A Proposal for a Two-Step Doctoral Dissertation Defense

A Proposal for a Two-step Doctoral Dissertation Defense

George H Olson, Ph. D.

Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership

Appalachian State University.

December 2009

My recent experience with Susan McCracken’s dissertation defense has motivated me to propose the following.

I would like to see the dissertation defense take place in two phases: first, a private defense between the candidate and his/her committee, and, second, a public defense in which the candidate presents conference-style paper.

I like the idea of a private defense for several reasons. Because parents, children, and friends are not present, the committee can feel less restricted and more candid in their critique of the dissertation. During this phase, the candidate would not be expected to offer, say, a PowerPoint presentation. Supposedly, the committee would be well acquainted with the dissertation and, thus, would not need a formal presentation. During the defense, the committee would ask probing questions in an effort to evaluate the candidate’s depth and breadth of knowledge of the general area in which the dissertation work was completed. Here, also, the committee would be examining the candidate’s ability to defend his or her work. Since the candidate at this point should be an expert in his or her area of study, the candidate should feel comfortable in offering a spirited defense.

At the end of this phase, the committee would decide whether the candidate has presented his- or herself adequately and whether he or she has produced a suitable document (subject to minor modifications) or not. If the committee decides that the candidate needs additional study or that the dissertation is not acceptable then the committee would confer with the candidate to decide on next steps. If the committee determines that the candidate has exhibited sufficient depth and breadth of knowledge and that the dissertation is acceptable then the candidate and committee would agree on a set of final modifications and the candidate would move to the second phase.

For the second phase, the candidate would prepare a formal, public presentation of his or her dissertation. This would include a professional-quality paper, suitable for presentation at a national peer-reviewed conference or for publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. In addition to inviting the public (friends, family, and colleagues) to the presentation I would like to see, also, a discussant invited. I am not sure, at this point, who would select and invite the discussant, but the discussant could be from outside the university. My motivation for suggesting this second phase is my knowledge that few of the dissertations produced in our program are ever exposed to an audience wider than the few individuals who attend our typical defense. Producing a quality dissertation is an enormous undertaking, not only for the doctoral candidate, but also for the committee working with the candidate. Assuming the dissertation does represent a quality piece of work, then surely it deserves wider exposure. Having the candidate produce a publication-quality, or national presentation-quality paper might facilitate that exposure.