Viva result

As I noted in an earlier blog, there are five possible outcomes of the viva:

1. to award the degree as is
2. to award the degree subject to minor amendments 
3. to require resubmission of the thesis with major amendments without a further viva 
4. to require resubmission of the thesis with major amendments with a further viva  
5. to fail the candidate.

Of these outcomes, the final one should never happen as the supervisor should only recommend the candidate to submit the thesis when it is complete in the supervisor's opinion. Failed theses are the supervisor's fault! The first outcome is very rare whereas the second is the most common. Of course, this outcome is the one that I expect like to have for my thesis.

Now onto the viva. My supervisor (who was 'present' during the entire Teams meeting but was not allowed to talk) said that I acquitted myself well: I wasn't belligerent, I didn't freeze, I didn't waffle and I didn't bluff. But as I have tried to say in the past, the viva is not examining 'me' but rather examining the thesis: why did you do this and why didn't you do that?

I was prepared for that type of question, but I wasn't prepared for the depth of some of the questions. For example, chapter 2 talks about ERP systems: it gives background, reasons for adopting ERP, the ERP life style, comparison of four systems and material on 'horizontal' software. For some reason, the external examiner thought that this was part of the literature review; no, I said, it's to give background. One can't talk about enhancing ERP systems without knowing what an ERP system is. Why did you only compare four systems? Maybe the material on horizontal software is not relevant? I explained why I chose those four systems; I also explained that I felt that if I had left out some of this material, I would have been asked why it wasn't there. You can't win either way.

To cut a long story short, the verdict on the thesis centered on two issues. The framework for developing and deploying enhancements appears "like a rabbit from a magician's hat" (as I put if after the examiners had had their pound of flesh) and does not follow on logically from the literature review. The methodology was not sufficient for their liking, lacking a validity stage.

I was given the worst possible result (apart from failure): either accept a lesser, compensatory, Master of Research degree (that no one has ever heard of, along with a loss of pride) or resubmit the thesis with major amendments, including obtaining new data on the basis of a revised methodology, followed by a further viva. There is no guarantee of passing even after this, and failure here means complete failure (probably with the compensatory degree).

I was stunned; my supervisor was also surprised. My initial comment was why didn't the research committee and the final review pick up on these topics? After the viva finished, my supervisor and myself had a brief chat via Skype; obviously no decisions should be made until the examiners' report is received. He thinks that I should be able to finish the necessary work in under a year.

I took the dog for a walk and considered my position. The best way of looking at things is that I have submitted my thesis to another research committee review and it has been found wanting. The examiners will present a report of what needs to be fixed, so I can work according to this report and create a new thesis that should answer their requirements.

When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

[Addendum] I neglected to write that the examiners thought that the topic was very interesting and (for some reason) timely. What they didn't say (in my words as I am assuming this) is that it's a shame that it was ruined by poor methodology.

About the research committee: the document that they saw was upto and including the literary review and synthesis along with a certain amount about the pilot study that had yet to take place. If there is any blame to be placed, it is on the review from a year ago. But even then, the reviewer did not see a document resembling the final thesis, which had doubled in size over the past year.