, I've recently defended my PhD thesis, and although my work wasn't exactly a realist synthesis, it was very much rooted within the Critical Realist tradition and referred to Pawson and Tilley's 1996 work on realistic evaluations. I would definitely second what Trish has said - knowing your examiners is key here! Whilst my own examiners weren't experts in the area, one of them was big on reflexive methodology and the use of creative methods for data collection (particularly those capturing power, voice etc.). During the viva she very closely interpreted my philosophical paradigm (Critical Realism) and methodology (Realistic Evaluation) to her own area of work, and drew close interpretations between Critical Realism and Critical Theory, and thus quizzed me a lot on the explicitly emancipatory potential of my methodology, and why it I wasn't so 'Critical' and discussing issues of voice, power etc. if I was using CR. The other examiner was a more general qualitative methods expert and she found my arguments more convincing and understood how I'd applied CR as a philosophical paradigm to frame my question, and Realistic Evaluation to drive the methodology and methods. I was able to argue quite convincingly during my viva - certainly to the extent that I was given a 'pass' but was asked to return to my Methods chapter as part of my corrections and elaborate on what CR is and isn't for the benefit of the reader. So, in summary (and my apologies for this rather long explanation), it is very useful to look carefully into the area of expertise of the examiner/s and then, to also go ahead and think about what your study is and isn't, and think of ways in which one can possibly link or distinguish between what your examiners do and what you do, and try to articulate it out in your head beforehand. Besides this, I did prepare a really really long list of viva questions (approximately 100!) to guide my preparation - these were more open-ended questions (and sub-questions) that one might expect to be asked, and helped me think about how I could defend and articulate my thoughts about my work. I just put them together after doing extensive online search/book reading and there is thus a lot of repetition and overlap, but if you'd like a copy please let me know. All the best! Mahima -- Mahima Mitra DPhil in Social Policy Department of Social Policy and Intervention The University of Oxford "Little by little, one walks far" --Peruvian proverb On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Paula Rowland <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > HI Amelia, > > First of all ... congratulations on getting to where you are! > > I am a happy member of this list serve, but not all that active of a > contributor. I am a newbie myself. That being said, I am in Toronto. In > addition to the wonderful advice you already received, I found it helpful > to be able to practice my presentation in front of a few smart people that > didn't know my study, maybe didn't know my methodology (or maybe did), but > who I could trust to ask good/helpful/challenging questions in a > constructive way. > > I know that there are at least a few of us in Toronto. If you are looking > for some local, face-to-face community --- and to see whether you would > want an audience to do a trial run --- maybe we can have an off-line > conversation to connect our circles. You may or not may not feel > comfortable practicing in front of people you haven't known very long > (which I totally understand. And - your supervisor may have some opinions > on that ... ), but at the very least, we can connect our various networks. > Maybe even just as a meet and greet. I'd like to know more people in the > city that are using these ideas! > > All the best > Paula Rowland > > Associate Professor, Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, > University of Toronto > Scientist, University Health Network > Fellow, AMS Phoenix Project > Affiliated Scholar, The Wilson Centre >