Making sense of the public PhD dissertation defense: a qualitative multi-case study of education students' experiences
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A public oral defense of the written dissertation is mandatory for completion of the doctorate in most North American universities, yet how students experience it has rarely been documented.This study examined how a group of Canadian education PhD candidates experienced and made sense of their dissertation defenses.Employing an identity lens, it focused on how these students viewed themselves, performed, and were viewed by others as researchers before, during and after the defense.The perspective on identity was principally drawn from the communities of practice (COP) theory.Accordingly, doctoral candidates' researcher identities were defined by memberships (being members in the community of researchers in certain fields/areas of research), meanings (making sense of defense experiences) and trajectories (ways in which the defense connects doctoral candidates' past, present, and future).The participants were 11 PhD candidates (six women and five men) from three departments in a faculty of education at a Canadian research-intensive university.Each of them was interviewed before the defense about his/her preparation experience and after the defense about his/her defense experience.Through observation, questions from the 11 defense committees and the candidates' answers were recorded.Data also included the participants' background information and institutional documents regarding the conduct of the PhD dissertation defense.Over 20 other defenses were observed to understand the Faculty practices associated with the defense.Case-specific findings pointed to how doctoral candidates performed as researchers during the defense by balancing knowing and not-knowing in answering defense committees' questions.The candidates navigated across research areas, methodological and epistemological borders, and drew on various sources of knowledge to demonstrate knowing; and they evaluated the significance and relevance of questions and provided provisional and hedged answers to negotiate not-knowing.Cross-case findings indicated that the defense confirmed most candidates' researcher identities and played a role in weaving together their past, present and future in terms of their researcher identity development.The study concluded with implications for interpreting doctoral candidates' defense experiences and for understanding the functions of the public PhD dissertation defense.This project is what I wanted to do and enjoyed doing.I would like to take this opportunity to express my immense gratitude to all those people who have given their invaluable support and assistance.First of all, I am profoundly indebted to
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,021 | 0,014 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».