defending

When I was set to defend my MA thesis (From Kapahaka to Hip Hop: Maori Popular Music in Aotearoa/New Zealand) I had had a lot of advice from one of my undergraduate mentors and went in fairly confident and happily came out with a defended thesis. The process was fun and interesting and there were a lot of future possibilities introduced, particularly by the external,  if I had decided to take a similar project to the doctoral level.

My first PhD defence viewing came last fall, with my friend, colleague and "academic sibling" (we have the same advisor). It was like my MA experience: brilliant, fun, interesting, and full of future possibility. My second came this fall with another colleague, this time someone doing work in the same region as I but in a different discipline. I could only stay for the first round of questioning, that lasted two hours, but I was (and still am) quite taken aback by the differences between the two experiences.  The second was quite interesting but not so fun and full of future possibility. Rather it was more of a fight and I felt the defendant didn't handle the questions and comments posed in quite the way the examiners would have liked. They examiners all complimented the writing as rich and well written, which I'm not sure is one of those we have to start with something nice to say comments akin to "interesting" for after, the rest was, in my view, certainly compared to the first, pretty brutal.

Questions asked & comments made, without being too revealing as to disclose identities, were: how power relations played out on the ground, what kinds of changing power dynamics could be seen, could any change be seen, who is doing advocacy work, what is being advocated for, what about displaced people, lots of things are going on and they are not necessarily compatible each other, and that wasn't addressed, what was the role of the state, missed opportunity to include/address key historical events, no sense of positive, no sense of gender,  writing as ethnography not clearly addressed...  answers were, the chapters weren't meant to be read in a particular way, and there was a lot of uncertainty and a lot of circumvention to the answers overall. The real act of aggression came with the supervisor (who is supposed to ask fluffy questions to let the candidate shine) asked about theoretical positionality (itself fairly fluffy by the point of defense), that the candidate did not want to address. The candidate continued to circumvent the subject, refusing to align with the supervisor's take. The external spoke up on the candidate's behalf, pointing out the strongest theoretical stance to which the supervisor responded "I want to hear the candidate say it." Yet the candidate continued to refuse and the external said, "I'm defending your student which is what you're supposed to be doing."

Why this was so is unclear to me. I suspect in large part it had to do with the relationship between the student and the advisor which in the first case was a good one of mutual respect, support and reflection on the advisor's comments. And, in latter case, a terribly antagonistic, unhappy interaction for years. I also suspect that some of it may be personality oriented, the first was a very laid back person while the second was more high strung. Or, perhaps this is what a defence is normally like and the first was an anomaly .... In any case, it was successful. I am compelled to add that I also had a number of problems with the content as it was presented but as I hadn't read the draft dissertation  nor I am on the committee...  so they lie waiting for me to be a reviewer on some future project.  In the meantime, I genuinely respect and like my advisor and committee members and their academic prowess, so hopefully,  when it comes my time again it will be fun, supportive, full of future possibility process that gives me the chance to shine like I've eaten diamonds for breakfast.

A master's or doctoral defence on a thesis or dissertation (that is original work) is the final step in these degrees that lasts two to three hours. It usually consists of two rounds of oral questioning by your committee, university representatives and an external specialist.