Committee members asked the most questions and few other questions came from the rest of the audience. The dissertator responded to the questions and in the end, she was sent outside for fifteen minutes to allow time for the committee members to discuss her performance. She was later called in and the chairperson announced that she had performed well, thanked the audience, and adjourned the session (Piantanida & Garman, 2009). The defense session took two hours.
I found the dissertation defense process well set and suitable for its purpose. The arrangement to allow non-campus and non-faculty members to attend the session was impressive. The formality of this process including the starting time, time allocated questions and answers, and the closing time enhanced its effectiveness rather than stifling it (Roberts, 2004). Whereas at first the questions that were asked in the course of the presentation annoyed me because they interrupted my flow, I eventually liked them because they clarified some of the things that were unclear. The dissertator’s initiative to start with a brief background into her topic was beneficial to members of the audience like me who had not seen the verbatim dissertation. Initially, it was baffling to see the committee members taking on one another and I almost trivialized it. However, I realized their contention was academic and full of insight, which the dissertator was wise to note and I guessed she was going to consider them in her final revision (Murray, 2009).
My first learning is that it is imperative for the dissertation defense candidate to prepare adequately. This draws from what I saw in the insightful, though challenging, exchange between the dissertator and her audience. The confidence with which the candidate tackled the questions demonstrated her meticulous preparation for the defense. My second ...Show more